+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: Homosexuality [DEBATE] (/Thread-Homosexuality-DEBATE)
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - meow - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 06:41 AM)pvnk Wrote: For the mere purpose of boredom, I'll take the opposition. I'm going to disregard all those links because I'm not going to sift through them to verify their authenticity. (So I won't address points raised by those links.) I wouldn't even do that for a research paper.
Quote:If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
First, knock it off with all these hypothetical statements. If implies assumptions. Sexual orientation identification does not imply safety. They also do not tear apart each others sphincters as a general rule of thumb. That may happen during sexual activity that involves the rectum, but it's not exclusive to homosexuality.
"If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability." What the heck man? Homosexuality is not comparable to infertility because that's not what defines their identity. The fact that they are not able to reproduce due to sex selection doesn't make them infertile. They can still be fertile, just unable to reproduce in the given circumstance. Biological sex =/= sexual orientation =/= fertility
"If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?" Because it's not a friendship. It's a union-ship of two human beings with intimate/romantic/passionate emotional connections.
"If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?" Romantic bonding =/= reproduction. Sex =/= babies
You are equivocating unequivocal concepts.
Quote:If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
This isn't even objective anymore...
Quote:If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
???
--
Quote:Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?
Genetics. I don't believe that it's genetics. I think that it's genetics due to scientific evidence. (You don't have to read these links as I read none of yours, but I'm just substantiating.)
http://www.mediaite.com/online/scientists-may-have-discovered-that-homosexuality-is-passed-down-from-parents/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11922975/The-latest-gay-gene-study-gives-no-comfort-to-homophobes.html
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_396841.asp
Inori Wrote:I'm not interested in debating this, and while I admire the effort you put into this thread, I have to ask: why do you - personally, not from a societal or global view - care?
From what I gather, you're far removed from any and all homosexual behavior, so how are you affected by it? Is it so wrong to live and let live purely because you have conflicting views?
I'd expect better from a Staff member...
That's off topic! This thread isn't about his personal views even though it's seeping out through his interpretations.
Quote:They also do not tear apart each others sphincters as a general rule of thumb. That may happen during sexual activity that involves the rectum, but it's not exclusive to homosexuality.
I never said or implied that the destruction of one's sphincter during sexual intercourse was exclusive to homosexuals. The point was that gays don't really have a choice when it comes down to sex other than oral sex, they can only have anal sex, therefore the destruction of that organ happens more in homosexual couples than it does in heterosexual couples, considering the fact that heterosexual couples have a vagina involved, which was designed by nature to take a dick unlike an asshole.
Quote:"If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability." What the heck man? Homosexuality is not comparable to infertility because that's not what defines their identity. The fact that they are not able to reproduce due to sex selection doesn't make them infertile. They can still be fertile, just unable to reproduce in the given circumstance. Biological sex =/= sexual orientation =/= fertility
When intentional, people generally tend to reproduce with their committed sexual partner. In terms of homosexuality, this would mean their committed sexual partner is of the same sex. A man cannot reproduce with a man and a woman cannot reproduce with a woman.
Quote:This isn't even objective anymore...
Was this supposed to be an argument? If you can refute or point out a flaw my statement then I'd like you to. My statement is completely statistically backed.
Quote:Quote:Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?
Genetics. I don't believe that it's genetics. I think that it's genetics due to scientific evidence.
You misinterpreted the question. The question referred to homosexual couples that adopt and raise children. There's no doubt that homosexuality can be genetic, however it can also be chosen and indoctrinated as I stated.
This is my last post for a few hours, I'm going to sleep.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - Asura - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 06:47 AM)meow Wrote:(03-24-2017, 06:41 AM)Asura Wrote:(03-24-2017, 06:16 AM)meow Wrote: Confirmation bias
Homosexuals' inability to reproduce with their partners isn't the only argument I postulated for why homosexuality is bad. It's advised that you read an opposing argument before attempting to refute or oppose it.
Completely irrelevant to the entire subject of this debate.
Emotional appeal logical fallacy.
I don't agree with government having any part in marriage whatsoever. To me, the concept of marriage seems no different from the concept of a boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. It seems silly to bind those two together legally in order to make it harder for either of them to get out of the relationship. I personally don't care whether gays get married or not, because like I said, I don't see two homosexuals being married as any different from a boyfriend/boyfriend couple or girlfriend/girlfriend couple.
I didn't read the entire post because I just assumed it's the same as other arguments I've seen like blah no reproduction, blah sexual diseases, etc. Then facts comes in like "this isn't the only cause" or something. About the part I mentioned death, it kinda does. Really, you have minimal worth(or none) as a human being to others thus why should you care? When I mentioned that homosexuals are people too, they are. There's really no emotional connections to what I'm saying at all. For example, a cop. They are just people in uniform and that still won't stop me from killing one in self-defense. Come on, think for yourself. Not just from what you're reading on the web. It just seems your opinion is based most on what you read.
Quote:I didn't read the entire post because I just assumed it's the same as other arguments I've seen like blah no reproduction, blah sexual diseases, etc. Then facts comes in like "this isn't the only cause" or something.
Never assume the contents of an argument based on the title or classification of it. Any time I get an opposing response I read it thoroughly and make sure I understand what I'm typing in opposition to so that I avoid looking dumb.
Quote:When I mentioned that homosexuals are people too, they are.
I didn't disagree with that. I disagreed with the idea that homosexuals should be completely equal due to the fact that they're human.
Quote:It just seems your opinion is based most on what you read.
I have no idea what else my opinion would be based on. If reading and analyzing statistics, articles, studies, and so forth didn't dictate the nature of my opinions then I don't know how stupid I'd be.
Apologies if I sound brain dead. Extreme lack of sleep. Anyway, I agree that to not assume but it's just something I've seen often. Before I even clicked the thread, I expected links and yep, links. That's why I just said your opinion was mostly based on what you read instead of thinking for yourself. Kinda like you're being spoonfed to think rather than just think yourself. I understand some are good to educate yourself with but when it comes to certain "facts", most are just opinions made from other people. Just like sexual diseases. Of course there's a chance you'll get infected from hitting the A-hole just like from the V-hole. There's always a chance regardless and I don't need some statistics to show me. You will either get infected or you will not and that's pretty much it.
It's alright that you disagree about the homosexual deserves this because they are human thing but that's pretty much my only logical thought for it. Personally, it's just how I view people. You're not above me but you're not below me and same goes for myself to others.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - Aether - 03-24-2017
This is an abysmal "discussion".
You're trying to justify homosexuality being a problem via citing numerous sources stating the dangers and what not, yet even skimping through them I can see that the majority are either ;
- Bullshit Articles
- Biased Scientific documents published almost 30 years ago.
You're saying about being indoctrinated at your school without even taking into consideration that it's actually a humanitarian right. There's been a convention since 1965 ratifying so called the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (< including sexual orientation).
This i basically your Opinion vs other's Opinion with no outcome.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - meow - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 06:41 AM)Asura Wrote: That's why I just said your opinion was mostly based on what you read instead of thinking for yourself. Kinda like you're being spoonfed to think rather than just think yourself. I understand some are good to educate yourself with but when it comes to certain "facts", most are just opinions made from other people.
Sorry in advance for being rude, but you are fucking stupid. Yes, my opinion is based on what I read because like I already stated, I read statistics and studies. It'd be pretty ignorant to have an opinion on a subject which I've read absolutely nothing about, which is exactly what you're doing right now. And the idea that I somehow don't think for myself simply because I get information from external sources is absurd. The whole purpose of gaining external information is so that you can comprehend it and then think for yourself as to what stance you'd like to take. It just so happens that I've read far more studies and statistics which factually convey why homosexuality is a bad thing rather than studies which factually convey why it isn't.
The only "facts" that are "opinions made from other people" in the OP are the articles where psychologists respond to the question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not, which is completely acceptable considering the fact that you cannot prove that homosexuality is a mental illness using mere statistics, it requires experts' opinions.
Quote:Just like sexual diseases. Of course there's a chance you'll get infected from hitting the A-hole just like from the V-hole. There's always a chance regardless and I don't need some statistics to show me. You will either get infected or you will not and that's pretty much it.
Again, sorry for being rude in advance, but you are fucking stupid. You're taking my argument and attempting to twist the words into something else. I stated that homosexuals have a much higher chance of contracting STDs and STIs than heterosexuals and nothing more, and I am correct because this is supported by several different statistics. If you'd like to try and refute that then go for it instead of evading what was actually stated.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - meow - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 01:14 PM)Aether Wrote: This is an abysmal "discussion".
You're trying to justify homosexuality being a problem via citing numerous sources stating the dangers and what not, yet even skimping through them I can see that the majority are either ;
- Bullshit Articles
- Biased Scientific documents published almost 30 years ago.
Not an argument, try actually refuting the substance of the argument that was made.
(03-24-2017, 01:14 PM)Aether Wrote: You're saying about being indoctrinated at your school without even taking into consideration that it's actually a humanitarian right. There's been a convention since 1965 ratifying so called the "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" (< including sexual orientation)..
This isn't a debate over whether they already have humanitarian rights or not, it's a debate over whether they should.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - Asura - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 01:46 PM)meow Wrote:(03-24-2017, 06:41 AM)Asura Wrote: That's why I just said your opinion was mostly based on what you read instead of thinking for yourself. Kinda like you're being spoonfed to think rather than just think yourself. I understand some are good to educate yourself with but when it comes to certain "facts", most are just opinions made from other people.
Sorry in advance for being rude, but you are fucking stupid. Yes, my opinion is based on what I read because like I already stated, I read statistics and studies. It'd be pretty ignorant to have an opinion on a subject which I've read absolutely nothing about, which is exactly what you're doing right now. And the idea that I somehow don't think for myself simply because I get information from external sources is absurd. The whole purpose of gaining external information is so that you can comprehend it and then think for yourself as to what stance you'd like to take. It just so happens that I've read far more studies and statistics which factually convey why homosexuality is a bad thing rather than studies which factually convey why it isn't.
The only "facts" that are "opinions made from other people" in the OP are the articles where psychologists respond to the question of whether homosexuality is a mental illness or not, which is completely acceptable considering the fact that you cannot prove that homosexuality is a mental illness using mere statistics, it requires experts' opinions.
Quote:Just like sexual diseases. Of course there's a chance you'll get infected from hitting the A-hole just like from the V-hole. There's always a chance regardless and I don't need some statistics to show me. You will either get infected or you will not and that's pretty much it.
Again, sorry for being rude in advance, but you are fucking stupid. You're taking my argument and attempting to twist the words into something else. I stated that homosexuals have a much higher chance of contracting STDs and STIs than heterosexuals and nothing more, and I am correct because this is supported by several different statistics. If you'd like to try and refute that then go for it instead of evading what was actually stated.
So you result to insults? Whatever you say, really. No shit that homosexuals would have a high chance of contracting STIs and such since they are hitting the A-hole. Again, I didn't need to read anything about that because it's pretty obvious. I am simply speaking in a reality sense. If you rely too much on statistics and studies conducted by other people instead of your own, you really aren't thinking and just accepted what you're being spoonfed. I'm not even trying to twist anything. I am simply just putting my thoughts here. It seems you have some sort of prejudice to homosexuals and just trying to justify it.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - Mr.Kurd - 03-24-2017
I think these people should see a doctor and government should find a work for them...
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - Aether - 03-24-2017
(03-24-2017, 01:50 PM)meow Wrote: Not an argument, try actually refuting the substance of the argument that was made.There is no substance to argue about. Your comparisons are so wack it's amusing. Your only real argument is that you're being "indoctrinated" at school which is a joke, because it's part of the school's requirements to abide by international legislation.
This isn't a debate over whether they already have humanitarian rights or not, it's a debate over whether they should.
At this point, you're delusional. You're trying to state a legislation is wrong, a legislation that's been signed by 88 countries and is discussed by a panel of people with qualification (PhD/Doctorate) simply because you -a person in school that social engineers on the side-disagree with homosexuality.
I'll state this again, your opinion vs someone else's contradicting opinion is not a debate. You just have your opinion that homosexuality is wrong, that's all it is and citing every bullshit article you can find like foxnews or outdated 30 year old paper publishes doesn't justify your definition.
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - P1L0T - 03-24-2017
Being gay is A ok.
good rhymes
RE: Homosexuality [DEBATE] - pvnk - 03-24-2017
Quote: Was this supposed to be an argument? If you can refute or point out a flaw my statement then I'd like you to. My statement is completely statistically backed.
I didn't know you could objectively substantiate promiscuity.