Why dislike homosexuals?

[Nidaria]

Morality is absolute and permanent, more lasting than the universe itself. It is highly unnatural for a human being to be sexually attracted to another regardless of sex. The only valid sexual relationship is that between one man and one woman.

Literally everything you've just said is wrong.

Care to explain why?

[Neutraligon]

But why?! You're not even explaining me why! For you, morality may be absolute, permanent, and more lasting than the universe itself, but for me, it is not. It is very natural for a human being - an animal - to be sexually attracted to another human being regardless of sex. Animals have it too, and humans are, after all, animals. I consider every relationship valid as long as there is consent given, and between 2 men, as well as 2 women or a man and a woman, there's consent, and as long as that's given, it's a valid relationship.

As for comparing homosexuality to paedophilia; this is just plain idiotic. I've seen it happen a lot, especially done by the Catholic Church, but paedophiles are generally more those who are sexually attracted to children, and not those attracted to the same gender. Often enough, paedophiles can be attracted to children of both sexes, whereas the homosexual is attracted to only one sex; the same sex.

y u no biology!

Have you not heard of mental disease? This why many homosexuals are the way they are, and mental disease also exists among animals. If you consider consent as the most important thing ever, then you must support adultery, bigamy, polygamy, suicide, and a great many perversions. Consent does matter, but it does not solely determine what is and is not moral.

I never claimed that homosexuality was pedophilia (though they are often tied together), but that they are both perversions of the same general nature. Also, bisexuality is also attracted to both sexes, and is close to pedophilia.

You are not in a position to judge my knowledge of biology.

Except one thing, there is no proof that it is a mental disorder. Most recognized psychiatric organizations do not see it as a mental disorder. They are not in the same nature since, in one someone is harmed, and in the other no one is harmed.

[Mike the Progressive]

Which is strange because the church recognizes it's not a choice.

Does that make Nidaria a heretic?

I feel a letter to Frankie I is in order.

I dunno. It's a bit messy. The Church teaches that homosexuality isn't a sin, but homosexual acts are. It recognizes people are born that way or may not have a choice in it, but it also treats it as a disorder, a mental illness that shouldn't be acted upon.

[Faolinn]

Because it's kind of unusual and society fears stuff that's even slightly less than common usually?My only objection to the existence of gay men in particular though is that all women seem to forget I exist the minute one shows up.

I am so sorry about that second part. My attempts at humor sometimes fail miserably.

[The Nihilistic view]

I don't dislike them, i just advise all straight men to wear small butt plugs!

[Ceannairceach]

Literally everything you've just said is wrong.

Care to explain why?

Gladly!

First and foremost, morality cannot exist before the universe, since before the universe nothing existed that we, as humans, could consider "moral". Also, morality differs between certain cultures and peoples and can change over time, to the point that anyone who claims morality to be constant or absolute is a liar or grossly misinformed.

As to the sexuality comment, it has been deemed false by such organizations as the American Medical Association that homosexuality is a disease or defect, and other such accredited physical and mental health organizations. Considering the existence of homosexuality in less mentally sophisticated animals, as well, the is substantial evidence that homosexuality is natural. Thus, sexuality, more broadly, is natural as well, due to sexuality in other animals.

The final one is an opinion, and is not based in truth nor fact beyond one's personal, subjective morality.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

most cases are entirely willful, with the subject desiring to be sexually "different."

This is genuinely about as far from facts as it is possible to get on this topic.

[TriStates]

I think the question that should be answered is not why people dislike, so much as why people care.

You have people disapproving, and you have people cheering them on. Proponents and Opponents alike. Its really moronic, considering its a personal choice, and as such should just remain personal. There is no pride in being gay, just like there's no pride in being straight. Just because you flaunt a personal choice around and call it "pride" doesn't make it so.

For me personally, it seems that supporting it makes their advocates seem insecure. Because instead of providing the message, "I am gay and I'm okay with that." the supporters message comes across as "I'm gay, and You have to be okay with that." Instead of finding acceptance for themselves, it appears to me, that they must find acceptance at the community at large. Basically, if the majority disagree with them, then they are being hated upon.

Whatever happened to civil disagreement?

Perhaps the best thing to do is to quit making a big deal about who somebody bunks with at night, and move on with our lives. To much to ask? I hope not.

On the contrary to what you say here, you don't "choose" to be gay or bisexual or whatever, you just are, and you were born like that and you will die like that, just like how a person with autism will have autism forever unless they make a cure for it, which I sincerely hope they do.

I disagree. I believe that it is a will full choice made by the individual.

[Menassa]

On the contrary to what you say here, you don't "choose" to be gay or bisexual or whatever, you just are, and you were born like that and you will die like that, just like how a person with autism will have autism forever unless they make a cure for it, which I sincerely hope they do.

I disagree. I believe that it is a will full choice made by the individual.

And?

[Metaphysical Plains]

On the contrary to what you say here, you don't "choose" to be gay or bisexual or whatever, you just are, and you were born like that and you will die like that, just like how a person with autism will have autism forever unless they make a cure for it, which I sincerely hope they do.

I disagree. I believe that it is a will full choice made by the individual.

When did you choose to be your sexual orientation?

[Neutraligon]

On the contrary to what you say here, you don't "choose" to be gay or bisexual or whatever, you just are, and you were born like that and you will die like that, just like how a person with autism will have autism forever unless they make a cure for it, which I sincerely hope they do.

I disagree. I believe that it is a will full choice made by the individual.

That's nice, now back that up with scientific data supporting it.

[Aequalitia]

But why?! You're not even explaining me why! For you, morality may be absolute, permanent, and more lasting than the universe itself, but for me, it is not. It is very natural for a human being - an animal - to be sexually attracted to another human being regardless of sex. Animals have it too, and humans are, after all, animals. I consider every relationship valid as long as there is consent given, and between 2 men, as well as 2 women or a man and a woman, there's consent, and as long as that's given, it's a valid relationship.

As for comparing homosexuality to paedophilia; this is just plain idiotic. I've seen it happen a lot, especially done by the Catholic Church, but paedophiles are generally more those who are sexually attracted to children, and not those attracted to the same gender. Often enough, paedophiles can be attracted to children of both sexes, whereas the homosexual is attracted to only one sex; the same sex.

y u no biology!

Have you not heard of mental disease? This why many homosexuals are the way they are, and mental disease also exists among animals. If you consider consent as the most important thing ever, then you must support adultery, bigamy, polygamy, suicide, and a great many perversions. Consent does matter, but it does not solely determine what is and is not moral.

I never claimed that homosexuality was pedophilia (though they are often tied together), but that they are both perversions of the same general nature. Also, bisexuality is also attracted to both sexes, and is close to pedophilia.

You are not in a position to judge my knowledge of biology.

Well, I don't be surprised when you got totally no problems with social darwinism. Got any proof that its a mental disease if someone loves (also) the same sex?

And please, don't be a *Censored* with calling bisexuality almost the same as pedophilia.

[Hamste]

But why?! You're not even explaining me why! For you, morality may be absolute, permanent, and more lasting than the universe itself, but for me, it is not. It is very natural for a human being - an animal - to be sexually attracted to another human being regardless of sex. Animals have it too, and humans are, after all, animals. I consider every relationship valid as long as there is consent given, and between 2 men, as well as 2 women or a man and a woman, there's consent, and as long as that's given, it's a valid relationship.

As for comparing homosexuality to paedophilia; this is just plain idiotic. I've seen it happen a lot, especially done by the Catholic Church, but paedophiles are generally more those who are sexually attracted to children, and not those attracted to the same gender. Often enough, paedophiles can be attracted to children of both sexes, whereas the homosexual is attracted to only one sex; the same sex.

y u no biology!

Have you not heard of mental disease? This why many homosexuals are the way they are, and mental disease also exists among animals. If you consider consent as the most important thing ever, then you must support adultery, bigamy, polygamy, suicide, and a great many perversions. Consent does matter, but it does not solely determine what is and is not moral.

I never claimed that homosexuality was pedophilia (though they are often tied together), but that they are both perversions of the same general nature. Also, bisexuality is also attracted to both sexes, and is close to pedophilia.

You are not in a position to judge my knowledge of biology.

Interesting, I have always assumed that people against homosexuality had the mental disorders. This is why the people against homosexuality are the way they are. If you consider it, it seems more likely that a single disorder that causes people to want to restrict the rights of another is more likely than a mental illness that affects a lot of animals that have definite male or female organs. On another note if being gay was a mental illness then the population of gay people will be decreasing not increasing as it would be a negative evolutionary trait to be susceptible to it. Also if you truly believe that, you should want it to be out in the open (and less likely to be pressured into appearing "normal" and having children to avoid social stigma) until all those who are most likely to have this "illness" die without progeny.

[Metaphysical Plains]

I disagree. I believe that it is a will full choice made by the individual.

That's nice, now back that up with scientific data supporting it.

Does s/he need a scientific reason to "believe" something??? If s/he were making a statement of fact rather than a statement of belief it'd make more sense that they'd need scientific evidence...but it's merely a belief that they are stating...

[Ifreann]

Literally everything you've just said is wrong.

Care to explain why?

Because some weird insecurity about your morals and beliefs has you trying to overcompensate and pulling out that kind of shite? I don't know why you're so wrong all the time, I'm not a psychologist.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

That's nice, now back that up with scientific data supporting it.

Does s/he need a scientific reason to "believe" something??? If s/he were making a statement of fact rather than a statement of belief it'd make more sense that they'd need scientific evidence...but it's merely a belief that they are stating...

Their belief is wrong. A belief doesn't get special snowflake treatment from being proven wrong just because it's not a categorical statement of fact.

[Metaphysical Plains]

Does s/he need a scientific reason to "believe" something??? If s/he were making a statement of fact rather than a statement of belief it'd make more sense that they'd need scientific evidence...but it's merely a belief that they are stating...

Their belief is wrong. A belief doesn't get special snowflake treatment from being proven wrong just because it's not a categorical statement of fact.

so then all opinions MUST line up with scientific evidence? I find that to be bullshit.

(If I may use cuss words here)

[Neutraligon]

Their belief is wrong. A belief doesn't get special snowflake treatment from being proven wrong just because it's not a categorical statement of fact.

so then all opinions MUST line up with scientific evidence? I find that to be bullshit.

(If I may use cuss words here)

No, opinion have to have something that back them up. As we are talking about a scientific matter, it should be backed up with science. If we were talking about a religious matter, it would need to be backed up with religious text or tradition.

[Menassa]

so then all opinions MUST line up with scientific evidence? I find that to be bullshit.

(If I may use cuss words here)

No, opinion have to have something that back them up. As we are talking about a scientific matter, it should be backed up with science. If we were talking about a religious matter, it would need to be backed up with religious text or tradition.

Eh... the latter's not the greatest.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Their belief is wrong. A belief doesn't get special snowflake treatment from being proven wrong just because it's not a categorical statement of fact.

so then all opinions MUST line up with scientific evidence? I find that to be bullshit.

(If I may use cuss words here)

It's not that they have to. It's merely that, in a discussion involving science, opinions can be discarded as worthless if they don't line up with the evidence.

[Kleomentia]

The way i see it. There are always idiots that will hate something. Now, the fact is some hating groups are bigger than others. I usually try not to get bothered with the fact such idiots exist. Then i get remembered a friend of mine is that idiot.

[Metaphysical Plains]

so then all opinions MUST line up with scientific evidence? I find that to be bullshit.

(If I may use cuss words here)

It's not that they have to. It's merely that, in a discussion involving science, opinions can be discarded as worthless if they don't line up with the evidence.

okay.

(still getting used to how discussion run/work around here)

[Blekksprutia]

Becuz da book!

[Kleomentia]

Becuz da book!

And da nailed guy!

[Menassa]

Becuz da book!

The Law.

You foolish Galatian.