NationStates

Malgrave wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Without Sulu, we'd never of made it to the Final Frontier!

Take that, bigotry.

Plus George has done completely awesome videos like this

Even as I was moving to click the link, I was thinking: Please be the douchebag, please be the douchebag.

Meryuma wrote:

Alaje wrote:Do you find something inherently good about homos? I'd like to hear what that'd be.

Gayness helps curb overpopulation.

That's a byproduct of homosexual actions, not homosexuality, or homosexuals.

Malgrave wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Without Sulu, we'd never of made it to the Final Frontier!

Take that, bigotry.

Plus George has done completely awesome videos like this

His voice is like among the most manly I've ever heard from an American actor, by the way. He totally OWNS.

Oh, and!

Peppermint Patty and Marcie were a lesbian bondage couple. This is why Marcie always called Patty "Sir".

That popping sound was your mind being blown.

Malgrave wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Without Sulu, we'd never of made it to the Final Frontier!

Take that, bigotry.

Plus George has done completely awesome videos like this

George Takei just got 100x's more awesome to me

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights.

...you mean cross-cutting cleavages exist? Who'd have thunk?

HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples. I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal.

Um...maybe because it's a bad idea to start profiling people based on a couple characteristics found to be prevalent in their community while not having definitively shown a causative relationship between membership and characteristic?

You have completely, and I do mean completely, missed the point of the CDC's posts.

As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too?

When people say that homosexuality occurs in animals what they're trying to defeat is the argument "homosexuality is unnatural", not "homosexuality is immoral". An entirely different argument is employed to address the latter point because arguing that something occurs naturally and is therefore morally good is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.

I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it.

Sexual orientation isn't something that can be "cured" because sexual orientations (no matter which direction they go) are not considered disorders in the first place. Not by the APA, not by the WHO. The best you can hope for is addressing an egodystonic sexual orientation.

If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay.

The consequences of allowing homosexuals to be sexually active with their partners in no way mirror allowing pedophiles, zoophiles, or necrophiliacs to engage in sex with the targets of their respective interests.

In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members.

Source or it didn't happen. Also, how is this representative of the LGBT community as a whole again? Or do I get to treat the Westborough Baptist Church as representative of Christianity as a whole without actually substantiating such a claim?

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community

Raise prevention. The cause of higher incidence is not homossexuality itself.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples.

Nothing wrong with sexual promiscuity, About domestic violnece, it is more common among couples than among single-living individuals, should we forbid couples from living together? No. Now I know this is an extreme exemple but what I'm trying to say here is that people shouldn't be banned from loving each other just because some are more prone to domestic violence. Furthermore, there's nothing indicating that higher domestic violence among homossexuals is due to their homossexuality, it can very well have other causes as for exemple the stress of having to live under constant discrimination.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal.

Because there's nothing wrong with it.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too?

Agreed, those "but it does/doesn't happen in nature!" arguments are getting out of hand.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it.

Wat??

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay.

If homossexuality is a good or a bad thing then it should be allowed or forbidden based on its own merits. If a heterossexual man rapes a girl should we ban heterossexuality? He wouldn't have commited that crime if he was assexual but of course we aren't going to ban heterossexuality, since it is not the cause of his crimes.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members.

Some homossexuals commited a crime therefore outlaw homossexuality? No, thanks.

This is slightly embarrassing in general.

Delvoir wrote:This is slightly embarrassing in general.

It would be embarrassing in Forum 7.

Farnhamia wrote:

Delvoir wrote:This is slightly embarrassing in general.

It would be embarrassing in Forum 7 anywhere.

Fixed.

Abatael wrote:

Meryuma wrote:
Gayness helps curb overpopulation.

That's a byproduct of homosexual actions, not homosexuality, or homosexuals.

Actually, it's a byproduct of not doing heterosexual actions.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:Zoophilia, pedophilia, and necrophilia are not sexual orientations

I agree with you and everything but zoophilia and pedophilia are, in fact, sexual orientations.

Meryuma wrote:I agree with you and everything but zoophilia and pedophilia are, in fact, sexual orientations.

Based on whose definition?

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community

See response three. Also improving education to be more inclusive of LGBT people is the way to solve this, not to condemn it. All experience has proven that. Read this article, it explains it very well:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154970/5_ ... age=entire

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous

[Citation needed]

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples.

And what makes you think being LGBT is the cause of that violence... The study cited in your second article (http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msm ... lease.html) also says "reported incidences of intimate partner violence, or IPV, are widespread, especially among women and certain ethnic groups", so would you try to "cure" people from belonging to certain ethnic groups? Have you ever considered that what may be causing this is ultimately the environment which these people live in, such as the hateful and ignorant attitudes from people like you, who try to condemn them? CORRELATION and CAUSE are two very different things and this statistic in no way proves any cause, making this useless to your argument.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay

I don't understand why people like you should be considered okay. People with such a hateful lifestyle choice should be sent to medical centers and cured. Accepting other people is such a waste of time. Just exterminate all the ones I don't like.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:and normal.

That's entirely irrelevant to how gays should be treated. Nobody should be forced to do whatever the majority does simply for that reason. If shooting random people were normal, it doesn't mean it's a good thing. And it entirely depends on definition. If you're heteorsexual you may be normal. But what if your partner has green eyes and brown hair. Suddenly you don't belong to the majority anymore. What a disaster, huh?

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too?

No. In fact this is usually a counter-argument used against stupid claims like "homosexuality is unnatural". Something isn't ok because it's natural or un-natural. Homosexuality just happens to be natural, but it's in fact completely irrelevant.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality

It's time to stand up for truth, love, solidarity, freedom, equality and all the other good things and fight the antigays.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it.

Good luck with finding the cure for something which is genetic. (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2 ... 1256827977, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9549243).
However, I don't struggle with homosexuality at all, I accept that I am it, so you can keep the cure.
Also I encourage the scientists to find a cure against the ignorance of people like you, and hate too, please.

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members. Here are a few of my sources.

Please... Are you at all serious...
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Meryuma wrote:I agree with you and everything but zoophilia and pedophilia are, in fact, sexual orientations.

Based on whose definition?

According to DSM-IV-TR, I'd guess. Paraphilias are sexual orientations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

Meryuma wrote:

Abatael wrote:
That's a byproduct of homosexual actions, not homosexuality, or homosexuals.

Actually, it's a byproduct of not doing heterosexual actions.

Heterosexual protected sex is heterosexual, and is not conducive to a population increase.

Thank you OP,




For providing me with my daily bit of "people actually believe this shit" comedy XD

Finally someone is waking up!

Risottia wrote:According to DSM-IV-TR, I'd guess. Paraphilias are sexual orientations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

They really need to work on developing more precise language then. The accusation of false equivalence still holds though. Sexual orientations which are classified as disorders are entirely different from those which are not. Besides, I could also throw out an accusation that the OP committed the slippery slope fallacy.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Risottia wrote:According to DSM-IV-TR, I'd guess. Paraphilias are sexual orientations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

The accusation of false equivalence still holds though. Sexual orientations which are classified as disorders are entirely different from those which are not. Besides, I could also throw out an accusation that the OP committed the slippery slope fallacy.

Proof of that? They can all be considered disorders.

Riiiight, I'm going to peg this thread as "Ignorance hidden through statistics", and move on before I tell him he's a complete and utter ass.

Socialdemokraterne wrote:

Risottia wrote:According to DSM-IV-TR, I'd guess. Paraphilias are sexual orientations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphilia

They really need to work on developing more precise language then. The accusation of false equivalence still holds though. Sexual orientations which are classified as disorders are entirely different from those which are not. Besides, I could also throw out an accusation that the OP committed the slippery slope fallacy.

Nidaria wrote:Proof of that? They can all be considered disorders.

Erm, I think you failed to read the article's introduction.

In the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), a paraphilia is not diagnosable as a psychiatric disorder unless it causes distress to the individual or harm to others.[1] The DSM-5 draft adds a terminology distinction between the two cases, stating that "paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders", and defining paraphilic disorder as "a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others".[15] This is purported by the draft to make a clear distinction between a healthy person with a non-normative sexual behavior and a person with a psychopathological non-normative sexual behavior. (On the other hand, a similar position was claimed to justify the inclusion of "Sexual orientation disturbance (Homosexuality)" in DSM II and "Ego-dystonic homosexuality" in DSM III[citation needed], before disorders related to homosexuality were finally dropped completely.)

Nidaria wrote:

Socialdemokraterne wrote:
The accusation of false equivalence still holds though. Sexual orientations which are classified as disorders are entirely different from those which are not. Besides, I could also throw out an accusation that the OP committed the slippery slope fallacy.

Proof of that? They can all be considered disorders.

ICD-10, section F66, note at the beginning:

"Sexual orientation by itself is not to be regarded as a disorder."

http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd ... n#/F60-F69

So, who thinks the OP got dumped by his boyfriend and for his post-break up rebound he decided he'd be "straight" and go on an anti-gay tirade?

Do NOT recruit me your region wrote:Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights.

I predict you'll get a lot of no true Scotsman here.

I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing. In fact I believe that the evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism are dangerous to society is overwhelming.

Any particular reason why you have this viewpoint? Surely there's some ulterior motive here.

HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples.

HIV/AIDS just naturally spreads more easily in some orifices than others, all I'll say. I'd question the "violence" part, and the "promiscuity" bit comes from flawed data. If there were as many homosexual couples as there are heterosexual, I think the rates would be more equal. There's a certain underground segment of homosexuals who are very open about it, and it just so happens that this same segment is also bound to be very voracious about it. If heterosexuals were a stigmatized minority instead, I think we'd see a lot sensationalist reports on the hugely exaggerated "straight club scene (gasp)"

I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal. As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too?

Don't bring morality and animals together in an argument, unless your audience is ARAs. Most animals cannot judge the morality of anything they do. They will rape, steal, and murder because that's the best way to survive according to their instincts. Of course, there are "higher" animals who have more discernment here, but they still can't compare to humans. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not a moral issue. Animals and humans can both, by chance, turn out to be gay.

I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it.

Even if you don't condone homosexuality, I think you're seriously off the deep end to actually consider it a disease.

If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay.

Not this crap again.

I'm not even sure if you're serious or not at this point. This argument is used to troll as much as it is legitimately, and it's so hilarious fallacious that I literally facepalm whenever I see it.I actually highlighted "slippery slope", to let you know that that's actually the common name of the logical fallacy you invoked here.

A live adult human participating in a homosexual activity, unless he or she has been raped (in which case rape is still rape, and still bad), has consented to it.
A child can give consent, but not informed consent; that is, knowing the true nature and consequences of an act. While there are signs that some animals can give sexual consent that humans can notice, there's deeper biological issues that make the problem here. And dead bodies can absolutely not consent to anything, let alone sex, and there are so many possible medical issues that can result that it's almost ridiculous.

In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members.

Note "reportedly" on the line about children (i.e. reported by fundamentalist homophobes), and remember that this is a one-off anecdote about gay people doing something idiotic. This is absolutely not a representation of the way most gay people are. Do you think we should find a cure to the threat of Islam because it happened to be Muslims in the planes that hit the WTC in 2001? Actually, given your whole game of "right-winger in 'liberal' clothing", I actually wouldn't be surprised if you do.

Risottia wrote:Erm, I think you failed to read the article's introduction.

OK. So the false equivalence lies in the consequences of allowing individuals to act out their desires. In the case of homosexuality there has not been established any sort of societal harm caused by the act of being a sexually-active homosexual. There is demonstrable harm done whenever a pedophile, a zoophile, or a necrophiliac engages in sex with the target of their interest.