For All Things Gay: Views on Homosexuality

[J.T.]

Because homosexual activity is clearly a negative deviation from the norm

Whoa, hold up. What makes it a negative deviation? The inability to reproduce? The higher risk of STDs?

Certain consenting adults, for example, want to have sex or masturbate in public. They aren't hurting anyone. Yes, what they do offends people.

Which is why they shouldn't be allowed to.

But homosexuals kissing in public offends people.

No one's asking for gays to be allowed to break PDA laws. Some people are offended by straight people kissing in public. That is why PDA laws are in effect.

If we are to approve of homosexual deviations, then we fairly have to approve of public sex and other strange deviations.

Would you like some Teflon for that slippery slope?

Either that or say it is okay to discriminate against certain consenting adults like exhibitionists who aren't hurting anybody. (Why is it okay for homosexuals to offend people, but exhibitionists not?)

Here's why: Gays do what they do in private (as a general rule), just as most heterosexuals who obey PDA laws do. Exhibitionists, by definition, do what they do in public.

Other reasons homosexual activity is wrong are the diseases associated with a physiologically unnatural lifestyle, and the financial and human costs to society of those diseases.

Once again, you are ignoring the fact that there are higher-risk groups who you wouldn't dare think of saying this stuff about.

Please keep in mind this is the condensed, imperfect version. I'd fill in the "gaps" but that would require a LOT of typing.

How convenient. Is this like your "get out of explanations free" card? "Well, that's not what I mean, but I can't explain what I mean because it's too long."

EDIT: About your response to Willow's Tara: Following your logic, we should do the same for black people, Native Americans, and other higher-risk groups for STDs.

 

[Willow's Tara]

wordy- So homosexuals kissing and Public sex is what you are comparing now? They are both completely different things. Depending where in public (Not say I wouldn't object to that, if nobody else was around that is) there could be kids around and well people overreact to a girl's nipple showing and suddenly it's scandalous (Didn't Jenna Jackson get flamed when it accidently happened to her).

Two people kissing is completely different, and besides little kids should not see what sex looks like (They should be taught when they reach 12/13 since that's where it gets confusing for them but they don't need to see it), kissing there is nothing wrong with it and I don't care if kids see that, infact it would be good because maybe those kids will see nothing's wrong with it and learn to move on. And when they grow up we won't have people like you trying to keep it "wrong" and illegal,.

 

[BUG]

wordy- So homosexuals kissing and Public sex is what you are comparing now? They are both completely different things. Depending where in public (Not say I wouldn't object to that, if nobody else was around that is) there could be kids around and well people overreact to a girl's nipple showing and suddenly it's scandalous (Didn't Jenna Jackson get flamed when it accidently happened to her).

Two people kissing is completely different, and besides little kids should not see what sex looks like (They should be taught when they reach 12/13 since that's where it gets confusing for them but they don't need to see it), kissing there is nothing wrong with it and I don't care if kids see that, infact it would be good because maybe those kids will see nothing's wrong with it and learn to move on. And when they grow up we won't have people like you trying to keep it "wrong" and illegal,.

Oh the hypocrisy.

 

[Willow's Tara]

Bug- Not that I care about you what you think, because you don't care what I think but care to elaborate for us? I think I know what you are getting at, you mean people like me.. what fighting for homosexual rights?

 

[mapache]

lol, it seems theres a massive outbreak of trolls again

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

I think wordy is right. I don't support gays anymore.

 

[GhostAnime]

Because homosexual activity is clearly a negative deviation from the norm

Again with the "it's inherently bad" mindset.

They aren't hurting anyone. Yes, what they do offends people. But homosexuals kissing in public offends people. If we are to approve of homosexual deviations, then we fairly have to approve of public sex and other strange deviations.

A black man even touching a white woman used to offend people so much that you'd be hanged for it.

We can't possibly accept that behavior. I mean, what next? Interracial marriage?

Other reasons homosexual activity is wrong are the diseases associated with a physiologically unnatural lifestyle, and the financial and human costs to society of those diseases.

Lol just hours ago you said it wasn't a main reason and now it is. Well, you've yet to respond to my black analogy.

 

[Deku_Link]

Tim the turtle,

When you say to me "You are saying that because the human body is not designed for homosexual sex, it is immoral" you are way oversimplifying my position. It is considerably more complicated than that. Too much to type. But the condensed, imperfect version goes something like this.

Because homosexual activity is clearly a negative deviation from the norm (as opposed to a positive deviation from the norm---being a genius could be considered a positive deviation), homosexual activity is a bad legal precedent. Certain consenting adults, for example, want to have sex or masturbate in public. They aren't hurting anyone. Yes, what they do offends people. But homosexuals kissing in public offends people. If we are to approve of homosexual deviations, then we fairly have to approve of public sex and other strange deviations. Either that or say it is okay to discriminate against certain consenting adults like exhibitionists who aren't hurting anybody. (Why is it okay for homosexuals to offend people, but exhibitionists not?)

Other reasons homosexual activity is wrong are the diseases associated with a physiologically unnatural lifestyle, and the financial and human costs to society of those diseases.

Please keep in mind this is the condensed, imperfect version. I'd fill in the "gaps" but that would require a LOT of typing.

You're simplifying the case for homosexuality down to a "deviation from the norm" to compare it with deviations which are completely unrelated, saying that all should be considered wrong simply because they are what you choose to pigeonhole as "negative deviations", and at the same time you are upset that people are simplifying your position?

Really?

 

[CSolarstorm]

I think wordy is right. I don't support gays anymore.

You know what, me too! Wordy is right! My parents and that lesbian nurse who saved my life when I was poisoned were all sexual deviants! I need to reasess my entire life for this awakening and start judging people for their immoral sexual practices rather than their qualities.

First I need to convince my parents that they should have never gotten together. Sure I wouldn't exist then, but I should be ashamed that I was born in such a disorderly, unnatural manner, right?

Next time I'm slowly dying in a hospital bed of sepsis, I'll make sure that as she's saving my life, I give my lesbian nurse a good preaching to. Nothing would be a better expression of gratitude than trying to educate her of her wrongdoings, right?

 

[Tim the turtle]

Because homosexual activity is clearly a negative deviation from the norm (as opposed to a positive deviation from the norm---being a genius could be considered a positive deviation), homosexual activity is a bad legal precedent. Certain consenting adults, for example, want to have sex or masturbate in public. They aren't hurting anyone. Yes, what they do offends people. But homosexuals kissing in public offends people. If we are to approve of homosexual deviations, then we fairly have to approve of public sex and other strange deviations. Either that or say it is okay to discriminate against certain consenting adults like exhibitionists who aren't hurting anybody. (Why is it okay for homosexuals to offend people, but exhibitionists not?)

This is a rather flawed argument in several ways. For a start you are assuming that the legal precedent of commiting offensive acts in public does not already exist. Many people do find two heterosexual couples kissing to be offensive depending on how engaged they are with one another. This is not frowned upon by law. However that does not change the fact that it is still a legal precedent in exactly the same manner as two homosexual people making out in the same way.

Secondly the argument attempts to derive a normative claim from a descriptive one. You are stating that because people find homosexuality offensive in public then it should be offensive. However this misses the point somewhat. Homosexuality is becoming less and less offensive as time passes due to more liberal social attitudes, this is especially true of nations in Europe. It is not enough to simply say that because people at this moment find homosexual activity to be immoral that it should be considered immoral. You, who are clearly not a fan of cultural relativism should appreciate this more than most.

Thirdly, on several occasions you have condemned the entirety of homosexual activity as flat out immoral. This does not follow from any argument based around this "legal precedent" of yours, since legallity is in no way indicative of moral status, and also that it does not cover the actions of consenting homosexuals within their own homes. You have not managed therefore to provide a good enough reason as to why this last thing should also be considered immoral.

 

[dark rift]

You get other homosexual species aswell, therefore it's natural. And if there is a god, why would it make homosexuals if it was against them?

 

[snare]

Bug- Not that I care about you what you think, because you don't care what I think but care to elaborate for us? I think I know what you are getting at, you mean people like me.. what fighting for homosexual rights?

Well, remember in the last homosexuality thread how everyone was complaining about being labeled as "you pro-homosexual people?" Well ya'll just said "people like you" referring to those with opposing views. I think that's what Bug may have meant... Time for some sensitivity training!

Anyways... At the end of the day, both parties shall walk away with their heads held high, knowing how absolutely right they are.

 

[striker]

Really and trully i feel same sex couples should be at the bottom of the que when it comes to adoption and fostering because i dont feel it will benefit the child to live in such an atmosphere but if there is no choice...

 

[Fused]

Really and trully i feel same sex couples should be at the bottom of the que when it comes to adoption and fostering because i dont feel it will benefit the child to live in such an atmosphere but if there is no choice...

I honestly can't think of anyone else who can not adopt. Besides, would you rather a child be raised by loving, homosexual parents or by a father who is extremely likely to rape his child?

 

[Willow's Tara]

snare- Ah I see, I meant homophobias but I do apologize if I offended anyone

 

[striker]

I honestly can't think of anyone else who can not adopt. Besides, would you rather a child be raised by loving, homosexual parents or by a father who is extremely likely to rape his child?

Yeah the thing with this is the father wouldnt be able to adopt...they do do test and checks. Children arent just given to the first person who comes they are given to the BEST person.

 

[Kyogre Master V3.0]

Children arent just given to the first person who comes they are given to the BEST person.

But who defines who the best person is? You? Because, forgive me if I'm mistaken, you are not so important as to define the views of others.

Really and trully i feel same sex couples should be at the bottom of the que when it comes to adoption and fostering because i dont feel it will benefit the child to live in such an atmosphere but if there is no choice...

And what atmosphere is this you're talking about? A loving relationship between two adults based on co-dependence? 'Cos, in case you hadn't noticed, it's the same in both hetero- and homosexual couples.

 

[Fused]

Yeah the thing with this is the father wouldnt be able to adopt...they do do test and checks. Children arent just given to the first person who comes they are given to the BEST person.

I didn't say that this man had a past record. Let's just say that hypothetically there is a 99% chance this man is going to rape this child. Would you rather this man still adopt this child, or go to the homosexual couple?

 

[J.T.]

Really and trully i feel same sex couples should be at the bottom of the que when it comes to adoption and fostering because i dont feel it will benefit the child to live in such an atmosphere but if there is no choice...

I've said this before, but studies have been done to see if there's a significant difference between gay and straight parents. You know what makes gays worse parents? Jack ****. If anything, they may be better parents. If you want more sources, just Google "better parents gay or straight".

Yeah the thing with this is the father wouldnt be able to adopt...they do do test and checks. Children arent just given to the first person who comes they are given to the BEST person.

You made it sound as if a straight parent is automatically better than a gay parent.

 

[striker]

@ fused it works both way, there could be a 99% chance the gay parents could do something "naughty" to the child

@ kyogre..., dont be stupid im certain adoption and foster people have social workers who do that -_-, and how is it automatically that the same sex couple are gonna provide a great atmosphere? please tell me...

@ J.T, you see im doing this from the childs persepctive and not the adults and i am certain that the child will not have it the same if he had same sex parents for multi reasons such as confusion espicially near puperty, teasing (children can be cruel) and depending on what personality the parents have other things as well...