The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Deleted member]

Dre, what world do you live in? Why did Texas recently criminalize homosexuality? Why does the Defense of Marriage Act exist? Why did California pass proposition 8? Hello! The majority of the western world believes homosexuality is wrong! Our culture tells us so all the time!

You're biased because you come to the debate hall, which has a non-western view on the matter.

And by the way, just because I can't think of a good argument as to why the earth is flat, doesn't imply I'm biased against the position.

-blazed

Hold it right there, I don't believe the majority of the western world is anti-homosexual. Do you even have any numbers to back up that statement?
EDIT

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status

 

[blazedaces]

Hold it right there, I don't believe the majority of the western world is anti-homosexual. Do you even have any numbers to back up that statement?
EDIT

Spoiler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Current_status

I'll rescind my statement. I was limiting myself to the United States, which doesn't represent the entire "western world". My apology.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

Hold it right there, I don't believe the majority of the western world is anti-homosexual. Do you even have any numbers to back up that statement?

The majority? No. A large percentage? Yes. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/Gay-Lesbian-Rights.aspx

 

[Deleted member]

As far as I can tell this Gallup is a worldwide research office, not particularly limited to the western world.

 

[rvkevin]

Here's the specifics for the US:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Americans-Opposition-Gay-Marriage-Eases-Slightly.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/Americans-Evenly-Divided-Morality-Homosexuality.aspx

"Americans interviewed in Gallup's 2008 Values and Beliefs poll are evenly divided over the morality of homosexual relations, with 48% considering them morally acceptable and 48% saying they are morally wrong."

It's probably improved a little bit in two years, but the point remains the same, homosexuality is stigmatized by almost half the population.

 

[Deleted member]

My original response was to Blaze, in which I stated the majority of the western world, not the US, wasn't anti-homosexual.
I only replied because if anything, it is a conservative belief that homosexuality is wrong, not a western one.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, what world do you live in? Why did Texas recently criminalize homosexuality? Why does the Defense of Marriage Act exist? Why did California pass proposition 8? Hello! The majority of the western world believes homosexuality is wrong! Our culture tells us so all the time!

You're biased because you come to the debate hall, which has a non-western view on the matter.

And by the way, just because I can't think of a good argument as to why the earth is flat, doesn't imply I'm biased against the position.

-blazed

Well I don't live in America.

In Australia the annual Mardigra is actually a gay and lesbian function, celebrating their liberation. The media and all of Australia gets behind it.

That's just one example. Paprika has shown you that America does not reflect the Western world, and that pro-homsoexuality is in fact a western view.

With the argument regarding the world being flat, if someone actually thought the homosexuality debate was as self-evident as the world being flat then they just should not be debating.

You can't go into a God debate saing 'God doesn't exist, it's obvious, anyone who argues otherwise is bad debater/troller'.

See the fact that people would honestly class it as that obvious shows they much they've been influenced by their culture.

With the world being flat, If I was giving the task of arguing that in debate, then yes it would be possible to make a good argument for it. I wouldn't win, but giving the difficulty of my task, I could make a good argument relative to how difficult my position was to defend.

You guys call me bias, yet going into a debate, you wouldn't accept any opposing argument as good.

I've complimented opposing arguments, admitted when I've been defeated in a debate, admitted when I've been wrong, apologised to people for making mistakes, and have been willing to make arguments for the opposing side.

So why is it out of everyone here I'm the one whose labelled bias? Just because my views don't conform to the norm and they be likened to a conservative position does not automatically mean I'm narrow-minded.

 

[SuperBowser]

I haven't called you biased.

And seriously Dre.? For someone so eloquent you sometimes seem to lack basic logic. Why does it matter if I provide an opposing viewpoint to my own or not? It doesn't change the strength of my argument against yours in the slightest. It's a bizarre request but I met it twice in the homosexuality thread; you just ignored it.

edit: sorry the request I met was to provide a ''defensive argument'' for homosexuality.

 

[Dre89]

I haven't called you biased.

And seriously Dre.? For someone so eloquent you sometimes seem to lack basic logic. Why does it matter if I provide an opposing viewpoint to my own or not? It doesn't change the strength of my argument against yours in the slightest. It's a bizarre request but I met it twice in the homosexuality thread; you just ignored it.

edit: sorry the request I met was to provide a ''defensive argument'' for homosexuality.

I only saw Bob's argument defending homosexuality.

The reason why I ask is because at times I get the impression people are criticising my argument simply because they disagree with the position, not because the argument is actually bad.

A bad debater thinks that opposing view=objectively bad argument. The reason why I ask for you guys to play devil's advocate is that I know you're not being a abd debater and jsut letting bais influence your opinion.

 

[blazedaces]

Well I don't live in America.

In Australia the annual Mardigra is actually a gay and lesbian function, celebrating their liberation. The media and all of Australia gets behind it.

That's just one example. Paprika has shown you that America does not reflect the Western world, and that pro-homsoexuality is in fact a western view.

With the argument regarding the world being flat, if someone actually thought the homosexuality debate was as self-evident as the world being flat then they just should not be debating.

You can't go into a God debate saing 'God doesn't exist, it's obvious, anyone who argues otherwise is bad debater/troller'.

See the fact that people would honestly class it as that obvious shows they much they've been influenced by their culture.

With the world being flat, If I was giving the task of arguing that in debate, then yes it would be possible to make a good argument for it. I wouldn't win, but giving the difficulty of my task, I could make a good argument relative to how difficult my position was to defend.

You guys call me bias, yet going into a debate, you wouldn't accept any opposing argument as good.

I've complimented opposing arguments, admitted when I've been defeated in a debate, admitted when I've been wrong, apologised to people for making mistakes, and have been willing to make arguments for the opposing side.

So why is it out of everyone here I'm the one whose labelled bias? Just because my views don't conform to the norm and they be likened to a conservative position does not automatically mean I'm narrow-minded.

Please Dre try not to misinterpret my words. When I said you were biased, I didn't mean you're biased in your viewpoint on homosexuality, just in your viewpoint that the common opinion of this forum reflects the common opinion of the culture we all live in... because I DO NOT LIVE IN A CULTURE WHICH ACCEPTS HOMOSEXUALITY.

With that being said, if anything were one to observe my lifestyle and viewpoints and compare them to my surrounding culture one would conclude I would be heavily biased AGAINST my own culture.

And while I really don't care to point it out because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIAS, I once argued AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY years ago IN THIS VERY DEBATE HALL... and afterwards I was complimented on my argument despite the fact that at the time I was ganged up on.

The second time I did so probably over a year later Alt4 showed the flaws in my argument and I was convinced otherwise...

Regardless of the fact that it's obvious to you and me the earth is flat, the exact same argument applies. That's the only reason you don't like this example. Someone who was arguing that the earth was flat would be wrong to say any of us are biased just because we can't provide a good argument FOR a flat earth.

I don't care if the example I used was a clear and EXTREME example and thus, we consider it obvious. That was the whole point of the example.

But here's another example completely in the opposite direction: abortion. I'm INCREDIBLY BIASED on this viewpoint it's not even funny. Yet I can probably debate pro-life if I wanted to... so what? All that convinces me of is that I would make a decent lawyer. Who cares? I'm still EXTREMELY biased on the issue because I have a personal event in my life that makes it impossible for me to feel otherwise about it.

Being able to provide an argument for the opposing issue or not does not indicate or remove any bias whatsoever.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Please Dre try not to misinterpret my words. When I said you were biased, I didn't mean you're biased in your viewpoint on homosexuality, just in your viewpoint that the common opinion of this forum reflects the common opinion of the culture we all live in... because I DO NOT LIVE IN A CULTURE WHICH ACCEPTS HOMOSEXUALITY.

With that being said, if anything were one to observe my lifestyle and viewpoints and compare them to my surrounding culture one would conclude I would be heavily biased AGAINST my own culture.

But you can't deny that the majority of people on these boards are liberal/secular, which is certainly a modern emergence.

And while I really don't care to point it out because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH BIAS, I once argued AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY years ago IN THIS VERY DEBATE HALL... and afterwards I was complimented on my argument despite the fact that at the time I was ganged up on.

What was the argument?

The second time I did so probably over a year later Alt4 showed the flaws in my argument and I was convinced otherwise...

Regardless of the fact that it's obvious to you and me the earth is flat, the exact same argument applies. That's the only reason you don't like this example. Someone who was arguing that the earth was flat would be wrong to say any of us are biased just because we can't provide a good argument FOR a flat earth.

I don't care if the example I used was a clear and EXTREME example and thus, we consider it obvious. That was the whole point of the example.

But in a debate hall you can't just say something is obvious therefore any opposing argument is bad. There's no line to draw as to when you can say that or not, it's merely arbitrary. Particularly iwth homsoexuality, saying that is obvious to the point it is self-evident is ignorant and narrow-minded

But here's another example completely in the opposite direction: abortion. I'm INCREDIBLY BIASED on this viewpoint it's not even funny. Yet I can probably debate pro-life if I wanted to... so what? All that convinces me of is that I would make a decent lawyer. Who cares? I'm still EXTREMELY biased on the issue because I have a personal event in my life that makes it impossible for me to feel otherwise about it.

Being able to provide an argument for the opposing issue or not does not indicate or remove any bias whatsoever.

But what it shows is that you are mature enough to accept opposing arguments as good. I just feel sometimes my arguments get criticised simply because my opponents disagree with them. I've complimented several arguments that I disagree with.

 

[RDK]

But in a debate hall you can't just say something is obvious therefore any opposing argument is bad. There's no line to draw as to when you can say that or not, it's merely arbitrary. Particularly iwth homsoexuality, saying that is obvious to the point it is self-evident is ignorant and narrow-minded

Dre, calling an act between two consenting adults within the walls of their own home immoral is ignorant and narrow-minded. I don't see how you can be for negatively judging the genetic predispositions of people and still delude yourself into believing it's the moral thing to do.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, calling an act between two consenting adults within the walls of their own home immoral is ignorant and narrow-minded. I don't see how you can be for negatively judging the genetic predispositions of people and still delude yourself into believing it's the moral thing to do.

Firstly, it's not a genetic predisposition. Sexuality isn't a conscous choice, but it's psychologically influenced.

Secondly, that would make being attracted to children a gentic disposition as well.

Thirdly, on the grounds you've just presented, you think it's perfectly fine if someone consents to being killed and then eaten by another person, or if they consent to being cut up alive?

Those are done by two consenting adults within the walls of their own home, so what's the difference?

Besides, pro-homosexuality is just a modern view, stop making out it's so self-evident. I learned along time ago that blindly following what your culture tells you is a bad idea.

The only reason why it even emerged is because morality in modernity has just been reduced to preference. Modern morality is merely just a pleasure-pain system now, attain the most pleasure with the least amount of pain, that's just an animal complex, in fact I wouldn't even call that morality anymore.

Well that and the fact there is billions of dollars to be made by liberating alot of sexual practices.

 

[RDK]

Firstly, it's not a genetic predisposition. Sexuality isn't a conscous choice, but it's psychologically influenced.

If you'd like to get into the specifics of the psychology involved in sexual predispositions I'd be happy to oblige. However in all seriousness I'd stick to a different argument if I were you.

Secondly, that would make being attracted to children a gentic disposition as well.

Being attracted to children is a genetic disposition. How is it hard for you to understand that sexual preferences may be determined by our biology, but yet you have no problem believing our hair or eye color definitely is?

Thirdly, on the grounds you've just presented, you think it's perfectly fine if someone consents to being killed and then eaten by another person, or if they consent to being cut up alive?

The key word is consent. I'm also not against suicide, so I don't see a problem with anything done between consenting adults. It's your life, do what you want with it.

What the police think after walking into a room where such an event has taken place is another thing, because it would be hard to prove consent. But you get the point.

Besides, pro-homosexuality is just a modern view, stop making out it's so self-evident. I learned along time ago that blindly following what your culture tells you is a bad idea.

My culture tells me to hate homosexuals because they are either different or an abomination to god.

And you don't have to be "pro-homosexual" at all. You can just acknowledge the right that other people have to pursue their own happiness as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

So tell me, how exactly do gays infringe upon the rights of others?

The only reason why it even emerged is because morality in modernity has just been reduced to preference. Modern morality is merely just a pleasure-pain system now, attain the most pleasure with the least amount of pain, that's just an animal complex, in fact I wouldn't even call that morality anymore.

Well we are animals, so I don't see the problem here. Morality has always been about the balance between pain and pleasure. Only the means of achieving those have changed.

Well that and the fact there is billions of dollars to be made by liberating alot of sexual practices.

I'm not sure what that means. Homosexuality is a plot by greedy liberals to make money off of impressionable youths?

 

[Dre89]

Sorry I accidently deleted the 'quote' word and I couldn't be bothered redoing it all. It hink your last sentence isn't i nred.

If you'd like to get into the specifics of the psychology involved in sexual predispositions I'd be happy to oblige. However in all seriousness I'd stick to a different argument if I were you.

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that sexuality is nurture not nature. Serial killer profilers wouldn't exist if it was nature.

Being attracted to children is a genetic disposition. How is it hard for you to understand that sexual preferences may be determined by our biology, but yet you have no problem believing our hair or eye color definitely is?

Because there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is psychological. If that evidence didn't exist, I'd have no problem accepting it is genetic.

The key word is consent. I'm also not against suicide, so I don't see a problem with anything done between consenting adults. It's your life, do what you want with it.

What the police think after walking into a room where such an event has taken place is another thing, because it would be hard to prove consent. But you get the point.



My culture tells me to hate homosexuals because they are either different or an abomination to god.

And you don't have to be "pro-homosexual" at all. You can just acknowledge the right that other people have to pursue their own happiness as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.


So tell me, how exactly do gays infringe upon the rights of others?

See this is evidence that you've been influenced by your culture. The idea of morality merely being about not infringing on the rights of others is merely a modern western idea. Modern people assume that it's always been like that since the start of civilisation.

Just like how modern westerners all think you should only marry your true love, or at least someone you're inlove with. We assume that has been the ideal since the start of civilisation, but it hasn't. We're historically and culturally ignorant, so we assume alot of things are correct simply because those ideals are held in our culture.

Well we are animals, so I don't see the problem here. Morality has always been about the balance between pain and pleasure. Only the means of achieving those have changed.



I'm not sure what that means. Homosexuality is a plot by greedy liberals to make money off of impressionable youths?[/COLOR

No that's abortion clinics.

The liberation of sexual practices in general opens up billion-dollar industires. Porn (worth billions alone), strip clubs, gay clubs, erotic literature, contraception etc.

I even personally know of an example. My dad works at a medical supplies company. Years ago when homosexuality was being liberated, the boss pounced on this and made packages for gays. They basically had things like condoms, lube etc. and they made a good profit off them.

 

[SuperBowser]

Firstly, it's not a genetic predisposition. Sexuality isn't a conscous choice, but it's psychologically influenced.

What. Genetics do play a role.

I showed you so much evidence to point out that psychology is not the only factor. Why do you insist on repeating things when you have been presented evidence to the contrary that you willfully ignore?! It's disrespectful.

Then educate yourself. Here is a balanced unbiased source; it does not overstate the findings of a single study cited, unlike any media or religious or political scientist may be accused of: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_caus4.htm

A very small excerpt:
''A gay male from the population that Hamer studied would notice that more of his mother's brothers will be gay than his father's brothers; so too with the various classes of maternal cousins when compared to his paternal cousins. Thus, much male homosexuality is caused by a gene on the X chromosome. Hamer went on to find the approximate location on the chromosome where the gay-causing gene was located. He found that many of his subjects had an identical sequence on the Xq28 region of their X chromosome. This shows the approximate location of the "gay gene." Researchers speculated that a group of interacting genes (including one in this region) might be found to determine sexual orientation in males. This prediction came to pass. The statistical "p" value is a measure of the significance of a test: the probability that it could have happened by chance. P values less than 0.01 (1%) are considered very significant. The Hamer study had a P factor of 0.00001, and so is considered extremely reliable. ''

Interestingly, this source used schizophrenia as an example like I did It was once believed schizophrenia was a result of poor parenting!

 

[blazedaces]

But you can't deny that the majority of people on these boards are liberal/secular, which is certainly a modern emergence.

Yes, I said that is the case, but to assume that these boards represent all cultures everyone FROM these boards comes from is a fallacious assumption.

What was the argument?

It was a long time ago, but basically I was arguing that homosexuality is actually a choice first off. I used studies (none were peer reviewed, but I was a bit of a new debater at the time, so meh) to show this as the case. I also cited studies later on showing people who had been "converted" by the church usually from being gay to being straight.

My argument, based on this evidence, was that if homosexuality was a choice, or at least mainly environmental, there was no real reason to pursuit superfluous rights for these people. Other clauses where we have, as a society, granted rights to those who had lost them were all genetic: race, gender, etc. I still have an old post (I saved it on my computer) I made against someone during the debate, which is hilarious. At the time I was new, very young, and rather immature. I would say even downright mean to my opponents.

But in a debate hall you can't just say something is obvious therefore any opposing argument is bad. There's no line to draw as to when you can say that or not, it's merely arbitrary. Particularly iwth homsoexuality, saying that is obvious to the point it is self-evident is ignorant and narrow-minded

Dre, I asked you not to misinterpret my words. Please try to avoid this. I never said homosexuality was an exact parallel to believing the earth was flat. I merely used an EXTREME example to show how the argument that "not being able to think of an opposing viewpoint makes one biased" is not a valid one.

But what it shows is that you are mature enough to accept opposing arguments as good. I just feel sometimes my arguments get criticised simply because my opponents disagree with them. I've complimented several arguments that I disagree with.

First of all, I believe that homosexuality of all the arguments on this board has personal implications for people. As a result, they assume anyone with the opposing viewpoint is guilty of bigotry. This is an incorrect assumption, but it means anytime someone hears the viewpoint they let their emotions influence their judgment.

I agree that often times the way people respond to you is in an immature fashion. People could take their time and speak more calmly to you. I think people are less likely to think about how the other person receives their comments over the internet. If they were in person and someone they knew presented the same argument, they wouldn't just yell and jump down their throat. But alas, on the internet you can't see the other person's face (well, we'll ignore avatars here since I think that picture might be of you).

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Superbowser the evidence you've presented, true or false, doesn't change the fact that nurture has an influence.

Secondly, whether it is nature or nurture doesn't affect my argument in the slightest so it doesn't really matter.

Dre, I asked you not to misinterpret my words. Please try to avoid this. I never said homosexuality was an exact parallel to believing the earth was flat. I merely used an EXTREME example to show how the argument that "not being able to think of an opposing viewpoint makes one biased" is not a valid one.

Fair enough, I apologise for the misinterpretation. But still, if you admit that homosexuality is not in the same league, then in this case providing an argument for the opposing side is evidence of being a fair debater.

First of all, I believe that homosexuality of all the arguments on this board has personal implications for people. As a result, they assume anyone with the opposing viewpoint is guilty of bigotry. This is an incorrect assumption, but it means anytime someone hears the viewpoint they let their emotions influence their judgment.

I agree that often times the way people respond to you is in an immature fashion. People could take their time and speak more calmly to you. I think people are less likely to think about how the other person receives their comments over the internet. If they were in person and someone they knew presented the same argument, they wouldn't just yell and jump down their throat. But alas, on the internet you can't see the other person's face (well, we'll ignore avatars here since I think that picture might be of you).

-blazed

To an extent I can understand the initial hostility I received, because most people's prior experience with conservative viewholders was probably that of the narrow-minded, nurture-influenced type.

But what annoys is that by now people should know that I'm not going off some faith-based assumptions and then formulating premises around them, or that I'm narrow-minded because I hold conservative views.

I have to admit the treatment has gotten better, perhaps because some of you guys have come to understand me and my arguments a bit more. I find that the only debaters I tend to receive any form of aggression from lately (and it isn't really that bad) are people like Alt and RDK, people who have only started debating me recently, and not suprisingly they are the two last people to label me as some assuming-theist who makes conclusions before justifications.

 

[SuperBowser]

There is plenty of evidence suggesting that sexuality is nurture not nature. Serial killer profilers wouldn't exist if it was nature.

This is false. Stop saying it.

Maybe I should preface each of my posts with ''Dre. stinks'' from now on. Each time you tell me I am wrong I can gleefully respond that whether you stink or not doesn't affect my argument in the slightest so it doesn't really matter. If it doesn't matter you shouldn't have a compulsive need to repeat these falsehoods.

 

[Dre89]

But even people on your side of the debate have admitted that psychological influences have a role.

I made it pretty clear in the thread that even if homsoexuality was biological, that doesn't make it permissable, considering we know of several biological defects. Plus, that would also make child-attarction biological, but that's not permissable is it.

Can I just ask, if nurture plays no role, why then do we have serial killer profilers?

 

[SuperBowser]

That's not what I said. Nature and nurture play a role. If you read ANY of my posts in the homosexuality you would understand this. Or even the source I just gave you.

 

[Dre89]

Fair enough then. It doesn't really affect my argument either way.

 

[RDK]

Dre. Here is what you're not understanding.

Child attraction is perfectly permissible as long as that person doesn't act on their desires. Comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, whether or not you're doing it on purpose, is wrong.

 

[Aesir]

Well nice to see RDK back, I am also back. My apologies to Dre for not coming around and having that debate with him. I got swamped with work and what not.

Suffice it to say Real life > The internet.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Everytime I step out, Dre gets more buzz.

Homes, if you really, think I'm biased and I'm out to witch hunt you because I demand for some evidence on your stance, you're really missing the point.

I'll even do one better: Show one single paper (that follows the criteria of my last post, obv.) that would support your statements.

I'm always waiting...

 

[thegreatkazoo]

You already know.

 

[Dre89]

Aesir when yo usay 'buzz' I'm assuming you mean criticism or negative stigma?

Dre. Here is what you're not understanding.

Child attraction is perfectly permissible as long as that person doesn't act on their desires. Comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, whether or not you're doing it on purpose, is wrong.

I obviously don't think homsexuality is in the same league as ****** children.

If you're going to accept that child-attraction that won't be acted upon is fine, then your argument is consistent.

The main reason why I bring up child attraction is because the majority of society wouldn't accept it, therefore their argument wouldn't be consistent.

Kazoo I'm assuming this is what you're talking about.

Show scientific, peer-reviewed evidence published in a well respected journal that homosexuality is a choice.

My argument does not hinge on whether homsoexuality is a choice or not, it's not relevant to my argument at all.

Or, evidence contrary to the links shown that shows an abundance of homosexuality in nature. Of course, you should aim for this evidence to be similar to the above sentence as well.

The evidence in the links was inconclusive. They basically labelled any form of bonding as homosexuality. The evidence of prolonged sexual intercourse between two same-gender animals (which is really the only thing that would be conclusive that the relationship is sexual) is scarce.

I don't understand why you're asking me to provide evidence that homoseuxality doesn't happen in the wild, considering that the claim it does is a positive claim, so the burden of proof rests on you guys, not me.

 

[SuperBowser]

The main reason why I bring up child attraction is because the majority of society wouldn't accept it, therefore their argument wouldn't be consistent.

They accept it to the point that it is legal. There is no logical inconsistency in society.

The world of thought crimes is a different debate and even if you support it, it would be based on the intention to perform a crime. As such, homosexuality wouldn't qualify anyway.

 

[Dre89]

But someone who dreams of ****** women would be despised more than someone who dreams of consensual sex with other men.

Would you deny this? And do you think this hostility would be justified? Is there a difference between the two?

 

[SuperBowser]

Would you deny this? And do you think this hostility would be justified? Is there a difference between the two?

This is why your argument can be construed as offensive.

To consider a homosexual person in the same way as this man, one must consider homosexuality wrong in the first place. Clearly, somebody who supports gay rights would not.

It's an easy counter: What's the difference in your example and comparing me thinking about consensual sex with a woman.

 

[Dre89]

This is why your argument can be construed as offensive.

To consider a homosexual person in the same way as this man, one must consider homosexuality wrong in the first place. Clearly, somebody who supports gay rights would not.

No, both aim at sexual pleasure outside of the procreation act, without harming anyone against their will.

That's my point, I find it inconsistent to endorse one and not the other.

 

[RDK]

No, both aim at sexual pleasure outside of the procreation act, without harming anyone against their will.

That's my point, I find it inconsistent to endorse one and not the other.

You find it hard to endorse homosexuality without endorsing ****?

I'm just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

 

[SuperBowser]

That's my point, I find it inconsistent to endorse one and not the other.

This is not an inconsistency. It simply shows that the criteria you use to define ''wrong'' is different to what I use.

 

[Dre89]

You find it hard to endorse homosexuality without endorsing ****?

I'm just trying to make sure I understand exactly what you mean here.

No. Even if we assume homosexuality is wrong, **** goes a step further and violates the rights of another human being.

What I don't consider any different to homosexuality is say dreaming of a ****. When I say dreaming of ****, I'm talking about a good-hearted person with a perversion who would never **** a woman in reality.

The same goes for someone who looks at children lustfully, but would never violate a child.

To me, these are attempts at attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing upon the rights of another human being.

I'm saying that homosexuality is no different, yet the people with the **** and child perversion I mentioned above are despied whilst the homosexuality is endorsed. To me it seems to be a contradiction.

 

[blazedaces]

No. Even if we assume homosexuality is wrong, **** goes a step further and violates the rights of another human being.

What I don't consider any different to homosexuality is say dreaming of a ****. When I say dreaming of ****, I'm talking about a good-hearted person with a perversion who would never **** a woman in reality.

The same goes for someone who looks at children lustfully, but would never violate a child.

To me, these are attempts at attaining sexual gratification outside of the procreation act, without infringing upon the rights of another human being.

I'm saying that homosexuality is no different, yet the people with the **** and child perversion I mentioned above are despied whilst the homosexuality is endorsed. To me it seems to be a contradiction.

Hasn't someone already mentioned this? Having fantasies and acting upon them are different things. You can fantasize about whatever perverted thing you want.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

What I don't consider any different to homosexuality is say dreaming of a ****. When I say dreaming of ****, I'm talking about a good-hearted person with a perversion who would never **** a woman in reality.

I don't find this scenario to be egregious. In this situation, you describe a person who does not have a desire to ****, so I can only conclude that such a person would be the hero in the dream (maybe the person is a police officer, good Samaritan etc.), which I don't think anyone would look down on. However, if you were in fact talking about someone partaking in the event, then the latter part of the description is contradictory for reasons explained in the Homosexuality thread.

 

[SuperBowser]

I'm saying that homosexuality is no different, yet the people with the **** and child perversion I mentioned above are despied whilst the homosexuality is endorsed. To me it seems to be a contradiction.

Because you consider homosexuality to be ''wrong''.

What has become of the purpose of this analogy? To display that your definition of ''wrong'' is different to others'. I see no point in it. You can't simply define what is ''wrong'' in a debate like this and then tell people that their beliefs are inconsistent when the opposition never used your criteria of ''wrong'' to begin with.

We wouldn't be having such a debate otherwise.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I don't understand why you're asking me to provide evidence that homoseuxality doesn't happen in the wild, considering that the claim it does is a positive claim, so the burden of proof rests on you guys, not me.

I'm pretty sure a lot of links have been thrown your way to prove just this. Have you taken the time to look @ them? :S

And so I have your argument down to a T...give me a quick, two or three sentence rundown on why you don't believe in Homosexuality. I can man up to the fact that I may have read your argument wrong or took it the wrong way, so I wanna make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I don't understand why you're asking me to provide evidence that homoseuxality doesn't happen in the wild, considering that the claim it does is a positive claim, so the burden of proof rests on you guys, not me.

We've provided many videos showing animal homosexuality. One of them showed three male lions having sex, which you said you didn't believe because only two male lions can be together in a pride.

I responded with this: http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=10639719&postcount=360

Which I've asked you to respond to several times and I haven't seen anything yet.

 

[Deleted member]

1000GET

But why are we going over the homosexuality topic again, especially, why aren't we just continuing this in the actual topic