Does this video change your view on Homosexuality

Asked by: Jagoman
  • Logical Argument Against Homosexuality

    I agree that is is one of the best LOGICAL arguments against homosexuality.
    It is fair in it's arguments, without being demeaning or bashing gays and lesbians.
    If you don't agree with what is being said, I think you are simply disagreeing on emotional grounds, as you can not get fairer than this.

  • No, absolutely not

    I watched the video, and within the first minute there was a logical fallacy, comparing homosexuality to incest. There is NOTHING logical about this, it's the same ridiculous argument anti-gay people always resort to when they have nothing else logical to say. The same argument can be applied when comparing heterosexuality to incest ie Two consenting adults who have sex and may or may not love one another. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Don't even get me started on his completely retarded argument involving bestiality.. Probing the minds of animals to give consent to have sex with humans? The stupidity speaks for itself.

    The person who made the video is obviously another idiot conservative who thinks he is intelligent by spewing the same nonsense we all have already heard a thousand times, and each time it still sounds even more ridiculous and illogical as before. And, as a liberal, I personally do not care if about incest, it doesn't effect me personally so I don't give damn who two consenting adults do. It's not like I could stop them even if I wanted to, which I don't. Find a new argument, because this one was clearly not logical.

  • It does have valid points....

    ....But it does NOT change my mind at all. There are valid reasons to why bestiality and incest are ILLEGAL. And overall, bringing in bestiality is WRONG, because animals are NOT in the same way as us! They don't have the same minds nor the same bodies and can't deliver themselves the way we do. It's completely different there. Now with incest, it's more similar, but the age of consent is COMPLETELY off. Morally, the big of an age difference is WRONG also. Especially if the kid is 16 - . It just isn't right.

    In my words, it just made me more supportive towards the Gays and lesbians in our society.

  • Nope, I am still for full marriage rights between consenting adults.

    I am for marriage rights being granted to ALL consenting adults. If to gay men (or women) fall in love and want to be married, let them. If close family members fall in love and want to be married, let them. Like many others, I am against bestiality because it is basically rape.

  • No I am not swayed

    1. Incest between consenting adults I have no problem with. Not for me. Ew... But I have no problem with it. Even with birth defects to be consistent we would need to legislate against people with recessive disorders marrying or having sex with other people of the same disorder but we don't.

    2. Bestiality

    Problem, no consent. If we ever have technology or understanding to translate between animal and human effectively and can tell for sure when they consent then I'll support it as consent is the only problem here.

  • "Logical Argument Against Homosexuality"

    "Why would they object to incestuous relationships?"

    Incest actually does have some legitimate problems besides just being "obscene" or "gross" and that is simply that the children can end up being mentally deficient, born with certain diseases or what not and even die at a younger age. These are legitimate concerns worth differentiating gay marriage from incest. Lets not compare the two, m'kay?

    Then again I'm sure we let people with STDS get married So, actually, I guess I don't have a problem with incestual relationships being allowed so long as we emphasize that they need to be responsible.

    "Why are our Liberal societies so hypocritical?"

    Because people in general are amazingly hypocritical, and not just this supposed 'liberal society".


    Speaking as the animal rights activist, yeah, there is a serious problem with this, and it's incredibly insulting to even be mentioned along the same lines as this act. A dog cannot say yes.

    "That would classify all animal engagements as rape"

    I'm quite doubtful how animals mate can be this simplified. Furthermore, we're humans, not animals. As a species our psychology is completely different.

    "If you can probe a dogs mind"

    Once more I would like to bring up that psychologically, they function very differently from us as a species. An animal may be able to say yes, but it's hard to say when they're being manipulated or just used as some kind of toy. How can we be certain that they aren't just being taken advantage of because they're far more simple creatures?

    Two gay men are human. Psychologically, we're from the same book. A dog and a human, however, is like two different books on completely different shelves.

    Whatever the case, I hope it becomes quite clear that on this matter my stance isn't based on any notion of it being 'gross' or 'obscene' but more out of concern for the well being of the animal. Because even if an animal has a sexual physical response, they still deserve enough respect to be treated better than a toy for someone elses amusement.

    If we could probe their mind AND maybe communicate with them? Well, that's hard to say. You're basically speculating on something that's beyond me. I can't truly understand this context until I actually happen to live in that world. This matter isn't worth even bringing up until we acquire such technology.

    The big problem I have with your argument is that more or less you seem to argue against these acts on the basis of them being "gross" than their actual merit. Furthermore, your argument seems to appeal a lot more to supposed hypocrisy than whether or not these things have merit. Lets say that these three things are on perfectly even ground (which they're not) and that people are certainly being hypocritical. All right then, but how does that prove that they're all inarguably wrong instead of just criticizing our fickle society?

  • Not One Bit.

    Relationships are both socially acceptable, and yet disturbingly wild. Humans so easily accept male/female relationships is because for us, this results in more or us...Specifically children whom we are naturally programmed to love, even if they are not "ours". Humans and animals alike find attraction to practically anything depending on our own physical and biological traits and characteristics. Relationships and even sexual attraction to different sizes, shapes, colors and genders of other humans all stem from our biological processes. Neither humans nor animals alike can change what or who we are attracted to and like...It just so happens to be that the majority tend to follow a pattern...For us, it's male and female relationships due to the fact that we can ONLY reproduce in that way...And some of us can't even reproduce under these circumstances. Relationships are separate from sexual preference yet both commonly clash. Love is nothing more than a strong feeling towards someone..Or even something, but sexual relationships are no different, only in that it is socially normal for a man and woman to love each other AND have sex. Factually, relationships can be whatever the individuals heart and body desires, even sexual relationships. One cannot change what their biology tells them to accept. It may be weird, but even incest can be just as natural and meaningful as any other relationship.

  • This video changes nothing.

    As briantheliberal rightly points it, the logic of this video is flawed. While it does seem incredibly convincing there is one huge fault which invalidates all of its points. It argues that society sees homosexuality as being acceptable based upon the fact that two individuals which are of consenting age, both agree to sexual intercourse (because somehow being with someone guarantees you have sex with them) and that both may be in love with each other. It then says well basically incest and bestiality can be justified (according to "insane" liberals) if all these factors are present. However these arguments are flawed because they are the basis of a HETEROSEXUAL relationships. Think about it, why are "straight" relationships "justified"? Religion (overall) in itself argues that relationships should be based upon love and pro-creation (resulting in sex). In Christianity, one basis for marriage is to create children. And of course society as a whole deems that heterosexual relationships MUST be consensual. Turns out "these vague principles" pretty much apply to straight relationships too... I mean what other arguments are there really for straight relationships that CANNOT be applied to homosexual relationships, or interpreted in light of homosexual relationships? Oh and as for incest and bestiality, the fourth principle that this video stated cannot apply. (1) Incest results in genetic degradation and so it DOES harm the offspring. Contraceptive methods are never 100%, there is always the chance that incest sex could lead to a pregnancy. (2) The same could be applied to bestiality, cross-breeding could very well harm the offspring not to mention there is real debate as to whether animals can truly "love" one another, let alone a human.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PreferNotToBeLabeled says2014-06-04T18:14:05.930
He was comparing incest, homosexuality, and bestiality, but not in the way most of you inferred. He was saying that once homosexuality is completely accepted then it will open new doors to other things like incest and bestiality. If you think about it, what was a major equal rights movement before the homosexuality rights movement? The civil rights movement led to and opened up the doors to the homosexuality rights movement. Even before this we abolished slavery. He's saying that this could result in a chain reaction that is only going to continue. I'm not saying I am on anyone's sides I'm just pointing out the video's logic.