1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

What is "Wrong" with Homosexuality?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Alleviate, Aug 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ebilly99

    ebilly99 Americanreigon champ

    No I define it as to not harm sentiant beings or through inaction allow Sentiant beings to come to harm. Whats hard about that?
  2. takbir10

    takbir10 Banned

    A whole lotta things
  3. Grey Wind

    Grey Wind Only rescues maidens

    And these things are...?
  4. Skorge

    Skorge The High Priest

    Well, it seems our good friend Alleviate was banned. Maybe we can get this debate back on track.
  5. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    But this debate began off track. What is there to argue without pushing our opinions on each other? Alleviate just wanted to start a sustainable fight for his entertainment, and gay rights was a ripe subject for people to get passionate about.
  6. Mister_SGG

    Mister_SGG Well-Known Member


    Homosexuality means nothing. You are a homosexual. So? Who cares? Never mind religion and that, being gay is no different from being male or female.
  7. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    That's awfully defeatist, SunnyC. This kind of debate certainly invites a lot of opinion, yes, but given that it touches on the topics of rights, ethics, harm, biology, and law, to name a few, there are myriad tangents of discussion with real consequences and factual bases. Those such tangents can be explored in this thread. To discourage a debate because it involves pushing your opinion is almost to cut this entire subforum off at the knees. Many great debates boil down to equally valid yet conflicting values.

    And actually, I'd like to raise the suggestion that someone who comes into this thread and only shares their opinion of homosexuality isn't actually making any statements about homosexuality - they are making statements about themselves. That's not anything we could argue either way. What is "wrong" with homosexuality (understanding the different meanings "wrong" gives to that question), however, is something external we can argue about.
  8. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Okay, I have a question then. Bear with me. The OP is the writer's opinion. The author of this thread has not only had moments where he is out of character, but he's also indicated that he's more intelligent than the nonsensical assumptions he makes to support his "opinion about homosexuality". Yet he maintains he believes all these assumptions, suggesting that he is maintaining a facade, to provoke conversation. So, if people who share their opinion are making statements about themselves, and facts are generally favored over opinions in this forum, what does the opinion of someone who is maintaining a facade do, and what is it worth intellectually?
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2011
  9. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    I suppose it could be said to be on par with playing devil's advocate. I would even wonder if some of the best devil's advocates aren't those who pursue their facetious points to all manner of logical or practical absurdity. (I believe Stephen Colbert won some award for his argument style because it humorously exposed many flaws in thinking.)

    Even if the position presented is not the one honestly held, the points (if there are any other than bare opinion) raised can still be gainfully discussed.
  10. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    It's a troll thread nothing more and its quite appalling that you've let it go on this long just for the sake of a potentially gainfully discussion.
  11. Kaiserin

    Kaiserin please wake up...

    Just because it is a troll thread doesn't mean we have to treat it as such, when, after all, part of a debate is taking the argument of the other side and rebutting it. For that reason, I agree with Profesco when it comes to making the most out of the points raised, whether they're genuinely held by the person putting them onto the table or not.

    I still maintain that anyone who votes to disallow gay marriage and not at the very least let the individual churches decide for themselves is what is wrong with society today. Nobody has to like the idea of homosexuality for themselves, nor do they have to enjoy getting hit on by someone of the same gender or whatever it is they're so freaked out by, but it really shouldn't be the business of those people what the percentage of society who does participate in it does with their lives. From a moral standpoint, it literally does not have anything to do with them, and is more of an excuse to be pushing their own beliefs and/or religion onto everyone in their immediate vicinity.

    And while you could pitch the argument about sinning that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and the people who try to prevent it are just trying to help them stop sinning... there are two problems with that. One is that not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and whether or not they do is their business alone. The other... is that, according to that very same book, everyone sins, full stop. Some sins, as it were, are probably more obvious than others. And I guess you could argue that homosexuality is "willingly sinning" by those standards (it isn't, but bear with me here), but even if that were the case, then anyone who has ever told a lie while full well knowing they were lying through their teeth has done the same thing. Better yet, maybe they've done it more than once! And doesn't it also mention in the Bible that it's not the place of devout believers to be correcting anyone they perceive as a sinner, but to just guide them along the path they believe will lead them to salvation? In other words, not forcing their opinion onto them and letting them decide for themselves what they want?

    ...Discuss, I guess.
  12. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    It can.

    The difference between the OP and Stephen Colbert is that we know Colbert's authorial intent is to expose those flaws in thinking with comedy. To do so, he makes it easily obvious by talking about funny stuff like selling his sperm, praising the Spider Christ, and kissing his gun on screen. The author gives no such obvious clues, he doesn't employ humor, and it's clear that the majority of newcomers to this thread don't understand his subtlety. His presentation is actually obscuring what could be a rewarding discussion about homosexuality issues in the 21st century. Instead of talking about "ethics, harm, biology, and law" like you said, the thread becomes explaining to a troll repeatedly, with essay after essay answer, why the word 'wrong' isn't applicable in this situation, and repeating that process for ninety pages, and it's sad to see the issue of homosexuality politics bastardized this way and dedicated to something so obscure, tedious, and unrewarding.

    Infract me for spam if you want, but this is my true reason for being 'defeatist".

    And the fact that it is a troll thread does matter even if we try to treat it like something else, because the very way it functions is to troll, especially when the troll comes back.
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2011
  13. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    Riiiiiiight, but the thing about trolling is, you can't just refute it. The whole point of real trolling is to create an uproar for the sake of lulz. There doesn't have to be any rhyme or reason behind the things said, so there is no refuting the other side because the other side wont allow it. There's that saying about arguing with idiots, well with trolls it ends the same with the only difference being the person trolling isn't actually stupid.

    Exactly. The past couple of pages have been a complete cluster f*(k with alleviate. Before that during the duration of one of his many bans the conversation was pretty one sided and dull. Only a few have come in with something different to say. Even with those people the conversation was't really a matter of what is wrong with people but rather what people generally thought based on limited exposure and false beliefs.
  14. Grei

    Grei not the color

    That's because, surprisingly, a large amount of Serebii's population--at least, the Debate Forum's population--is pro-homosexual, and/or homosexual themselves. It's hard to believe at times when the people who are the loudest are the ones who are against homosexuality, but it's a truth, I think. We're entering an age of acceptance for those in the outgroup, so more and more people accept homosexuality as a part of life.

    I'd put money on the above reasons for why this debate is so uneventful when Alleviate isn't here to piss people off. That, and this debate has been argued to death for what has to be nearly a year now, and nobody has the will to argue what they've already argued.

    ... I think a number of you should see where I'm going with this.
  15. ShimmerInTheDark

    ShimmerInTheDark Ace Trainer

    The only thing wrong with homosexuals is the hateful people that prey on them.
  16. Profesco

    Profesco gone gently

    Alleviate's use of the word "wrong" in his opening argument provided what I saw as an opportunity for a novel approach to this debate, trolling or not. Part of the challenge explored in this thread was to re-examine what we mean when we use the word "wrong" and how it applies to the context discussed here. The usual context of "homosexuality is wrong" is a social judgement, and specifically a strictly religious one, in which "wrong" means only "sin, as identified by God." The OP took that kind of "wrong" and put it in a fully secular context, enabling a twist on the channels of response we could give it. It also led us to a debate of "wrong" as meaning nothing greater than an early developmental biology/psychology fluctuation that leads to the expression of a comparatively rare cognitive/behavior pattern (which could be, and was, argued as not a sensible meaning of "wrong" in any case).

    As far as homosexuality threads go, this one's opening was a breath of fresh air compared to the copypasta we normally see. As if that weren't enough of a reason to stick with it, we also have to consider the perennial attraction to debates on sexuality, homo- or otherwise. When this thread was opened, the debate landscape was gay at every hill and valley. This thread was the best we had. And since that time, closing this one would only have meant a lapse back into the same old copypasta gay stuff within the week. Now that we have moderation on, there's the possibility of going wholly without gay debates for a while, but I did promise that moderation wouldn't be used to silence debate topics - only poorly-made threads. This thread must either die or be outdone.

    Incidentally, that the OP does an excellent job of trolling people is immaterial to the discussion in this thread, and frankly interesting. If Alleviate is posing arguments that are unrefutable by virtue of their irrationality and facetious nature - and we are to call that trolling - one would expect that this subforum would be populated by those people best able to recognize that and not take the bait; perhaps even to salvage worthwhile discussion from such wrecks. Call it just another challenge. I'd argue that such salvaging and gainful discussion has happened, in fact.

    But if you have some goal of a different discussion, one you know would be more rewarding and positive, I encourage you to make that change. Write a new thread or take the reigns of this one.

    Oh get out of here. Is that something you really expected? =(
  17. I must say I agree.
  18. Malanu

    Malanu Est sularus oth mith

    True enough Ched, but I find a bit of satisfaction when a Troll Thread can be turned into an ongoing nonTrollish discussion. You steal the thunder from the original intent so to speak. In the end this has become something other than what Alleviate had wanted.
  19. CSolarstorm

    CSolarstorm New spicy version

    Yeah, I knew there was only so much complaining I could do without offering an alternate idea. I am working on another thread called "Homosexuality and Politics in the 20th Century" where I try to make a neutral history of the way the ball has rolled in SPPF so far, at least since I've been here, but it's not halfway along yet. Anyone want to PM some ideas to add to its OP?

    I'm embarassed to be caught arguing against such optimistic people. : /
  20. Grei

    Grei not the color

    Jeez stop being such a pessimist Sunny

    I haven't been around for about half of this debate, but I sort of want this to happen. I propose that it happens in a neutral setting, though. A thread about our definition of "wrong," as opposed to in regard to homosexuality, where there are a ton of people who will ignore the "what is wrong?" question and skip straight to defending homosexuality.

    *waits for someone to say "oh but this thread does exist"*

    I say we go with Sunny's idea for a new thread (oh god another new gay thread aaauuughh but at least it will be interesting), and that we take the "what is wrong" discussion someplace else entirely. Putting them together is just "asking for it," in my opinion.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page