Sexuality Thread 2.0

[Judas]

So opposing homosexuality on the grounds that in somebodys opinion (as with many), 'its not natural' is homophobic?

Way to put down an argument playing the homophobia card! and homosexuals wonder why people think they generally overreact? Mhmm!

Why do I need to justify homosexuality? It's perfectly natural and normal, and yes, he is a homophobe. I'm not "putting down" any cards here. He is a homophobe, fact. I don't even know why you're trying to question this.

Once again, I'm not even gay so your ignorance shines through yet again. Who's overreacting? This is no joke, this is a big issue. People are murdered by those who share the same views as this guy, and others commit suicide because our society thinks it's acceptable to degrade people that aren't straight, or "normal", or "human". No one is overreacting here.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why do I need to justify homosexuality? It's perfectly natural and normal, and yes, he is a homophobe. I'm not "putting down" any cards here. He is a homophobe, fact. I don't even know why you're trying to question this.

Because not only has he not shown a fear of homosexuality, he hasn't even shown a hatred of homosexuals - all he has done is say that he thinks homosexuality is abnormal, not natural and perhaps immoral. This is not homophobia, this is objecting to homosexuality on good grounds even if I disagree with his grounds of argument. I'm questioning this because you appear to think that any opposition or objection to homosexuality is a sort of mental disease which can be dismissed with one word - it is not.

Once again, I'm not even gay so your ignorance shines through yet again.

Bisexual aren't you.

Who's overreacting? This is no joke, this is a big issue. People are murdered by those who share the same views as this guy, and others commit suicide because our society thinks it's acceptable to degrade people that aren't straight, or "normal", or "human". No one is overreacting here.

I think you've just proven the extent of how you are overreacting. Because the guy opposes homosexuality on the grounds of it being not natural, abnormal or immoral you've now gone and compared it to the murder of homosexuals for being homosexual. Is that the best you can do? that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality can be shot down on the basis that there are rare cases of people murdering homosexuals for being homosexual?

People who are 'right-wing' like me commit crimes 'because of' right wing views (recent Norway shootings) - does that mean everyone who holds that view is automatically bad, dangerous and raving? no, it does not. If you are going to have a sensible discussion and prove him wrong, then do so using real arguments instead of doing what people who support mass immigration for an example do, which is label opponents as 'racist' in order to shut down and opposition using fear.

You've done yourself no favours, rather you've reinforced the sterotype that gays can't take a joke or handle criticism.

[FlyingJesus]

Claiming that homosexuality is wrong because it goes against nature is not homophobic, just incorrect.
Claiming that homosexuality is wrong because you have a moral opposition to the act is not homophobic, just an opinion (albeit one that you ought not push on other people as it's a very personal one).
Claiming that homosexuality is wrong because IT MAKES YOU A POOF QUEER WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU OMG is homophobic.

[Judas]

Because not only has he not shown a fear of homosexuality, he hasn't even shown a hatred of homosexuals - all he has done is say that he thinks homosexuality is abnormal, not natural and perhaps immoral. This is not homophobia, this is objecting to homosexuality on good grounds even if I disagree with his grounds of argument. I'm questioning this because you appear to think that any opposition or objection to homosexuality is a sort of mental disease which can be dismissed with one word - it is not.

That is certainly news to me as I have not once said that or anything of the sort, don't put words in my mouth.

Bisexual aren't you.

Yes.

I think you've just proven the extent of how you are overreacting. Because the guy opposes homosexuality on the grounds of it being not natural, abnormal or immoral you've now gone and compared it to the murder of homosexuals for being homosexual. Is that the best you can do? that anyone who disagrees with homosexuality can be shot down on the basis that there are rare cases of people murdering homosexuals for being homosexual?

I don't how you can think telling someone they are "wrong" and "not human" for liking someone of the same gender is not homophobic.

Did you choose to ignore the suicide part? What about all the teenagers who are told being gay is wrong and feel like they should hide who they are. Some of them are tragically driven to suicide, after hearing things like what this guy has been saying, making them think that something is wrong with them. I don't think that's not worth bringing up. And you're the last person on this forum who can pick me up on making ridiculous comparisons and bringing irrelevant things into the equation :rolleyes:

I also like how you point out that they are "rare" cases, as if that is relevant. It still happens.

People who are 'right-wing' like me commit crimes 'because of' right wing views (recent Norway shootings) - does that mean everyone who holds that view is automatically bad, dangerous and raving? no, it does not. If you are going to have a sensible discussion and prove him wrong, then do so using real arguments instead of doing what people who support mass immigration for an example do, which is label opponents as 'racist' in order to shut down and opposition using fear.

Prime example, what does a lunatic (someone who clearly does have mental issues) shooting people in Norway have to do with any of this? So irrelevant :S

You've done yourself no favours, rather you've reinforced the sterotype that gays can't take a joke or handle criticism.

Are you being serious right now?

Handle criticism for what? Being gay? No straight person has to "take a joke" or "handle criticism" for liking someone of the opposite sex, why should it be any different for homo/bisexuals...?

[-:Undertaker:-]

That is certainly news to me as I have not once said that or anything of the sort, don't put words in my mouth.

Then why are you accusing somebody who is stating good grounds on opposition to homosexuality as a 'homophobe' when he clearly does not show any signs of hating homosexuals or having an irrational fear of them?

I don't how you can think telling someone they are "wrong" and "not human" for liking someone of the same gender is not homophobic.

Because he may think, as many do, that homosexuality is not a normal practice and that as it is uncommon in many species including our own, it may be a genetic default of some sort. This is not a hatred or a fear of homosexuals, this is a clear basis for an argument against homosexuality - for you to dismiss this argument as homophobic is ridiculous and you should stop. If he is wrong, then prove him wrong instead of trying to shut down the debate.

Did you choose to ignore the suicide part? What about all the teenagers who are told being gay is wrong and feel like they should hide who they are. Some of them are tragically driven to suicide, after hearing things like what this guy has been saying, making them think that something is wrong with them. I don't think that's not worth bringing up. And you're the last person on this forum who can pick me up on making ridiculous comparisons and bringing irrelevant things into the equation :rolleyes:

And? individual liberty comes before equality always because any society that picks equality over individual liberty loses both in the end. If somebody disagrees with homosexuality then so what? i'm sorry but who the hell are you to demand that they have no right to speak/attempt to slur them and silence them? you have no authority to pick or choose the opinions of others just as they should have no right, like the Islamic Republic of Iran exercises, to dictate what homosexuals do in the bedroom.

You preach tolerance yet you are showing yourself to be grossly intolerant of other opinions.

I also like how you point out that they are "rare" cases, as if that is relevant. It still happens.

So whats the suggestion? should anybody who dares oppose homosexuality be silenced by force? if not, whats the point on suicide? there is none. Lots of people kill themselves over a number of issues, from debts to falling out with family members. The deaths from these do not mean we outlaw debt/family disputes, just as we should not outlaw/shut down criticism of homosexuality.

Prime example, what does a lunatic (someone who clearly does have mental issues) shooting people in Norway have to do with any of this? So irrelevant :S

Because you are labeling anybody who opposes homosexuality as a homophobe automatically and saying that people with views such as the member you were debating with go out and murder homosexuals - this is true. But what is also true is that say those against immigration, some (the killing in Norway) also go out and murder on this basis.

So what i'm saying is that you have no point. That, just because some people with views against homosexuality go out and murder homosexuals for being homosexual doesn't mean that the debate should be shut down which is what you are attempting to do here by bringing this into the debate.

Are you being serious right now?

Handle criticism for what? Being gay? No straight person has to "take a joke" or "handle criticism" for liking someone of the opposite sex, why should it be any different for homo/bisexuals...?

It takes place because homosexuals are in the minority who naturally come under fire in any society and if your looking for a utopia with no bullying, no criticism and so forth then its never going to happen. Why should homosexuals take a joke or take criticism? because we live in a free country with supposed free speech and freedom of expression. Homosexuals are allowed to be open just as opponents of homosexuality deserve the same.

It's called individual liberty.

[Judas]

Then why are you accusing somebody who is stating good grounds on opposition to homosexuality as a 'homophobe' when he clearly does not show any signs of hating homosexuals or having an irrational fear of them?



Because he may think, as many do, that homosexuality is not a normal practice and that as it is uncommon in many species including our own, it may be a genetic default of some sort. This is not a hatred or a fear of homosexuals, this is a clear basis for an argument against homosexuality - for you to dismiss this argument as homophobic is ridiculous and you should stop. If he is wrong, then prove him wrong instead of trying to shut down the debate.



And? individual liberty comes before equality always because any society that picks equality over individual liberty loses both in the end. If somebody disagrees with homosexuality then so what? i'm sorry but who the hell are you to demand that they have no right to speak/attempt to slur them and silence them? you have no authority to pick or choose the opinions of others just as they should have no right, like the Islamic Republic of Iran exercises, to dictate what homosexuals do in the bedroom.

You preach tolerance yet you are showing yourself to be grossly intolerant of other opinions.



So whats the suggestion? should anybody who dares oppose homosexuality be silenced by force? if not, whats the point on suicide? there is none. Lots of people kill themselves over a number of issues, from debts to falling out with family members. The deaths from these do not mean we outlaw debt/family disputes, just as we should not outlaw/shut down criticism of homosexuality.



Because you are labeling anybody who opposes homosexuality as a homophobe automatically and saying that people with views such as the member you were debating with go out and murder homosexuals - this is true. But what is also true is that say those against immigration, some (the killing in Norway) also go out and murder on this basis.

So what i'm saying is that you have no point. That, just because some people with views against homosexuality go out and murder homosexuals for being homosexual doesn't mean that the debate should be shut down which is what you are attempting to do here by bringing this into the debate.



It takes place because homosexuals are in the minority who naturally come under fire in any society and if your looking for a utopia with no bullying, no criticism and so forth then its never going to happen. Why should homosexuals take a joke or take criticism? because we live in a free country with supposed free speech and freedom of expression. Homosexuals are allowed to be open just as opponents of homosexuality deserve the same.

It's called individual liberty.

oh my word okay i will reply to this wall of text when i have the time

Edited by Recursion (Forum Moderator): Please don't pointlessly post.

---------- Post added 25-08-2011 at 11:43 PM ----------

actually you know what i'm not going to reply to all of that because the bottom line is i will never tolerate someone that tries to tell me homosexuality isn't natural. homophobes or whatever you want to call them.

using life support machines and blood transfusions etc are "unnatural", in fact pretty much use of any medicine and treatments are unnatural, so are they as bad as being gay?

the way we live life everyday is "unnatural", our life revolves around technology which is ... unnatural.

this is from a book called "the fifth elephant" by terry pratchett which probably illustrates my point better than i can

'Not natural, in my view, sah. Not in favor of unnatural things.'
Vetinari looked perplexed. 'You mean, you eat your meat raw and sleep in a tree?'

[-:Undertaker:-]

The reply you've just given me (wrongly thinking i'm arguing the natural point with you) is the exact sort of reply you should give in response to those who say homosexuality is not natural - that is a proper debate and that will earn you respect. But alas you firstly chose not to, because you decided to simply attempt to silence the debate by calling people homophobic who are not homophobic and thats why i've intervened in this.

i will never tolerate someone that tries to tell me homosexuality isn't natural.

You are confusing what i'm debating here now. I'm not debating that point on whether its natural because I agree with you so you are mistaking me as an opponent of homosexuality. All i'm doing is showing how deeply intolerant you are of the opinions of others which you appear to think should not be allowed just as the Islamic Republic of Iran does not allow homosexuality - ironically, you've become as intolerant as those who you label as intolerant.

And thats what annoys an awful lot of people about the homosexual lobby in general.

[Casanova]

Dan get off your high horse and back to narnia via the closet man.
I think most people have observed in general that xyz or whatever his name is has been quite homophobic or biased against homo's or bi's in a lot of his posts. I wouldn't go so far to say he's been hateful but yes his comments have hit a note.

I get what you're saying but you're only saying that because you're ashamed of what you are/dislike what you are.

[Nick.]

But alas you firstly chose not to, because you decided to simply attempt to silence the debate by calling people homophobic who are not homophobic and thats why i've intervened in this.

*REMOVED*

Edited by Jordan (Forum Moderator): Please do not be rude to other members

[-:Undertaker:-]

*REMOVED*

I didn't ask for you to post either love.

But if its silly make a good point out of it and prove me wrong, or are you intolerant aswell of the opinions of others?