Homosexuality & Censorship

[phantomdesign]

I thought it would be appropritate to take the discussion I was having on another forum about homosexuality and censorship and post it here....

Basis of Morality
Morality is another obvious aspect of the debate. How do you determine whether anything (ex: murder) is moral, immoral, or amoral?

By today’s politically correct standards the lines between homosexuality and bestiality, lying and theft, abortion and murder are illusions, so PC is useless for discussion. Similarly, religion can’t define standards for a diverse society. The best answer I can come up with is “what is beneficial to society as a whole and to each individual life?”

Science / Normal?
Homosexuality advocates tend to cite obscure and unproven scientific studies on chemical abnormalities, trying to prove it’s normal and therefore scientifically justifiable (a rather large reach). Even assuming chemical abnormalities are the cause (versus being the effect, a coincidence, exaggerated, or non-existent), does that make the behavior normal?

A more obvious scientific fact is the one what scientific fact that two normal males or females cannot reproduce. Males and females are not physically “designed” for homosexual acts. Homosexuality is no more a normal sexual act than bestiality, pedophilia, or the “Cleveland Steamer;” quite simply it’s a sexual fetish.

Sidenote: Even if it were “normal,” it’s not more works as a moral justification for homosexuality than theft. Also, it’s a choice, even if the tendencies did exist, one can chose.

Psychology
I’ve seen a number (about 6-8) of personal blogs by homosexual individuals and observed similarities beyond the stereotypes. These individuals are indeed confused, but not in the way people regularly use the term. These people are intentionally confused, latching onto ideas that make the least sense (to them), seeking to defy just about everything, even contradicting themselves. The only stable ones I’ve seen are those by Bisexuals who are admittedly extremely horny.

I may not be a psychologist, but the evidence is quite easy to find. Psychology is a fascinating subject, so I like to discuss things like this with psychologists I meet online, and so far they agree with my assessment. Most even propose that it is the cause of these psychological problems.

Censorship? / Offensive Material
As far as censorship from media, I think that’s going too far & precisely why the conservatives have lost that debate. Sexual fetishes are offensive by nature, and that’s the point that conservatives should be latching onto. Violence, gore, nudity, offensive words are generally kept in check or at least recognized in ratings. I think it would be appropriate to deem it as offensive content – the last thing I want to see (personally) is a couple guys making out on TV.

Children
One of the big (unstated) reasons behind homosexual marriages is because they want to be able to adopt, so this is clearly an important issue. Same-sex-couples are known to be highly unhealthy family environment, even more-so than a missing parent. They can’t have children and maybe shouldn’t have children? Back to the topic...

I don’t believe homosexuality should be presented to children any more than any other abnormal sexual fetish. Should we be educating them on pedophilia, bestiality or other sexual fetishes as normal behavior? Should they be taught unhealthy behaviors? Morality is a touchy and difficult subject as I presented earlier, but still, should morals be quickly abandoned around children?

Homophobia / Hate
I don’t think we (as a society) should run from it, censor it from existence, and hide our nose in the dirt. I don’t think the government has a right to stop it. Only conservative-extremists really believe that, for the most part “homophobia” is a term created by the news media & political organizations.

As far as “tolerance” I don’t think we should hate or mistreat people based on that decision. I don’t see anything enlightening about being accepting of homosexuality anymore than the Cleveland Steamer. I think it’s appropriate to request they keep that behavior to themselves, as you might any other highly offensive act.

 

[Yuri]

Sorry, I can't read that much prejudice inane bullshit. Better luck next time!

Where are you citing sources from, other than your own intolerant homophobic lunacy?

 

[Ludah]

Umm... I think the first order of business is that you need to substantiate a lot of what you're accusing others of. Or why seeing two guys make out should be an issue at all. Just change the channel. Turn your head. Whatever.

Oh, and bravo for the comparison to beastiality. I imagine this topic will work out just wonderfully.

 

[Yuri]

Don't forget the comparison to pedophilia and sexual fetishes. Also, its unhealthy. (Proven, in fact) as well as abnormal and amoral.

Clearly this is a studious professor we are speaking to?

Tell us, teacher, how can we "choose" the normal route to a healthy heterosexual life?

 

[jondy]

'Immoral'? ..check.
'Unnatural'? ..check.

'Beastiality'? ....check.

I suppose the fetish thing is new to me.

As far as “tolerance” I don’t think we should hate or mistreat people based on that decision. I don’t see anything enlightening about being accepting of homosexuality anymore than the Cleveland Steamer. I think it’s appropriate to request they keep that behavior to themselves, as you might any other highly offensive act.

Well, at least you're not calling for anti-gay legislation or suggesting gays are in bed (whups!) with the devil and such, but regardless, I find your behaviour highly offensive, and as such suggest you keep it to yourself.

 

[Raeven0]

Morality is another obvious aspect of the debate. How do you determine whether anything (ex: murder) is moral, immoral, or amoral?

Whether it harms people and/or society, and more broadly, whether it is expedient to people and/or society

Homosexuality advocates tend to cite obscure and unproven scientific studies on chemical abnormalities,

Unsourced

Males and females are not physically “designed” for homosexual acts.

Sodomy isn't the only homosexual act, and lots of straight people do it too

Even if it were “normal,” it’s not more works as a moral justification for homosexuality than theft.

That doesn't even make sense

I’ve seen a number (about 6-8) of personal blogs by homosexual individuals and observed similarities beyond the stereotypes.

Anecdotal evidence, unsourced

I may not be a psychologist, but the evidence is quite easy to find.

Maybe you'd like to present some

I like to discuss things like this with psychologists I meet online, and so far they agree with my assessment. Most even propose that it is the cause of these psychological problems.

Appeal to authority, anecdotal evidence

Sexual fetishes are offensive by nature, and that’s the point that conservatives should be latching onto.

False pretenses

Same-sex-couples are known to be highly unhealthy family environment, even more-so than a missing parent.

Unsourced and totally ludicrous to boot

Morality is a touchy and difficult subject as I presented earlier, but still, should morals be quickly abandoned around children?

False pretenses

Homophobia / Hate

Self-contradictory hypocrisy

Thank you, come again
Be sure to visit the gift shop on your way out
Now Playing: "Logical Fallacy and You"

 

[phantomdesign]

I realize that my statements are not politically correct & most people who do express similar viewpoints are instantly attacked with words like hate-monger and homophobic before you even take the time to bother understanding the opposing viewpoint. I appologize for everything being unsorced (valid point), but this was just an excerpt from a larger discussion.

 

[jondy]

What surprises me is this guy managed to clock up a thousand plus posts before letting the crazies out

 

[Raeven0]

You're going to have to do better than calling me homophobic.

Look up a couple of inches

The post quoted herein was later edited, so I get to have more fun:

I appologize for everything being unsorced (valid point)

You can correct that

 

[CptStern]

phantomdesign: care to explain how a consensual relationship is equal to a non-consensual one that's comparable to rape?

I'd really like to see how you came to the conclusion that they're all related

 

[theotherguy]

morals are based on the norms of society. They change as society changes. Interracial marriages used to be considered highly immoral, punishable by death. It used to be immoral for women to show their ankles. Just because you think something is gross doesn't make it immoral. A homosexual person may find heterosexual activites equally gross.

I don't think that gays should be censored from the media at all. The media should show the real world, and unfortunatley for you, homosexuals do exist in the real world. If you don't like it, change the channel.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

i say let people do what they want, gay people arent hurting anybody, and the populations big enough as it is.

 

[99.vikram]

Even assuming chemical abnormalities are the cause (versus being the effect, a coincidence, exaggerated, or non-existent), does that make the behavior normal?

Straight guys can never understand them, so it is not up to us to determine what is "normal". We have evolved beyond the basic animal instinct to reproduce, so today sex and reproduction should be treated in different contexts.

A more obvious scientific fact is the one what scientific fact that two normal males or females cannot reproduce. Males and females are not physically “designed” for homosexual acts.

Where'd you get that from, Myths-r-us? For all we know homosexuality could have existed for millenia. Sexual orientation and parenthood have nothing in common.

Homosexuality is no more a normal sexual act than bestiality, pedophilia, or the “Cleveland Steamer;” quite simply it’s a sexual fetish.

Seriously, stop visiting Myths-r-us.

Also, it’s a choice, even if the tendencies did exist, one can chose.

Enough with the bullsh*t. It's a biological tendency, not a choice. I can't become gay however hard I tried, and gay people can't be straight.

These people are intentionally confused, latching onto ideas that make the least sense (to them), seeking to defy just about everything, even contradicting themselves. The only stable ones I’ve seen are those by Bisexuals who are admittedly extremely horny.

Or maybe their ideas of sexual orientation conflict with yours?
Why do they pretend they are different? Because they are.

I may not be a psychologist, but the evidence is quite easy to find. Psychology is a fascinating subject, so I like to discuss things like this with psychologists I meet online, and so far they agree with my assessment. Most even propose that it is the cause of these psychological problems.

Once again, your ass is not the most reliable source of information.

My uncle also happens to be a psychologist, and most of his colleagues are of the opinion that being gay is biological, not psychological.

I think it would be appropriate to deem it as offensive content – the last thing I want to see (personally) is a couple guys making out on TV.

It's not a fetish. It's not a choice. It's who you are.

Same-sex-couples are known to be highly unhealthy family environment, even more-so than a missing parent. They can’t have children and maybe shouldn’t have children?

Mumble mumble blah blah. I disproved this in an earlier para.

I don’t believe homosexuality should be presented to children any more than any other abnormal sexual fetish. Should we be educating them on pedophilia, bestiality or other sexual fetishes as normal behavior? Should they be taught unhealthy behaviors? Morality is a touchy and difficult subject as I presented earlier, but still, should morals be quickly abandoned around children?

You're the kind of person that advocates forced religious conversions at school too.

I don’t think we (as a society) should run from it, censor it from existence, and hide our nose in the dirt. I don’t think the government has a right to stop it. Only conservative-extremists really believe that, for the most part “homophobia” is a term created by the news media & political organizations.

As far as “tolerance” I don’t think we should hate or mistreat people based on that decision. I don’t see anything enlightening about being accepting of homosexuality anymore than the Cleveland Steamer. I think it’s appropriate to request they keep that behavior to themselves, as you might any other highly offensive act.

Straight people are not the authority to determine what's right or wrong in this world.

We are not doing them a favour by tolerating them, it is our duty to do so. They are not in the wrong, we are.

PS: If you reply to this, try not to spout hatred.

 

[FieryGoose]

morals are based on the norms of society. They change as society changes. Interracial marriages used to be considered highly immoral, punishable by death. It used to be immoral for women to show their ankles. Just because you think something is gross doesn't make it immoral.

I think what your refering to is a term called unacceptable, not immoral, there is a difference.Although if the statement you made about morals changing over time was indeed true, then you would have to have been refering to general public opinion as morals, which if you are right about public opinion being morals states that homosexuality is immoral.
Your arguement is as fault as you fail to provide valid evidence to support your theory that morals change over time. In wikipedia it states that morality is just another term for personal concience which everyone has to certain extent.

 

[Reaktor4]

bollocks

Youre probably one of the 5 stupidest people on hl2.net.

 

[Viperidae]

Even assuming chemical abnormalities are the cause (versus being the effect, a coincidence, exaggerated, or non-existent), does that make the behavior normal?

Humans are not biologically meant to be ergonomic with computers. Therefore the fact you are using one is a chemical abnormality. Is this normal? Clearly not. Throw your computer out the window, please.

 

[FieryGoose]

Humans are not biologically meant to be ergonomic with computers. Therefore the fact you are using one is a chemical abnormality. Is this normal? Clearly not. Throw your computer out the window, please.

So using a computer is not normal now? Assuming that this is indeed true are you infering that is is only natural for us to be some sort slime(so we might as well kill ourselfs while were at it to, according to you), becuase the conclusion that it is not natural to use a computer can only be reached if you believed in evolution...which in basic terms states that we adapt to our environment, etc... So if you are referencing evolution then even if it were natural they would die off as a culture due to natural selection or the wrath of God, or whatever you beleive in due to the AIDs epidemic, since in America it was originally found in gay communities. Source:Thebody.com
Quote:"in North America, Western Europe and other developed nations, most cases continue to be transmitted sexually between men. In the United States, according to a recent report, most cases of recent HIV infection continue to be among gay men. This information also indicates that the rate of new HIV infections is relatively stable (it is not going down). We can therefore assume that the rate of infection among gay men is remaining relatively stable as well. Most cases of HIV transmission among gay men continue to occur through unprotected anal intercourse and, to a lesser extent, through giving oral sex (especially with ejaculation). Some gay men are also becoming infected through sharing drug needles. Based on all available data, the rate of HIV infection among gay men is not going down."
Sorry for such a long quote but I think that covers all of it...

 

[Yuri]

Great, I was all proud to see so many sane people, and then some guy randomly mentioned AIDs with no rhyme or reason.

Good job guy.


Covers what? The fact that you are a misinformed stupidhead? And that you randomly mention things that have no bearing to the topic, as well as no bearing to reality?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

AIDS rates are high in Africa too. Let's remove black people from our society because evolution doesn't exist~???

Seriously, what?

homosexuality and bestiality, lying and theft, abortion and murder are illusions

So what you're saying is that whatever girl (or boy) friend you finally sleep with is no better than an animal to you?
The line between he/her and your dog is an illusion after all~???

Goddamn.

Seriously, that entire post is the most retarded argument to grace these forums.

Consentual sex is not the same as non-consentual sex, you sicko.

 

[Viperidae]

So using a computer is not normal now? Assuming that this is indeed true are you infering that is is only natural for us to be some sort slime

Two things:

1. You need to learn what irony is.
2. Judging by some attitudes toward gays, I'd say many humans are already slime.

 

[FieryGoose]

Two things:

1. You need to learn what irony is.
2. Judging by some attitudes toward gays, I'd say many humans are already slime.

Lol, ok nice additude. I knew you weren't exactly serious about throwing a computer out a window, but your sarcasm urged me to write a bit.
Also mecha I know AIDS is in africa, in fact it is where AIDs is the worst at, but I must bring up domestic problems before I try conquering the world:E , I was only making reference to where AIDs was found the most in the US, gays, like it or not, coincidence or not, in order not to get flamed by you guys i'm just gonna say, I don't agree with Homosexuality in a general way, and by general I mean everyway, just an opinion... Look at my other post if you want a more agressive stance. lol.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Just hating on him for being stupid isn't going to change anything.

So here is an exact step-by step account of why phantomdeign is stupid:

Basis of Morality

According to the fundamental elements of United States law and most modern democracy in general, amorality is anything that reduces human freedoms.
The freedoms are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, so long as they do not contradict others needlessly.

The concept is simple:

Murder might give a killer happiness, but it harms many others and is therefore illegal.
Murder of a criminal, however, is justified if done to save innocent lives.

Bestiality is non-consentual sex and may harm an animal, and is therefore illegal.
Homosexuality harms no-one at all and provides happiness, and is therefore a freedom.

Lying in not illegal unless used to cause substantial harm to another.
Theft removes financial wellbeing from people and is illegal becuse it removes liberty and happiness.

Abortion is a contentious issue, but it is generally legal because the rights of a non-sentient, undevelopped fetus are considered to be acceptably overruled by an adult woman's right to liberty and happiness with her own body.
The debate centers around how human a fetus is, and therefore how many rights it deserves to have.

The rights of gay people are not such a debatable issue.
They are fully human and fully sentient.
Their actions cause no quantifiable harm whatsoever, while creating happiness and liberty.

Your position that morality is an illusion is unfounded.
Your idea of "benefits" directly contradicts human freedoms for no logical reason. For that reason, they can be dismissed as unfeasable.

Science / Normal?

"Normal" (long with "abnormal," "natural," "unnatural," "obscure," "offensive," etc.) is not a quantifiable term, and is therefore illogical in a scientific context and irrelevant to any debate.

Normal is what one group of people chooses as a common ideal in their pursuit of happiness. Although some are similar, each person on Earth has a different overall ideal.

Your proposed "enforced normalcy" is therefore the opposite of freedom because it removes liberty and the pursuit of happiness from millions of people for an illogical reason.

Scientific studies cannot define normalcy, so your analysis of "homosexuality advocates" is unfounded.
Studies are used to better understand psychology and their findings consistently re-enforce the psychiatric conclusion that homosexuality is not a typical or harmful paraphilia.

Most paraphilias, by the way, are not harmful since they do not involve non-consentual sex. They are therefore a legal freedom.

Pedophilia and Bestiality are non-consentual and are illegal for that reason.

The inability to differentiate between sex and rape typifies most anti-gay arguments like yours.

Your final comparison between sex and theft makes no sense whatsoever.

Psychology

Basing national policy on an amateur interpretation of six internet blogs is quite possibly the worst scientifc methodology ever concieved. You cannot generalize millions of people from your personal interpretation of six blogs. Jesus.

Even then, your conclusions are facile and ultimately meaningless. "Confusion", "defiance" and "horniness" are not mental illnesses. Nor are they somehow exclusively gay traits.

Simply put, this argument is an utter failure at being reasonable.
Let me remind you that removing freedoms without a good reason is immoral.

As such, the credentials and intelligence of the "psychologists [you] meet online" are highly suspect.
Based on the massive flaws in your conclusions, chances are you aren't talking to real psychologists at all.
Need I remind you that the psychiatric community at large does not consider homosexuality to be a problem or disease?

Censorship? / Offensive Material

I repeat: "nature" is not a unit of measure. Using it as a unit of measure is highly illogical and renders an argument invalid.
"Offensiveness" is also not a quantifiable term.

Gays are free to work in for television series. That provides financial gain for life, liberty and happiness.

Censoring them because they are "offensive" is not a valid reason. It removes freedoms.

Removing other's freedoms for no reason is amoral.
Therefore, you are asking all conservatives to "latch onto" an amoral cause.

Children

One of the big (unstated) reasons behind homosexual marriages is because they want to be able to adopt, so this is clearly an important issue.

This reason is "unstated" because it does not exist.

Adoption does not require marriage.

Right now, a gay couple can adopt a child in any of dozens of countries across the world - including the US.

Your claim that gays are "unhealthy" parents is a lie.
First off, you failed to quantify "unhealthy".
Using unquantified terms invalidates an argument.
Also, you just pulled the claim out of thin air. It's a prejudicial myth.

Since adoption causes no quantifiable harm, but provides liberty and the pursuit of happiness for many people, it is fully legal and moral.

The rundown:
Morality is not a difficult subject.
You have failed to define unhealthy in any rational way.
Normalcy is not quantifiable.
Bestiality and pedophilia are NON-CONSENTUAL.
Homosexuality is CONSENTUAL

Love is not amoral.
Children can understand love between consenting adults.
Sodomy is not amoral because it is a freedom that does no harm.
Teenagers can understand sodomy without being "traumatized".

The ability to understand these things is not harmful in any quantifiable way.
On the other hand, education prevents ignorance, which invariably leads to harm.
In this case, through prejudice, repression and a lack of sex education.

Your children will always have the right to remain ignorant if you want them to, at their peril.
You do not have the right to needlessly enforce that ignorance onto others.

Homophobia / Hate

Homophobia is a specific form of prejudice.
It is an irrational desire to remove human freedoms from homosexual people for entirely irrational reasons.

If homophobia is put into practice, it removes freedoms from innocent people and is therefore highly immoral.

You are proof that homophobia exists.
You wish to destroy homosexuals' freedom for nonsensical reasons.

"Offensiveness" is the opposite of a logical reason.


You shouldn't be censored though.
If you hadn't decided to "enlighten" us here, you would never know how utterly wrong you are.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I don't agree with Homosexuality in a general way, and by general I mean everyway, just an opinion... Look at my other post if you want a more agressive stance. lol.

The "lol" here is that saying "I don't believe in homosexuality" is no different from saying "I don't believe in bicycles."

It is a very stupid statement that is inherently meaningless.

Your AIDS comment is equally meaningless, except it is a statement of hate.

No-one cares if you're straight. Coming into this thread just to announce that you'd rather have sex with a woman is stupid (and probably indicative of some insecurity issues).

Entering a thread just to yell "GAYS HAVE AIDZ" is not only extremely stupid, but offensive to boot.

Please talk smart or get out.

 

[gick]

^Mecha wins.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Cheers Mecha. Got here first.

Here's one I made earlier:


:imu: :imu: :imu:


Let's examine your argument:

At the very beginning of your post, you define morality as “what is beneficial to society as a whole and to each individual life?" By the same token then, immorality must actually cause harm to someone.

Thus, when you seek (I assume) to prove that homosexuality is immoral - thus proving it should be censored and not shown or 'promoted' - you must tell us how homosexuality harms anybody, or how its whitewashing is beneficial to society or individuals.

Note: I don't mean to be offensive or hostile with this post - rather I merely wish to explain why you are dead wrong in just about every point you make. I also acknowledge that putting it all in a structure with a conclusion may make me look like a bit of a twat, but the whole thing was too damn long to conceivably do otherwise.


:imu:


1A. "Homosexuality is directly relatable to paedophilia, bestality and 'sexual fetishes'."

Unfortunately for you, this is not true. The key distinction is the concept of 'consent'. A child is not deemed capable of having the judgement to decide whether it wants to have sex or not; the same can be said of an animal - not to mention that animals can't speak to us to communicate that yes, they're quite okay with being bummed. Homosexuality is entirely different in that gay sex is generally between consenting adults. If it's not, it is treated as rape. Thus, it has far more in common with straight sex than with paedophilia/bestiality.

This is why people get offended by comparisons between homosexuality and bestality/paedophilia - the former is consensual, while the latter is for all practical purposes indistinguishable from rape.

As for 'sexual fetishes', you need to redefine your definition of 'fetish'. A fetish is a sexual obsession with a specific and so-called 'inanimate' (in this context this can be defined as 'not usually associated with sex') part of a partner's body. Alternatively, you might consider such things as S&M fetishes - but again, these are specific obsessions with things that are not usually associated with sex. Homosexual attraction? As far as I'm aware, cocks and arses have been sexy for a while now, depending on which side you stand.

The problem is that you cannot possibly compare a fetish - something that is purely sexual in nature - with homosexuality. Homosexuality includes feelings of love and commitment; comparing this to 'fetishes' is like comparing a marriage to a kiss. To wit: it makes no actual sense when you think about it.

Hypothetical situation: suppose I have a strange fixation for people stubbing out lit cigarettes on my naked skin (Ooooh yeeeeaaah!). This cannot be compared with my 5-years-and-still-going relationship with my wonderful girlfriend who I will soon be marrying (I wish). At all. You can no more censor homosexuality than you can heterosexuality.

Paedophilia and bestiality are not related to homosexuality because they can be said to cause harm. Homosexuality cannot; thus it is not immoral.


:imu:


1B. "Sexual fetishes are offensive by nature."

Why is this?

What business of the public's is it what two consenting adults do in private? I think, firstly, we have to put a distinction between 'offensive' and 'immoral'. 'Offensive' is generally subjective. You may find S&M, for example, 'offensive', but that is none of your concern. If something is to be 'immoral' it has to harm a human being somewhere along the line. Sexual fetishes are only wrong, then, if they actually harm people - and let's note now that being disgusted by two men f*cking does not count as 'harm'.

Let us go back to my imaginary cigarette fetish - why is this offensive? I like beautiful ladies stubbing out cigarettes on me. I am willingly letting them harm me. Therefore, they are not actually harming me, because I am not objecting to it. They themselves have no qualms (and if they do, nobody is forcing them to oblige me). Thus, bar the effects of the cigarette smoke which we are both willingly submitting ourselves to, nobody is harmed. In fact, nobody need be any the wiser.

This is generally true of most sexual fetishes. They harm nobody; them being 'offensive' is of no consequence in any argument ever. In the same way, we must ask: what harm does homosexuality, or knowledge of it, do to anyone?

Let me stress again that the love two individuals feel for each other is in no way comparable to a sexual fetish.

Sexual fetishes, then, are, generally speaking, not at all harmful. Thus, they are not immoral, and thus, while calling homosexuality a 'sexual fetish' is erroneous, it also doesn't prove anything.


:imu:


2A. These people are intentionally confused, latching onto ideas that make the least sense (to them), seeking to defy just about everything, even contradicting themselves.

Contratulations. You have just described humanity as a whole - and, judging by your argument, yourself.

Does this cause harm to anybody? Should people have to be sure of what they want to do? I think not. I think you are merely attempting to belitte homosexuality with a view to brand it as something that doesn't essentially exist. What are you saying? Homosexuality is a hoax? Or do you seek to claim that homosexuality is a 'psychological problem'?

If so, you are wrong for a very simple reason. I have seen people attempt to call homosexuality a 'disease' or 'disorder'. But such a thing must cause harm and discomfort to the person afflicted. That's how a disease is defined - an abnormal functioning of some part of the bod that causes harm. Homosexuality does not specifically cause any harm or discomfort. Harm may be caused by the strictures and pressures of a disagreeing society, but that is not the homosexuality's fault. Again, we come back to the question: how does homosexuality harm anyone? You have yet to tell us.

Not to mention that none of this is substantiated.


:imu:


3A. "Homosexuality is 'unnatural'/humans were not meant for homosexuality/homosexuals cannot have children."

(These are grouped together because they are pretty much the same thing. Homosexuality is invariably branded 'unnatural' at least partly because it does not produce children.)

You claim that same sexes are not "designed" to knock boots. Unfortunately for you, this is slightly contested by the fact that a cock fits quite well in an arsehole, and since some people seem to enjoy the sensation resulting from the interaction of the two, we can only assume that they are indeed "designed" that way. Gays enjoy gay sex; in this sense the design is apparently perfect. Anything humans can do, they are 'designed' for - the fact that homosexuals can have sex means that it must have been included in the 'design'. The alternative is to claim that we are not 'designed' to use computers, drive cars, or invent postmodernism.

Geddit? Either 'design' included the blueprints for everything we have the capacity to do, or 'design' is meaningless because it does not include anything above a very basic level.

Maybe you mean they are not designed to reproduce. But this frankly has little bearing on anything. Infertile couples cannot reproduce. Some people don't want to reproduce. The idea that ability or indeed willingness to reproduce should have any relevance at all to anything ever is entirely spurious. Plenty of people have sex without reproducing. Here's a little tip for those who argue along these lines, claiming that the inability of homosexuals to reproduce (while ignoring SCIENCE!) somehow proves something: your argument is completely ridiculous until you also start arguing that all sex between anyone must produce offspring.

Understand? A man and a woman in a flat in London are not producing children. There is nothing wrong with this.

A man a man in the flat next door are not producing children. There is nothing wrong with this.

Whether the lack of reproduction is down to choice or not is completely immaterial. Relationships do not depend on children, and relationships without children are no less valid.

Add to this the fact that homosexuality occurs 'naturally' in animals all the time...hey look, it's the Naturalistic Fallacy.

The fact that homosexuals can't have children could be said to be bad for society, but when half the heterosexual population don't bother either, and when the population of the world is getting along quite fine thank you (I believe here in Britain we are overpopulated) then that really is silly. Otherwise, you yet again fail to tell us what makes homosexuality harmful or immoral.


:imu:


3B. "Homosexuality is not normal."

Let us consider for a moment your frankly ridiculous use of the term 'homosexuality advocates". Firstly, I am not aware of anyone 'advocating' homosexuality on this forum, or indeed in any sizeable majority anywhere. There might be a few crazies claiming that heterosexuality is the devil, but they are hardly without their opposite numbers, and there are always crazies who advocate everything.

Rather, I think what you mean is 'the opponents of heterosexuality advocates'.

You appear to have a mistaken belief that advocating the freedom to be gay amounts to advocating being gay itself. This is, crazies aside, entirely untrue. Let us take me: I am a strong supporter of gay rights because I believe that people should have maximum freedom - not because I believe homosexuality is necessarily any better, or more desirable in societ, than heterosexuality. Thus I am in fact a 'freedom to do whatever the hell you want if it ain't harming anyone' advocate.

You are the one advocating a particular sexual orientation here. By seeking to deny that homosexuality is anything other than a 'fetish', and claiming that it is somehow immoral, you are essentially regarding it as inferior to heterosexuality. You are the 'heterosexuality advocate'.

In the same way, there seems to be this idea that showing homosexuality on TV, casting it in a good light, is somehow 'advocating' homosexuality. Instead, failure to do so is actually 'advocating' heterosexuality. That whole concept of not 'promoting homosexuality' is very, very stupid.

Moving on, I'm not entirely true your assertion about the 'tendencies' of the gay rights peeps is actually true. Does anybody try to prove homosexuality is 'normal'? To my mind, they argue instead that 'normality' is irrelevant and should not be the sole basis of morality. As you said yourself, in a back-to-front kind of way:

Even if it were “normal,” [it] [no] more works as a moral justification for homosexuality than theft.

Conversely, the same is true if it is 'abnormal', surely?

You have also not really backed up your indictment about sources and studies. Which is really quite hypocritical of you.

So let's destroy the concept of normality. Normality does not equal morality. Normality, it can be argued, does not exist. What is normal? Is normal synonymous with natural? If so, either everything we do is 'natural' or 'normal' (because, logically, everything we make and do is a product of our own organisation and efforst; thus natural) or otherwise we need to abandon all technology and civilisation to be 'natural' or 'normal'.

If 'normal' is not 'natural' then 'normal' is simply a set of abstract concepts, beliefs and ideas that exists only temporarily in the climate of a particular society. In the 50s, it was 'normal' for women not to have any employment opportunity; it was 'normal' in the USA for blacks to be discriminated against in a similar way. As history has demonstrated, normality is entirely removed from morality and thus is completely irrelevant in this debate.

The human experience is so vast and varied, and culture so filled with strange influences and sub-cliques that the word 'normal' ceases to have any meaning. If a thing is not harming anybody, then, 'abnormal' as it is, it is not 'immoral'. So what is morality here? You said yourself: “what is beneficial to society as a whole and to each individual life?” Nothing to do with 'normality'. Alternatively I might define it as 'doing harm to others'. Basically the same thing. To suggest anything else is to suggest that a personal ideology can trump all others (for example: I do not want to see homosexuals on TV, so homosexuals should not be shown on TV. Hey, I've got an idea - don't watch it) and is supremely arrogant.

Normal or no, you have yet to tell me why homosexuality is harmful.


:imu:


4. Conclusion!


Let's sum up what you've achieved so far:

- Failed to prove that homosexuality is objectionable through (false) comparisons with non-consensual sex
- Failed to prove homosexuality is objectionable through (false) comparisons with 'sexual fetishes' which you neglect to define
- Failed to explain why comparison with 'sexual fatishes' proves that homosexuality is objectionable
- Described accurately the human condition
- Failed to explain why gays being 'confused' means that homosexuality is objectionable
- Failed to explain why 'being unnatural' means that homosexuality is objectionable
- Failed to explain why 'being abnormal' means that homosexuality is objectionable

You have failed on every level to explain why homosexuality can be considered something 'bad'. And this is essential if your argument is to prove any basis for the restriction of freedoms - in this case, the branding of homosexuals as dangerous and immoral deviants.

In order to impose your morality on others, you must first substantiate. You must prove that what you want to censor or brand or destroy does actual harm. This is the basis of most ideology - for example, socialists contend that capitalism harms the citizen while their opponents claim that socialism is oppressive and counterproductive. In both these cases, they are at least trying to prove that their system will cause the least harm, or that the system of their opponents is harmful.

You make no such attempt.

You refuse to actually construct any kind of case as to why exactly homosexuality should be considered anything other than 'different' - and let's remind ourselves that different is not synonymous with bad (or, indeed, good). At no point do you make any effort to prove that homosexuality is harmful. You liken it to paedophilia but neglect to explain why they are remotely comparable nor why the comparison to paedophilia is a bad thing - the lack of consent is, after all, what makes it bad, and you clearly didn't consider that. You claim it is a 'fetish', and at least claim that fetishes are 'offensive', but you refuse to tell us why this should be relevant. You claim homosexuality is unnatural because 'people weren't designed for it' - but refuse to bother with why anybody should give a shit. You cite no sources, nor do you attempt to back up any of your claims with logic or any kind of sustained argument. You say homosexuality is 'highly offensive'. WHY IS THAT?

Your argument is actually not an argument at all. Not only is every one of your points wrong, but none of them actually attempt to grappple with the topic at hand. You seem to have a presumption that homosexuality is bad, and that for it to not be bad, someone has to prove something. Well, no. It's the other way round.

So tell me: what harm does homosexuality do to anyone? What makes it 'immoral' or objectionable in any way?

Without answering this question, your argument is basically a load of prejudice and bullshit that doesn't prove anything at all.

 

[99.vikram]

Sulkdodds ftw

 

[DreadLord]

This thread is gay.

Sorry, had to..

Sulk & Mecha FTMFW

 

[K e r b e r o s]

We should not be isolationists to hate. Without it, how could we define rationality?

 

[falconwind]

I find phantomdesign's post to be quite offensive. Both because of how commonly ignorant and homophobic all his arguments are, and because he seems to think they are actually valid points. :frown:

I've never before seen this level of deluded reasoning, and it would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that it's a serious post. This is the kind of utter crap that spews out of every neocon on TV or radio.

I also want to give cudos to Sulkdodds for being supremely correct. There is no such thing as a 'gay advocate'. Everytime i hear a neocon talk about gays trying to 'corrupt' people i feel sick. there is no gay conspiracy and to gay agenda, and no gay plot for domination (bdsm aside :naughty there is, however a strong straight conspiracy, agenda, and attempt by the right/religious/straight people to hinder and dismantle homosexuality.

also, sulkdodds mentioned how a disorder or disease is harmful to the person afflicted, i've heard some argue that this is indeed the case, as gays live with a social stigma and their children as well. This is, however, not caused by being gay, rather this is caused by people's narrowmindedness and inability to accept difference.

By that same reasoning, a white family growing up in a predominantly black community could be seen as having a disorder or disease, since they would be subject to a social stigma that is associated with their being different, but caused by the fact that they would be discriminated against. as you can see, this makes no sense.

Children are not harmed by their parents being gay, they are harmed by their neighbours and fellow humans acting irrationally and cruelly.

And to say that the answer is to remove the gay component is arrogance and ego in it's highest form. That is to say that violence against women should be solved by making women less feminine. The solution is not to remove the difference, it is to promote equality and respect for those differences.

 

[JNightshade]

We need to get Sulk and Mecha to take on Bill OReilly or Rush Limbaugh. They would destroy him

Anyway, you guys essentially summed up everything I was thinking, but in a more eloquent fashion. Damn these lazy hands

 

[SAJ]

According to the fundamental elements of United States law and most modern democracy in general, amorality is anything that reduces human freedoms.

Thats one definition Ive never heard of, care to elaborate ?
The rest was top class btw.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

It's not so much a definition as it is a summary of how the American legal system is designed.

Talken to its logical conclusion, the legal system outlaws harm and permits everything that does no harm.

Cases that are not so unambiguous are debated over in a rational, secular manner (so as not to create prejudice against races, sexualities and religions) until either the least harmful outcome is decided upon and enforced or the issues are adressed on a case-by-case basis.

Sadly, because of the efforts of people like phantomdesign over the decades, there are still old and new laws that limit human freedoms where no harm exists.

Up until 2003, "sodomy" was outlawed in 14 US states. It's is a religious term that loosely applied to any "non-christian" sex.
Videogames, a form of free speech, are being restricted because of large-scale opposition from christians.
There are tons of laws based on "offensiveness", "morality" and "decency" to limit freedom, without ever properly defining those terms.

Gay marriage is the latest example of the legal system's abuse for the benefit one religion.

It's unamerican.

 

[the_wolf27]

Whoah theres alot to read in this thread.

But here are a few thoughts of my own on the whole gay issue. Disagree if you will, thats ok its your right.

The only difference between gay and straight people is their sexual preference. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to, or having sexual relations with people of the same sex. Thats it. I think thats fairly obvious. Its not a f*ucking cult. All it boils down to in the end is sex. Either I like being f*ucked up the ass by another guy or I don't. As much as some of us hate the idea of two guys sucking eachother off thats what some people do these days. But its the same as straight people. If we took our bedroom antics into the public arena I'm sure we would be frowned upon. Say for instance I like being strapped to a bed post and whipped by a mistress while a nun stands in the corner swearing at me and a midget jumps up and down on a trampoline throwing pies in my face. Thats my business and as long as I don't cause injury to other people I'll keep doing it.
(of course i don't actually do that).

I personally don't agree with homosexuality as an act but thats obviously because I'm not gay. I like vagina and female ass and the thought of another cock other than mine disturbs me somewhat. There isn't one straight guy/girl that agrees with homosexuality otherwise they wouldn't have a problem doing or getting done by gay guy/girl.

I don't hate gays. Hell I even know a few. I just don't like the two cocks in one bed part. And as long as I'm not included in that, they can do what they want and I'll keep being friendly.

Now the whole beastiality thing. Thats just f*ucked up. I don't care how many arguments you've got. Theres a big difference between humans and animals and human cocks do not belong in animals. And animal cocks do not belong in humans. Two gay guys, sure I can understand that, I can see how that would work. But animals I will be forever confused about.

To all those people who love to dip into the non-human world of sex, WHY?!?!?! Is the human body not attractive enough to you anymore that you would go so far as to bend over and let an animal have ITS way with you?

SHIIIIIIT.

The only time the phrase, "say my name BITCH" is literal.
Unfortunately unless your name is Woof you will never hear your name said properly.

 

[SAJ]

.....Talken to its logical conclusion, the legal system outlaws harm and permits everything that does no harm.....

Which is entirely separate to any definition of (a)morality, you are taking some unsubstantiated leaps by intertwining the two.

 

[15357]

Morality: The accepted norms of a society.

GAyness =/= accepted norm, and so its immoral. (?)




please note that I'm not a homophobe.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

The whole argument about how gay adoption is going to mess up kids is so ****ing stupid, i'd say it's highly likely that a kid raised by a gay couple is going to be a much kinder and understanding person than many kids with a mum and a dad.

 

[CptStern]

ah bubbles you're so wise

 

[bliink]

Morality: The accepted norms of a society.

GAyness =/= accepted norm, and so its immoral. (?)

Morality is subjective though. You cannot argue an absolute (eg homosexuality is x) based on a subjective qualifier.

This is true.

 

[Laivasse]

Morality: The accepted norms of a society.

GAyness =/= accepted norm, and so its immoral. (?)

I think that's what one of the anti-homo guys was trying to argue. In that sense, and maybe that alone, they grasped the essence of the debate, since morality really is just a battle of numbers. That is to say:
the 'It's Wrong!(tm)' brigade vs the 'No it's not!' crew

Whoever has the most numbers on their side 'wins' teh m0r4ls. Unfortunately for the homophobic quarter, in this day and age I'd venture that most people are pretty accepting of gayness. Even the people saying 'LOL COCKS URRRGH' are pretty good at exercising restraint in terms of proposing things that would limit gay rights nowadays. So homosexuality=moral...if you want to play the morals game.

Good posts Mecha and Sulks btw. I would agree with Saj in making a distinction between legality and morality, though. Whereas morals get decided by the majority, laws come only from those at the top - who in the states appear to be an atypical bunch of crazy right wingers. Grey areas in morality also tend to allow for more individual discretion and flexibility, whereas law has to polarise.

Which is why having homophobia enshrined in law is a very bad thing. Not least also because in times of confused morality people tend to look to an equally confused system of laws to back up their values and lack of rationale. After all, if the government says it's wrong, it really must be!

 

[15357]

The whole argument about how gay adoption is going to mess up kids is so ****ing stupid, i'd say it's highly likely that a kid raised by a gay couple is going to be a much kinder and understanding person than many kids with a mum and a dad.

The poor kids are gonna be tormented in school by other kids. That can mess you up pretty bad.