Total Posts:317|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexuality is "disgusting"

Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2016 6:23:57 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
There is a widespread argument against homosexuality which is "it disgusts me". This must be the worst argument of them all, really. Does ones disgust have to imply that homosexuals rights should be withdrawn?

Most pro-LGBT people I know would also be very disgusted of seeing two gay men kiss each other. And that is totally OK. As long as these people don't go to the gays and say "you are so fvcking disgusting", this disgust is nothing else but taste and personal preferences. For example, I don't like peas. They disgust me. Does that mean that I want to forbid anyone from eating peas or wanting peas to cease to exist? No. So, it seems like being disgusted of gay love/sex doesn't need to follow that you would be against their existence. Paradoxical?! No.

Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

"But imagine what they do in bed! Male anal sex! Ewwww! Perverted!!!! Disgusting!!!! Away with them!!!"

Another version of this argument I've actually heard. Even from someone here on DDO, who shall remain unmentioned.

Sure, that perspective would disgust a considerable majority of people. But who in tarnation really has prohibited them from thinking this is disgusting? Or thinking gay men kissing is disgusting? It is as legitimate to be disgusted of these things as it is to be disgusted by heterosexual vomit porn or things like that.

We could also take an example of the disgust of children. Many people see children as icky and snotty disease spreaders. Still, I don't see many people wanting to discriminate them?

Why is this argument even a thing? Has any pro-LGBT told these advocaters that one has an obligation to get an erection and cheer at kissing gay men downtown? Why must the world conform to what is disgusting inside these peoples' brains?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:07:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/3/2016 6:23:57 PM, Jovian wrote:
There is a widespread argument against homosexuality which is "it disgusts me". This must be the worst argument of them all, really. Does ones disgust have to imply that homosexuals rights should be withdrawn?

Most pro-LGBT people I know would also be very disgusted of seeing two gay men kiss each other. And that is totally OK. As long as these people don't go to the gays and say "you are so fvcking disgusting", this disgust is nothing else but taste and personal preferences. For example, I don't like peas. They disgust me. Does that mean that I want to forbid anyone from eating peas or wanting peas to cease to exist? No. So, it seems like being disgusted of gay love/sex doesn't need to follow that you would be against their existence. Paradoxical?! No.

Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.

"But imagine what they do in bed! Male anal sex! Ewwww! Perverted!!!! Disgusting!!!! Away with them!!!"

Another version of this argument I've actually heard. Even from someone here on DDO, who shall remain unmentioned.

Sure, that perspective would disgust a considerable majority of people. But who in tarnation really has prohibited them from thinking this is disgusting? Or thinking gay men kissing is disgusting? It is as legitimate to be disgusted of these things as it is to be disgusted by heterosexual vomit porn or things like that.

Well, for such porn, the male male or male female dynamic is not specifically being exploited, so it stands to reason many opinions will present.

We could also take an example of the disgust of children. Many people see children as icky and snotty disease spreaders. Still, I don't see many people wanting to discriminate them?

Not many, but some do. Restaurants, for example.

Why is this argument even a thing? Has any pro-LGBT told these advocaters that one has an obligation to get an erection and cheer at kissing gay men downtown? Why must the world conform to what is disgusting inside these peoples' brains?

Because it invokes powerful reaction. Regarding homosexuality, yeah, I find male on male homoerotica to be pretty disgusting. That is a great argument for why I prefer not to have it in my home, or be around it in general. People may use this to their hearts content for personal interaction. You might not prefer to interact with people whom do disgusting things. I think the prominent question, though, is whether or not that level of "disgust" is already encompassed by current laws regarding decency.

Now, I think the meat of the matter is whether or not that level of disgust impacts specific rights regarding people and their life, and the obvious answer is no, were such open to legislation, it would be a field day of opinion with no relevant answers.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:32:22 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:07:19 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/3/2016 6:23:57 PM, Jovian wrote:
There is a widespread argument against homosexuality which is "it disgusts me". This must be the worst argument of them all, really. Does ones disgust have to imply that homosexuals rights should be withdrawn?

Most pro-LGBT people I know would also be very disgusted of seeing two gay men kiss each other. And that is totally OK. As long as these people don't go to the gays and say "you are so fvcking disgusting", this disgust is nothing else but taste and personal preferences. For example, I don't like peas. They disgust me. Does that mean that I want to forbid anyone from eating peas or wanting peas to cease to exist? No. So, it seems like being disgusted of gay love/sex doesn't need to follow that you would be against their existence. Paradoxical?! No.

Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.

"But imagine what they do in bed! Male anal sex! Ewwww! Perverted!!!! Disgusting!!!! Away with them!!!"

Another version of this argument I've actually heard. Even from someone here on DDO, who shall remain unmentioned.

Sure, that perspective would disgust a considerable majority of people. But who in tarnation really has prohibited them from thinking this is disgusting? Or thinking gay men kissing is disgusting? It is as legitimate to be disgusted of these things as it is to be disgusted by heterosexual vomit porn or things like that.

Well, for such porn, the male male or male female dynamic is not specifically being exploited, so it stands to reason many opinions will present.

It is still a porn they don't watch, so they shouldn't use this argument. If their brain shows a mental imaginery of a looping male gay video, then they should visit a therapist if they are so disgusted with it. Because this seems to be their issue. If I would have constant engrossing thoughts of my male friends in a sex act, it would be my problem and not their.


We could also take an example of the disgust of children. Many people see children as icky and snotty disease spreaders. Still, I don't see many people wanting to discriminate them?

Not many, but some do. Restaurants, for example.

It is a little apples and oranges though. Wanting a restaurant experience without babies screaming vs. forcing people to withdraw their sexual attractions.

Why is this argument even a thing? Has any pro-LGBT told these advocaters that one has an obligation to get an erection and cheer at kissing gay men downtown? Why must the world conform to what is disgusting inside these peoples' brains?


Because it invokes powerful reaction.

Like many things do to many people.

Regarding homosexuality, yeah, I find male on male homoerotica to be pretty disgusting.

There is absolutely no one enforcing you to watch gay porn videos, or watching gays having sex IRL. If someone is, you should call the police.

That is a great argument for why I prefer not to have it in my home, or be around it in general. People may use this to their hearts content for personal interaction. You might not prefer to interact with people whom do disgusting things.

Again, no one is forcing you to watch that kind of stuff. Two gay males erotically kissing each other downtown, now that would be something of a question. I would find it in the same way as if a man and woman would kiss each other in that way. I would think things like "Yes OK, we have understood that you have a sex life. Now go somewhere far away because we literally give no fvcks about you anyway, you [insert profanities in plural]".

I think the prominent question, though, is whether or not that level of "disgust" is already encompassed by current laws regarding decency.

Now, I think the meat of the matter is whether or not that level of disgust impacts specific rights regarding people and their life, and the obvious answer is no, were such open to legislation, it would be a field day of opinion with no relevant answers.

Yeah of course not. Once again, you can be pro-LGBT and still vomit blood when you see male homoerotica. This is, again, just taste and preferences.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:47:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:32:22 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:07:19 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/3/2016 6:23:57 PM, Jovian wrote:
There is a widespread argument against homosexuality which is "it disgusts me". This must be the worst argument of them all, really. Does ones disgust have to imply that homosexuals rights should be withdrawn?

Most pro-LGBT people I know would also be very disgusted of seeing two gay men kiss each other. And that is totally OK. As long as these people don't go to the gays and say "you are so fvcking disgusting", this disgust is nothing else but taste and personal preferences. For example, I don't like peas. They disgust me. Does that mean that I want to forbid anyone from eating peas or wanting peas to cease to exist? No. So, it seems like being disgusted of gay love/sex doesn't need to follow that you would be against their existence. Paradoxical?! No.

Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.

"But imagine what they do in bed! Male anal sex! Ewwww! Perverted!!!! Disgusting!!!! Away with them!!!"

Another version of this argument I've actually heard. Even from someone here on DDO, who shall remain unmentioned.

Sure, that perspective would disgust a considerable majority of people. But who in tarnation really has prohibited them from thinking this is disgusting? Or thinking gay men kissing is disgusting? It is as legitimate to be disgusted of these things as it is to be disgusted by heterosexual vomit porn or things like that.

Well, for such porn, the male male or male female dynamic is not specifically being exploited, so it stands to reason many opinions will present.

It is still a porn they don't watch, so they shouldn't use this argument. If their brain shows a mental imaginery of a looping male gay video, then they should visit a therapist if they are so disgusted with it. Because this seems to be their issue. If I would have constant engrossing thoughts of my male friends in a sex act, it would be my problem and not theirs.

What if said friend perpetually presented you with themselves in sex acts, or alluded to themselves in sex acts?


We could also take an example of the disgust of children. Many people see children as icky and snotty disease spreaders. Still, I don't see many people wanting to discriminate them?

Not many, but some do. Restaurants, for example.

It is a little apples and oranges though. Wanting a restaurant experience without babies screaming vs. forcing people to withdraw their sexual attractions.

Whoa, whoa. You collected a query about children and disgust and discrimination. I presented a valid example for such, and how such is acceptable.


Why is this argument even a thing? Has any pro-LGBT told these advocaters that one has an obligation to get an erection and cheer at kissing gay men downtown? Why must the world conform to what is disgusting inside these peoples' brains?


Because it invokes powerful reaction.

Like many things do to many people.

Indeed, however you will find it answers the question of "why" satisfactorily.

Regarding homosexuality, yeah, I find male on male homoerotica to be pretty disgusting.

There is absolutely no one enforcing you to watch gay porn videos, or watching gays having sex IRL. If someone is, you should call the police.

Videos or not, IRL or not, that doesn't change the fact I find said disgusting.

That is a great argument for why I prefer not to have it in my home, or be around it in general. People may use this to their hearts content for personal interaction. You might not prefer to interact with people whom do disgusting things.

Again, no one is forcing you to watch that kind of stuff. Two gay males erotically kissing each other downtown, now that would be something of a question. I would find it in the same way as if a man and woman would kiss each other in that way. I would think things like "Yes OK, we have understood that you have a sex life. Now go somewhere far away because we literally give no fvcks about you anyway, you [insert profanities in plural]".

Sounds fair to me.

I think the prominent question, though, is whether or not that level of "disgust" is already encompassed by current laws regarding decency.

Now, I think the meat of the matter is whether or not that level of disgust impacts specific rights regarding people and their life, and the obvious answer is no, were such open to legislation, it would be a field day of opinion with no relevant answers.

Yeah of course not. Once again, you can be pro-LGBT and still vomit blood when you see male homoerotica. This is, again, just taste and preferences.

Well, the reaction is not that strong, but I find such to be disgusting, but realize that opinion should not be subject to legislation without demonstration of a reasonable harm. That bar has not been satisfied.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 1:56:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 1:47:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:32:22 AM, Jovian wrote:
At 1/4/2016 1:07:19 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/3/2016 6:23:57 PM, Jovian wrote:
There is a widespread argument against homosexuality which is "it disgusts me". This must be the worst argument of them all, really. Does ones disgust have to imply that homosexuals rights should be withdrawn?

Most pro-LGBT people I know would also be very disgusted of seeing two gay men kiss each other. And that is totally OK. As long as these people don't go to the gays and say "you are so fvcking disgusting", this disgust is nothing else but taste and personal preferences. For example, I don't like peas. They disgust me. Does that mean that I want to forbid anyone from eating peas or wanting peas to cease to exist? No. So, it seems like being disgusted of gay love/sex doesn't need to follow that you would be against their existence. Paradoxical?! No.

Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.

"But imagine what they do in bed! Male anal sex! Ewwww! Perverted!!!! Disgusting!!!! Away with them!!!"

Another version of this argument I've actually heard. Even from someone here on DDO, who shall remain unmentioned.

Sure, that perspective would disgust a considerable majority of people. But who in tarnation really has prohibited them from thinking this is disgusting? Or thinking gay men kissing is disgusting? It is as legitimate to be disgusted of these things as it is to be disgusted by heterosexual vomit porn or things like that.

Well, for such porn, the male male or male female dynamic is not specifically being exploited, so it stands to reason many opinions will present.

It is still a porn they don't watch, so they shouldn't use this argument. If their brain shows a mental imaginery of a looping male gay video, then they should visit a therapist if they are so disgusted with it. Because this seems to be their issue. If I would have constant engrossing thoughts of my male friends in a sex act, it would be my problem and not theirs.

What if said friend perpetually presented you with themselves in sex acts, or alluded to themselves in sex acts?

Then I would not be around this friend anymore? Has any gay done this to you?

We could also take an example of the disgust of children. Many people see children as icky and snotty disease spreaders. Still, I don't see many people wanting to discriminate them?

Not many, but some do. Restaurants, for example.

It is a little apples and oranges though. Wanting a restaurant experience without babies screaming vs. forcing people to withdraw their sexual attractions.

Whoa, whoa. You collected a query about children and disgust and discrimination. I presented a valid example for such, and how such is acceptable.

Yes and I understood you perfectly, I just showed you how I don't think these are comparable.


Why is this argument even a thing? Has any pro-LGBT told these advocaters that one has an obligation to get an erection and cheer at kissing gay men downtown? Why must the world conform to what is disgusting inside these peoples' brains?


Because it invokes powerful reaction.

Like many things do to many people.

Indeed, however you will find it answers the question of "why" satisfactorily.

Regarding homosexuality, yeah, I find male on male homoerotica to be pretty disgusting.

There is absolutely no one enforcing you to watch gay porn videos, or watching gays having sex IRL. If someone is, you should call the police.

Videos or not, IRL or not, that doesn't change the fact I find said disgusting.

But who is enforcing male homoerotica on you then?

That is a great argument for why I prefer not to have it in my home, or be around it in general. People may use this to their hearts content for personal interaction. You might not prefer to interact with people whom do disgusting things.

Again, no one is forcing you to watch that kind of stuff. Two gay males erotically kissing each other downtown, now that would be something of a question. I would find it in the same way as if a man and woman would kiss each other in that way. I would think things like "Yes OK, we have understood that you have a sex life. Now go somewhere far away because we literally give no fvcks about you anyway, you [insert profanities in plural]".

Sounds fair to me.

I think the prominent question, though, is whether or not that level of "disgust" is already encompassed by current laws regarding decency.

Now, I think the meat of the matter is whether or not that level of disgust impacts specific rights regarding people and their life, and the obvious answer is no, were such open to legislation, it would be a field day of opinion with no relevant answers.

Yeah of course not. Once again, you can be pro-LGBT and still vomit blood when you see male homoerotica. This is, again, just taste and preferences.

Well, the reaction is not that strong, but I find such to be disgusting, but realize that opinion should not be subject to legislation without demonstration of a reasonable harm. That bar has not been satisfied.

Well great, then it seems like we're implying the same thing.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 5:12:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.


No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

There are many more people that are put off by homosexual intimacy then heterosexual intimacy. The level of intimacy also creates adverse reactions in different people at different levels. For example, many people will be offended by two men holding hands, but many less will be offended by a man and a woman holding hands.

If you allow heterosexual sex in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour.

If you allow heterosexual kissing in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour.

You don't criminalise all hetero intimacy, for the reason that one is much more offensive than the other.

That's why it is illogical to say it is "fair" that the same rules apply to both homo and hetero intimacy. Different things are different and offend people in different ways. That is why it is important to acknowledge difference. Not acknowledging difference is discriminatory.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 5:17:12 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 5:12:24 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.


No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

Alas how sad that you don't like it. We couldn't care less.

There are many more people that are put off by homosexual intimacy then heterosexual intimacy. The level of intimacy also creates adverse reactions in different people at different levels. For example, many people will be offended by two men holding hands, but many less will be offended by a man and a woman holding hands.

Their fault, not the homosexuals'.

If you allow heterosexual sex in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour.

If you allow heterosexual kissing in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour.

Is black people, Mexicans and Muslims allowed to be in US also discriminating against Klansmen?

You don't criminalise all hetero intimacy, for the reason that one is much more offensive than the other.

Boo hoo.

That's why it is illogical to say it is "fair" that the same rules apply to both homo and hetero intimacy. Different things are different and offend people in different ways. That is why it is important to acknowledge difference.

Chromosomes.

Not acknowledging difference is discriminatory.

Boo hoo that you feel discriminated over that a group which had oppression for thousands of years are now starting to become accepted.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 5:47:40 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 5:12:24 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Wanting gays not to show love in public, well OK, but then let's forbid everyone to show love in public then.

Sounds fair.


No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

It is fair however if you remove all forms of intimacy regardless of source.

There are many more people that are put off by homosexual intimacy then heterosexual intimacy.

and if this is the source of your argument, that being "what a group people think", its fallacious, ad populam.

The level of intimacy also creates adverse reactions in different people at different levels. For example, many people will be offended by two men holding hands, but many less will be offended by a man and a woman holding hands.

... and? If the benchmark is all forms of intimacy, it doesn't matter whom is holding hands. IE, fair.

If you allow heterosexual sex in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour. If you allow heterosexual kissing in public, you are discriminating against those that are offended by this behaviour. You don't criminalise all hetero intimacy, for the reason that one is much more offensive than the other.

And the reason for such offense is quite arbitrary. Now, to be fair you have stumbled into the laws regarding public decency, and it should be noted that each indecent act of behavior is reviewed... you might be shocked to find out the same basic premises apply, but only one is tolerated more than another. That, in of itself, is unfair.

That's why it is illogical to say it is "fair" that the same rules apply to both homo and hetero intimacy. Different things are different and offend people in different ways. That is why it is important to acknowledge difference. Not acknowledging difference is discriminatory.

This last bit is a chunk of word salad, and rely upon either special pleading or ad populam to make a case. That being a man kissing some one is okay... if its a woman. Special pleading, IE, illogical. A man kissing another man disgusts a LOT of people, ad populam, and also illogical.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:13:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

It is fair however if you remove all forms of intimacy regardless of source.

No it is not fair. Intimacy builds relationships. Heterosexual relationships create life. You are discriminating against the growing of life on the planet by removing heterosexual intimacy. You are not discriminating against any such thing by removing homosexual intimacy.

By not acknowledging the difference, and results of those differences, you are discriminating.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:22:18 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:13:20 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

It is fair however if you remove all forms of intimacy regardless of source.

No it is not fair. Intimacy builds relationships. Heterosexual relationships create life. You are discriminating against the growing of life on the planet by removing heterosexual intimacy.

No, I am discriminating on all forms of public intimacy on the grounds that its public and intimate. That is inherently what makes it fair, one form of intimacy is not publicly allowed over another. Failing that, we allow all forms of public intimacy, of which homosexual unions are a part of.

You are not discriminating against any such thing by removing homosexual intimacy.

And by what standard is your benchmark immediately verifiable? That is to say, if "the creation of life" is your standard, is it to be understood that such displays of intimacy must be ensured to have NO forms of birth control, and afterwards guarantee a new life be created?

By not acknowledging the difference, and results of those differences, you are discriminating.

Not if ALL forms of intimacy are not allowed, you aren't picking that up. I don't care about the difference in after effects if the pre effects are the part I am ruling on. Secondly, you aren't upholding your end of the bargain, you on your burden, must ensure your reasoning will apply at all times, failing that, it becomes a subjective enforcement.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:31:13 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
No, I am discriminating on all forms of public intimacy on the grounds that its public and intimate. That is inherently what makes it fair, one form of intimacy is not publicly allowed over another. Failing that, we allow all forms of public intimacy, of which homosexual unions are a part of.


Your argument, as usual, is preposterous. It doesn't take into account what is fair/unfair for the result of making such a decision.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:34:51 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
By not acknowledging the difference, and results of those differences, you are discriminating.

Not if ALL forms of intimacy are not allowed, you aren't picking that up. I don't care about the difference in after effects if the pre effects are the part I am ruling on.

That is where your argument falls apart. You are not ruling on the pre-effects, you are ruling on the decision which will have after-effects.

Secondly, you aren't upholding your end of the bargain, you on your burden, must ensure your reasoning will apply at all times, failing that, it becomes a subjective enforcement.
Why does it have to apply at all times? So what if it doesn't? So what if it's a subjective enforcement?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:35:34 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
If you hang out in gay bars ,things like this will continue. In 10 years this will not be a issue I think. Until then If you do see gay affection and it disgust you. Quickly look away. Before you turn to stone. Or melt. 2 weeks or so ago I seen 2 young blokes holding hands. 1st time ever I think. I drove past and stopped at a red light on the main road . When they got to the main road . There was a 1 meter gap between them.
Being gay in public might feel like walking down the road in a lovely floral dress. Yes I have .
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:41:14 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Are you the same FaustianJustice who thinks that people are not more or less likely to have babies if they live in heterosexual relationships, because heterosexual relationships don't cause babies to be born?

I'm intrigued how your brain works. There is obviously a lot of intellgence there, but the conclusions you draw always tend to be absurd
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:56:36 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:35:34 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
If you hang out in gay bars ,things like this will continue. In 10 years this will not be a issue I think. Until then If you do see gay affection and it disgust you. Quickly look away. Before you turn to stone. Or melt. 2 weeks or so ago I seen 2 young blokes holding hands. 1st time ever I think. I drove past and stopped at a red light on the main road . When they got to the main road . There was a 1 meter gap between them.
Being gay in public might feel like walking down the road in a lovely floral dress. Yes I have .

in 10 year time being gay will still be unnatural. In 10 years time, peoples' innate conscience will still reject the idea that homosexuality is normal. In 10 years time, peoples' innate disgust at gay intimacy will still be present.

No, in 10 years time this issue will be even greater. The more the activists persist in normalising homosexuality, the more people are going to be offended. The more hate you incite, the more harsh the retaliation will be.

The gay activist campaign is destined for failure. They need to acknowledge the differences in their relationships, and the innate feelings people have towards them, and work for a compromise that is fairer for everyone - not for their warped perceptions of equality.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 8:18:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:56:36 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
At 1/4/2016 6:35:34 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
If you hang out in gay bars ,things like this will continue. In 10 years this will not be a issue I think. Until then If you do see gay affection and it disgust you. Quickly look away. Before you turn to stone. Or melt. 2 weeks or so ago I seen 2 young blokes holding hands. 1st time ever I think. I drove past and stopped at a red light on the main road . When they got to the main road . There was a 1 meter gap between them.
Being gay in public might feel like walking down the road in a lovely floral dress. Yes I have .

in 10 year time being gay will still be unnatural. In 10 years time, peoples' innate conscience will still reject the idea that homosexuality is normal. In 10 years time, peoples' innate disgust at gay intimacy will still be present.

No, in 10 years time this issue will be even greater. The more the activists persist in normalising homosexuality, the more people are going to be offended. The more hate you incite, the more harsh the retaliation will be.

The gay activist campaign is destined for failure. They need to acknowledge the differences in their relationships, and the innate feelings people have towards them, and work for a compromise that is fairer for everyone - not for their warped perceptions of equality.

Fair enough, it's not my field of expertise. But it seems RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY .pardon the pun . I bet if we take a vote now more people would except it 51% but like I said . I'm not sure. Nor do I think it matters. Women should be all that it effects. For a full blown hetero blokie bloke. That's more women for us . Yessss. But I don't know.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:05:15 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Fair enough, it's not my field of expertise. But it seems RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY .pardon the pun . I bet if we take a vote now more people would except it 51% but like I said . I'm not sure. Nor do I think it matters. Women should be all that it effects. For a full blown hetero blokie bloke. That's more women for us . Yessss. But I don't know.

Look I am very willing to accept that homosexuals have an innate attraction to the same sex, and if they want to pursue those relationships then they have a right to the same priveleges that marriage gives them.

What I don't accept is that it is okay to not distinguish between the two types of relationships. I don't accept that it is okay to teach kids, the vast majority of which are straight, that it is perfectly natural, normal and healthy to have gay sex. I don't accept that we should teach homo kids this either, I think there should be a balanced teaching that they can pursue heterosexual relationships too which might give them more fulfillment in life.

There is no balance in the homosexuality issue. Before it was skewed too much against homosexuals, now it is skewed too much for them. There are very few people on either side of the debate willing to compromise for a solution where both sides end up reasonably happy.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 10:48:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 10:05:15 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Fair enough, it's not my field of expertise. But it seems RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY .pardon the pun . I bet if we take a vote now more people would except it 51% but like I said . I'm not sure. Nor do I think it matters. Women should be all that it effects. For a full blown hetero blokie bloke. That's more women for us . Yessss. But I don't know.

Look I am very willing to accept that homosexuals have an innate attraction to the same sex, and if they want to pursue those relationships then they have a right to the same priveleges that marriage gives them.

What I don't accept is that it is okay to not distinguish between the two types of relationships. I don't accept that it is okay to teach kids, the vast majority of which are straight, that it is perfectly natural, normal and healthy to have gay sex. I don't accept that we should teach homo kids this either, I think there should be a balanced teaching that they can pursue heterosexual relationships too which might give them more fulfillment in life.

There is no balance in the homosexuality issue. Before it was skewed too much against homosexuals, now it is skewed too much for them. There are very few people on either side of the debate willing to compromise for a solution where both sides end up reasonably happy.

Nicely put. I almost have to stop listening to you for it might change my opinion. You see I have no kids . And I seemed to have formed my opinions on the. it don't bother me none. I also only really know 1 gay person . I think your right you know . Like I said I have no kids . But I am aware it's all about them . I'm going to do the sums on this for a week . I really can't think of any benefit it has on kids , what so ever. Just a few cons. OK thanks man. sorry about any comments ,on my feeble attempt of working out half of a sum.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 2:12:51 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Nicely put. I almost have to stop listening to you for it might change my opinion. You see I have no kids . And I seemed to have formed my opinions on the. it don't bother me none. I also only really know 1 gay person . I think your right you know . Like I said I have no kids . But I am aware it's all about them . I'm going to do the sums on this for a week . I really can't think of any benefit it has on kids , what so ever. Just a few cons. OK thanks man. sorry about any comments ,on my feeble attempt of working out half of a sum.

You should seriously consider your opinion, because you, like everyone else, have been severely brainwashed by the gay activist campaign that has bought out the media (probably using Steve Jobs money) to spread lies and deception, in order to feel better about themselves.

"Being Gay Is Normal And Natural" - Lie
"Being Gay doesn't hurt anyone" - Lie
"Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else" - Lie
"We are born this way" - Lie
"Gay marriage is about equality" - Lie

What is true is that Gays are extremely unlikely to be able to change their attraction. What is true is that they need love and understanding about this condition. What is true is that it is a disorder, and one that does not have to have great impact on their function in society. I believe this could be best done with a hetero or homo partner, depending on the individual - not exclusively one or the other. But it can only be done successfully with society's tolerance, love, and understanding. What is true is that homosexuals are so grossly discriminated against that their suffering is worse than unacceptable.

What is true is that their patnerships should have the same priveleges as marriages. What is true is that their unions are not a Marriage. Their relationships are not the same as hetero relationships. We are deceiving our children, the majority of which are straight, by pretending they are the same. This does confuse children and lead to the same effects of sexual abuse - unwanted sex. I believe it also promotes dangerous perceptions for society that will break down the structures in place that thousands of years of wisdom have created. These structures are already in grave danger and are in need of rescue, not destruction.

The biggest problem is the agenda for all sexual liberation, not just homosexuality. Apart from the direct problems it causes for individuals, it also destabilises marriage - the basic construct of society developed over thousands of years.

Sexually active teenagers are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then sexually inactives one. They are 3-5 times more likely to have severe depression. University studies in Australia have shown that the majority of homo related suicides are because of relationship breakdowns. It is likely the same for many heterosexual suicides. Sexual liberation kills people. Does a sexually liberated society sound like a good idea to you?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:03:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:13:20 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
No it doesn't sound fair, because they are not the same thing. Acknowledging difference is not discrimination. Not acknowledging difference is discrimination.

It is fair however if you remove all forms of intimacy regardless of source.

No it is not fair. Intimacy builds relationships. Heterosexual relationships create life. You are discriminating against the growing of life on the planet by removing heterosexual intimacy. You are not discriminating against any such thing by removing homosexual intimacy.

Is everything in the existence about reproducing? Aren't you discriminating against nature by playing games then, or etc?
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 3:14:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 2:12:51 PM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Nicely put. I almost have to stop listening to you for it might change my opinion. You see I have no kids . And I seemed to have formed my opinions on the. it don't bother me none. I also only really know 1 gay person . I think your right you know . Like I said I have no kids . But I am aware it's all about them . I'm going to do the sums on this for a week . I really can't think of any benefit it has on kids , what so ever. Just a few cons. OK thanks man. sorry about any comments ,on my feeble attempt of working out half of a sum.

You should seriously consider your opinion, because you, like everyone else, have been severely brainwashed by the gay activist campaign that has bought out the media (probably using Steve Jobs money) to spread lies and deception, in order to feel better about themselves.

Stop whining about brainwashing. People are self-thinking creatures. Otherwise, we could just aswell say that YOU are brainwashed too, by your conservatives.

"Being Gay Is Normal And Natural" - Lie
"Being Gay doesn't hurt anyone" - Lie
"Gay marriage doesn't affect anyone else" - Lie
"We are born this way" - Lie
"Gay marriage is about equality" - Lie

Sorry, this doesn't become true just because you are repeating it.

What is true is that Gays are extremely unlikely to be able to change their attraction. What is true is that they need love and understanding about this condition. What is true is that it is a disorder, and one that does not have to have great impact on their function in society. I believe this could be best done with a hetero or homo partner, depending on the individual - not exclusively one or the other. But it can only be done successfully with society's tolerance, love, and understanding. What is true is that homosexuals are so grossly discriminated against that their suffering is worse than unacceptable.

What is true is that their patnerships should have the same priveleges as marriages. What is true is that their unions are not a Marriage. Their relationships are not the same as hetero relationships. We are deceiving our children, the majority of which are straight, by pretending they are the same. This does confuse children and lead to the same effects of sexual abuse - unwanted sex. I believe it also promotes dangerous perceptions for society that will break down the structures in place that thousands of years of wisdom have created. These structures are already in grave danger and are in need of rescue, not destruction.

The biggest problem is the agenda for all sexual liberation, not just homosexuality. Apart from the direct problems it causes for individuals, it also destabilises marriage - the basic construct of society developed over thousands of years.

Sexual liberation is bad, hahaha, you just become funnier and funnier. Some people don't feel for doing marriage, what is your problem? Everyone shouldn't conform to your sh1tty ideals. Liberal countries are in every way better than your little conservative hellhole of a village. The reason why people married more back in the days was because they would become pariah if they wouldn't.

Sexually active teenagers are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then sexually inactives one. They are 3-5 times more likely to have severe depression. University studies in Australia have shown that the majority of homo related suicides are because of relationship breakdowns. It is likely the same for many heterosexual suicides. Sexual liberation kills people. Does a sexually liberated society sound like a good idea to you?

There is also a straight connection between divorces in Maine and the margarine comsumption of Maine. Does this mean that eating margarine stabilizes marriages? http://www.tylervigen.com...

There is also a straight connection between the average Earth temperature and the number of pirates in the world. Along with the average temperature raising, the amounts of pirates has decreased. Does this mean that pirates cool the world? http://blogs-images.forbes.com...

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 5:12:34 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:56:36 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
At 1/4/2016 6:35:34 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
If you hang out in gay bars ,things like this will continue. In 10 years this will not be a issue I think. Until then If you do see gay affection and it disgust you. Quickly look away. Before you turn to stone. Or melt. 2 weeks or so ago I seen 2 young blokes holding hands. 1st time ever I think. I drove past and stopped at a red light on the main road . When they got to the main road . There was a 1 meter gap between them.
Being gay in public might feel like walking down the road in a lovely floral dress. Yes I have .

in 10 year time being gay will still be unnatural. In 10 years time, peoples' innate conscience will still reject the idea that homosexuality is normal. In 10 years time, peoples' innate disgust at gay intimacy will still be present.

And the same amount of people will despise your kind of people too. We still do.

No, in 10 years time this issue will be even greater. The more the activists persist in normalising homosexuality, the more people are going to be offended. The more hate you incite, the more harsh the retaliation will be.

Start a war against us liberals then?

The gay activist campaign is destined for failure. They need to acknowledge the differences in their relationships, and the innate feelings people have towards them, and work for a compromise that is fairer for everyone - not for their warped perceptions of equality.

Start a war against us liberals then?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:31:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:34:51 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
By not acknowledging the difference, and results of those differences, you are discriminating.

Not if ALL forms of intimacy are not allowed, you aren't picking that up. I don't care about the difference in after effects if the pre effects are the part I am ruling on.

That is where your argument falls apart. You are not ruling on the pre-effects, you are ruling on the decision which will have after-effects.

And your after effects aren't guaranteed. If you remove ALL pre effects, hetero and homo, its is.


Secondly, you aren't upholding your end of the bargain, you on your burden, must ensure your reasoning will apply at all times, failing that, it becomes a subjective enforcement.
Why does it have to apply at all times? So what if it doesn't? So what if it's a subjective enforcement?

That is what leads to "discrimination". If you are stating "because it creates life", but doesn't "create life", you are effectively lying for your position.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:34:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:31:13 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
No, I am discriminating on all forms of public intimacy on the grounds that its public and intimate. That is inherently what makes it fair, one form of intimacy is not publicly allowed over another. Failing that, we allow all forms of public intimacy, of which homosexual unions are a part of.


Your argument, as usual, is preposterous. It doesn't take into account what is fair/unfair for the result of making such a decision.

Explain how it is "unfair". Whom is being discriminated against if such a ruling were to apply to every one equally.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Jovian
Posts: 1,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 6:48:49 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/4/2016 6:31:44 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 1/4/2016 6:34:51 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
Why does it have to apply at all times? So what if it doesn't? So what if it's a subjective enforcement?

That is what leads to "discrimination". If you are stating "because it creates life", but doesn't "create life", you are effectively lying for your position.

This "we must reproduce!" argument is a fake noble argument which is very popular one among religious fanatics and conservatives. Do they genuinely want humans to live 5 million years into the future? These humans, who they daily describe as "gullible", "dirty" and "sinful"? Do they really want gullible, dirty and sinful creatures to multiply or even exist overall?
Casten
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2016 11:58:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
For what it's worth, I actually don't see this argument used quite as often to explain why gays shouldn't have the same rights. I see people use it to explain why they don't like to see homosexuality, sure. But when it comes to why they shouldn't have rights, I see things like "homosexuality compromises family values" and "affront to God" used a lot more.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:47:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Explain how it is "unfair". Whom is being discriminated against if such a ruling were to apply to every one equally.

For one, it is discriminating against people with homophobic tendencies.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:50:24 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
And your after effects aren't guaranteed. If you remove ALL pre effects, hetero and homo, its is.

They don't need to be guaranteed. if it increases stable society growth overall then it is a benefit.



That is what leads to "discrimination". If you are stating "because it creates life", but doesn't "create life", you are effectively lying for your position.

No that's just rubbish. if it creates more life overall then the benefit is there. If you are supressing this then you are discriminating against people who's desire it is to have babies together.
theworldhasgonemad
Posts: 633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 12:55:38 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
This "we must reproduce!" argument is a fake noble argument which is very popular one among religious fanatics and conservatives. Do they genuinely want humans to live 5 million years into the future? These humans, who they daily describe as "gullible", "dirty" and "sinful"? Do they really want gullible, dirty and sinful creatures to multiply or even exist overall?

It's not a "we must produce" argument. it's a "we want to produce" argument, based on the fact that there are many people who innately want to have babies with the people they love - just the same as there are people that innately want to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex. The funny thing that many people that want to have sexual relationships with people of the same sex have the same innate desire to have their own babies. There's no unnatural disorder there is there. Lol.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2016 1:13:09 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/5/2016 12:50:24 AM, theworldhasgonemad wrote:
And your after effects aren't guaranteed. If you remove ALL pre effects, hetero and homo, its is.

They don't need to be guaranteed. if it increases stable society growth overall then it is a benefit.

And that in no way refutes the "I think its disgusting because they are gay" line of argumentation that is used, and such stability is also an uproven based on the couple that might be engaged in the act of public intimacy.



That is what leads to "discrimination". If you are stating "because it creates life", but doesn't "create life", you are effectively lying for your position.

No that's just rubbish. if it creates more life overall then the benefit is there. If you are supressing this then you are discriminating against people who's desire it is to have babies together.

No... how does outlawing public displays of affection in any way limit the ability for a couple to have babies together? By the same token, I am also "discriminating" against people with no desire to do such as such acts are banned across the board. Special pleadings won't help,bro.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...