What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

[Cswags]

Lol, I'm not re-linking to what I've already said directly to you. Go back and find it yourself. If you can't answer it, that's your problem, not mine.

I know what you've said, but I'm sorry it's hard for me to see you justify things when you're only backup is the Bible.

 

[Pesky Persian]

So you're saying the APA is wrong in thinking that an adult having sex with a child is harmful?

With all due respect, Marioguy, it really seems like your debate strategy is to make baseless accusations of your opponents. That's not what he was saying at all.

 

[Nyan Cat]

I have nothing against devote followers of Catholicism. Nor do I disrespect those who choose to be Homophobic. I have attended catholic schools my entire life and consider myself to be a person very strong in morale. As such it is not in my nature to judge others.
That being said, I can't help being rather perplexed at some of the arguments in this debate.
1. Homosexuality is NOTHING like pedophilia. The fact that the two have been lumped together just goes to show how ignorant some people are.
2. Attraction to the same sex IS NOT A CHOICE. So in my opinion, it is no more a sin then being born with brown hair or blue eyes.
3. As a student of a catholic school in north America, I have been taught that among many other things, God teaches acceptance.
4. Science and religion have been butting heads since before I care to investigate. In the end however, Science is constantly backed up with proof; whereas religion is backed up with ancient scriptures and teachings.
So: The Bible holds just as much credibility as a history textbook.

 

[Sadib]

I know what you've said, but I'm sorry it's hard for me to see you justify things when you're only backup is the Bible.

This is the reason mattj created the other thread about whether or not the Bible has a place in this type of debate. The majority of people here said that it doesn't, but that's not going to stop mattj from trying.

With all due respect, Marioguy, it really seems like your debate strategy is to make baseless accusations of your opponents. That's not what he was saying at all.

Well he is defending the adults who have sex with children?

 

[mattj]

Oh, I completely agree with you that it's harmful, and many western organizations like the ones you link to agree too.

So you're saying the APA is wrong in thinking that an adult having sex with a child is harmful?

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA man, you make this forum so much more fun!
again
http://www.learntoreadfree.com/
i'm serious man
it could help your um... problem?

 

[Pesky Persian]

Well he is defending the adults who have sex with children?

He wasn't defending them at all. Are you being serious right now? I honestly can't tell.

He was giving two examples, scientific study and culture/beliefs, to show how people can have different viewpoints on what is and is not acceptable. Was that really that hard to figure out from his posts? I'm not trying to be snappy, but this weird obsession you seem to have with trying to make him out to be some kind of bad guy is really getting old. I may not agree with his views sometimes and I may not always agree with the way he presents his views, but really now, your posts in response to him have gotten more and more ridiculous.

 

[KuroiMawile]

And I understand your stance, and while you and I may disagree on that stance, I respect that. It's just hard to debate if the only argument is "The Bible." I was trying to prompt discussion that was a little more... productive, I guess.

I know what you've said, but I'm sorry it's hard for me to see you justify things when you're only backup is the Bible.

This topic debate deserves a mention here

May I take a swig and say that the entire argument is now based on morals, which is an area that cannot be debated comfortably ("my morale is high than yours, therefore I'm better and you are lesser"), at least from what I've seen here.

<I like Pesky Persian's post better>

 

[Pesky Persian]

This topic debate deserves a mention here

Been there, done that. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful.

 

[Cswags]

at least from what I've seen here.

Sorry, what posts do you mean?

 

[KuroiMawile]

Been there, done that. It doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful.

Wasn't that the point?

Sorry, what posts do you mean?

I am a athist and will murder your family if u disagree

being gay is a life choice. a wrong on. it is immoral anf anyone whi is gay is going straight to hell. mattj is right about heterosexuals being persecuted. and it's ********
sodom and gomorah was destroyed brcause of their sexual immoralty. that's going to appen again because of those **** riding ******s. it's disease. or rather, a mental illness. they need to all be committed or something. and maybe be cured.

two easy examples I love, but the bulk of 'what I've seen' is deleted, sadly. If you think people on here can debate, respectfully, on what morals are right and wrong, so be it.

 

[Sadib]

Can we just steer away from the Bible? Going to the Bible isn't debating, it's admitting you cannot win without using a book that cannot be disproved.

 

[Cswags]

Matt, just want to say sorry if I came off as rude. I respect your views, even if I don't agree with them.

 

[Kazekage]

I find the lengths people will go to prove a 4000 year old book to be true completely retarded.

Lets just go down the list of things you cannot compare homosexuality to:

Mental Retardation
Rape
Pedophilia
Lifestyle Choices

I mean SERIOUSLY? I sincerely hope you guys are 10 year olds growing up in Virginia because there is absolutely no excuse for the amount of stupidity going on in this thread, I've tried really hard to respect Christians for the past 4 years of my life because I understand there are Christians who are good, but I finally understand you guys will go to any lengths to prove a ****ing passage in a book true.

Do you know what else Leviticus says?

Don't wear more than one type of fabric-19:27

No shrimp 11:-12

Women can't ****ing touch people once a month 15:19

So clearly you would need to build a supercomputer the size of North Dakota to assign a number to the amount of ******** that seeps through the text of this book.

And yet this topic is sooo ****ing important!!! And why? What problem do you have? If someone likes to have sex with the same gender how does this affect any of you?

How does this make anyone a bad person? These are people that are capable of helping society, they do it more than their heterosexual counterparts, they are capable of creating a functional household, better than their heterosexual counterparts, they can raise children, pay their taxes etc.

Even if there was something wrong with them how would it matter? I mean seriously, woohoo you proved that it was a choice (its not), why does it matter? They don't have the right to choose?

This is ridiculous, this REALLY is ridiculous.

/rant

 

[Pesky Persian]

I find the lengths people will go to prove a 4000 year old book to be true completely retarded.

Well, that's a very respectful way to start your opening post in a debate...
While I understand why you disagree with people's viewpoints, it's important to remember that name-calling isn't going to give you more credibility.

Lets just go down the list of things you cannot compare homosexuality to:

Mental Retardation
Rape
Pedophilia
Lifestyle Choices

I mean SERIOUSLY? I sincerely hope you guys are 10 year olds growing up in Virginia because there is absolutely no excuse for the amount of stupidity going on in this thread, I've tried really hard to respect Christians for the past 4 years of my life because I understand there are Christians who are good, but I finally understand you guys will go to any lengths to prove a ****ing passage in a book true.

To assume because of a thread on the internet that all Christians are like this is kind of silly. And really, there's nothing wrong with believing in the Bible and while I disagree with some interpretations in the Bible and even disagree with the viewpoint on homosexuality people get from the Bible, there are people who are able to present that opinion respectfully. For example, Mattj has said multiple times that while he agrees the Biblical stance on homosexuality, he doesn't disrespect homosexuals or deny them any rights (if I'm taking his stance correctly; feel free to correct me).

Do you know what else Leviticus says?

Don't wear more than one type of fabric-19:27

No shrimp 11:-12

Women can't ****ing touch people once a month 15:19

So clearly you would need to build a supercomputer the size of North Dakota to assign a number to the amount of ******** that seeps through the text of this book.

Mattj already covered a lot of this in previous posts about how certain things changed with the New Testament. I cannot remember how in-depth it was or how much of it his posts covered, but I suggest you go back and find his posts.

 

[Ces]

I'm not really the debating type, so I'll just state my opinion...I don't think there's anything wrong with gay people. I have a few gay friends and they're all great people. I wish humanity as a whole would not make such a big deal about sexual orientation.

 

[Sadib]

Well, that's a very respectful way to start your opening post in a debate...
While I understand why you disagree with people's viewpoints, it's important to remember that name-calling isn't going to give you more credibility.

It's not like mattj is any better at respecting other posters. While quoting others, he replaced their posts with a picture of a crying baby. As seen here and here.

 

[Pesky Persian]

It's not like mattj is any better at respecting other posters. While quoting others, he replaced their posts with a picture of a crying baby. As seen here and here.

Pot and kettle, Marioguy. That's all I've got to say about that.

Either way, one person being disrespectful isn't an excuse for everyone to be disrespectful.

 

[Sadib]

Hmm. Hm hm hm. For the time being, folks, I'm going to leave this open. I'll give you my reasons, so you can understand.

1. I completely disagree with Alleviate's stance on homosexuality, but I respect the effort he put into making this thread as logical, secular, and inoffensive as possible. And in terms of "gay" threads, you all should understand that such an effort is remarkably uncommon. Rather than calling homosexuality "wrong" from any insult-based perspective, he gave a more neutral definition of simply "irregular or not recommended." There is certainly still much in his definition and his argument that can be strongly refuted, so if you disagree with Alleviate's opening post, please clearly and calmly debate those points.
   
   
2. The visitors to the Debate forum clearly feel the need to debate something about homosexuality, as annoying as that is. I could be (and have been) closing every thread on sight, and place a moratorium on the topic, but because people here eternally lack reading comprehension when it comes to rules and notices, it would only add more work in terms of closings and infractions for me. I figure we may as well deal with the best we've got, and as told in my previous reason, I think this thread is as good a homosexuality topic as we're likely to get unless some famous intellectual decides to hit up SPPf for a trade and a controversial argument.

I do hope everyone will respect my decision and my reasons. If there does come a point where the participants simply cannot avoid flaming and spamming, then naturally this thread will have to be closed. Until that time comes (and if you think it has come, please PM me with your proofs), I request that people avoid posting things like "this thread is stupid," "inb4Profesco," "waiting for lock!" and other such spam. I'm being lenient on the topic, not on the posters. Spam and flames will still be infracted, so you'd all best avoid them.

Also, I have been busy offline of late (and will continue to be so), so if I don't catch all of your concerns in a timely fashion, I ask your pardon.

I wonder how Profesco thought the OP was logical or inoffensive.

 

[randomspot555]

Then why is it unmoral? And by your logic hetoersexuals are natural so does that make it right just because it's natural?

Mattj has, several times, stated the only reason he is against LGBT is because God said so.

And has already been said more than once, many people would argue that in many cases of having sex with minors there is no harm done. Just as that doesn't make it acceptable for a 50 year old man to marry an 11 year old, homosexuality not having an immediate and serious harming effect alone doesn't force it's acceptability.

Swing and a miss.

Minors can't consent.

(and before anyone brings it up)
Animals can't consent.

Inanimate objects can't consent.

A parent, in most socieities, has control over what is considered a child and their actions. In our current society, those under the age of 18 can't enter into legally binding contracts without a parent also signing the contract and even then, there may be further restrictions depending on the jurisdiction.

A 50-year-old and an 11-year-old being on completely different ends of the psychological spectrum is not really an opinion. And while I understand your point with the two examples you gave, I think there's a bit of a difference between them and normal western society. In both of your examples, girls are raised to see this as the norm. In essence, they're not really given the childhood that western children are given. While I don't agree with relations with sexual relations with minors for any reason, the cultures those girls would grow up in are completely different from what most westerners would consider it the norm. Now the morality of that is still up for debate, I suppose, but my point was that what two consenting adults are quite different than a fully developed adult and a still-developing child.

It still doesn't give a reason for why homosexuality is unacceptable, though.

This is common in debating with mattj. He just counters everything with "Well, it's your opinion". But this isn't the opinion thread, this is the Debate forum. And in the Debate forum, youback up your opinions with these things called "facts" and sometimes, observations and stuff like that. And you're right, it's really not an "opinion" that there's a world's of difference between an 11 year old and a 50 year old. Also, an 11 year old can't legally consent.

It's understandable that's his common retort since he's run out of ways to re-state "god said so!"

 

[CSolarstorm]

To be honest, ShinySandshrew, I didn't find any neutral studies in lieu of the supporting studies the APA fails to link to.* I found tons of conservative editorials that recap the points presented in these threads (but don't deconstruct them quite like we do!) and one odd source that insists homosexuality is fine, but is a result of not having enough same sex friends before puberty. >>

*Aside from LGBT sources.

Why? First off, conservative/other sources (don't wish to generalize) are starting with the hypothesis that there may be something wrong with gay people, so they are looking for it. The mainstream scientific community is starting with the 'innocent until proven guilty' philosophy, or 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' idea, so rather than tackling the problems themselves, they have reverted to fact checking and criticizing other studies, like the Spitzer study. This seems to click with the methodology of modern psychology. The modern psychologist isn't in the buisiness of building ideal nuclear families and nudging their clients into making recommended choices. They seem to be more into helping people feel happy in their own brain to the full extent of the law.

Clinical psychology is an integration of science, theory and clinical knowledge for the purpose of understanding, preventing, and relieving psychologically-based distress or dysfunction and to promote subjective well-being and personal development.

Key word being 'subjective'. Whatever makes the client's boat float. That's in fact, probably why the APA summary sheet now reflects a fraction of gay people who reported feeling a sense of choice in their orientation.* They want to accomodate the gay population that doesn't want to be gay. In my opinion, this is an admirable philosophy that brings cultures together. Unfortunately, this puts the status quo (the way the APA is NOW) in the position of acting as if it promotes something obvious and self-inherent. We gay rights advocates have gotten complacent in the idea that we have nothing to prove. While we have such a shallow argument (just look at the lame campaign against Proposition 8) we have moved to being defensive while conservative groups are on the offensive, giving us a huge disadvantage tactically.

*I would like to redact my impulsive concession that the APA now acknowledges some people choose to be gay. That's not what the page says and I was making a tad bit of a generalization.

I'm quite sure we have studies, actually, but they are questionable partisan studies that are tilted toward LGBT causes, just as the Spitzer study and other studies commonly cited on here are from Christian sources.

So you're saying the APA is wrong in thinking that an adult having sex with a child is harmful?

No, that isn't what he said. You've got amnesia if you think he ever said that.

He doesn't need to have said it. I don't care whether mattj is using pedophilia and murder as an example of other things that are different along with homosexuality, whether he's just using them as a comparison or equating them, the fact is, it's dirty. It's right up there with comparing welfare recipients to stray animals. Nobody cares about the context, nor, perhaps unfortunately about the intention behind it. The bottom line is: The argument inflicted pain. At least don't act surprised when we cry "ouch".

I'm just saying that it's not completely accepted. They have studies where they feel the data leads them to believe it's harmful. Millions of people elsewhere disagree. It's the APA's feeling that it's harmful (backed up by their studies) and it's the millions of FLDS'ers and Middle Easterner's feeling that it's not harmful (backed up by their countless experiences and testimonies). One opinion with one source versus another opinion with a different source.

Millions of people elsewhere disagree. It's only one opinion with one source versus another opinion with a different source. Thanks for breaking that down for us. It's funny how you suddenly start talking about the futility of any side gaining ground in a debate, the impossibility of the world coming together and reaching a unanimous opinion, the impossibility of reaching an unbiased scientific conclusion, and the subjectivity of testimony, science, and facts altogether whenever someone approaches you with a valid point. It's as if you want everything to suddenly become nonsense so you don't have to deal with sensibility that doesn't agree with you.