The threat of homosexuality

[Cold Coast]

With that ridiculous point of view, all sex should be banned then and not just homosexual. Heterosexual can cause bodily harm too.

I don't believe I ever said heterosexual sex cannot cause harm, or that homosexual sex should be banned, because of the harm it can cause.

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

[Unified Provinces]

If these are problems that you mentioned then homosexual couples should just practice safe sex, Abatael.

[United States of Natan]

And (shocker!) maybe you know that homosexual intercourses do not REQUIRE anal sex.

Then you would also know your point has absolutely no meaning. Hence, you must be missing some link.

I never said homosexual intercourse requires anal sex, and I used anal sex as an example, hence the word "example" being there.

The point is that homosexual acts do have potential to harm the body; something the person I quoted suggested was not there.

Maybe you should read before you run your mouth.

1. with that logic, we outlaw all sex, as heterosexual sex can be very harmful to the woman. and even the man too.

2. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, for one thing, we are not all christian so we do not all believe in your bible, and also, ever thought about the fact that they cannot help it, and it is not their fault they are attracted to the same gender. also, if you Christians think G_d does not like gays (which is not true, He loves everyone equally), then why would He make people gay in the first place.

telegram me if you think I just made a valid point.

[Abatael]

Then what are you trying to argue then?

News flash!!! You can make a post, and not be in an argument!

I was simply pointing out that there is, in fact, a potential for harm. You should really never assume I, or for that matter, anyone else, am arguing for, or against something, unless it is explicitly stated, or strongly suggested.

[Condunum]

I don't believe I ever said heterosexual sex cannot cause harm, or that homosexual sex should be banned, because of the harm it can cause.

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Or, and here's the fun one: You're arguing a strawman here. He never said being homosexual is bad.

[Tyhcoon]

Three words for ya:

THIS IS SAD.

"Let's take away rights from certain people because they're different!" = "Let's judge people from the color of their skin!" Well, we'd better because they're a THREAT to society!! Savage terrorists!!

[Neo Art]

News flash!!! You can make a post, and not be in an argument!

I was simply pointing out that there is, in fact, a potential for harm. You should really never assume I, or for that matter, anyone else, am arguing for, or against something, unless it is explicitly stated, or strongly suggested.

It is absolutely stunning how many people needed this pointed out to them.

[Abatael]

I never said homosexual intercourse requires anal sex, and I used anal sex as an example, hence the word "example" being there.

The point is that homosexual acts do have potential to harm the body; something the person I quoted suggested was not there.

Maybe you should read before you run your mouth.

1. with that logic, we outlaw all sex, as heterosexual sex can be very harmful to the woman. and even the man too.

2. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, for one thing, we are not all christian so we do not all believe in your bible, and also, ever thought about the fact that they cannot help it, and it is not their fault they are attracted to the same gender. also, if you Christians think G_d does not like gays (which is not true, He loves everyone equally), then why would He make people gay in the first place.

telegram me if you think I just made a valid point.

I don't think you made a valid point, so I will not be telegramming you. Thanks for the invitation, though.

Pray tell, where exactly did you find this "logic" I was using? What was my conclusion? What was the rule employed? What was my precondition?

[Cold Coast]

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Or, and here's the fun one: You're arguing a strawman here. He never said being homosexual is bad.

You're right, he only talked about negative effects of gay sex.

[Condunum]

I never said homosexual intercourse requires anal sex, and I used anal sex as an example, hence the word "example" being there.

The point is that homosexual acts do have potential to harm the body; something the person I quoted suggested was not there.

Maybe you should read before you run your mouth.

1. with that logic, we outlaw all sex, as heterosexual sex can be very harmful to the woman. and even the man too.

With what logic? He never said that homosexual sex is bad here.

2. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, for one thing, we are not all christian so we do not all believe in your bible, and also, ever thought about the fact that they cannot help it, and it is not their fault they are attracted to the same gender. also, if you Christians think G_d does not like gays (which is not true, He loves everyone equally), then why would He make people gay in the first place.

telegram me if you think I just made a valid point.

Stop arguing against an argument he isn't making.

[Abatael]

I don't believe I ever said heterosexual sex cannot cause harm, or that homosexual sex should be banned, because of the harm it can cause.

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Where did I say being homosexual is bad?

You are entirely misunderstanding everything said.

[Cold Coast]

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Where did I say being homosexual is bad?

You are entirely misunderstanding everything said.

It's just assumed that someone talking about negative effects of homosexual sex would be against it.

[Khadgar]

Or, and here's the fun one: You're arguing a strawman here. He never said being homosexual is bad.

You're right, he only talked about negative effects of gay sex.

No, he talked about the negative effects of anal sex. Not all gay sex is anal.

[Salandriagado]

Proof of that? They can all be considered disorders.

No they can't. Words have definitions, you know. Randomly changing them makes conversation very difficult.

It really doesn't. Possibly two or three clear cut mentions, maybe a dozen more potential.

Not that that takes away from your point, but still.

Less than that, actually, they're largely the results of terrible (deliberately or otherwise) translations.

Is a corpse really harmed? It's a corpse, the guy is already dead. The only ones harmed are the immediate family, who would disapprove, which could be said the same for homosexuality and other things.[/quote

It is an established principle that people have the right to dictate what happens to their body after their death. As such, that right is violated if their permission is not acquired prior to death.

Zoophile, erm... not necessarily. And in the case of non-consensual sex enforced on an animal, it would not be considered by the law as a damage to a person.

"To a person" is not a requirement of this discussion.

Briefly granting the OP's premise (which is not recommended), what does he intend to do about it?

Homosexual "treatment" programs have been demonstrably proven not to work.

Not to mention being torture facilities by any other name.

*ahem* trust me, there is some personal harm that comes from being a sexually-active homosexual male.
Speaking from experience, here.

There is some personal harm that MIGHT come from being a sexually-active homosexual male. Largely the same kinds of harm that come from being a sexually-active heterosexual male.

Of course not, but neither can an artificial vagina. If you are dead your body is now simply an object instead of a person.

Again, post-mortal sovereignty over your body is an established principle.

There's a store a few blocks from my house absolutely filled with objects intended to be used for sexual gratification, and I promise you absolutely none of them can consent. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make here.

At the point at which sexual contact occurs, all of them are the property of the person having sex with them. This is not the case with a corpse, which the former owner maintains sovereignty over (through the executor(s) of their will, usually).

Are suggesting that gays are more horny is BS as well

Actually, it is a statistical fact that the homosexual "community", on average, is more promiscuous than the heterosexual "community" (I realise that the word "community" isn't really applicable, but it's the most generally understood one that I'm aware of).

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Bolded your mistake. He didn't say that being gay is bad. At all. He is simply making a technical point, and not making any kind of argument as to the morality or desirability of homosexuality one way or the other.

You're right, he only talked about negative effects of gay sex.

In order to correct a mistake by another poster who claimed that they didn't exist. Who knew? Sometimes, people say exactly what they mean.

[Condunum]

Or, and here's the fun one: You're arguing a strawman here. He never said being homosexual is bad.

You're right, he only talked about negative effects of gay sex.

On the contrare, he mentioned the possible negative effects of homosexual sex, without saying anything about what should be done about it.

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

Where did I say being homosexual is bad?

You are entirely misunderstanding everything said.

If I'm not mistaken, you're one of the people here who disapprove, but really don't care, am I correct?

[Neo Art]

It's just assumed that someone talking about negative effects of homosexual sex would be against it.

After all, why would one go through all that bothersome trouble of reading when one can just assume the point one is trying to make.

Oh what master debaters these generalites be.

[Sebbal]

Surely the problems you mention are a result of other people's bigotry rather than symptoms of homosexuality itself.

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.

Okay really, why is it that anti homosexuality arguments always conflate two grown men or women making a consensual decision to have sex with a man or woman raping a child? Where is the connection here? Explain this to me.

[Abatael]

You're right, he only talked about negative effects of gay sex.

On the contrare, he mentioned the possible negative effects of homosexual sex, without saying anything about what should be done about it.

Where did I say being homosexual is bad?

You are entirely misunderstanding everything said.

If I'm not mistaken, you're one of the people here who disapprove, but really don't care, am I correct?

Disapprove of homosexuality?

[The Archregimancy]

locked for review.

Edit:

I'm disappointed; there's no doubt that the OP is expressing an opinion that was always going to prove unpopular on NSG - but he/she is hardly the first person to express that opinion here, and that the opinion is unpopular with the majority of generalites is not itself automatically evidence of trolling.

It's a rebuttable opinion with rebuttable links - so rebut it.


Some of you have not rebutted it; in fact some of you have - ironically - yourselves engaged in actionable behaviour.

Your full of shit

*** Warned for flaming ***

(Image)

*** Warned for trollnaming picspam ***

Troll troll troll troll OP.

*** Warned for trollnaming ***

Are you trying to troll, or are you literally this stupid? You are saying being gay is bad because gay sex can cause bodily harm, and then when somebody (me) points at that heterosexual sex can also cause bodily harm to, you say you never said that. So you must either be against all sex no matter what, or your argument makes no sense.

*** Warned for trollnaming and flaming ***

Why? Just because he has retarded views doesn't warrant a ban.

Slander against the LGBT community is more than enough reason to ban him

Arguing that homosexuality is wrong, or expressing an opinion which is going to prove unpopular in NSG, are not by themselves actionable, nor do they necessarily inherently consist of trolling; certainly they do not necessarily indicate bannable behaviour any more than someone expressing the deeply unpopular opinion that Stalin wasn't actually so bad after all would be engaging in actionable or bannable behaviour.

The OP does not breach any site rules; it is merely an unpopular opinion.

I applaud those of you who have, instead of rolling your eyes and calling 'troll', have engaged in point by point rebuttals of the OP - this is likely a far more effective response to this type of OP.



And some of you may want to pay close attention to this thread: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=201348

Anyone disagreeing with my ruling in this thread can argue their case in the Moderation thread already in place for reports on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=201841

[Desperate Measures]

Surely the problems you mention are a result of other people's bigotry rather than symptoms of homosexuality itself.

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.

Okay really, why is it that anti homosexuality arguments always conflate two grown men or women making a consensual decision to have sex with a man or woman raping a child? Where is the connection here? Explain this to me.

Well, gay sex is icky. And sex with animals is also icky. If we have one icky, obviously we have to have two ickies.

I think. Trying to think that way makes my brains ache.

[Wollstria]

I suppose liberals aren't as homo-generous as I thought.

[Zanzibarnia]

Which threat of homosexuality is this? 115th?

I think it's the one where we look out for homosexual gangbangers cruising past in their bouncing cars to hose us down with drive-by redecorations and makeovers.

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 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msm ... lease.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291357

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474

Damn near everyone's had a good go at soundly trashing this, OP, so instead I'm just going to link you to http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ because I'm pretty sure your argument contains a staggering number of them, which would actually be somewhat impressive if it weren't so sad.

[Prosperos]

Oh, and not only should same-sex couples have marriage rights, polygamy should be legal too.

Yes, I am serious.

Why polygamy?

[Threlizdun]

Oh, and not only should same-sex couples have marriage rights, polygamy should be legal too.

Yes, I am serious.

Why polygamy?

Why prevent more than two consenting adults from marrying one another?

[Khadgar]

Oh, and not only should same-sex couples have marriage rights, polygamy should be legal too.

Yes, I am serious.

Why polygamy?

Why not? As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult.