NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok folks, I know there are about a hundred homosexuality posts running around and they're all kind of repetitious, I've even seen the exact same post in more than one. So here's what I want to do to be different: go ahead and state your opinion, argue, be pissy, whatever you want, but DON'T USE RELIGION. That's the twist. Every thread I read starts with homosexuality then turns into a religion debate, and I'm curious what reasons people will give, both for and against, without going back to the Bible or God or anything religious. This means nothing about Sodom and Gamorrah, nothing about homosexuality being an abomination to God, nothing about be fertile and populate the land, you get the drift. And please please please PLEASE resist the temptation to mention religion, even in passing, because as soon as that happens it will disolve into a religion debate and this whole exercise will be pointless. Ok everybody, you know the rules, so go for it! :)

Been done...but not for a while. Good luck keeping it civil!

Thanks, I'll probably need it. I've never seen this done and I'm curious. We'll see how it goes...

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting HIV

*I'm only using the term gay to distinguish between male and female homosexuals

Ok then, the argument against homosexuality comes down to...

hmm...

nothing that hasn't been refuted thousands of times already.

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting the aids virus.
Just out of curiosity, how does that make it "wrong?" It may make it more imperative to use protection, but wrong? I mean, and I've used this argument before, but following from that, being uncircumcised and having ANY sex is wrong because it increases the risk of contracting AIDS.

And from my point of view, people ARE their sexual orientation, it's not a choice and they aren't harming anyone, so go for it. Besides, a little diversity is always good.

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting HIV

*I'm only using the term gay to distinguish between male and female homosexuals
Um, that's not "gay sex" that's anal sex. Guy on girl anal sex is just as common as guy on guy anal sex. And throw on a condom beforehand, problem solved.

I'm for homosexual marriage in that I think that anyone who wants to get married ought to be able to.

The meaning of life is to fuck your fucking brains out until you fucking bleed out of your fucking ears. So, even though I find the guy-guy part uncomfortable, it is acceptable.

Fact: Many of the greatest figures of human history were homosexual/bisexual. (Alexander the Great, Hans Christian Andersen, etc...)

Fact: These are traits a social darwinist such as myself wants to encourage.

Logical conclusion: Homosexuality is bad.

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting HIV

Source your statement, then, we'll talk. :rolleyes:

Um, that's not "gay sex" that's anal sex. Guy on girl anal sex is just as common as guy on guy anal sex. And throw on a condom beforehand, problem solved.
Forgot to add that in. Also the fact that people equate homosexuality ONLY with the sexual acts involved, and how repellant they find them annoys me. Not necessarily directed at Hesparia, but at other responses I've seen. If it repels you, don't think about it. And I'm sure love (not just sex) is just as important to gay people as it is to us heteros.

Meh, never mind.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, from an amoral standpoint.

Although, I must pose the question...

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?
It's because you're doing harm to someone else. There is no consent involved. (This is also why euthanasia is not murder by my logic)

homos are fags they should all die

Forgot to add that in. Also the fact that people equate homosexuality ONLY with the sexual acts involved, and how repellant they find them annoys me. Not necessarily directed at Hesparia, but at other responses I've seen. If it repels you, don't think about it. And I'm sure love (not just sex) is just as important to gay people as it is to us heteros.

I don't equate it only with the sexual acts involved. I know that it is usually just as deep as a heterosexual relationship. It's just that the sexual acts are the only parts I object to. Homosexuality is fine by me, but homosexual sexual (no, that isn't redundant) acts are not ok with me, for reasons I am not allowed to mention in this thread.

Meh, never mind.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, from an amoral standpoint.

Although, I must pose the question...

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?
I can.

You don't want to be killed, therefore if someone kills you that's wrong.

You don't need morals or God for that.

Meh, never mind.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, from an amoral standpoint.

Although, I must pose the question...

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?

Yes, because killing me is a violation of one of my basic human rights, the right to be alive.

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?

Yes. People enjoy life. You end it. I mean, its like peeing on their birthday cake, and thats not right. Also it hurts. Also murder ends people life of productivity. If I'm a farmer for my whole town, and I get shot, then the whole town starves. See how that works?

It's just that the sexual acts are the only parts I object to. Homosexuality is fine by me, but homosexual sexual (no, that isn't redundant) acts are not ok with me, for reasons I am not allowed to mention in this thread.
Blowjobs, eating pussy, rimjobs, and fudge-packing are all used in hetero sex, guy on girl, girl on guy, A LOT.

Do you object to all of the above when applied to straight couples?

Gay sex is unnatural as sex is only there for procreation. Procreation is strictly heterosexual.

It's because you're doing harm to someone else. There is no consent involved. (This is also why euthanasia is not murder by my logic)

(roleplaying someone who is truly amoral) But what is wrong with doing harm to someone else? Why does consent even matter? If you like it, do it!

I can.

You don't want to be killed, therefore if someone kills you that's wrong.

You don't need morals or God for that.

(still roleplaying) I know I don't want to be killed. So, i'll try not to be killed. If I am killed, it's my own fault for not trying hard enough not to get killed. If I kill them, that's their problem.

Gay sex is unnatural as sex is only there for procreation. Procreation is strictly heterosexual.
Funny, I thought sex was about pleasure and/or expressing love.

Masturbation must be wrong as well since it does not involve procreation. Condoms too, using condemns while engaging in sex is unnatural since sex is only there for procration. Infertile couples having sex is also unnatural since sex is only there for procreation.

Basically you're trying to tell me any sexual act not meant to have a baby is "unnatural".

How about you define "unnatural" before you throw that word around.

Gay sex is unnatural as sex is only there for procreation. Procreation is strictly heterosexual.
So what about contraception?

(roleplaying someone who is truly amoral) But what is wrong with doing harm to someone else? Why does consent even matter? If you like it, do it!
Bah, People don't think like that! At least not the vast majority of people... :p
Since morals are more based on norms, and ethics on principles, I prefer to think of myself as an ethical person, rather than a moral one. ;)

Yes, because killing me is a violation of one of my basic human rights, the right to be alive.

(RP) You don't have basic human rights, because those are based on common morals. You can't use morals to defend yourself, in this case

(RP) You don't have basic human rights, because those are based on common morals. You can't use morals to defend yourself, in this case

Yeah, I saw that "morals or God" thing after I posted. My mistake.

It's because you're doing harm to someone else. There is no consent involved. (This is also why euthanasia is not murder by my logic)

To play devil's advocate, what if they consent to be killed?

Blowjobs, eating pussy, rimjobs, and fudge-packing are all used in hetero sex, guy on girl, girl on guy, A LOT.

Do you object to all of the above when applied to straight couples?

Yes. But I won't defend my positions on this thread, because I can't.

Right now, I'm in the process of proving how ridiculous this thread is.

Gay sex is unnatural as sex is only there for procreation. Procreation is strictly heterosexual.

Wrong on all 3. Gay sex is not unnatural, there are other animals that are gay as well (penguins). Also, sex serves more fucntions that procreation. In a natural enviorment, do you think that elephants before they have sex think "all right, time to make a baby?" They do it for phisical reasons. and Nowadays Procreation is not strictly for heterosexuals. A gay man can donate sperm can't he? and then a woman can use the sperm donation to have a baby, can't she? Wow are you dumb.

So what about contraception?


Bah, People don't think like that! At least not the vast majority of people... :p
Since morals are more based on norms, and ethics on principles, I prefer to think of myself as an ethical person, rather than a moral one. ;)

People don't think like that because people have at least some morals. That's my point. Arguing something amorally is impossible.

Well, if they're competent (defining competence is the tricky part) it's ethically sound. However this would almost never happen outside the case of euthanasia. For example, if someone was coerced they are not giving valid consent, or if they're depressed their judgement is likely to be impaired, so it's unlikely to happen.

People don't think like that because people have at least some morals. That's my point. Arguing something amorally is impossible.
Well yes. I just did the argument without religion. :p

To play devil's advocate, what if they consent to be killed?
That's their decision. If someone wants to die there is nothing wrong with killing them.

Yes.
At least you're consistent.

But I won't defend my positions on this thread, because I can't.

Right now, I'm in the process of proving how ridiculous this thread is.
This thread is very reasonable. You have made it rediculous by trying to bring in murder. Just because we agree murder is wrong does not mean we must agree homosexuality is wrong.

The problem arises from different meanings of the word "morals". Religious people say morals come from the Bible, therefore homosexuality is wrong. Secular people say morals arise from other reasons, such as consent, harm, etc. Thus consensual homosexual sex (and heterosexual sodomy) are perfectly fine.

homos are fags they should all die

Heteros aren't fags they should all die.

Ahhh, fighting illogic with illogic. So much fun, so many memories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sullyville
homos are fags they should all die


Heteros aren't fags they should all die.


Well between the 2 of you, everyone should die.

Meh, never mind.

There is nothing wrong with homosexual sex, from an amoral standpoint.

Although, I must pose the question...

Can anyone argue that murder is unethical, without mentioning morals or G-d?


murder is wrong because it causes harm. Gays sticking "things" up each others @$$ does not causes harm. (Unless the "Thing" is really big lol)

When I try think about if something is right or wrong I ask myself, Does it hurt me or anyone that I think should not be hurt? If the answer is no them it is ok. If the answer is yes then it is not ok.
And I mean realy hurt them not any of that, "My son being gay hurts me on the inside" crap. That person hurting them selfs by being close minded.
And also if someone does something that hurts themselves and no one else than that is also ok.

And also if someone does something that hurts themselves and no one else than that is also ok.

So I assume you are against the seatbelt law?

homos are fags they should all die
You should too. Homophobia has no place in this world.

Homosexual marriages cannot result in children, the "purpose" of marriage is to raise children, now a straight couple might choose not to have children initially, but they could still result in a child. Same goes for a couple where one member is infertile, a child can still be had, it just takes some money, to have mostly natural circumstances in which the father and the mother are joined in wedlock.

There, I think that might be a random, really tired reason.

There's also the issue of semantics, what does marriage mean to a culture. I'd say a cultural decision is much more valid than the one I listed above, but hey

You should too. Homophobia has no place in this world.
Everyone has a right to their beliefs foo'.

And let's not tell people to die, if the mods stumble in and they aren't biased they might ban you from the forums for two days.

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting HIV

*I'm only using the term gay to distinguish between male and female homosexuals
No it doesn't...

So I assume you are against the seatbelt law?
I'm against it for the same reasons. Can't speak for the others here.

Homosexual marriages cannot result in children, the "purpose" of marriage is to raise children, now a straight couple might choose not to have children initially, but they could still result in a child. Same goes for a couple where one member is infertile, a child can still be had, it just takes some money, to have mostly natural circumstances in which the father and the mother are joined in wedlock.
So, a completely infertile straight couple that has NO desire to have children AT ALL is okay, but a gay couple who would be willing to adopt or use reproductive technology to reproduce is NOT okay?

Do you see how rediculous that is?

Homosexual marriages cannot result in children, the "purpose" of marriage is to raise children, now a straight couple might choose not to have children initially, but they could still result in a child. Same goes for a couple where one member is infertile, a child can still be had, it just takes some money, to have mostly natural circumstances in which the father and the mother are joined in wedlock.

There, I think that might be a random, really tired reason.

There's also the issue of semantics, what does marriage mean to a culture. I'd say a cultural decision is much more valid than the one I listed above, but hey

Well, gay couples can have children too. A gay couple can also raise a child. In fact, we should encourage more marriages, because of the high divorce rates of the US if families are supposed to raise kids in a sound environment.

"veryone has a right to their beliefs foo'.

And let's not tell people to die, if the mods stumble in and they aren't biased they might ban you from the forums for two days."

Well, fine, they can ban me. But I can argue that his statement offended me and they should ban him as well.

I'm couldn't care less about gays, but I'll try an argument.

How bout: they aren't helping ensure the survival of the human race and if they are geniuses like a poster earlier in the thread stated they are removing those genes from the gene pool.

That's the best I can come up with

Homosexual marriages cannot result in children, the "purpose" of marriage is to raise children, now a straight couple might choose not to have children initially, but they could still result in a child. Same goes for a couple where one member is infertile, a child can still be had, it just takes some money, to have mostly natural circumstances in which the father and the mother are joined in wedlock.

There, I think that might be a random, really tired reason.

There's also the issue of semantics, what does marriage mean to a culture. I'd say a cultural decision is much more valid than the one I listed above, but hey

Homosexuals can have children, it just takes money (and a woman willing to carry the child in the case of a guy-guy couple). Thus, by your own standards, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Everyone has a right to their beliefs foo'.

And let's not tell people to die, if the mods stumble in and they aren't biased they might ban you from the forums for two days.

Your beliefs end with you. Trying to get them into the law of a nation where not everyone shares your beliefs is sickening.

I'm couldn't care less about gays, but I'll try an argument.

How bout: they aren't helping ensure the survival of the human race and if they are geniuses like a poster earlier in the thread stated they are removing those genes from the gene pool.

That's the best I can come up with

Homosexuals can have children.

Seriously, what is it with this wide-spread belief that homosexuals a) are infertile from birth, b) are unable to have straight sex at all or c) are unable to use technology to have a child.

Heck, all this is even ignoring the issue of adoption (because I'm aware some people disagree with it for some nebulous reason).

How bout: they aren't helping ensure the survival of the human race and if they are geniuses like a poster earlier in the thread stated they are removing those genes from the gene pool.
I'm straight, and have chosen not to procreate. Apparently I'm not helping to ensure the survival of the human race, maybe I'm just selfish, or perhaps I think the human race isn't in any immediate danger of dying out.

Have I done anything immoral by choosing to not have kids?

I'm couldn't care less about gays, but I'll try an argument.

How bout: they aren't helping ensure the survival of the human race and if they are geniuses like a poster earlier in the thread stated they are removing those genes from the gene pool.

That's the best I can come up with

Yes, they are helping the human race. Didnt it occur to you, that being gay, and the positive results are a direct product of some sort of genetic variance? Being gay does result in some eccentric stuff. Some good, some bad, but its all part of the package. My point is, genetic variation is good for the survival of the species from an evolutionary standpoint.

Homosexuals can have children.

Seriously, what is it with this wide-spread belief that homosexuals a) are infertile from birth, b) are unable to have straight sex at all or c) are unable to use technology to have a child.

Heck, all this is even ignoring the issue of adoption (because I'm aware some people disagree with it for some nebulous reason).

Well, I tried, like I said I couldn't care less.

I'm straight, and have chosen not to procreate. Apparently I'm not helping to ensure the survival of the human race, maybe I'm just selfish, or perhaps I think the human race isn't in any immediate danger of dying out.

Have I done anything immoral by choosing to not have kids?

I think I'm doing the moral thing by not procreating. When I get to heaven, God's going to shake my hand for my service to humanity.

You know what really bakes my noodle?

Those homosexuals using their penises and their vaginas for unnatural purposes! Obviously, the reason that people can live and breath is that two sane heterosexuals choose to make the best use of their equipment.
You know what else makes me angry? When people use their thumbs for unnatural purposes! I was walking down the street today, and I saw a man snapping his fingers in time to a musician performing in the street.

FOR SHAME!

Hands are for picking things up and grabbings things and writing. Snapping one's fingers? That's ridiculous!
For these same reasons, homoerotic faggots should come to their senses and realize why they have vaginas and penises.

You know what else makes me sooooo mad!? Old people having sex. I went over to my Daddy's trailer the other day, and he was having sex with a woman who I know for a fact has been through menopause. (I used to see her take all of them estrogen pills!) Didn't he realize that she couldn't have babies? I yelled the question when I opened the door, but they just kept humping away. Why would someone have sex when a lovely, pretty baby -- obviously the chief reason we have penises and vaginas -- could not be produced.
People just don't make any sense.
The next day that old coot tells me, "Son, you know how bad I am with words. To express how I felt to Ol' Widow Cratchett, I knew I had to shove my penis inside her."
Unnatural! I screamed, and ran from the trailer.

It's a choice? Codswallop! Why, way back in the day when I first entered puberty, I remember the careful self-questioning I did when I decided that I wanted to be a heterosexual. I had never really thought about pretty women until that moment when I realized what the right sexual preference was.
The problem with homosexuals is that, when they reached the so-called "age of reason," they made the wrong choice. Just like how regular sane heterosexuals like me choose whom they fall in love with or find pretty, homosexuals are choosing the wrong path. Unlike yours truly. In fact, it's as much of a choice as murder is. Obviously.

Well, that's all for now. Before I hit the hay, I think I'm going to go masturbate into a Mason jar, which, of course, I donate to the local sperm bank. Pretty little babies!

I read that post, twice. I still don't get it.

I thought it was hilarious. :p

I read that post, twice. I still don't get it.

I did. It was oozing with sarcasm :-)

You know what really bakes my noodle?

Those homosexuals using their penises and their vaginas for unnatural purposes! Obviously, the reason that people can live and breath is that two sane heterosexuals choose to make the best use of their equipment.
You know what else makes me angry? When people use their thumbs for unnatural purposes! I was walking down the street today, and I saw a man snapping his fingers in time to a musician performing in the street.

FOR SHAME!

Dear God, for some reason that whole post is really damn funny to me. Plus 10 points for making me laugh while sick.

The Basic Way to Decide If Something Is Right or Wrong: Do you harm another individual when doing it? If you're having consensual sex, the answer is obviously no, no matter your orientation. So that means that, without looking at your religous beliefs, homosexuality isn't a bad thing. Does it harm someone to not procreate? For serious, people, for serious. And I mean in today's world where we aren't in immeidate danger of H. sapien dying out by a long shot. (Plus, some of those same-sex couples would adopt children to complete their family- so wouldn't that make them a plus for society, taking in children who didn't have permanent homes?)

Well between the 2 of you, everyone should die.

And we all will.

In the mean time, homosexual sex is not unnatural, as it occurs in nature, it is not immoral, as it doesn't harm anyone (unless they're into that, but then it's consentual anyway... ;))

Essentially, without the arbitrary set of rules that certain religions place on this issue, I would venture as far as to say that it's impossible to argue that it's wrong.

And another thing makes me want to scream at those deviants!

All this talk about homosexuals wanting "equal rights"! What does that mean anyway? Gay people aren't black! Dummies.

Gay adoption is what really takes the cake, y'all. Now, I'm never one to issue too many rhetorical questions. I don't want to insult y'all's intelligence or nothing, but think about it:
Who is the better parent for a child freshly brought into this lovely world without the benefit of its natural guardianship?
CHOICE A) a clean, natural heterosexual female and male couple who live together and enjoy a handle of liquor each every night and who makes sure that their kids see all of Survivor that season and who often enough go out in the yard to get a switch to give the children some good ol' fashioned depression-era discipline
CHOICE F) two HOMOS who are professional educators, with P.hd's in development psychology. They'll spend their nights reading Dr. Seuss and then finally E.B. White to their newborn.

THE OBVIOUS CHOICE to any sane heterosexual like me who is proud is CHOICE A. 'Cause with Choice F, the homoerotics would spread their pansy germs while they did all of their edumacatin' and stimulatin' of their kids' mind. I don't think choice F has ever even happened without by age seven the victimized child becoming a regular cornholer.

Well between the 2 of you, everyone should die.

Thank Anubis I'm bisexual. ^_^

Thank Anubis I'm bisexual. ^_^

Are you sure that bisexuals don't count as both hetero and homo? Therefore, under the above logic, you should die twice!
*tries to figure out how to make someone die twice*

Are you sure that bisexuals don't count as both hetero and homo? Therefore, under the above logic, you should die twice!
*tries to figure out how to make someone die twice*

Nope, sorry.

Hetero = only attracted to opposite sex
homo = only attracted to same sex

Seems to me I'm in the save.

Nope, sorry.

Hetero = only attracted to opposite sex
homo = only attracted to same sex

Seems to me I'm in the save.

Damn! no killing you twice! :headbang:

Yes, this has been done before in my Homosexuality Explored (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=317435) post, where I explored homosexuality pretty extensively. I included religion, naturally, and while I had some challengers - they either realized that they were wrong, or killed themselves and never posted in the thread again.l

Are you sure that bisexuals don't count as both hetero and homo? Therefore, under the above logic, you should die twice!
*tries to figure out how to make someone die twice*

No, this is one of the places where Human Sexuality get's confusing. There are people who have a sexual orientation of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual. A person with a sexual orientation of (homosexual) is someone who only can be fully sexually gratified by a male partner. A person with a bisexual sexual orientation is someone who can be sexually gratified by both male and female partners. And finally, a person with a sexual orientation of (heterosexual) is someone who can be sexually gratified by only a female partner.

Now, don't get me wrong and start going on and on about how I am now reducing all homosexual and heterosexual relationships to just sexual acts. Most people don't view Human Sexuality on the levels of depth that they require to be fully understood. It is possible for someone to have a sexual orientation of a homosexual, yet have an affectional orientation of a heterosexual; meaning that he can only be fully satsified sexually with a man, but can only form an affectional and loving bond with a woman, and not a man. And that goes with bisexuality, and heterosexuality.

Been done...but not for a while. Good luck keeping it civil!

May I ask you are a man who like to make love to a... man's bottom?

May I ask you are a man who like to make love to a... man's bottom?

With all due respect, I personally find it rude to ask one if he is gay or not. That puts the person who is being questioned in a most difficult situation, and also brings a negative sentiment to conversation and social interaction depending on the surrounding persons beliefs.

Thank Anubis I'm bisexual. ^_^

technically that's mentioning religion.. the thread fails.

seeing as religion wasn't mentioned to form an arguement, saying "Thank Anubis" or "thank God" doesn't make the thread fail in my opinion.

I think homosexuality is gross. So what's wrong with that? I'm sure a gay person will look at heterosexualtiy considers what I do with a woman as gross. Am I an ignorant person, because seeing two men kiss each other makes me want to vomit? No. It's just the way I feel, it doesn't have to agree with your's - and a disagreement doesn't make anyone wrong.

Homosexuality has never hurt myself, my wife, our relationships or that of anyone I've ever met. I think that they have the right to form contracts that solidify their long-term relationships. Call it marriage, a civil union, or butter....I don't care. Am I completely comfortable with homosexuals? Not always...I wouldn't look at two males smooching on a park bench the same way I would look at a heterosexual couple. Just being honest. But, if they love one another...knock yourselves out. The only caveat I have to this rule is: try to keep the oddballs in check during the St. Patrick's Day Parade. Being a Boston homosexual is not the same as being a Boston firefigter or a Boston police officer.

I'm against it for the same reasons. Can't speak for the others here.


So, a completely infertile straight couple that has NO desire to have children AT ALL is okay, but a gay couple who would be willing to adopt or use reproductive technology to reproduce is NOT okay?

Do you see how rediculous that is?
I said that has the theoretical capability to have two parents who are both joined in wedlock. Not necessarily the desire to. But the theoretical capability. (and that two mother mouse doesn't count)

Gay sex is wrong, because it has increased chances of contracting HIV

*I'm only using the term gay to distinguish between male and female homosexuals
So, seeing as lesbian women have the lowest chance of contracting HIV... gay sex is right.

technically that's mentioning religion.. the thread fails.

Naaah, it's not religion. Unless you have a different idea of the term 'worship' ;)