What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

[KingBravest]

Yes cause this is a very disrespectful thread meant to go no where unless someone ..... No everyone admits homosexuality is wrong which people wont do because its NOT wrong, this threads creator is bias and only want people to make fun of homosexuality through its non existent ''flaws'' by stating ''whats wrong with it'' and only that. It's stupid to keep this trash open!

 

[ShadowSplash]

I understood you the first time.

If you understood, you would realize that religion doesn't just "stop" someone from being their sexual orientation.

I guess we'll just have to wait for Profesco to get on.

This is a discussion, and I have yet to see blatant trolling or flaming. Until that begins to happen, the thread has no reason to be closed.

 

[Moneyy]

I'm quite surprised this hasn't been closed yet.

 

[Profesco]

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.

 

[はるひ]

If you understood, you would realize that religion doesn't just "stop" someone from being their sexual orientation.

Doesn't stop a person not brought up on these ideals. But for someone like me who everyone around them has told them time and time again, "homosexuality is a sin, you can go to hell", then to know what punishments they give there, I don't think so. If I have been told that by alot of people, then it would have me resist the (maybe) curiousness that I had.

tl;dr, I understand, in my case, it doesn't work that way. Family wouldn't judge me, never would. but the outside world will.

 

[Sadib]

Doesn't stop a person not brought up on these ideals. But for someone like me who everyone around them has told them time and time again, "homosexuality is a sin, you can go to hell", then to know what punishments they give there, I don't think so. If I have been told that by alot of people, then it would have me resist the (maybe) curiousness that I had.

tl;dr, I understand, in my case, it doesn't work that way. Family wouldn't judge me, never would. but the outside world will.

You still fail to realize that homosexuality is not a choice, so religion would take no role in it.

 

[はるひ]

You still fail to realize that homosexuality is not a choice, so religion would take no role in it.

Even if you were brought up that way? I can accept that people are born with it. I was just asking.

I may be born straight, but experiences catch up.

 

[Alleviate]

Stop talking about religion okay thanks.

 

[はるひ]

Sorry about that OP :[

 

[Zenotwapal]

Remember everyone, it's a sin to be left-handed.



Nobody said God wanted everyone to be gay. This makes no sense.



In the same passage, the Bible also says that among homosexual sex, shaving your beard, eating shellfish, and wearing clothes from two different kinds of fabric is a sin. If you wanna believe the Leviticus rules are legit, ok, but you don't get to pick and choose which of "God's Laws" you want to follow. If this is you basis for saying gay marriage is wrong, then I hope you haven't picked up a razor recently. After all, why can't I own a Canadian?



This. Many people who call themselves Christians are very happy to condemn other people, even though that's the exact opposite of what Jesus was trying to teach. "Judge not, lest you be judged" anyone? Christianity is supposed to be about love, not hate. Didn't Jesus preach that if you considered yourself better than others that you were just as bad as the people you condemn? That doesn't sound like many modern Christians to me.

I completely agree with this.

To be honest, I really don't see anything wrong with gay people. They have every right to get married and it is stupid to deny them, really.
Hey, and I'm a Christian too.

 

[LedZeppelin94]

I'm quite surprised this hasn't been closed yet.

Yea same here

 

[Alleviate]

this isnt about marriage either.

 

[ele]

this isnt about marriage either.

It's about discussing what is wrong with gays but there is only religous believes that say they are different but they aren't at all.

 

[はるひ]

So... umm...is it wrong?

 

[ele]

So... umm...is it wrong?

No not in my opinion. Only homophobes will say they are different.

 

[BynineB]

Well, it certainly isn't "nothing". Because then they'd want to actually reproduce like any species. But then it leads to what the "something" is, and that's the real debate, whether or not it's genetic, a decision, your upbringing, or etcetera.

 

[Profesco]

4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.

This is Alleviate's chosen definition of "wrong" to attribute to homosexuality, and it merits a short, quick criticism. Actually, I could begin by asking for definitions and contexts for "proper," "usual," and "recommended practice," but splitting definitions will quickly get boring. ^_^;

The first thing I thought about Alleviate's definition was that there's no one/nothing requiring or recommending heterosexuality. Except, that is, if the absentee agent of those verbs is "producing offspring." It must be assumed, then, that Alleviate's definition only makes the argument that homosexuality is "the wrong way to produce offspring."

That's quite accurate, considering we are sexually reproducing organisms, but its impact in the debate is limited. "Producing offspring" isn't the only goal of human lives. In fact, it may not be a goal at all for some humans. So it's a terrible measure of judgement about the moral, social, or legal aspects of homosexuality.

 

[Aviere]

I will never understand Alleviate's unrelenting crusade against homosexuality on this forum, but I'll bite.

Although this thread has been given a bye for the time being, this thread is nothing more than an individual hiding under the guise of dictionary definitions and science to allow his hatred pass as intelligible debate. There is no denying that Alleviate thoughtfully structured his post, but the deliberate usage of the word "wrong" to express distaste for the persons of question is an obvious ploy to steer the topic into the very same direction he has taken previous topics of this kind, however, in this case, he has succeeded in the prevention of harsh moderation. Had Alleviate truly wished to debate a widely controversial topic, he at the very least could have come up with a title without an underlying tone of hatred, a task that couldn't have possibly been a difficult one for someone who posts with such intellectual superiority.

One could also conclude that each gay individual has a malformed gland or gene that controls a normal sex drive. Perhaps a faulty chromosome. Faulty chromosome, hmmm, sounds like something I know of called Down syndrome.

Again, under the pretense of science he has succeeded in comparing homosexuals to people with Down syndrome. Such an agenda is a plague on the debate forum. An abnormality is not wrong - it is an abnormality.

Alleviate, sensible humans realize that in this argument, associating the words "wrong" and "normal" is a foolish act, and your insinuation that you have shaped a thought-provoking thread to discuss what is genetically different about homosexuals has done nothing for you. Create a thread that is free of hatred between the lines, and maybe the community will be willing to rationally discuss the scientific differences in homosexuals and heterosexuals.

 

[DarkLink3]

Nothing is wrong with gay people. I dont see why people think they're bad.

 

[Sadib]

Well said Aviere. Alleviate isn't even being subtle with his homophobia. Just look at the thread title. He could have used a more appropriate word, but he chose "wrong" intentionally. He also used the fourth definition of the word, which is ranked fourth because of how seldom it is used that way.

Towards the end of his post he compares homosexuality to down syndrome. He has many disorders to choose from, but he just happened to choose that one. After stating all his one-sided "facts", he closes with "YOU BE THE JUDGE."