NationStates

Calenhardon wrote:God says so.

THAT is not logical

Parhe wrote:

Unhealthy2 wrote: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.

Given the current number of homosexuals that exist, it is highly unlikely that the norm will ever break from heterosexual majority to homosexual majority.

Desperate Measures wrote:Hello darkness, my old friend I've come to talk with you again Because a vision softly creeping Left its seeds while I was sleeping And the vision that was planted in my brain Still remains Within the sound of silence

Truly a thing of beauty, go Simon and Garfunkel.

Parhe wrote: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.

You're implying that a large portion of the population could spontaneously become gay, a position with no empirical support at all.

Ceannairceach wrote:

Realisim wrote:In all honesty some people just don't like being around others due to decisions they may have made through their life.

Considering it is very difficult to determine someone's sexuality without them telling you or otherwise making it blatantly apparent(ie going to a gay bar, joining a gay dating site, etc), that is a very irrational way to go through life.

If you cant tell they are gay how do you expect one to be a homophobic?

Parhe wrote:

Unhealthy2 wrote: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.

Prove it.

Sociobiology wrote:

Central Slavia wrote:
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.

Animals that reproduce by solely "homosexual" means are usually hermaphrodites where both individuals can act as either.
In other words they are following the correct procedure and you are equivocating.

it's like going from 2+2 = 2x2 (homosexuality in case of single gender species) and following with 3+3 = 3x3 (multi -gender species)

Realisim wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote:Considering it is very difficult to determine someone's sexuality without them telling you or otherwise making it blatantly apparent(ie going to a gay bar, joining a gay dating site, etc), that is a very irrational way to go through life.

If you cant tell they are gay how do you expect one to be a homophobic?

Knowledge of who in a population is homosexual is not required for a homophobic person.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Parhe wrote: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.

You're implying that a large portion of the population could spontaneously become gay, a position with no empirical support at all.

I am just arguing the possible wrongs of being gay.
That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?

Norstal wrote:

Jordsindia wrote: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.

except there is an entirely evolutionary justification for the evolution of oral sex in us and other primates. It turns out the sense of taste can detect factors of health and virility/sterility otherwise undetectable. so just like homosexuality, oral is completely natural and not "deviant"

Norstal wrote:

Parhe wrote: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.

Prove it.

Prove that gay couples don't produce offspring?

Jordsindia wrote: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.

Actually I think you'll find that homosexuality has been around just as long as heterosexuality. And there are many well documented cases of gay animals (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magaz ... als-t.html) I've even heard of gay penguins that "mate" for life, they will conspire to steal eggs from other couples then raise the chick as their own.

Central Slavia wrote:

Ceannairceach wrote: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.

Have you ever had a banana in your armpit?

You're at the grocery store looking through all the fruits and veggies. Blandness meets your eyes. Everything is wilted, faded - just so out of season. Suddenly you see him. Suave. Yellow. Curved and some sort of South American. He calls out to you with silent desire, an invitatation to a taboo you didn't even know was your fantasy. You shopping cart is left behind and you're out the door 49 cents poorer but with joy in a tiny paper bag.

You're back at your place, out of breath and with your heart racing. You see his brown crown peeking at you from over the top of the paper bag. You need this. God, you think, I hope I remembered to put on deodorant. You slip his bag off. So phallic. So perfectly curved... perfect for that spot. Your one spot. You lick his skin and the chemicals give you a little bit of a high. Nothing like insecticide to help break the ice.

You hold his nub and whisper nothings as you gently -GENTLY- remove his outer layer. 3 easy delicate pulls and he's free and glorious. You remove your shirt. But are you ready? Is it too late to stop? Butterflies fight heroic battles within your bowels. No. Damn it all! You must have this. Such a perfect curve. So perfect. It just fits. You feel him tickle your underpit hairs. Your moaning and oh lord, you're almost positive a banana moans with you as you bring your arm to a warm, squishy, gushy close.

Parhe wrote:

Unhealthy2 wrote:
You're implying that a large portion of the population could spontaneously become gay, a position with no empirical support at all.

I am just arguing the possible wrongs of being gay.
That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?

Difference; Homosexuality is harmful to no one, and with the technology of the day, heterosexuality is not necessary for reproduction.

First of all; Let me make it clear that "homophobia" does not exist. People who yell "homophobe" at others are implying that all opposition or moral prejudice to homosexuality is not real and that conservative people are 'afraid' of homosexuals or contracting homosexuality. Which, on our side, is offensive and completely outrageous. Also, homophobia is implying that the attitude stated before "hate the sin and not the sinner" is impossible. I also try to use 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' as little as possible, as it is suggesting equivalence between the two.

My first and main argument is one that many of you will render null and void; However, Christians and other monotheistic religions believe it and practice it in their everyday lives. Failure to respect that is what many of you would consider "close-minded". The only subject of this argument is that: We find it immoral to participate in homosexual acts or 'have' homosexual feelings, and that our religious texts condemn such acts. It is our right to feel this way as much as it is your right to feel in whatever way you do towards the subject.

Second, homosexuals and liberals claim that they are 'born this way'. There is no scientific evidence supporting this despite the claims that there is such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is supported by the fact that not all twins are the same when it comes to sexual attraction. This claim tries to convince people that animals can be homosexual as well, that it is 'natural'; Yet, NONE of the 'studies' have been accepted or approved and most are immediately rejected as an animal showing dominance or in heat. These poor creatures are not homosexual, as it is their instinct and nature to reproduce, as God intended.

These are just a few of my views on this matter, but I was only asked to provide an argument. I don't care enough about this website or the community to write any more than this, and right now, I'm preparing to be flamed and trolled for stating this, although I was asked to.

Parhe wrote:That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?

False analogy. We have well more than enough heterosexuals to keep up the population, meaning that additional contributions are neither needed, nor wanted. More reproduction is not always good.

Parhe wrote:

Norstal wrote:Prove it.

Prove that gay couples don't produce offspring?

Yeah. Prove it. Sociobiology already gave sources disputing this claim.

http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2010/12/ ... -children/

And besides, we have a fucking oil crisis and you want MORE people in this planet?

Desperate Measures.. although it's utterly irrelevant, you totally WIN

Central Slavia wrote:

Sociobiology wrote: 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.

Animals that reproduce by solely "homosexual" means are usually hermaphrodites where both individuals can act as either.
In other words they are following the correct procedure and you are equivocating.

it's like going from 2+2 = 2x2 (homosexuality in case of single gender species) and following with 3+3 = 3x3 (multi -gender species)

no the one I am speaking of is completely female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but require pairing with another female to induce ovulation. in humans and bonobos homosexuality is a successful and advantageous form of behavior that results in a greater number of offspring making it a valid instinctual strategy.
remember this, humans as a species are serial monogamists, so a heterosexual pairing and homosexual pairing often happen in the same individual throughout their life time.

Mosasauria wrote:

Snot Sniper wrote:
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?

I'm not personally. I'm not even opposed to zoophilia in all cases, we do worse things to animals.

But let me say that I would be suspicious of either. If the animal seemed unhappy I'd object, and I'd want the necrophile too be definitely getting the consent of the relatives of the deceased (or by the written will of the deceased). As Desperate Measures mentioned in a timely manner, informed consent is central to distinguishing harmful paraphillias from unharmful ones.

Being human and being alive are fundamental requirements for someone to give informed consent. Their gender isn't (unless perhaps CSlavia thinks men are not mentally competent to consent?)

Sociobiology wrote:

Central Slavia wrote:
Animals that reproduce by solely "homosexual" means are usually hermaphrodites where both individuals can act as either.
In other words they are following the correct procedure and you are equivocating.

it's like going from 2+2 = 2x2 (homosexuality in case of single gender species) and following with 3+3 = 3x3 (multi -gender species)

no the one I am speaking of is completely female and reproduce through parthenogenesis, but require pairing with another female to induce ovulation. in humans and bonobos homosexuality is a successful and advantageous form of behavior that results in a greater number of offspring making it a valid instinctual strategy.
remember this, humans as a species are serial monogamists, so a heterosexual pairing and homosexual pairing often happen in the same individual throughout their life time.

See that right there? They can reproduce through parthenogenesis, but need homosexual behaviour to kick it off.
In other words they are capable of a mode of reproduction that this facilitates. (throwing other arguments aside atm)
Now, asides from the jokes of lawyers being born from the arse, i fail to see an equivalent of that in humans.

Moon Cows wrote:First of all; Let me make it clear that "homophobia" does not exist. People who yell "homophobe" at others are implying that all opposition or moral prejudice to homosexuality is not real and that conservative people are 'afraid' of homosexuals or contracting homosexuality. Which, on our side, is offensive and completely outrageous. Also, homophobia is implying that the attitude stated before "hate the sin and not the sinner" is impossible. I also try to use 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' as little as possible, as it is suggesting equivalence between the two.

Homophobia does not solely imply a fear of. It also applies an aversion to homosexuals. Which, you must admit, you have. There is an equivalence between homosexuality and heterosexuality, I might add, as they are both valid sexual orientations.

My first and main argument is one that many of you will render null and void; However, Christians and other monotheistic religions believe it and practice it in their everyday lives. Failure to respect that is what many of you would consider "close-minded". The only subject of this argument is that: We find it immoral to participate in homosexual acts or 'have' homosexual feelings, and that our religious texts condemn such acts. It is our right to feel this way as much as it is your right to feel in whatever way you do towards the subject.

And this gives you the right to fear/have an aversion to homosexuals, simply because your religion tells you to? Your religion tells you not to be one, not to declare yourself to be against homosexuality. And, as St. George(The NS poster) has declared, it is a grey area as to if your religion(assuming Christianity) actually states this.

Second, homosexuals and liberals claim that they are 'born this way'. There is no scientific evidence supporting this despite the claims that there is such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is supported by the fact that not all twins are the same when it comes to sexual attraction. This claim tries to convince people that animals can be homosexual as well, that it is 'natural'; Yet, NONE of the 'studies' have been accepted or approved and most are immediately rejected as an animal showing dominance or in heat. These poor creatures are not homosexual, as it is their instinct and nature to reproduce, as God intended.

Entirely false, the second part. Around a hundred species of life on Earth have been documented to show homosexual relationships, not just wild homosexual fucking. Among them are the famous NYC penguins, who paired together willingly and raised an egg together, as I recall. Also, the reference to god is cute, but completely irrevelent, as not all of us recognize your fable. As to the first part, the scientific community accepts that it is more likely for twins to be of the same sexual orientation than it is not.

These are just a few of my views on this matter, but I was only asked to provide an argument. I don't care enough about this website or the community to write any more than this, and right now, I'm preparing to be flamed and trolled for stating this, although I was asked to.

Very nice of you to oblige.

Unhealthy2 wrote:

Parhe wrote:That would be as saying it is okay for a small group of people to create a pile of coal and let it burn. Its okay, only because a few people do it?

False analogy. We have well more than enough heterosexuals to keep up the population, meaning that additional contributions are neither needed, nor wanted. More reproduction is not always good.

But bananas can't consent ... call me wrong but I don't care.

Norstal wrote:

Parhe wrote:Prove that gay couples don't produce offspring?

Yeah. Prove it. Sociobiology already gave sources disputing this claim.

http://www.thegaymanifesto.com/2010/12/ ... -children/

And besides, we have a fucking oil crisis and you want MORE people in this planet?

OK not more source please don't imply it is, whether intentional ore not.
here are my sources

http://books.google.com/books/about/Sperm_Wars.html?id=Is79JFQMaM8C

http://www.fed.cuhk.edu.hk/~lchang/material/Evolutionary/Evo%20homosexual.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030326479390051D

Moon Cows wrote:First of all; Let me make it clear that "homophobia" does not exist.

Yes it does. Apparently, so do people with no understanding of language whatsoever. Hint, "phobia" does not always mean "fear."

My first and main argument is one that many of you will render null and void; However, Christians and other monotheistic religions believe it and practice it in their everyday lives. Failure to respect that is what many of you would consider "close-minded". The only subject of this argument is that: We find it immoral to participate in homosexual acts or 'have' homosexual feelings, and that our religious texts condemn such acts. It is our right to feel this way as much as it is your right to feel in whatever way you do towards the subject.

Rejecting a set of claims that have no evidence whatsoever is not closed-mindedness. Refusing to consider the possibility that your chosen beliefs could be incorrect is.

In addition:

1. How can having a particular feeling be morally wrong? How does it make sense for something that one cannot control to be wrong? I can at least understand the possible coherence of the notion that gay sex is wrong, but how is it logically possible for the attraction to be immoral, given that morality requires freedom to choose?

2. I don't like your sense of entitlement. You have the "right" to believe as you wish, in the sense that you shouldn't be prosecuted for believing something. However, you're not entitled to believe something which is not rational.

Second, homosexuals and liberals claim that they are 'born this way'. There is no scientific evidence supporting this despite the claims that there is such thing as a 'gay gene'. This is supported by the fact that not all twins are the same when it comes to sexual attraction. This claim tries to convince people that animals can be homosexual as well, that it is 'natural';

1. The idea that one cannot choose their sexuality does not automatically mean that sexuality is completely genetic.

2. Were it proven that people can choose their sexuality, that would not prove that choosing to be attracted to members of the same sex is wrong.

3. It's borderline incoherent to suggest that we can choose our preferences. On what basis our these choices made? Our preferences? This creates an endless feedback loop. So we prefer to prefer to prefer to prefer...to be attracted to whatever we're attracted to?

Yet, NONE of the 'studies' have been accepted or approved and most are immediately rejected as an animal showing dominance or in heat. These poor creatures are not homosexual, as it is their instinct and nature to reproduce, as God intended.

Source?