Anti-Homosexuality? - A Challenge

[x-Toadenalin-x]

Before I start homosexuality has been done before, but most of these arguments seem to end up flogging a dead horse, so there is no incentive to try to pick up the debate.

So I decided, assuming the mods don't mind me doing this, to issue a challenge to anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong.

I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong. I really mean it - there is no argument in the entire world that you can use that I cannot knock down.

And to make it more interesting, if anyone can come up with just ONE point that I cannot rebutt, I will change my sig to say you are the greatest person on the planet. Then keep it that way for a year. That is how confident I am that I am right and the rest of the world is wrong.

Good luck.

[HomeGrownTurnip]

Hmmm... yet another genius Post.
Well done.

[morefngdbs]

Homosexuality ,and how it could be wrong.
For this I want to use the relationship between two human males.
2 men ,complete with all the usual male equipment.
Now
If they enter into a relationship as a couple and they both are only interested in sex and a relationship with someone of their own sex.
If one of the 2 males believes he is actually a woman trapped in a mans body.
(this has been documented befor)
Does this technically mean that we are dealing with a male personality and a Female personality.
Or because their physical characteristics say they are male, then that is what they must be.
I feel if the (fe)male( trapped) has never let on to their partner,this little secrete.
Then this would be a homosexual relationship that was wrong!
This maybe a stretch, but this could happen.

[fuzzykris]

At 1/5/06 11:07 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Homosexuality ,and how it could be wrong.
For this I want to use the relationship between two human males.
2 men ,complete with all the usual male equipment.
Now
If they enter into a relationship as a couple and they both are only interested in sex and a relationship with someone of their own sex.
If one of the 2 males believes he is actually a woman trapped in a mans body.
(this has been documented befor)
Does this technically mean that we are dealing with a male personality and a Female personality.
Or because their physical characteristics say they are male, then that is what they must be.
I feel if the (fe)male( trapped) has never let on to their partner,this little secrete.
Then this would be a homosexual relationship that was wrong!
This maybe a stretch, but this could happen.

This only deals with certain relationships that could exist, and not all homosexual relationships. Even if we were to agree this type of relationship is wrong, you could not using valid logic to extend this to all homosexual relationships since many(or in fact most) would not be like this.

As a side note this type of relationship is only likely because society is even more vicious towards transsexuals than it has been with homosexuals. If transsexuals did not face such discrimination and violence they would not likely resort to such relationships and instead openly express their true gender identity.

[Jinzoa]

two simple reasons why it could be wrong:

1.The religous people(not everyone) and their homo bashing saying it is afront to god.

and

2. Biologically it is just wrong and not ment to happen.

[ReiperX]

define wrong

[Elfer]

At 1/5/06 02:56 PM, ReiperX wrote: define wrong

"wrong" means "An ambiguous and open-ended definition which I can always modify in order to make it technically impossible to win this debate"

[ReiperX]

At 1/5/06 03:11 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/5/06 02:56 PM, ReiperX wrote: define wrong

"wrong" means "An ambiguous and open-ended definition which I can always modify in order to make it technically impossible to win this debate"

Then technically its not gonna happen. A Seriel rapist can tell you why what he did was right and you can't convince him what he did was wrong. Just like to a die hard christian homophobe you cannot make them think that it isn't wrong.

[BadBit]

At 1/5/06 02:51 PM, Jinzoa wrote: two simple reasons why it could be wrong:
1.The religous people(not everyone) and their homo bashing saying it is afront to god.

There are religions and cultures that treat it as being no different than heterosexuality. I'd rather not get into a religious discussion about this though, since all that can be said is "<< insert religious textbook >> says this" and some sort of response, then the same original statement.

2. Biologically it is just wrong and not ment to happen.

a. ) where do you derive intent for the body from, and where its limits are?
b.) how do you explain that homosexual behavior has been documented in more than 450 species of animals? (Columbia University Article on Homosexuality in Animals)
c.) if the body was not intended for that use, does that mean that using the body for anything other than basic necessities for survival is wrong? are people who do not procreate just as bad in your eyes? people were not designed to fly, deep sea dive, travel at high speeds, etc ... flying across the country for a business deal or to visit your family doesn't satisfy base neccessities for life (food, water, air, sun, reproduce) ... so is that wrong and not meant to happen?

Another thing I'm going to point out is that homosexuality isn't all about sex. It's about attraction, whether it be romantic or physical.

Also, regardless of whether it fits your definition of what the body is designed for, it is what it is. Homosexuals are attracted to people of the same gender, this cannot be changed, so why fuss about it? It's not like we have a shortage of people on this planet. If there is a disaster and the whole population is wiped out except for a city full of homos we're not doomed ... homosexuals can still procreate.

[RedSkunk]

The singular purpose of sex is procreation. This is evidenced by its end result, and the necessity of this end result. Every animal on Earth which procreates with others of its species does so primarily to create a new generation of the animal in question. The side benefits of sex are secondary to this. Obviously this goal cannot be successful when it's done between two humans of the same sex. Homosexuality among animals has been documented, but oftentimes this is because of an upset in the ratio of males to females in the population. We use to have two male dogs, and they would dry hump each other. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that homosexuality is focused around homosexual sex, which some might contest. Are heterosexual relationships solely based around sex? Of course not.

Another argument might revolve around cultural norms, or a particular definition of wrong. Two definitions of wrong in my dictionary are "unsuitable or undesirable", and "in a bad or abnormal condition". Homosexuality fits both of these -- homosexual relationships are not particularly desirable, since there are problems, not least of which include the inability to produce children, and the societal apprehension surrounding homosexuality (on a tangent -- ever notice how people aren't "racist" in countries with no meaningful minorities? By a similar token, most people are fine with homosexuality as long as it remains a distant phenomena. And homosexuality is certainly abnormal, this is readily apparent. The first definition of wrong in my dictionary is "not correct or true", which is simply not applicable to this discussion any way you slice it. According to a dictionary definition of wrong, it's easy to understand why homosexuality could be defined as such.

*shrug* Ultimately elfer is correct. The topic-starter needs to define "wrong" before anyone can prove him as such.

[ReiperX]

Skunk aren't there 3 species that have sex for fun and not only for procreation? Dolphins, Humans, and 1 other I thought, could be wrong, Going off of one of your old posts if I remember correctly. Been a while since I looked at it.

[Mr-Snickers]

Humans, Dolphins and a type of monkey that looks alot like a chimp but its kinda skinnier and they're less agressive. STarted with an L i think.

[RedSkunk]

At 1/5/06 03:31 PM, ReiperX wrote: Skunk aren't there 3 species that have sex for fun and not only for procreation? Dolphins, Humans, and 1 other I thought, could be wrong, Going off of one of your old posts if I remember correctly. Been a while since I looked at it.

Sure, dolphins have sex for pleasure. But that's certainly not the primary reason they have sex.

[Mr-Snickers]

Yes it is, clearly you've never watched the "The Nature of Things" or read a nature magazine. Also I might add that like not even 10% of human beings have sex for procreation.

[fli]

I'm not here to debate (LOL)
I'm just here because it's the first new gay topic of the New Year. But the ambiance is rather nice...

[RedSkunk]

At 1/5/06 03:51 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: Yes it is, clearly you've never watched the "The Nature of Things" or read a nature magazine. Also I might add that like not even 10% of human beings have sex for procreation.

You clearly can't think straight. The primary purpose of sex is not recreational, its procreational, even among humans. If that statistic were true, the human race wouldn't last long.

[BadBit]

At 1/5/06 04:00 PM, red_skunk wrote: You clearly can't think straight. The primary purpose of sex is not recreational, its procreational, even among humans. If that statistic were true, the human race wouldn't last long.

I think his wording may have been bad for that. But think about the number of humans that have recreational sex. It's not like it's only a handfull. Think of the number of people there would be on this planet if a baby was made for each time a couple had sex.

If human sexuality is only about procreation that would be a huge design flaw. Think of how long humans live, then think about how strong the human sex drive is. Is it natural for creatures that are currently living an average of 80 years to have such a sex drive? Why do seniors maintain a sex drive if they can no longer procreate?

Again, regardless of whether the human body was designed for sex between members of the same gender, the attraction exists. It is what it is. Why can't people just be?

Another thought I just had ... if certain failing traits die out after multiple generations, why does homosexuality exist in animals? They don't care about all of this crap we're talking about ... they just do what they do ... and the trait still exists. Is there a reason for it to still exist? It must be natural.

[marshmallow979]

At 1/5/06 03:27 PM, red_skunk wrote: The singular purpose of sex is procreation. This is evidenced by its end result, and the necessity of this end result.

Sex might have been originally made for procreation, but humans, both straight and homosexual, also use it primarily for pleasure. They still reproduce however, and sperm banks and adoption can be an easy solution for people who can't have a child in a traditional sense. This doesn't mean there's less of a population either (although the overpopulation is becoming a problem), but rather people just don't always do it in a traditional manner.

Every animal on Earth which procreates with others of its species does so primarily to create a new generation of the animal in question. The side benefits of sex are secondary to this.

There aren't any side benefits for almost all animals, they simply use it to reproduce.

Obviously this goal cannot be successful when it's done between two humans of the same sex. Homosexuality among animals has been documented, but oftentimes this is because of an upset in the ratio of males to females in the population. We use to have two male dogs, and they would dry hump each other. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that homosexuality is focused around homosexual sex, which some might contest. Are heterosexual relationships solely based around sex? Of course not.

Then why is do people get so hyped up about homosexual relationships, because that's really just considering the sexual side of a relationship.

Another argument might revolve around cultural norms, or a particular definition of wrong. Two definitions of wrong in my dictionary are "unsuitable or undesirable", and "in a bad or abnormal condition"

Unsuitable or undesirable? For gay couples, it suits them well, or else they could always back out, and the only reason it's undesirable is because of the public's prejudices. And it really isn't bad or abnormal. Bad or abnormal? hmmm... "Bad"? So gay people are "bad"? That's the most constructive thing I've heard all day.
Is it also abnormal that gay people hold roughly 10 percent of the U.S. population and have been around quite a long (though unknown) amount of time? So if, it's population you're talking about, then you could also say that Baptists are abnormal. But maybe it's genetics you're talking about, in which case you might be interested to know that 52% percent of identical twins of gay people are also gay.

Homosexuality fits both of these -- homosexual relationships are not particularly desirable, since there are problems, not least of which include the inability to produce children

Actually there are plenty of ways around this: Adoption, first of all (which is definitely better for the children to have a home), and also lesbians can use sperm banks.

and the societal apprehension surrounding homosexuality (on a tangent -- ever notice how people aren't "racist" in countries with no meaningful minorities? By a similar token, most people are fine with homosexuality as long as it remains a distant phenomena.

So you're saying that if society might not like them, and that you might not desire a relationship if you were homosexual, does that mean that they're relationships or they themselves are bad?

And homosexuality is certainly abnormal, this is readily apparent. The first definition of wrong in my dictionary is "not correct or true", which is simply not applicable to this discussion any way you slice it. According to a dictionary definition of wrong, it's easy to understand why homosexuality could be defined as such.

So you're saying being gay isn't correct? Or is it, what I think it is, not politically correct?

*shrug* Ultimately elfer is correct. The topic-starter needs to define "wrong" before anyone can prove him as such.

The misconceptions surrounding gay people (like that they molest people) are entirely untrue, and so people need to stop this bigotry and realize they're normal people. I call anyone who challenges this irrational and homophobic.

It feels good debating a 2005 candidate

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong. I really mean it - there is no argument in the entire world that you can use that I cannot knock down.

Oh Lord, this is ridiculous.

Here you go.

When the penis of a man enters the vagina of a woman and the man ejaculates, the sperm swim up the woman's vagina, into the fallopian tubes. If the woman has ovulated, there is a chance that the sperm will fertilize the woman's egg, which will sometimes result in a woman carrying a child to term.

When the penis of a man enters the anus of another man, the result is a bunch of sperm swimming up the poop-chute and finding nothing of value. In addition, the man is likely to contract infections due to the fact that his penis is rhythmically humping a hole for poop. This is why sodomy of any kind was forbidden by God, early societies, many states and nations, etc.

I hope that explains to you why biologically, sex with another man doesn't make any sense.

"BUT ROOSTER, WHAT ABOUT ORAL SEX? THAT DOESN'T PRODUCE BABIES EITHER, DOES IT?"

This is where schools of thought vary. Some religions believe that oral sex is wrong because it is unnatural or not what God intended. Some folks believe that the only permissible sexual position is the missionary position. And hardcore Catholics believe that the action of sex is actually sinful in and of itself because it is pleasurable (even though this is a forgivable sin when performed for the purpose of procreation).

I like to take the Qur'anic perspective, which forbids sodomy but says that a man and a woman can approach each other in any manner they like otherwise.

Note that I am not saying that love between two men is wrong.
The only way that you can argue your way out of this one is if you argue that there is in fact no right and wrong. And if you believe that, I can't help you.

[marshmallow979]

At 1/5/06 04:00 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 1/5/06 03:51 PM, Mr_Snickers wrote: Yes it is, clearly you've never watched the "The Nature of Things" or read a nature magazine. Also I might add that like not even 10% of human beings have sex for procreation.

You clearly can't think straight. The primary purpose of sex is not recreational, its procreational, even among humans. If that statistic were true, the human race wouldn't last long.

That's the intended purpose, although it's probably safe to say that sex is used primarily for pleasure for most humans. People don't want to take on the responsibilities that come with children in many cases. If you disagree, look around at all the means of birth control there are.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/5/06 02:23 PM, fuzzykris wrote:

At 1/5/06 11:07 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Homosexuality ,and how it could be wrong.

This only deals with certain relationships that could exist, and not all homosexual relationships.

;
You are not e_toad ,so butt out.
Second read his post again , down near the bottom. He asks for a example how it could be wrong.
Mine reply was a valid one.

[Zbarrfetus]

i dont care about these issues cuz im not a homosexual so they dont affect me, they are just normal people, so they shouldnt get special treatment, people get called dumbasses everday, they are gonna get called fags too, thye jsut have to deal with that shit

[marshmallow979]

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong. I really mean it - there is no argument in the entire world that you can use that I cannot knock down.

Oh Lord, this is ridiculous.

No, he's absolutely right. Homophobia is founded on such an unjust principle as that they are different from your orientation, just like prejudice against black people because they're different racially.

When the penis of a man enters the vagina of a woman and the man ejaculates, the sperm swim up the woman's vagina, into the fallopian tubes. If the woman has ovulated, there is a chance that the sperm will fertilize the woman's egg, which will sometimes result in a woman carrying a child to term.

That's right, but gay relationships, just like straight relationships, often go deeper than sex, something you clearly aren't seeing.

When the penis of a man enters the anus of another man, the result is a bunch of sperm swimming up the poop-chute and finding nothing of value. In addition, the man is likely to contract infections due to the fact that his penis is rhythmically humping a hole for poop. This is why sodomy of any kind was forbidden by God, early societies, many states and nations, etc.

And of course anal sex with a women produces so much more fruitful results, right?

I hope that explains to you why biologically, sex with another man doesn't make any sense.

And because I don't think Christianity works scientifically, of course that means I should unjustly oppose their way of life right?

This is where schools of thought vary. Some religions believe that oral sex is wrong because it is unnatural or not what God intended. Some folks believe that the only permissible sexual position is the missionary position. And hardcore Catholics believe that the action of sex is actually sinful in and of itself because it is pleasurable (even though this is a forgivable sin when performed for the purpose of procreation).

So basically it's the fundamentalist christian beliefs that are keeping you from respecting homosexual men as normal people.

Note that I am not saying that love between two men is wrong.

Well, hmmm... isn't that found foundation of homosexuality in men, the very subject you're opposing? So wouldn't that actually just conflict with what you said, since sex is considered an act of love?

The only way that you can argue your way out of this one is if you argue that there is in fact no right and wrong. And if you believe that, I can't help you.

Nope. Actually there are plenty of ways to argue with homophobes, apparently you just can't think of any.

Toadenalin, I'd like to see you join me on this fight. Using logic and open-mindedness of other orientations, I'm sure we'll pull through.

[HighlyIllogical]

Damnit, guys! Be tolerant of other people! Just let people who are gay have civil unions and be accepted as regular members of society! Discussing the biological ramifications of anal sex is just semantics! Who cares if two gay men having sex doesn't actually cause reproduction!?!? They love each other (or just want to have sex, like many straight people do, ie have random sex with people), so let them be!

[Montgomery-Scott]

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: I put it to you that there is not ONE argument any of you can come up with to tell me why homosexuality is wrong. I really mean it - there is no argument in the entire world that you can use that I cannot knock down.

various interesting arguments about the evolutionary intention of sex

This is true. However, if homosexual sex is wrong or 'abnormal' because the anus wasn't meant to recive semen in a reproductive purpose, then that makes all sex using contraception 'abnormal' and 'wrong.' Taking it one step further. The fleshy lobes at the base of the ears weren't meant to hold sharp strands of metal with vaious precious or semi-precious stones on their ends. Does that mean that wearing earrings is wrong and abnormal? The digits on the end of the hand were not meant to hold bands of tempered metal around them, does that mean that wearing rings is wrong and abnormal? the 'intended purpose' argument is quite moot.

[HighlyIllogical]

Hear, hear! Good argument (guy directly above me)

[BadBit]

At 1/5/06 08:11 PM, mackid wrote: Damnit, guys! Be tolerant of other people! Just let people who are gay have civil unions and be accepted as regular members of society! Discussing the biological ramifications of anal sex is just semantics! Who cares if two gay men having sex doesn't actually cause reproduction!?!? They love each other (or just want to have sex, like many straight people do, ie have random sex with people), so let them be!

It's interesting how quickly people focus on butt-sex when you talk about gays and morality.

[marshmallow979]

At 1/5/06 08:42 PM, BadBit wrote:

At 1/5/06 08:11 PM, mackid wrote:

It's interesting how quickly people focus on butt-sex when you talk about gays and morality.

Well actually it wasn't Mackid who brought up that topic, but I think people who don't like gays often hate the sexual aspect most, so they decide to focus on it.

[Timmy-B]

At 1/5/06 02:56 PM, ReiperX wrote: define wrong

Okay.

wrong: r- ONG; anything that is against one's morals or principals.

Morals are, by definition, illogical. Morals are just your OWN, PERSONAL limits. They have no reason to be a limit. Its just you.

Now, Im not going to knock religion here... But what makes you think god is against homosexuality? Is it the penis going into something other than a vagina? In which case, is fallatio (blowjob) immoral? Is earsex immoral (dont ask)? The only way you can declare homosexuality entirely immoral would be by saying ALL sex is immoral, in which case, you have just driven yourself into a canyon. Sex isnt wrong, so why is it wrong when its not between 3 X's and a Y?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 1/5/06 07:43 PM, marshmallow979 wrote:

At 1/5/06 07:20 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 1/5/06 10:51 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

That's right, but gay relationships, just like straight relationships, often go deeper than sex, something you clearly aren't seeing.

I already said that love between two men isn't necessarily wrong. Gay sex is wrong no matter how you slice it. It is certainly wrong biologically, and IMO it's immoral too.

And of course anal sex with a women produces so much more fruitful results, right?

Why don't you learn to read? Sodomy under any circumstance is wrong. For crying out loud, you liberals are inept.

And because I don't think Christianity works scientifically, of course that means I should unjustly oppose their way of life right?

That doesn't make any sense, but do what you like.

So basically it's the fundamentalist christian beliefs that are keeping you from respecting homosexual men as normal people.

What are you talking about? Homosexuals are fine with me: they are sinners. but I'm a sinner too. Fornicators and sodomites are the same in my book. Toleration of everything leads to moral decay.

Note that I am not saying that love between two men is wrong.

Well, hmmm... isn't that found foundation of homosexuality in men, the very subject you're opposing? So wouldn't that actually just conflict with what you said, since sex is considered an act of love?

I love my family members and I wouldn't have sex with them.

Nope. Actually there are plenty of ways to argue with homophobes, apparently you just can't think of any.

None of your arguments make any sense. All you've done is call me a homophobe, or religious or something...

Toadenalin, I'd like to see you join me on this fight. Using logic and open-mindedness of other orientations, I'm sure we'll pull through.

Yeah, you guys should become butt buddies for the cause of gay love. Who's catching?