• Defeating "gay" arguments with simple logic - Scott Lively

    Please read the entire argument before labeling me as homophobic.

    In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and
    unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent
    to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior, or behavior that
    deviates from the normal design-based function of the human being.
    A second reason for espousing the premise of equivalency is that it allows “gay” activists to exploit the civil
    rights doctrines which otherwise would not apply. Discrimination, in the civil rights context, means treating
    equal parties unequally. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny
    homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy. “Gay” sophists have coined the term
    “heterosexism” to describe favoritism towards heterosexuals. To grasp the implications of heterosexism,
    simply think of it as “racism” toward homosexuals.

  • Homosexuality is useless. In that sense, then yes, it is logically fallacious.

    Well, can two people of the same gender reproduce? They cannot. How does that benefit society? If we have a small population, then the society may very well end up not operating properly. Tolerating homosexuality, for the most part, is just unfortunately appealing to emotion. Furthermore, higher rates of STDs and depression are common among bisexual and homosexual people than heterosexual people.

    Posted by: GOP
  • It is fallacious and here is why.

    Heterosexual sex is a relationship between a plug and receptacle. If homosexual sex were different from heterosexual sex then that would mean two plugs feel good when rubbing together and two recepticles feel good when rubbing together. But, homosexual sex still replicates the relationship between plug and receptacle by using a false plug (dildo/phallic object) in lesbian sex and using a false receptacle (anus) in gay men sex. If gay men really do prefer a "man's biology" to a woman, then shouldn't the focus of the sex be the man's penis? As opposed to his ass, which is a part a woman has as well? And shouldn't his penis function differently? Instead of looking for a "receptacle" to put it in, maybe it just wants to sword fight with another plug? Because biology created a natural recepticle for the male plug- it's called the vagina, it self lubricates, self cleans and is very elastic- as opposed to the anus which is supposed to be a one way street- out not in. The anus which is dry, and close to the excrement portion of our body so makes it much easier to catch diseases from another party. With non dildo lesbian sex, maybe here it is possible to say two receptacles rubbing together can feel good but can it really be called sex? More so than comparing it to the results of dry humping- in this case wet humping? On the plus side, I venture to guess that transmission of diseases without a dildo is probably very low. With a dildo, again, if your relationship necessitates the absence of a man but u choose to use an artificial phallic object, when there exists a human being with a natural biological phallic sexual part that can take care of business for u, then what is the point of being with a woman and not a man? Maybe sexuality isn't supposed to be logical- although Heterosexuality sure is. Regardless homosexuality is a biological dead end. And what really separates humans from all other organisms on earth is our brain size. We must use our brains to think through some of these feelings that may be, as already mentioned, illogical, or dead ends. Feelings may feel involuntary, and may even be biological, and the urge to act on them may be strong- like an obese person reaching for more cake; an alcoholic reaching for the tequila; a peadophile reaching for a child- but as human beings we are more than the sum of our parts. The answer isn't to give in to every feeling and whim that occurs to u, but to question it, its validity, it's logic, its implications, and weed out the ones that are illogical while keeping the ones that are. We are not perfect, none of us, but this is the objective of the most elevated human- to use your brains as best you can. -C.ABA.O.PeCo.2

  • Fallacies are only present depending upon one's argument.

    Just being gay doesn't make the gay person fallacious. Perhaps they are an atheist and they are gay. Then there is no mistaken belief for their homosexuality to be based upon. Fallacious means based on a mistaken belief. So if they don't' believe they are wrong, and since religion (what dictates they are wrong) is based on beliefs, in this case if gay people do not believe they are wrong, then they are not.

  • I doubt the asker knows what a logical fallacy is.

    A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning. Homosexuality is a sexual preference innate to certain members of the population of our species and hundreds of others. It is not an argument any more than being white is a logical argument, or having blue eyes is a logical argument. Quite frankly this "question" was just an excuse for the asker to rant.

  • Homosexuality is not logically fallacious.

    Homosexuality makes perfect sense to those who practice it. It does not have to be logical because matters of the heart do now follow rational logic. Biologically, the act of homosexual sex is perfectly acceptable. People can express their sexuality in all kinds of ways. There is no reason that two people of the same gender can not love each other.

  • Sexual orientation is not logical to begin with, and who are we to judge others?

    Sexual orientations cannot be logically fallacious any more than, for example, being dark or light skinned can be logically fallacious, or living in Europe can be logically fallacious. Sexual orientation is not a logical principle; it is a real-world phenomenon. The experience of being sexually attracted to the same gender or the opposite gender is entirely subjective and has nothing to do with logical processes and judgements.
    Moreover, to make a sweeping judgement about "homosexuality" is to make a sweeping judgement about everyone in the world who experiences having homosexual feelings, everywhere, anytime, despite knowing absolutely nothing about the vast majority of them as individuals, let alone having "walked in their shoes".
    I find therefore that the affirmative position on the argument topic in its current form is not only untenable but also nonsensical.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.