Are you Homophobic?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flare said:
So even though you know it is completely natural it's not normal?
Click to expand...
It is naturally occurring so in that regard is natural (like any other off-the-path variations in an individual's body chemistry). However, it is not completely normal in the sense that if more than half of the population were homosexual, we'd struggle to preserve our species.

Fortunately, nature has that one covered for us and hasn't allowed for such high proportions of homosexuality to occur in any species.
 
UK-AL05 said:
Normality and nature aren't the same things? Its completely natural, but goes against the standard behavior which doesn't make it right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Nature is about life and the continuation of life is it not, we've evolved into what we are because of it. You are saying it's a "natural" behaviour which is a completely different sense to the word. Nature has no bearing on our behaviour? So i still think it goes against nature. Don't get me wrong i don't want to ban gay people or outlaw it, it's just in "my opinion" to be wrong according to nature.
 
Angilion said:
I'm picking this post as a representative example of a fairly common line of argument from people who think homosexuality is wrong.

It's a very revealing line of argument because it requires that the speaker must also believe that homosexuality is so much more appealing than heterosexuality that if it isn't suppressed then there's a good chance that everyone would choose homosexuality.

So everyone who uses the "humanity would die out" argument must either be homosexual themselves and suppressing it or wish that they were homosexual because they think it's much better than heterosexuality. Their argument makes no sense at all otherwise.
Click to expand...

Deadbeat said:
I think people are getting really confused about terminology here. Homosexuality isn't unnatural, it occurs naturally in species across the board. It is abnormal in that it deviates from the normal behavioural patterns of the species in which it arises, but being abnormal doesn't make something wrong.
Click to expand...

Angilion read the above quote, then you'll see how most of use are thinking, apart from the homophobic
 
ShaolinDreams said:
Nature is about life and the continuation of life is it not, we've evolved into what we are because of it. You are saying it's a "natural" behaviour which is a completely different sense to the word. Nature has no bearing on our behaviour? So i still think it goes against nature. Don't get me wrong i don't want to ban gay people or outlaw it, it's just in "my opinion" to be wrong according to nature.
Click to expand...
Nature is so complicated, that a simple no children - no survival argument does not work. It could be that gays are put in the system so they help with the survival of their brothers and sisters families as extra resource gathers. This would support theory as that your chance of being gay increases with the more older siblings you have. You don't know, the solution space is so large its hard to know what the optimum solution for survival is.
 
billysielu said:
Newsflash - there's no womb in your pooper.
Click to expand...

Here's how it can work without any need for surrogates or any medical technology:

Two homosexual men and two homosexual women who are good friends pair up to have a family. DIY artificial insemination doesn't need any medical technology. We think of AI as requiring modern technology but that's only because it's used for couples who have fertility problems - it's overcoming the fertility problems that requires modern technology, not the actual insemination.

There you go - a stable family. Better than a couple in many ways, since the parenting is spread over 4 people rather than 2. It's often hard going nowadays for 2 people to earn a living and raise children.
 
Mickie said:
then why dont you stick up for the against argumant ? and not be gay..
Click to expand...

Because I think you're wrong, you don't have to be gay to support the rights of those that are.


Mickie said:
we have even got a gay man saying he agrees with how it could be construed as being wrong
Click to expand...

I can see how some would think it's wrong too, but I don't which is why I am presenting an argument against that way of thinking.
 
Mickie said:
have you even read what ive had to say without calling me a closet gay ?
Click to expand...

You've got to be kidding me. I've been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really be far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when one really been far even as decided once to use even go want, it is then that he has really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It's just common sense.
 
The Deuce said:
Then what is the point of religion if we don't follow its teachings?
Click to expand...

I have never yet met a Christian who followed all of the teachings in their bible and I'm very glad about that because there's some really nasty stuff in there.

It is possible to interpret the Christian bible as not condemning homosexuality in general, only homosexual sex in a few very limited situations that rarely if ever apply today.

It's not a mainstream interpretation, but it is a valid one and so it is possible for the Christian to follow the teachings of their religion as much as Christians usually do and still have no issue with homosexuality. Not just the "it's a sin, but we're all sinners" compromise that many Christians use, but "it's not a sin".

I can do chapter and verse if anyone is interested.
 
Angilion said:
I'm picking this post as a representative example of a fairly common line of argument from people who think homosexuality is wrong.

It's a very revealing line of argument because it requires that the speaker must also believe that homosexuality is so much more appealing than heterosexuality that if it isn't suppressed then there's a good chance that everyone would choose homosexuality.

So everyone who uses the "humanity would die out" argument must either be homosexual themselves and suppressing it or wish that they were homosexual because they think it's much better than heterosexuality. Their argument makes no sense at all otherwise.
Click to expand...

Angilion said:
Here's how it can work without any need for surrogates or any medical technology:

Two homosexual men and two homosexual women who are good friends pair up to have a family. DIY artificial insemination doesn't need any medical technology. We think of AI as requiring modern technology but that's only because it's used for couples who have fertility problems - it's overcoming the fertility problems that requires modern technology, not the actual insemination.

There you go - a stable family. Better than a couple in many ways, since the parenting is spread over 4 people rather than 2. It's often hard going nowadays for 2 people to earn a living and raise children.
Click to expand...

Just imagine a world where every guy was gay. You may as well stick all the women in pods and farm them. I doubt they'd be up for it tbh. You'd get some children born, but not enough to sustain the world.

Given that the number of gay men is growing, is this not a slippery slope to the end of the world? We can nip it in the bud now.

There could be an argument that gayness has a critical mass - whereby it reaches certain popularity that society can't support it - thus ending its own existence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom