Total Posts:84|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is wrong with homosexuality?

Tminusfour20
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?
Where did you come from? Where did you go?

-Cotton Eye Joe-
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 1:24:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

If you're looking for permission, don't let us stop you...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:22:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I suppose you could say that, decades ago, homosexuals didn't use condom as often as heterosexuals because nobody knew AIDS existed. When society discovered the disease was very prevalent in this group, I suppose some people grew wary about it, and passed the prejudice to the next generation.

But yeah, mostly religious reasons imo, but if I recall correctly, not many religions condemn homosexuality, just abrahamic religions.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 7:27:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

It was probably YYW putting himself forward as homosexuality's spokesman.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 11:50:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I'm pretty sure there are other ones. China is a largely an atheist yet homophobic society. The principal reason is that gays are just different and, to be honest, I feel a man kissing another man is a bit disgusting too. I say that as a non-homophobe with nothing against homosexuals.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well religion is one of the main factors but there are other reasons. Homosexuals were blamed for the AIDs epidemic in the 80s which could be why some people disagree with it. Most other secular arguments center around the fact that gay couples can't reproduce naturally or that they are more suseptiple to disease. Of course most of these arguments can easily be disputed.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:18:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 11:50:03 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:

I feel a man kissing another man is a bit disgusting too. I say that as a non-homophobe

I would like to say, as a complete and total non-racist, that anybody who isn't white should be sterilized to stop the propagation of their dirty genes.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 12:26:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The answer to the OP is simply that homosexuals are different. Humans naturally are fearful of things that are different from themselves. Someone can be quite ethnocentric if they live amongst their own race exclusively, quite nationalistic if they don't bother to visit other countries. I hated country music until I had a roommate that made me listen to it, I even hated rock music until my friend made me listen to it when I was much younger. I hated the idea of Jesus until I read the New Testament. And yes, I hated homosexuals until I moved out into the world and started actually interacting with them and getting to know them. It's much harder to hate somebody that you know personally, someone that you can talk to and see that they have feelings and strengths and weaknesses just like yourself. It's easy to hate Mexican immigrants until you work with them and see that they work just as hard as you do, it's easy to hate criminals, addicts, sexual deviants, and people with social disorders until they are right there in your own family.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 9:11:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
First of all lets define homosexuality. If you define it as a subjective state of mind, " la "romantic feelings towards members of the same sex" is errant. Why can't pedophiles for example demand the same recognition and respect if a 'Xsexuality' is defined as thoughts (which are potentially temporarily, and subject to change). What does it matter if someone Romantic loves a child or had some twisted fantasy as long as he never gets physical?

Perhaps all sexual orientations are equivalent if we are talking about subjective feelings, however in order to put differentiation between any paraphilia like pedophilia, we had to evaluate the behavior.

This brings us to the question: Is the behavior of homosexuality the same as the behavior of heterosexuality?
Unlike something that is morally mutual like physical appearance, behaviors and cultures based on behavior are not inherently equal. Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved (Or the person is suffering from some serious impulse control disorder that forces him to perform a fellatio) . Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, and behaviors can be judged and have varying degrees of tolerance and respect by people based on what they believe is good and harmless for their society and individuals.

You can argue about privacy, but when it comes to social endorsement and public laws like marriage, it becomes everybody's business.
The fact is that governments and laws don't care about love; you want to love? Nobody is stopping you: you can love your family, friends, or whoever in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says: "In love". Tax money was rewarded to encouraged the existence of faithful heterosexual relationships, as it is the main source of future citizens and the most favorable environment for raising them, and reduce out of wedlock births.
I would like to know what social function a homosexual behavior adds to society. You may complain about X and Y being unfair, but what about two sisters sharing the mortgage loan, do they deserve less economic support because they are not having sex? Do best friends need to have sex in order to have more privilege in hospital visits? Policies can simply be modified to be reasonably flexible and fair to everyone.
If you want we can talk about how unethical third party production is, furthermore mainstream pro LGBTQ????? movements (future letters added in the acronym unknown *rolls eyes*) unfortunately encourages the worst out of the adoption industry (yes, it can go full-on Capitalism) which can translate into human trafficking (I have no objections about foster care though).

While homosexuality may be engaging, or the willingness to engage, in homosexual behavior, defining heterosexuality with this definition alone is suppressing a fundamental fact about being human.
Heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system. Any sexual feeling or desire is connected with chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably biologically heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct. Biologically speaking, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other sexual orientations. In the end they are objectively heterosexual.

That pretty much is what is wrong with treating homosexuality as if it is the same as heterosexuality.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2015 5:58:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 11:50:03 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I'm pretty sure there are other ones. China is a largely an atheist yet homophobic society.

Although China is not historicaly an atheist country. It has always been kind of a sincretism between taoism, bhuddism, and chinese folclore. Taoism is a religion of duality, which discourages relationships between men and states that fulfillment can not be achieved in homosexuality. Bhuddism discourages any type of sex whose sole mission is achieving pleasure.

The principal reason is that gays are just different

I agree that's the principal reason.

and, to be honest, I feel a man kissing another man is a bit disgusting too. I say that as a non-homophobe with nothing against homosexuals.

Even between two hot men? C'mon!
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 7:04:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 5:58:27 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/11/2015 11:50:03 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I'm pretty sure there are other ones. China is a largely an atheist yet homophobic society.

Although China is not historicaly an atheist country. It has always been kind of a sincretism between taoism, bhuddism, and chinese folclore. Taoism is a religion of duality, which discourages relationships between men and states that fulfillment can not be achieved in homosexuality. Bhuddism discourages any type of sex whose sole mission is achieving pleasure.

Nor is China a historically homophobic country - nearly all marriages were arranged, so it wouldn't have been a problem. Rich and/or powerful people would sometimes share a bed with another man (look them up; I won't give the details here...)

Anyway, modern China is different from the feudal society that emphasised Confucian values with Buddhism and Daoism practised among the populace (and, more sparingly, by the rulers). Modern China is much more atheist and much more homophobic than it used to be.

If people are homosexual, they should accept that they are. 'What is meant by "making the thoughts sincere." is the allowing no self-deception, as when we hate a bad smell, and as when we love what is beautiful. This is called self-enjoyment.' (Great Learning 3) (NB: 'beautiful' here is referring to a beautiful person.) That's fine as long as they control their desires, and not go overboard (e.g. by watching pornography). 'To subdue one's self and return to propriety, is perfect virtue.' (Analects 12.1) Furthermore, they must find a way to extend the family's bloodline - otherwise, they will not have fulfilled their filial duty. 'There are three things which are unfilial, and to have no posterity is the greatest of them.' (Analects 7.1) Modern technology allows that, and depending on whether their parents accept, adopting is also a possibility. However, under no situation should they refuse to raise offspring.

[Not related to the topic:
FYI over-emphasis on religion was frowned upon by Confucianism. Rites were seen as a way to teach people morals. 'To give one's self earnestly to the duties due to men, and, while respecting spiritual beings, to keep aloof from them, may be called wisdom.' (Analects 6.21) Of course, in reality, the general Chinese population were highly superstitious, but their system of beliefs hardly constitutes 'religion', IMO. Pretty much all traditional values and customs were shaped by Confucian and, to a lesser extent, Daoist (the philosophy, not the religion that later developed) thought.]
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Fido
Posts: 357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:47:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I think the greatest real objection to homosexuality- that is reflected in our religion and culture is never really spoken of. Look at where the Abrahamic religions grew up. It was tough neighborhood, and if men could not fight they were as good as slaves, and Jewish people, for example, would not let Eunuchs into their community, and every slave who had his junk and agreed to be circumcised could be considered as part of the community. This inclusive behavior has actually resulted in many, if not most Jews in Israel carrying essentially European genes. A man who exists only for the pleasure of another is no man, but is a luxury item, and the Jewish people in their home lands had no room for luxury. They needed fighters, and they needed breeders.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2015 8:20:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

Homosexuality is a brain disorder, it is abnormal and not intended. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT A HOMOSEXUAL CAN NOT LEAD A PRODUCTIVE LIFE. To encourage this behavior it is no different than encouraging people with downs syndrome to reproduce.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 8:27:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/12/2015 9:11:23 AM, Dragonfang wrote:
First of all lets define homosexuality. If you define it as a subjective state of mind, " la "romantic feelings towards members of the same sex" is errant.

Mostly because that is not the definition. Sexual attraction to the same sex. That is all. 'Romance' has nothing to do with it, and while thoughts are fleeting, that doesn't mean such thoughts don't exist by the person feeling them.

Conversely, heterosexuality. Sexual attraction to the opposite sex. That is all. 'Romance' has nothing to do with it, and while thats are fleeting, that doesn't mean such thoughts don't exist by the person feeling them.


Perhaps all sexual orientations are equivalent if we are talking about subjective feelings, however in order to put differentiation between any paraphilia like pedophilia, we had to evaluate the behavior.

No. We don't. Because that is all we are talking about, subjective feelings. Beyond that, you have actions, which are NOT thoughts or feelings.

This brings us to the question: Is the behavior of homosexuality the same as the behavior of heterosexuality?

Newp. Thoughts may lead to difference behaviors. Stands to reason different thoughts make for different actions.

Unlike something that is morally mutual like physical appearance, behaviors and cultures based on behavior are not inherently equal. Sexual behaviors are conscious unless rape is involved (Or the person is suffering from some serious impulse control disorder that forces him to perform a fellatio) . Homosexuality is a sexual behavior, and behaviors can be judged and have varying degrees of tolerance and respect by people based on what they believe is good and harmless for their society and individuals.

Which does nothing to satisfy what 'equal' is for purposes of your argument. Sexual behavior doesn't have a specific quantifier. Behaviors can accomplish a goal, and if the sexual behavior is satisfaction of sexual desire, indeed, the two are equal.

You can argue about privacy, but when it comes to social endorsement and public laws like marriage, it becomes everybody's business.

The fact is that governments and laws don't care about love; you want to love? Nobody is stopping you: you can love your family, friends, or whoever in a romantic or non-romantic way. However, there is no check-box that says: "In love". Tax money was rewarded to encouraged the existence of faithful heterosexual relationships, as it is the main source of future citizens and the most favorable environment for raising them, and reduce out of wedlock births.
I would like to know what social function a homosexual behavior adds to society.

I would like to know what social function "Keeping up with the Kardashians" adds to society. If you are looking for a quick and easy answer: combined incomes and cohabiting couples, regardless of sexuality, keep more disposable income, which is a driver for the economy. This is why there is no 'plan to have kids' check mark on marriage paperwork, either.

You may complain about X and Y being unfair, but what about two sisters sharing the mortgage loan, do they deserve less economic support because they are not having sex? Do best friends need to have sex in order to have more privilege in hospital visits? Policies can simply be modified to be reasonably flexible and fair to everyone.

This is applicable to heterosexual couples as well, though. Its not an exclusive criteria in all cases.


While homosexuality may be engaging, or the willingness to engage, in homosexual behavior, defining heterosexuality with this definition alone is suppressing a fundamental fact about being human.

... um, no? Its a quality of being human, nothing more, nothing less.

Heterosexuality is immutable. Every single human, with the exception of hermaphrodites, are either males or females with their respective reproductive system. Any sexual feeling or desire is connected with chemicals and processes in that heterosexual design. Therefore, heterosexuality is also an objective physical reality.

And when such a system is oriented to something other than the opposite sex, it becomes 'abnormal', which is quite different that 'immoral', the implied question of the OP.

For homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality, homosexuals need to have their own physiology or gender. The truth is, homosexuals are human beings, who are unchangeably biologically heterosexual, who identify themselves with engaging or the desire to engage in same-sex conduct. Biologically speaking, homosexuals are not different than thousands of other sexual orientations. In the end they are objectively heterosexual.

By 'design'. Not by act, or function, or circumstance.

That pretty much is what is wrong with treating homosexuality as if it is the same as heterosexuality.

Your argument effectively hinges on how people are 'wired' with regards to their anatomy as to what makes something morally permissable. I am not confident that would be the best benchmark for morality.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 5:54:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Heterosexual: I think homosexuality is gross.

Society: What!? You BIGOT!

Homosexual: I think heterosexuality is gross.

Society: That's awesome man. Keep up the good fight.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:21:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 5:54:47 PM, Varrack wrote:
Heterosexual: I think homosexuality is gross.

Society: What!? You BIGOT!

Homosexual: I think heterosexuality is gross.

Society: That's awesome man. Keep up the good fight.

When has society ever said that was awesome, or a 'good fight'? What society are you talking about?
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:22:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

Mirror neurons, perhaps?
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2015 11:51:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

There are a few, however, none are very strong.

The most common are the slippery slope arguments of possible acceptance of other sexual behavior deemed to be devious (i.e. beastiality etc...) however, these rely on a logical fallacy and are thus not very convincing.

The evolution arguments are usually based on a loose interpretation of Darwinian principals of natural selection. I.e. homosexuality doesn't further the gene pool. However this is a bad argument as homosexuality is seen in almost all mammalian animals and at a rate similar to humans. The percentage is small as to not affect the natural fitness of the species

The other common argument is the STD argument. This is based on the HIV epidemic of the 1980's. However, when you consider that pregnancy isn't an issue in homosexual behavior then the use under use of protection is easily understood. It's thus easily dismissed by offering education as a remedy to the problem rather than seeing the act as a problem in and of itself.

Some try and weave the marriage argument into the secular realm, however, marriage is a transfer of property in the secular sense and thus there is no "Sanctity".

Others use the child rearing argument. This is perhaps the only argument with any sort of merit. The research currently doesn't support this argument at all, but the studies even state that there just isn't enough data yet. So this argument can't be dismissed as easily, however, it's very unlikely that it will stand the test of time.

Most of the other arguments are religious but simply put into a secular context to give them more credence. However, these attempts are usually very weak, as they lack the objective morality claim of the religious arguments.

In short, there are no "good" arguments against homosexuality being wrong.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 3:32:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 11:51:10 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

There are a few, however, none are very strong.

The most common are the slippery slope arguments of possible acceptance of other sexual behavior deemed to be devious (i.e. beastiality etc...) however, these rely on a logical fallacy and are thus not very convincing.

The evolution arguments are usually based on a loose interpretation of Darwinian principals of natural selection. I.e. homosexuality doesn't further the gene pool. However this is a bad argument as homosexuality is seen in almost all mammalian animals and at a rate similar to humans. The percentage is small as to not affect the natural fitness of the species

The other common argument is the STD argument. This is based on the HIV epidemic of the 1980's. However, when you consider that pregnancy isn't an issue in homosexual behavior then the use under use of protection is easily understood. It's thus easily dismissed by offering education as a remedy to the problem rather than seeing the act as a problem in and of itself.

Some try and weave the marriage argument into the secular realm, however, marriage is a transfer of property in the secular sense and thus there is no "Sanctity".

Others use the child rearing argument. This is perhaps the only argument with any sort of merit. The research currently doesn't support this argument at all, but the studies even state that there just isn't enough data yet. So this argument can't be dismissed as easily, however, it's very unlikely that it will stand the test of time.

Most of the other arguments are religious but simply put into a secular context to give them more credence. However, these attempts are usually very weak, as they lack the objective morality claim of the religious arguments.

In short, there are no "good" arguments against homosexuality being wrong.

What about the Village People arguement? And don't get me started on disco in general. There is so much wrong there that no one is able to reconcile and justify on any level
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 3:40:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 3:32:51 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 2/17/2015 11:51:10 PM, Sosoconfused wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

There are a few, however, none are very strong.

The most common are the slippery slope arguments of possible acceptance of other sexual behavior deemed to be devious (i.e. beastiality etc...) however, these rely on a logical fallacy and are thus not very convincing.

The evolution arguments are usually based on a loose interpretation of Darwinian principals of natural selection. I.e. homosexuality doesn't further the gene pool. However this is a bad argument as homosexuality is seen in almost all mammalian animals and at a rate similar to humans. The percentage is small as to not affect the natural fitness of the species

The other common argument is the STD argument. This is based on the HIV epidemic of the 1980's. However, when you consider that pregnancy isn't an issue in homosexual behavior then the use under use of protection is easily understood. It's thus easily dismissed by offering education as a remedy to the problem rather than seeing the act as a problem in and of itself.

Some try and weave the marriage argument into the secular realm, however, marriage is a transfer of property in the secular sense and thus there is no "Sanctity".

Others use the child rearing argument. This is perhaps the only argument with any sort of merit. The research currently doesn't support this argument at all, but the studies even state that there just isn't enough data yet. So this argument can't be dismissed as easily, however, it's very unlikely that it will stand the test of time.

Most of the other arguments are religious but simply put into a secular context to give them more credence. However, these attempts are usually very weak, as they lack the objective morality claim of the religious arguments.

In short, there are no "good" arguments against homosexuality being wrong.

What about the Village People arguement? And don't get me started on disco in general. There is so much wrong there that no one is able to reconcile and justify on any level

Hahah, disco is a dark era of human kind for sure....perhaps we can simply strike it from the history books and pretend it never happened. The new history books will read something like 1960: Vietnam, hippies, sex, drugs, etc... 1970: clerical error 1980: bad hair, bad power ballots, etc....
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:23:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.

Really, Which was American society angry about more at the time it happened. The beheading of Nick Burge in 2009 or the beheading of 21 christians a few days ago?
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:31:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:23:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.

Really, Which was American society angry about more at the time it happened. The beheading of Nick Burge in 2009 or the beheading of 21 christians a few days ago?

I don't know. Have you considered that possibility that I am not American and don't follow American news? Also, what is the relevance? Do these beheadings have something to do with homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, etc.? By the way, I'm very sorry to hear about this recent event.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:33:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:31:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:23:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.

Really, Which was American society angry about more at the time it happened. The beheading of Nick Burge in 2009 or the beheading of 21 christians a few days ago?

I don't know. Have you considered that possibility that I am not American and don't follow American news? Also, what is the relevance? Do these beheadings have something to do with homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, etc.? By the way, I'm very sorry to hear about this recent event.

I think maybe your not understanding context of how I am using the word "desensitizing"
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 4:44:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:31:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:23:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.

Really, Which was American society angry about more at the time it happened. The beheading of Nick Burge in 2009 or the beheading of 21 christians a few days ago?

I don't know. Have you considered that possibility that I am not American and don't follow American news? Also, what is the relevance? Do these beheadings have something to do with homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, etc.? By the way, I'm very sorry to hear about this recent event.

I think maybe your not understanding context of how I am using the word "desensitizing"

I'm asking you why the desensitization, or acceptance, of homosexuality would lead to any of the other things you mentioned.
Pase66
Posts: 775
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:06:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:14:10 PM, Tminusfour20 wrote:
Aside from religious reasons. Does this bias have any other origins?

I don't think so. The only thing I can think of is there being a social aversion to it, due to some people thinking that its "gross'. But other than religion, I don't think there is any other reason why.
Check out these Current Debates
It Cannot be Shown that The Qur'an is Revelation from God
http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2015 10:16:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/18/2015 4:44:42 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:33:54 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:31:02 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/18/2015 4:23:28 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/17/2015 11:20:53 PM, UndeniableReality wrote:
At 2/17/2015 5:45:08 PM, sadolite wrote:
What is wrong with homosexuality? Nothing anymore, society has been successfully desensitized to it. Next polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and any other "ila" you can think of.

That makes no sense.

Really, Which was American society angry about more at the time it happened. The beheading of Nick Burge in 2009 or the beheading of 21 christians a few days ago?

I don't know. Have you considered that possibility that I am not American and don't follow American news? Also, what is the relevance? Do these beheadings have something to do with homosexuality, polygamy, beastiality, etc.? By the way, I'm very sorry to hear about this recent event.

I think maybe your not understanding context of how I am using the word "desensitizing"

I'm asking you why the desensitization, or acceptance, of homosexuality would lead to any of the other things you mentioned.

Have you ever heard of the term pandora's box? There are people who want to engage in these activities. They will use the exact same arguments that homosexual advocates used to normalize homosexuality and desensitize society to it. It is the next logical step to normalize polygamy beastiality and what ever ism that brings happiness to those who seek their happiness through these avenues. Who are you to deny them. Who says your moral compass is objective.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%