• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

For All Things Gay: Views on Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.

wordy936

Well-Known Member
GhostAnime,

C'mon. I already addressed that. Unsafe sex is wrong by whites, blacks, etc. It shouldn't be engaged in. Period. But black heterosex is good. Homosexual sex is not good. That's just the way it is.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
No you didn't address that the way you should have. You are implying that homosexuality is wrong because AIDS is more common among them than heteros DESPITE being a small minority while I give you a similar example (that fortunately, deals with the same issue of AIDS). You either admit that the point is wrong, or you tell me that we should treat blacks the same way we treat gays.
 
Last edited:

Fused

Shun the nonbeliever
GhostAnime,

C'mon. I already addressed that. Unsafe sex is wrong by whites, blacks, etc. It shouldn't be engaged in. Period. But black heterosex is good. Homosexual sex is not good. That's just the way it is.

It's funny how you preach to me and J.T. to look at this issue objectively when you're entire argument depends on what you view as moral and immoral - something completely subjective. Unless you can base this argument on something that does not involve what you see personally right or wrong, then there is no point in debating with you.
 

wordy936

Well-Known Member
Fused, your morals, and J.T.'s, and the morals of people who agree with you are subjective. That is where the problem lies. Moral relativism is subjective. I base my morals on objective reality as much as possible---for example, on the fact that we were clearly designed for male/female sex.

And WillowTara, c'mon, I'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality. I'm trying to illustrate points.

And GhostAnime, I'm NOT saying homosexuality is wrong because of AIDS. It was wrong before AIDS and will be wrong after AIDS. AIDS just makes it worse.
 

Skull-Kid

Well-Known Member
I really don't want to get into this whole thing again so I'll just express my opinion and leave.

No probelms with gays. I support gays against my own faith which is christian by the way because I am a caring person. I show love and respect to others who treat me equally or kind towards me. Gays have done nothing wrong to me or to anyone for that matter, so I don't hate them. Never have, never will.

If two people love each other enough, even knowing they will be discriminated and never truly accepted by society, then that is something I respect. People shouldn't be treated badly for who they are unless of course they are bad themselves.

Have fun because clearly wordy isn't going to change his mind and neither will you people. I may not like wordy but his opinion is his opinion so leave him be. You're not going to win so just drop it. It's a battle you can not win.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I base my morals on objective reality as much as possible---for example, on the fact that we were clearly designed for male/female sex.
What does that have to do with morals at all? And we ARE being objective. Gays feel the way they do naturally. This is pretty much, at the very least, agreed upon by most scientists and sociologists. If we weren't designed to do it, gays wouldn't feel naturally inclined to be gay.

Besides, 'ought' doesn't necessary point to 'should do'. Just about every junk food is made artificially and clearly we are not designed to eat most of them, so using your logic, it is immoral to eat anything artificially made.

And WillowTara, c'mon, I'm not comparing pedophilia and homosexuality. I'm trying to illustrate points.
See, this kind of reply does not work in this forum. Do you understand how an argument works at all? We know you are trying to illustrate points, but what other people like me and Willow try to illustrate to you is that YOUR point is bad because it leads to bad conclusions such as "pedophilia being more acceptable than homosexuality" or..

And GhostAnime, I'm NOT saying homosexuality is wrong because of AIDS. It was wrong before AIDS and will be wrong after AIDS. AIDS just makes it worse.
It doesn't make it worse, because gays can still have protected sex.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
for example, on the fact that we were clearly designed for male/female sex.
This seems to be the overriding reason for your arguments that homosexual sex is immoral, yet it is not a good argument at all. It does not follow that doing something that the body was not designed to do is immoral, merely unusual. For instance one could easily claim that the body was not at all designed to fly, which is true, yet technology does indeed allow the body to fly. This is not immoral. It might be unusual, it might even be "unnatural", but it does not follow on from these things that such a thing is immoral. Otherwise one might claim that vegetarianism is immoral, since the human body was ostensibly designed through evolution to eat meat.
 

Porygandrew

Well-Known Member
This seems to be the overriding reason for your arguments that homosexual sex is immoral, yet it is not a good argument at all. It does not follow that doing something that the body was not designed to do is immoral, merely unusual. For instance one could easily claim that the body was not at all designed to fly, which is true, yet technology does indeed allow the body to fly. This is not immoral. It might be unusual, it might even be "unnatural", but it does not follow on from these things that such a thing is immoral. Otherwise one might claim that vegetarianism is immoral, since the human body was ostensibly designed through evolution to eat meat.

Don't forget, then. It is also immoral to wear clothes, glasses, hearing aids, prosthetic knees..... :p

Edit: Oh yeah, contraceptives. Might as well throw that in there, too! :D
 

Vaporeon4evr

Cyndakill
Well you've been arguing that since homosexuals don't procreate, their sex is immoral. Sterile couples don't procreate, so why is their sex moral?

I think what wordy is driving at is that homosexual sex can never result in procreation, regardless of whether you're sterile or not. The most fertile gay couple on the planet is not going to have a child, no matter what.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Even then, gay homosexual sex has been observed in animals. If it honestly 'wasn't designed for', you'd think you wouldn't expect it from creatures far more primritive than us.
 

wordy936

Well-Known Member
GhostAnime,

You wrote: "Besides, 'ought' doesn't necessary point to 'should do'. Just about every junk food is made artificially and clearly we are not designed to eat most of them, so using your logic, it is immoral to eat anything artificially made."

You're communicating with a vegetarian. I GUARANTEE you, sometime in the distant or near future, just like we are restricting the "rights" of smokers (because smoking is clearly unhealthy and a huge financial drain on this country), we will take action against junk food. Furthermore, someday the manufacture of cigarettes containing cancer-causing substances will be outlawed. And someday junk food will either be highly taxed (like we currently tax cigarettes) or also outlawed.

And, incidentally, feelings are by their very nature subjective. Biological/physiological natures are concrete, objective.
 

Tim the turtle

Happy Mudkip
You're communicating with a vegetarian. I GUARANTEE you, sometime in the distant or near future, just like we are restricting the "rights" of smokers (because smoking is clearly unhealthy and a huge financial drain on this country), we will take action against junk food. Furthermore, someday the manufacture of cigarettes containing cancer-causing substances will be outlawed. And someday junk food will either be highly taxed (like we currently tax cigarettes) or also outlawed.
This misses the point of what GhostAnime was trying to say. You are basing your moral outlook on homosexuality on a deontological approach to design. You are saying that because the human body is not designed for homosexual sex, it is immoral. The arguments you have just made against smoking and junk food are consequentialist, stating that they are immoral because they lead to both financial and health problems. However these arguments do not mirror one another. You cannot say that a consequentialist rationale for one implies the deontological rationale for the other, in other words, if it is only bad to do things the human body is not designed to do because of the consequences, then you have to acknowledge that homosexual sex is only immoral if it will lead to bad and unwanted consequences.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
So since you're vegetarian.. what does that say about being unnatural? You were designed to eat meat (clearly by looking at your teeth, and our diet basically requiring SOME form of protein), but why do you do something that you weren't designed for?

You're as bad as a homosexual now.

And, incidentally, feelings are by their very nature subjective. Biological/physiological natures are concrete, objective.
So how do you know being gay is a feeling and not something physiological or even biological? It's also been proven that gays have a different sort of brain.

In fact, why are you only responding to certain parts of my argument? Why haven't you talked about a single scientific thing UNLESS it supported your argument?
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
Wordy, you are dodging my points like George Bush dodges shoes.

Sterile heteros can have all the moral sex they want. But immoral sex exists, whether it's safe or unsafe.

And here you go again to the "it's immoral lols" argument, assuming that everyone else's idea of immoral (which you haven't in any way supported without having your argument shot down) is the same as yours. What makes it immoral, the inability to have kids? Well, then sterile sex is just as immoral, yet you're cool with that. Increased risk of STDs? You're leaving other, much higher-risk groups out, because "it's okay for them but not for gays". Don't try telling me AIDS is a major reason, either, because you've stated it would be wrong even if it didn't have higher STD rates. You are picking on gays for this stuff that applies much more validly to other groups while ignoring said other groups.

(Heck, even pedophiles can have safe sex with children.)

Alright, enough with the pedophilia comparisons. They are not in any way comparable. Two gay people consenting to sex while knowing its risks and such is entirely different from molesting emotionally undeveloped children who don't understand what's going on. Slip a condom on, put on some lube, whatever you do, that kid is still going to get hurt either emotionally or physically, against their will.

Don't try telling me you're "not making any comparisons". If you weren't, you wouldn't be bringing it up. You are making "points" (in the loosest possible sense of the word)... by making comparisons. Whoa! Funny how that works.

And homosexual sex---physiologically unnatural, disordered homosexual sex---is immoral and is also clearly a bad legal precedent.

You keep saying this crap, even though you never bother to argue against our rebuttals to such. "Physiologically unnatural"? Refer back to my question, the one you made the pine cone rebuttal to. For being so physiologically unnatural, it sure seems to work. "Disordered"? You keep calling it a disorder, but the only thing you've ever said to support this was that the APA used to consider it a disorder but changed because TEH GAYS scared them into changing it; the only evidence you brought up for that was a book that said nothing of the sort. You dodge our rebuttals to your points and state them over and over again, and it's getting a little frustrating.

Peppering in your own personal opinions presented as fact also does not help your case much.

C'mon. I already addressed that. Unsafe sex is wrong by whites, blacks, etc. It shouldn't be engaged in. Period. But black heterosex is good. Homosexual sex is not good. That's just the way it is.

And now you've resorted to argumentum ad "I'm right, you're wrong, deal with it" again. You're also ignoring the possiblity of safe homosexual sex (condoms, lubricant, etc.). What, do you not think it exists or something?

I think what wordy is driving at is that homosexual sex can never result in procreation, regardless of whether you're sterile or not. The most fertile gay couple on the planet is not going to have a child, no matter what.

In vitro is an option. Hell, if one really needed to, a gay person could have sex with someone of the opposite gender to result in a pregnancy. What you're not realizing is that just because you don't want to have sex with someone of the opposite gender doesn't mean you're incapable of it. Saying a gay person has a disorder because they're not having heterosexual sex makes about as much sense as claiming a person who refuses heterosexual sex from someone must therefore have some sort of disorder. Gay sex itself will not result in birth, but there are plenty of sexual actions between heterosexuals that will never result in birth either - oral sex and handjobs, to name just a few. Are those just as immoral because they don't result in forming babby?
(Yes, I just invoked an internet meme. So sue me.)
 

Dr. Ste

Pokemon Breeder
Homosexuality is not generally viewed as a socially accepted theme, so it should stay where it is. I doubt if it ever will, since the default human behaviour -which has a strong impact on one's opinion on this matter- is heterosexuality. Letting it get more widespread could be dangerous for a place's cultural integrity (although there are places where the effect is supportive). As for marriage, allowing it could severe the people's bond with their state or their church (religion is already falling by the way, ideological corruption could be fatal). As people lead more and more pointless lives, dissolving their familiar society is making every individual a stranger. And, eventually, a weak person.
 

Willow's Tara

The Bewitched
GA and JT- I think he's avoiding some of your comments because in reality he really has nothing to say and just keeps repeating,

wordy- Uh like ten days later much? You may have been trying to illustrate your point but I was making mine, Homosexuality is not wrong, Pedophilia is so don't make comparisons between the two. They are both in two separate categories all together, Pedophilia belongs with Necrophilia and Bestiality because I think it's wrong..
However Homosexuality belongs with well Heterosexuality and there is nothing wrong with it.

Dr- Exactly how would it be dangerous? It's love and hello it's not like straight people are just gonna become gay unless they were already gay and in denial or bi.
 

J.T.

ಠ_ಠ
Homosexuality is not generally viewed as a socially accepted theme, so it should stay where it is.

Are you seriously saying "it's not accepted, so it shouldn't be accepted"? Thank god we didn't apply that logic to things like racial tolerance and women's suffrage.

I doubt if it ever will, since the default human behaviour -which has a strong impact on one's opinion on this matter- is heterosexuality.

"Default" means pretty much nothing. The default for people is different. For a gay person, homosexuality is the default. Even if it was the default, does that mean anything? The default function for this copy of Endless Ocean I have sitting next to me is as a video game to play. Does that make using it as a drink coaster "unnatural" (or whatever term you use)?

I mean, it's not like it's a great game or anything...

Letting it get more widespread could be dangerous for a place's cultural integrity (although there are places where the effect is supportive).

"Dangerous for a place's cultural integrity". You're shitting me. It's somehow going to make a place worse by allowing homosexuals equal rights?

As for marriage, allowing it could severe the people's bond with their state or their church (religion is already falling by the way, ideological corruption could be fatal).

What the hell are you even saying? Churches don't have to get involved in gay marriage at all. If the church is too closeminded to accept gay couples, that's their problem. And the state? How does this "severe (sic) the people's bond with their state?"

As people lead more and more pointless lives

Okay, seriously, what the hell are you talking about here.

dissolving their familiar society is making every individual a stranger. And, eventually, a weak person.

Hold on. You're saying society has always been this way and therefore it shouldn't change because it might be dangerous. Is that what I should be getting out of this?
 
Last edited:

Dr. Ste

Pokemon Breeder
Willow's Tara said:
Dr- Exactly how would it be dangerous? It's love and hello it's not like straight people are just gonna become gay unless they were already gay and in denial or bi.
Oh, I didn't claim straight people would become gay. But to open a society or a nation that much, it's an impractical transformation. It's not like gays are currently denied happiness anyway.
 

Willow's Tara

The Bewitched
Dr- Actually yes they are denied happiness. They are denied the right to be in love, the right to marry one another and make their love even bigger by getting married. They are denied half of the time adopting children. Then there's the gay bashers who go around bashing them up because of their happiness. Sometimes even denied jobs and careers of their dreams because of their sexuality.

So yes they are denied happiness and equal rights which they rightfully deserves like heterosexuals.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Homosexuality is not generally viewed as a socially accepted theme, so it should stay where it is. I doubt if it ever will, since the default human behaviour -which has a strong impact on one's opinion on this matter- is heterosexuality. Letting it get more widespread could be dangerous for a place's cultural integrity (although there are places where the effect is supportive). As for marriage, allowing it could severe the people's bond with their state or their church (religion is already falling by the way, ideological corruption could be fatal). As people lead more and more pointless lives, dissolving their familiar society is making every individual a stranger. And, eventually, a weak person.
Dangerous? Integrity? Bond with church or state? I thought this was wordy except it was worded better.

This isn't really anything more than "please succumb to the status quo."

The thing about arguing from this point of view and using these kind of arguments is just that you have to assume homosexuality is inherently bad, but it's hard to do that when you aren't religious. Only thing I can honestly see that matters is your church/state bond thing, but I don't what that means yet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top