Logical Homophobia

[Unhealthy2]

Furthermore... why is that even relevant? It merely differentiates between dangerous and less dangerous versions of the same problem.

Consent is VERY relevant.

To continue my analogy, if instead of into the mouth, you tried to shove bananas under your armpit, asides from starvation risk you'd be in pretty good shape.
If however you tried to breathe in chunks of one, you'd be in a risk of suffocation any time you got your hands on one.

An armpit is just as wrong a place for a banana to be shoved in as lungs are ,but the lungs are a really dangerous place as well.
However, legitimising the second on the basis it's not as bad as the first is rather insipid.

Except that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with sticking a banana in your armpit. It doesn't really do anything harmful, and there's nothing about a banana that makes it something which is "supposed" to be eaten.

[Sociobiology]

But if you try to solicit gay sex in an airport bathroom, you're still straight as an arrow.

In a way, yes. All people are created by God to be fruitful and multiply, and this is impossible for so-called homosexuals. At their core, all people are, in fact, heterosexual. Some people have sinful desires for members of their own sex, just as some have sinful desires for children (the two are often linked) Some give themselves over to the sinful desires for members of their own sex and call themselves "gaÿ." However, this is an affront to God and his creation, and will be punished in the imminent destruction of the world. So yes, those who solicit homosexual relations in airport bathrooms are still, at their core, "straight." However, they have been deceived and given themselves over to their carnal lusts, and will suffer the wrath of God for their wickedness.

argument is invalid until you prove your premises, including the existence of gods.

[Central Slavia]

Homosexuality
No, the object of attraction isn't the correct gender for intercourse.

Any other paraphilias? Zoophillia,

No. The object of attraction is not human.

necrophillia

No. The object of attraction is not alive.

paedophillia

No. The object of attraction cannot give informed consent.

gerontophillia

I see nothing wrong with gerontophillia. Providing the old person is mentally competent to give consent.

fetishism...

I see nothing wrong with fetishism generally. It's a wide range of interests, from the unsanitary to the G-rated mainstream. Stockings, tight shorts, makeup are all examples of fetishism. Perhaps you could be more specific.

FIX'D

[Mosasauria]

necrophillia

No. The object of attraction is not alive.

In regard to that, if the object is no longer alive and is thus inanimate, should we really be concerned?

[Unhealthy2]

No. The object of attraction is not human.



No. The object of attraction is not alive.



No. The object of attraction cannot give informed consent.



I see nothing wrong with gerontophillia. Providing the old person is mentally competent to give consent.



I see nothing wrong with fetishism generally. It's a wide range of interests, from the unsanitary to the G-rated mainstream. Stockings, tight shorts, makeup are all examples of fetishism. Perhaps you could be more specific.

FIX'D

You're implying that there is a "correct" gender to have sex with.

[Jordsindia]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

[Suzanaland]

Oh, this will end well. There is no logical explanation in favor of homophobia, but I shall bet my ass that HIV/AIDS, social disruption, the Abrahamic god, and tradition shall all be mentioned as reasons in favor of it before the tenth page.

You're forgetting that if kids are taught that homosexuality is normal, they won't reproduce, and the whole species will become extinct in a generation.

That's supposed yo be a joke right?

[Sociobiology]

Furthermore... why is that even relevant? It merely differentiates between dangerous and less dangerous versions of the same problem.

Consent is VERY relevant.

To continue my analogy, if instead of into the mouth, you tried to shove bananas under your armpit, asides from starvation risk you'd be in pretty good shape.
If however you tried to breathe in chunks of one, you'd be in a risk of suffocation any time you got your hands on one.

An armpit is just as wrong a place for a banana to be shoved in as lungs are ,but the lungs are a really dangerous place as well.
However, legitimising the second on the basis it's not as bad as the first is rather insipid.

Except that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with sticking a banana in your armpit. It doesn't really do anything harmful, and there's nothing about a banana that makes it something which is "supposed" to be eaten.

well in the case of banana's humans created them thru genetic manipulation to be eaten, so they kinda are supposed to eaten. but this is second to the fact that anal sex has evolved in other primates and actually has a biological basis.

[Ceannairceach]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

Over a hundred species of homosexually-paired animals have been found.

[Norstal]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

And women aren't supposed to give blowjobs. Yet, they do it because they can. Therefore, your appeal to nature is false and heretical.

[Snot Sniper]

Zoophilia, necrophilia, and pedophilia are mooted by the introduction of informed consent into the equation.

Fetishism isn't.
Furthermore... why is that even relevant? It merely differentiates between dangerous and less dangerous versions of the same problem.
To continue my analogy, if instead of into the mouth, you tried to shove bananas under your armpit, asides from starvation risk you'd be in pretty good shape.
If however you tried to breathe in chunks of one, you'd be in a risk of suffocation any time you got your hands on one.

An armpit is just as wrong a place for a banana to be shoved in as lungs are ,but the lungs are a really dangerous place as well.
However, legitimising the second on the basis it's not as bad as the first is rather insipid.

And disapproving of one because the other is harmful is worse than insipid. It's illogical.

That's exactly what you're doing with your weasely attempts to equate homosexual behavior with criminally harmful behavior like child molestation. Completely failing to bring the logic.

[Unhealthy2]

well in the case of banana's humans created them thru genetic manipulation to be eaten, so they kinda are supposed to eaten.

That doesn't follow. Scientist x creates the capacitor for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields. Scientist y decides to use the capacity as a filter in AC circuits. Is this wrong since, by your logic, the capacitor is "supposed" to be used to create uniform electric fields?

[Sociobiology]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

sure you do, many in fact, everything from bonobos to type 2 males in fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8143144

[Central Slavia]

Furthermore... why is that even relevant? It merely differentiates between dangerous and less dangerous versions of the same problem.

Consent is VERY relevant.

A heterosexual who fucks without consent is called a rapist and is fucking dangerous. However there's nothing wrong with his sexuality, it's other sides of his personality which are the problem.
Consent is simply irrelevant to determining whether a sexual orientation is normal , or abnormal.
[/quote]

To continue my analogy, if instead of into the mouth, you tried to shove bananas under your armpit, asides from starvation risk you'd be in pretty good shape.
If however you tried to breathe in chunks of one, you'd be in a risk of suffocation any time you got your hands on one.

An armpit is just as wrong a place for a banana to be shoved in as lungs are ,but the lungs are a really dangerous place as well.
However, legitimising the second on the basis it's not as bad as the first is rather insipid.

Except that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with sticking a banana in your armpit. It doesn't really do anything harmful, and there's nothing about a banana that makes it something which is "supposed" to be eaten.

Banana was used as a point of generic food, and unlike it, most people know where to stick their dick thanks to the wonders of correctly functioning instincts

[Unhealthy2]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

There's no "meant to be" about nature.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

Ironically, the whole concept of matrimony is quite unnatural. Also, if you hate the unnatural, then why do you use computers and the internet?

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

1. You do see gay animals.
2. You seem to imply that all gay humans are "voluntarily" gay. On what evidence do you make this assertion?

[Unhealthy2]

Consent is simply irrelevant to determining whether a sexual orientation is normal , or abnormal.

Unless your sexuality requires you to have non-consensual sex in order to get off.

Banana was used as a point of generic food, and unlike it, most people know where to stick their dick thanks to the wonders of correctly functioning instincts

"Correct functioning" implies a telos. Evolution has no telos.

[Central Slavia]

Things aren't meant to be homosexual.

A man and a women are spose to be together, not man or man, or woman and woman. It's not nature.

You never see gay animals, at least not voluntarily.

sure you do, many in fact, everything from bonobos to type 2 males in fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8143144

Both of you, that's utterly irrelevant.
An animal can have many of the same disorders that plague people - we are not all that special. Showing homosexuality in animals isn't making it any more legitimate as showing cancer in animals makes it sign of good health.
On the other hand, it , like any other such things, totally *is* nature, because nature sucks, a lot of time it does.

[Snot Sniper]

A heterosexual who fucks without consent is called a rapist and is fucking dangerous. However there's nothing wrong with his sexuality, it's other sides of his personality which are the problem.

If I really disliked you ... I'd sig that.

[Central Slavia]

Consent is simply irrelevant to determining whether a sexual orientation is normal , or abnormal.

Unless your sexuality requires you to have non-consensual sex in order to get off.

Banana was used as a point of generic food, and unlike it, most people know where to stick their dick thanks to the wonders of correctly functioning instincts

"Correct functioning" implies a telos. Evolution has no telos.

Not really.
Evolution has implicit purpose - reproduction/survivability because a species propagates by surviving longer and for more generations.
Not being willing to reproduce due to not being willing to bang the correct gender isn't quite aiding that.

[Sociobiology]

sure you do, many in fact, everything from bonobos to type 2 males in fish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8143144

Both of you, that's utterly irrelevant.
An animal can have many of the same disorders that plague people - we are not all that special. Showing homosexuality in animals isn't making it any more legitimate as showing cancer in animals makes it sign of good health.
On the other hand, it , like any other such things, totally *is* nature, because nature sucks, a lot of time it does.

there are animals that reproduce solely through homosexual means, so it can't be a disorder. and as I have stated homosexuals have on average more children than heterosexuals. so if it is a disorder, than being born with a good immune system is a disorder.

[Ceannairceach]

Not really.
Evolution has implicit purpose - reproduction/survivability because a species propagates by surviving longer and for more generations.
Not being willing to reproduce due to not being willing to bang the correct gender isn't quite aiding that.

Evolution has no purpose.

[Parhe]

In this thread, I would like for people that are anti-gay to provide rational arguments that homosexuality is bad, evil, harmful, or whatever other negative connotations they associate with it. Please state what negative thing you associate with it, and why you think this association is rational. I wish only to hear rational arguments, so please, only post reasons that you think are rationally defensible.

Gay couples produce no offspring. If a good proportion if a population becomes gay, then birth rates would decline, either causing the population to shrink and age. Both these are horrible for the economy, and as the economy drops, so does the standard of living.

[Norstal]

Not really.
Evolution has implicit purpose - reproduction/survivability because a species propagates by surviving longer and for more generations.
Not being willing to reproduce due to not being willing to bang the correct gender isn't quite aiding that.

How do you know being gay doesn't increase individual survival rates? Living with women can be a burden.

As with propagating our species, that's why we invented in-vitro fertilization. Duh.

[Central Slavia]

A heterosexual who fucks without consent is called a rapist and is fucking dangerous. However there's nothing wrong with his sexuality, it's other sides of his personality which are the problem.

If I really disliked you ... I'd sig that.

Why?

[Unhealthy2]

Not really.
Evolution has implicit purpose - reproduction/survivability because a species propagates by surviving longer and for more generations.
Not being willing to reproduce due to not being willing to bang the correct gender isn't quite aiding that.

No. Evolution simply describes what happens. The more stable configurations survive. That doesn't make them better than the less stable configurations, unless you assume that the laws of physics and biology are really good at picking out what deserves to exist.