[meow]

I don't read articles and opinions of others pertaining to homosexuality- that's Immaterial to my very own views.

Irrespective of their nature, homosexuals are people just like you and I. They've simply taken another direction towards their sexuality.  Bottom line, I believe they should be treated equally.

You just stated that you don't like reading opinions that contradict your own (confirmation bias logical fallacy) and then tried to use an emotional appeal to justify your standpoint, which is also a logical fallacy. This is the only time I'll be responding to you on this thread.

[Asura]

Tl;dr.

Sure, homosexuality does prevent reproduction but why should people care? Extinction of the human race or something? Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Homosexuals are people too and deserves rights just as heterosexuals. Regarding gay marriages, it should be up to the state for couples to marry. Not churches. Churches do have rights to not service the gay couples for marriage but there should be other places regardless that are willing to accept and service gay marriage.

[mothered]

This is the only time I'll be responding to you on this thread.

I'm glad you've finally realized the futility of "trying" to justify your actions against myself.

Excellent, be It as It may.

[Jiggly]

When you make a statement in direct response to me and what I've said such as "I get the idea of homosexuality being considered unnatural," there is actually a very heavy implication that you think I stated that, which is why I responded the way I did. Also, I told you to read the OP numerous times because nearly every question you asked or every request you made was answered or fulfilled in the OP. If I have offended you in any way with my responses then I should let you know that I don't intentionally go out of my way to offend people anymore, and if you feel like I'm trying to offend you with anything I say then it's probably unintentional on my end and just you perceiving my words as offensive.


Here's why I believe almost everything that I do: I tend to avoid and stray away from emotional sides of arguments as much as possible, there's nothing I've said here or almost anywhere else that isn't backed by some sort of logical appeal. I have never read anything which supports, encourages, or normalizes homosexuality that hasn't used an emotional appeal such as "they're human too" or "everyone deserves equal rights," etc., nor have I read or seen anything which contradicts studies or statistics that are included in the articles which I listed above with the exception of the dispute among psychologists regarding whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness or not.

TL;DR - you will never find me siding with a viewpoint that challenges the most logical side of the argument

You have a good point. I started that terribly - Perhaps I should work on proof-reading my posts! My apologies. I didn't feel like you explained why homosexuality was a negative to other people in the OP so much. You definitely outlined how it harms people who are homosexual themselves. I suspect the affect on other people is explained in articles you linked, from the looks of the titles. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Again, I apologise for the nature of my reply. Unfortunately, I am very susceptible to taking things personally. The way you post is quite clinical (for want of a better word). It's difficult to see read it without assuming it's said harshly, which is my problem, not yours I guess!

I got that sense from you, which is what I think made me curious. I wondered if there was some sort of focusing event that got you interested enough to follow through with finding more evidence. I appreciate your reply on that and I wish I'd asked you that question in the first place! To be honest, I think the "human side", as it's often described, can make debates like these very challenging. People want to be empathetic which can often distract from objectivity, so I believe I understand your viewpoint.

I'm not interested in debating this, and while I admire the effort you put into this thread, I have to ask: why do you - personally, not from a societal or global view - care?

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it? Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

I was kinda wondering about that too. Which is mostly what my second post was getting at. I had initially wondered if there was a bad experience that piqued interest in the matter.

You have a good point. I started that terribly - Perhaps I should work on proof-reading my posts! My apologies. I didn't feel like you explained why homosexuality was a negative to other people in the OP so much. You definitely outlined how it harms people who are homosexual themselves. I suspect the affect on other people is explained in articles you linked, from the looks of the titles. Correct me if I'm wrong there. Again, I apologise for the nature of my reply. Unfortunately, I am very susceptible to taking things personally. The way you post is quite clinical (for want of a better word). It's difficult to see read it without assuming it's said harshly, which is my problem, not yours I guess!

You're right, I do type very explicitly. The reason for that is just because I try to avoid trivialities such as trying to seem enthusiastic or excited or happy or whatever when I'm typing in a debate, because I don't see showing emotion in an internet debate as very necessary for getting my point across. I'm much different in real life I promise.

Don't worry about it! I'm usually very intent on trying to portray how I feel when I type, which I make mistakes with all the time. One reason for that is because I used to live with emotionally insecure females. I would try and debate with you fully, but in all honesty, I don't have the energy for it right now (heavy class workload destroys my sense of commitment to anything that requires brain power). I do want to say, your debate responses seems to be better than they used to be, thanks!

[Inori]

I'm not interested in debating this, and while I admire the effort you put into this thread, I have to ask: why do you - personally, not from a societal or global view - care?

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it? Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

I care personally because homosexuality is strongly indoctrinated at the school I go to and yes, I am affected by it. If you had asked why I cared on a societal and global level, my response would've been that I care about eradicating degeneracy among humans, which homosexuality is a great example of.

While I'm all for sexual education, both heterosexual and otherwise, I agree that forcing beliefs on anyone is wrong, even if I support the belief in question.

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it?

You just asked me how I'm personally affected by homosexuality and in the same post, told me that I'm far removed from homosexual behavior.

To clarify, I meant that it seems as though you avoid/remove yourself from any situation where those behaviors are present, thus you wouldn't interact with and consequently be affected by them. "far removed" was poor wording on my part.

Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

In some cases, doing nothing about something bad is just as bad as doing something to support whatever is bad. Also, the reason why I engage on debates over the internet (and real life, for that matter) is because I want to see if there are arguments I haven't yet heard, so that if I'm revealed to be wrong about something, I can change my mind. It's one thing to let something live that will most likely literally never affect you or humanity as a whole, such as maybe a small group at a school, it's a different thing to not bother something such as homosexuality which is for one, degenerate, and two currently being forcefully indoctrinated, normalized, and glorified among youth and society as a whole.

Your first point is entirely valid, but (obviously) depends on how you view the situation at hand. I actually really respect your reasoning for debate, it's refreshing to see someone open to discourse that isn't arrogant (I also have a feeling you're really good at writing essays).

Again, I agree that indoctrination isn't the right way to go, but I maintain that condemning homosexuality as degenerate isn't right, either. As I see it, everyone should be educated about it to some degree from both a sexual and scientific standpoint (fun fact, many mammalian species and birds engage in homosexual activity), and if they still don't agree, c'est la vie, at least they're not disagreeing with something they know little or nothing about.

[meow]

Tl;dr.

Confirmation bias

Sure, homosexuality does prevent reproduction but why should people care? Extinction of the human race or something? Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Homosexuals' inability to reproduce with their partners isn't the only argument I postulated for why homosexuality is bad. It's advised that you read an opposing argument before attempting to refute or oppose it.

Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Completely irrelevant to the entire subject of this debate.

Homosexuals are people too and deserves rights just as heterosexuals.

Emotional appeal logical fallacy.

Regarding gay marriages, it should be up to the state for couples to marry. Not churches. Churches do have rights to not service the gay couples for marriage but there should be other places regardless that are willing to accept and service gay marriage.

I don't agree with government having any part in marriage whatsoever. To me, the concept of marriage seems no different from the concept of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. It seems silly to bind those two together legally in order to make it harder for either of them to get out of the relationship. I personally don't care whether gays get married or not, because like I said, I don't see two homosexuals being married as any different from a boyfriend/boyfriend couple or girlfriend/girlfriend couple.

[meow]

I'm not interested in debating this, and while I admire the effort you put into this thread, I have to ask: why do you - personally, not from a societal or global view - care?

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it? Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

I care personally because homosexuality is strongly indoctrinated at the school I go to and yes, I am affected by it. If you had asked why I cared on a societal and global level, my response would've been that I care about eradicating degeneracy among humans, which homosexuality is a great example of.

While I'm all for sexual education, both heterosexual and otherwise, I agree that forcing beliefs on anyone is wrong, even if I support the belief in question.

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it?

You just asked me how I'm personally affected by homosexuality and in the same post, told me that I'm far removed from homosexual behavior.

To clarify, I meant that it seems as though you avoid/remove yourself from any situation where those behaviors are present, thus you wouldn't interact with and consequently be affected by them. "far removed" was poor wording on my part.

Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

In some cases, doing nothing about something bad is just as bad as doing something to support whatever is bad. Also, the reason why I engage on debates over the internet (and real life, for that matter) is because I want to see if there are arguments I haven't yet heard, so that if I'm revealed to be wrong about something, I can change my mind. It's one thing to let something live that will most likely literally never affect you or humanity as a whole, such as maybe a small group at a school, it's a different thing to not bother something such as homosexuality which is for one, degenerate, and two currently being forcefully indoctrinated, normalized, and glorified among youth and society as a whole.

Your first point is entirely valid, but (obviously) depends on how you view the situation at hand. I actually really respect your reasoning for debate, it's refreshing to see someone open to discourse that isn't arrogant (I also have a feeling you're really good at writing essays).

Again, I agree that indoctrination isn't the right way to go, but I maintain that condemning homosexuality as degenerate isn't right, either. As I see it, everyone should be educated about it to some degree from both a sexual and scientific standpoint (fun fact, many mammalian species and birds engage in homosexual activity), and if they still don't agree, c'est la vie, at least they're not disagreeing with something they know little or nothing about.

At least according to my English professor I'm very good at writing essays haha.

The only section of your post I disagree with is this -

Again, I agree that indoctrination isn't the right way to go, but I maintain that condemning homosexuality as degenerate isn't right, either.

Firstly, condemnation of something doesn't necessarily entail the eradication of it from education systems. Owning people as slaves is degenerate, consumption of alcohol is degenerate, using violence as a response to verbal interaction is degenerate, this list could go on. My point is that although all of these are considered degenerate, they are still taught about in schools and elsewhere, however they are taught to be negative, and I believe homosexuality should be taught to be negative as well.

Secondly, according to Google, degenerate has many definitions, and I can link homosexuality to all of them.

1. adj; having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.

Heterosexuality is defined by nature as normal. Homosexuality is defined by nature as an error in the brain, therefore homosexuals have lost the mental quality considered to be normal.

2. adj; lacking some property, order, or distinctness of structure previously or usually present, in particular.

The trait of heterosexuality is usually present, therefore the lacking of it (typically replaced by homosexuality) is degenerate.

3. noun; an immoral or corrupt person.

Homosexuals are mentally corrupted by a naturally occurring error in the brain.

4. verb; decline or deteriorate physically, mentally, or morally.

See my response to the first definition.

[Asura]

Tl;dr.

Confirmation bias

Sure, homosexuality does prevent reproduction but why should people care? Extinction of the human race or something? Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Homosexuals' inability to reproduce with their partners isn't the only argument I postulated for why homosexuality is bad. It's advised that you read an opposing argument before attempting to refute or oppose it.

Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Completely irrelevant to the entire subject of this debate.

Homosexuals are people too and deserves rights just as heterosexuals.

Emotional appeal logical fallacy.

Regarding gay marriages, it should be up to the state for couples to marry. Not churches. Churches do have rights to not service the gay couples for marriage but there should be other places regardless that are willing to accept and service gay marriage.

I don't agree with government having any part in marriage whatsoever. To me, the concept of marriage seems no different from the concept of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. It seems silly to bind those two together legally in order to make it harder for either of them to get out of the relationship. I personally don't care whether gays get married or not, because like I said, I don't see two homosexuals being married as any different from a boyfriend/boyfriend couple or girlfriend/girlfriend couple.

I didn't read the entire post because I just assumed it's the same as other arguments I've seen like blah no reproduction, blah sexual diseases, etc. Then facts comes in like "this isn't the only cause" or something. About the part I mentioned death, it kinda does. Really, you have minimal worth(or none) as a human being to others thus why should you care? When I mentioned that homosexuals are people too, they are. There's really no emotional connections to what I'm saying at all. For example, a cop. They are just people in uniform and that still won't stop me from killing one in self-defense. Come on, think for yourself. Not just from what you're reading on the web. It just seems your opinion is based most on what you read.

[pvnk]

For the mere purpose of boredom, I'll take the opposition. I'm going to disregard all those links because I'm not going to sift through them to verify their authenticity. (So I won't address points raised by those links.) I wouldn't even do that for a research paper.

If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?

First, knock it off with all these hypothetical statements. If implies assumptions. Sexual orientation identification does not imply safety. They also do not tear apart each others sphincters as a general rule of thumb. That may happen during sexual activity that involves the rectum, but it's not exclusive to homosexuality.

"If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability." What the heck man? Homosexuality is not comparable to infertility because that's not what defines their identity. The fact that they are not able to reproduce due to sex selection doesn't make them infertile. They can still be fertile, just unable to reproduce in the given circumstance. Biological sex =/= sexual orientation =/= fertility

"If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?" Because it's not a friendship. It's a union-ship of two human beings with intimate/romantic/passionate emotional connections.

"If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?" Romantic bonding =/= reproduction. Sex =/= babies
You are equivocating unequivocal concepts.

If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?

This isn't even objective anymore...

If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?

???

--

Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?

Genetics. I don't believe that it's genetics. I think that it's genetics due to scientific evidence. (You don't have to read these links as I read none of yours, but I'm just substantiating.)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/scientist...m-parents/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...hobes.html
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_396841.asp

I'm not interested in debating this, and while I admire the effort you put into this thread, I have to ask: why do you - personally, not from a societal or global view - care?

From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it? Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?

I'd expect better from a Staff member...

That's off topic! This thread isn't about his personal views even though it's seeping out through his interpretations.

[meow]

Tl;dr.

Confirmation bias

Sure, homosexuality does prevent reproduction but why should people care? Extinction of the human race or something? Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Homosexuals' inability to reproduce with their partners isn't the only argument I postulated for why homosexuality is bad. It's advised that you read an opposing argument before attempting to refute or oppose it.

Here's a reality, when you die, no one cares besides your loved ones. After they die, it's like you never existed.

Completely irrelevant to the entire subject of this debate.

Homosexuals are people too and deserves rights just as heterosexuals.

Emotional appeal logical fallacy.

Regarding gay marriages, it should be up to the state for couples to marry. Not churches. Churches do have rights to not service the gay couples for marriage but there should be other places regardless that are willing to accept and service gay marriage.

I don't agree with government having any part in marriage whatsoever. To me, the concept of marriage seems no different from the concept of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. It seems silly to bind those two together legally in order to make it harder for either of them to get out of the relationship. I personally don't care whether gays get married or not, because like I said, I don't see two homosexuals being married as any different from a boyfriend/boyfriend couple or girlfriend/girlfriend couple.

I didn't read the entire post because I just assumed it's the same as other arguments I've seen like blah no reproduction, blah sexual diseases, etc. Then facts comes in like "this isn't the only cause" or something. About the part I mentioned death, it kinda does. Really, you have minimal worth(or none) as a human being to others thus why should you care?  When I mentioned that homosexuals are people too, they are. There's really no emotional connections to what I'm saying at all. For example, a cop. They are just people in uniform and that still won't stop me from killing one in self-defense. Come on, think for yourself. Not just from what you're reading on the web. It just seems your opinion is based most on what you read.

I didn't read the entire post because I just assumed it's the same as other arguments I've seen like blah no reproduction, blah sexual diseases, etc. Then facts comes in like "this isn't the only cause" or something.

Never assume the contents of an argument based on the title or classification of it. Any time I get an opposing response I read it thoroughly and make sure I understand what I'm typing in opposition to so that I avoid looking dumb.

When I mentioned that homosexuals are people too, they are.

I didn't disagree with that. I disagreed with the idea that homosexuals should be completely equal due to the fact that they're human.

It just seems your opinion is based most on what you read.

I have no idea what else my opinion would be based on. If reading and analyzing statistics, articles, studies, and so forth didn't dictate the nature of my opinions then I don't know how stupid I'd be.