Sword legion : "Offensive doesn't mean inaccurate."

Except saying that homosexuality is on the same level as beastiality IS inaccurate... Please read this carefully.

I know trying to explain this to you is much akin to explaining this to a carrot, because I've seen this already explained to you extensively on this thread with no mental acknowledgment on your end, but I'll try to explain it again for you.(Don't be offended, because it's accurate)

Homosexuality, as well as polygamy is a CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP with ADULTS. These are very important terms to understand when talking about the morality of relationships.

Beastiality is NOT a consensual relationship between adults.

Pedophilia is NOT a consensual relationship between adults.

The reason these things are immoral is because they cause harm and infringe on the rights to the NON-CONSENTING victims, and should not be legal.

I almost admire your inexorable persistence to remain ignorant on this subject, but if you cannot incorporate the simple concept of adult consensual relationships into your understanding of morality, there is NO point trying to converse.

You said to Mr. Zed...


"No. I don't quit. I fight till the fight is won."

Saying this, proves to us that you are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, that is not an endearing trait, that is a signal that you lack the key component to use critical thinking skills. An attitude like that keeps people from throwing out bad information, and learning new information.

You'll have to learn this someday, but intellectual conflicts aren't won by fighting, they are won by presenting your argument, if your argument cannot withstand intellectual scrutiny and fails to coincide with the evidence, the argument should be abandoned. Though I doubt that will happen between now, and when you decide to respond to this post.

anyway, take care.

sloanstar1000 :

"I know trying to explain this to you is much akin to explaining this to a carrot"

I think the same about you and rcarter.


"Homosexuality, as well as polygamy is a CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIP with ADULTS. These are very important terms to understand when talking about the morality of relationships.

Beastiality is NOT a consensual relationship between adults.

Pedophilia is NOT a consensual relationship between adults.

The reason these things are immoral is because they cause harm and infringe on the rights to the NON-CONSENTING victims, and should not be legal."

Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder, homosexuality was also considered a mental disorder at one point in time. Why? because the human body is not made to perform either of these actions. Same for bestiality.

I have already explained why you do not need consent to marry an animal. Animals mate with each other all the time without consent. Also, humans can do many things to animals without their consent.


Homosexuals. . . are in a lot of trouble

. . . their relationship is damaging to their bodies. . . 


. . . other than the potential mental effects, there are other effects from this unnatural behavior. 



Men who have sex with men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been said that one in five gay men have AIDs, and the other four don't know it. So, if you're gay, and you want a sex partner then let's say I have five cups right here. each cup is turned upsidedown, one of these cups have AIDs in it. But guess what? You are already one of those five cups, so, we'll remove one cup. Now, pick one of these four cups. Did you get lucky? Well, guess what, you're not out of the woods yet. Everytime you have intercourse with your gay partner, you risk Hepetitus B.

+ other diseases.

But we're still not done.

If you're gay partner cheats on you, with someone else who has AIDs. . .

Then you're suddenly at risk.

I have a relative who was killed by AIDs. . . and he was gay. His mom ignored that he was gay his whole life.


Also, take a look at this.

You guys complain that I "ignore" consent when dealing with the bestiality argument.

But I say that you ignore that gay marriage is unnatural in the homosexuality argument!

Who's talking to the carrot?


'No. I don't quit. I fight till the fight is won.'

"Saying this, proves to us that you are incapable of admitting when you're wrong, that is not an endearing trait, that is a signal that you lack the key component to use critical thinking skills. An attitude like that keeps people from throwing out bad information, and learning new information."

It's a figure of speech. What, you've never heard of a debate being considered a battle in the boxing ring? But hey, I don't quite. I have been wrong before. Perhaps you have the wrong attitude in a debate because you have a brother who is gay?

"anyway, take care."

Not sure if this ^ is sincere, but I wish you the best all the same. I don't hate gays, but I am not pleased with straight people who support it because it is easier than it is to change it. Or people who use them as a political tool to make conservatives look bad.

Okay, in my opinion on this matter, I believe that unless you are directly involved in such a matter, then it does not involve you. So what if a male wishes to marry a male, no one is forcing you to go to their wedding, if a female wishes to marry a female, again no one is forcing to to see them together. People are people, let them lives their lives how they wish to live it. But, it has been said about minors have intercourse with other minors, that in some cases illegal depending on age, and parents should be watching their kids, and not allowing that to happen. Also about humans loving animals or materialistic objects. When it comes to a proper, marriage, both parties say "I do" and with these objects, they can not say "I do" therefore, they will not be able to marry anyway, so that has nothing  to the debate on same sex love.

Sword legion : Spreading AIDS is a completely different matter, people should be tested, and it's immoral and illegal to knowlingly spread AIDS. AIDS can be spread by heterosexual couples as well, so obviously this is not an issue that just concerns homosexuals, why bring it up?

Cheating is also immoral, heterosexuals cheat as well, why bring it up? Absolutely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality

I also openly admit that I ignore your argument that homosexuality is unnatural, it exists in the natural universe, it isn't a metaphysical entity, therefore it's natural. Not to mention that it's naturally done within other species as well. Nor does it matter whether it's natural or not. Murder is natural, so should we make murder legal? It's called a naturalistic fallacy

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS between ADULTS!

You said:
"Pedophilia is considered a mental disorder,
homosexuality was also considered a mental disorder at one point in
time. Why? because the human body is not made to perform either of these
actions. Same for bestiality"

Apparently, the only reason you think that pedophilia is immoral, is because "the human body is not made to perform either of these actions", and NOT because it actually causes trauma to the child.

This is the stark difference between my understanding of morality, and yours. I think pedophilia is wrong because it infringes on the rights of and damages a child of the rest of his/her natural life, YOU think it's immoral simply because "our bodies weren't made for it", which I think is completely irrelevant, and a stupid thing to base your morality on.

Two males, or two females in a consensual relationship hurts no one, the only complaints you seem to have about AIDS transmission, or cheating, concerns both heterosexuals and homosexuals, so why not abolish sexuality altogether?

Like I said, you are unable to comprehend the concept of a consensual relationship and how it relates to morality, we're done.

Sword legion : You need to let go of the STD argument, as it holds no merit. The risk of disease is just as risky no matter the sexual preference. I will also note something. You asked me not long ago where to find credible sources. Then your turn around and use Wikipedia. That is one of the worst places to get your information and be considered credible.

According to the CDC, here is the breakdown for heterosexuals.

1 in 5 people over the age of 12 have genital herpes. Less than 12% of them know they have it.
over 20% of high school girls have an STD
Over 20,000 new cases of HIV are reported yearly
Statistically, half of the sexually active youth will contract an STD by the age of 23.

That is omitting homosexuals.

Your argument: If you're gay partner cheats on you, with someone else who has AIDs. . .Then you're suddenly at risk. I have a relative who was killed by AIDs. . . and he was gay.

Logical Argument: If your strait partner cheats on you with someone else who has AIDs... Then your're suddenly at risk.

My argument: My aunt is alive but in poor health because she has AIDs... and she is straight. 

Your STD arguments hold 100% no merit. If AIDs and other STDs were exclusive to homosexuals, THEN you have a valid argument. But the risk is absolutely the same no matter what. Also, you said
"Well, guess what, you're not out of the woods yet. Everytime you have intercourse with your gay partner, you risk Hepetitus B."
ONLY if your partner has Hepatitis B. You can't spontaneously get Hepatitis B from having any kind of sex, no matter what Wikipedia might tell you.

sloanstar already tore down your pedophilia argument and showed how it is one of your more sick arguments.

"I have already explained why you do not need consent to marry an animal. Animals mate with each other all the time without consent. Also, humans can do many things to animals without their consent."

One, using this sick argument says you believe that homosexuals should have no more rights than animals. You STILL haven't acknowledged that. Second, yes animals can mate without consent. But animals don't have legally recognized marriage either (not that they need it anyway). But there is the fact that we are humans. A marriage to humans requires consent from both parties. You cannot legally force someone to marry. Therefore, you can't marry an animal because there is no consent. 

"But I say that you ignore that gay marriage is unnatural in the homosexuality argument!"

I have not ignored it. I have addressed it to you on more than one occasion. It is only unnatural to those who are so strongly against it. You say unnatural because it isn't your personal preference and because you religiously believe so. 

Lastly, you claim that this is used as a political way to make conservatives look bad? Conservatives are making themselves look bad. This argument on the Liberal side has NOTHING to do with how it makes you look. It is because we hate that conservatives like you believe that equal rights should only apply to those who are in your religious belief. Face it, pretty much everyone who opposes this issue as you do oppose it so strongly because of religious beliefs. Pure and simple. But this country was founded on freedom of religion. Just in case you weren't aware, religious freedom means that citizens won't have any religion forced upon them. The conservative is actively going against the reason why our founding fathers traveled here, because you are forcing your religion on citizens of different religions or no religions. We aren't trying to use this to make you conservatives look bad. We are trying give everyone equal rights no matter their religious belief or lack there of. I am a Christian man, but despise when other Christians literally oppress (which is exactly what you do). The liberal side tires of conservatives trying to run this country like a Theocracy because they like to force their religion upon everyone.

Love is just attraction, no matter the circumstances. If you are in love with someone of the counter sex or the same or if you are a little crazy and you are attracted to a bag of peanuts or a car it is just being attracted. 

It is just your mind influences deciding what you like and what you dont. The scary thing is, anyone can make you be attracted to different things. TV shows and music videos often have very busty women and that can really influence people into what is attractive and it works. People who don't tend to watch programs like that are most likely to like different genres of people. 

rcarter2 : Reading your arguments are frightening, the facts you gave in your last post are putting me off sex!!

MechaMento : Caution should be a practice at all times. I am definitely NOT an advocate in abstinence teaching. That preaching doesn't work. Nobody has to swear off sex from fear, but should be smart. Make sure you know the person and trust them, and even then, be safe. However, I wouldn't recommend a 14 year old having sex yet, mind you.

For once, I am just going to ignore the blatant, hateful, and willful ignorance displayed by some posters in this thread... there is no helping those that refuse to help themselves. I feel truly sorry for them.

Love is love. Same sex couples have existed throughout history, in every species. This is a fact, backed up by historical and scientific evidence. When a couple manage to overcome the odds and find each other, it should not matter if they are heterosexual or homosexual. They certainly should not be made to endure hatred, bigotry, and violence from those who are too scared of the world around them to recognize that.

homosexuality is just unatural and isn't right for people. it doesnt work

In response to the thread, I'm going to say that it is perfectly normal for people to love someone of the same sex and I find that it's natural for two people who are in love to date and get married. It makes sense to me, and even with my religious background I'm okay with it as an idea. I'm okay with people disagreeing with me, but I really feel that a proper argument is in order, just how I will argue in a logical sense to back up my ideals.

Txgangsta : You have many good points with supporting evidence in your post, but you also have judgement calls that are lacking in proof or actual discussion. For instance, you said: "The law can call "marriage" living together for 6 months if it wants to, but lets be honest, a marriage is a special connection between people." However, you failed to specifically define marriage as a word. Many people can call friendship a special connection between people, so how would it differ from marriage? And where would the definition originate from? Also, another statement you made was that there were two people who were attracted to each other, but you said love doesn't exist between them because they are the same sex. Later, you said that the feeling one gets with different sexes changes, but what you didn't mention is that people have different preferences for people they are with. For example, some people are afraid of the opposite sex and find comfort in their own. This fear is far from building to a romance, especially considering an attraction can't be formed. Later on, you brought up males and females "complimenting each other", however in nature, sex is only a determinant in reproduction, and many animals will have intercourse with every other animal they are fond of, even if they're not of the same species. (Many people have been molested by dolphins and monkeys, regardless of sex.) Our species, according to scientific theory, evolved from monkeys, so your argument that the human species wasn't built for polygamy isn't supported, either, but that is a separate matter entirely. As for your final statement, it's true that divorce rates are high, but they're high for heterosexuals, as well. In order to have more supportive statements in favor of your argument, you need to find evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you have fallacies instead of facts.

Sword legion : In your post, you mentioned marrying a pet. Your pet is not a consensual human adult, so they can not agree to marry you. You also mentioned that someone could marry their car. It is, indeed, possible. There are people married to objects and they are legal marriages. You also mentioned two teenagers having sex, but regardless of what gender they are, it is frowned upon, and may even be illegal, to be sexually involved with someone who is under the age of 18. Next, you mentioned not having to dedicate themselves to someone and can just go to someone else to meet their sexual desires. I'm afraid that argument could count for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Also, you are focusing on homosexual men specifically, but there are homosexual women, as well, and they have different mindsets from men. You then compared homosexual people to ill people, but homosexuality has been proven not to be an illness. Also, to say that they are "not normal" would have to be under the assumption that there is a typical standard for normalcy, of which there is none. Also, I see the final paragraph of your first post as a large story of fallacies, so I'm going to move on.

On your second post, I noticed that you said: "Love could be one of those reasons. But not always." Again, that is relevant to heterosexual people, too. Not everyone is with other people because of love, unfortunately. Also, you stated that male and female sex organs were "made for each other." To expand on that, they were designed for reproduction. Your statement before was that people would try to avoid pregnancy but still get the feeling from intercourse. So why would it matter what your source of pleasure would be if you're not using your sex organs for reproduction? According to many statements you've made, heterosexuals are also guilty of using sexual organs in ways they were never intended, so how would that make homosexuality any worse when it (in many occasions) is exactly the same? On another note, everyone has different preferences in a partner, so how would being homosexual (or having a preference for people with more similarities to themselves) be against "who they are"? You stated that natural selection would kill them off. However, homosexuality isn't passed on genetically and has been proven as such, so natural selection wouldn't be an issue. In regards of having children, there are other options available (such as adoption), even for heterosexual couples who are sterile/infertile. This also goes against your argument about nature providing for children when there are orphanages across the globe that are overflowing with children that have no parents. In nature, these children would've been killed off among other things. Next, you've said: "And no Internet links. You can never trust anything on the Internet, plus I have small children using this computer. and I don't want anything to happen to them." With this in mind, it truly doesn't matter if someone posts a source or not because you won't be loading it up, which is okay, but if you're not going to trust words of others and you're not investigating your claims, why should others believe your statements? One last note: the number of people that are fitting in Florida wasn't the number of people in the world, or even the number of people in the United States. The number of people in the United States is estimated at 313.9 million and the number in China is 1.35 billion, clearly more than can fit into Florida. If you'd like to look it up yourself, it's under "population of the united states" when searched under Google. The statements about the drug addicts and people who are sexually acting towards animals are misdirected because animals are not consenting and drugs are a separate matter altogether.  Again, your post had multiple fallacies.

In your third post, you responded by saying to watch people's actions. However, doing so can only give you information regarding that person and their actions. Everyone is different and generalizing people based on one person's behavior is a mistake. For instance, because one man raped a child doesn't mean all men will rape every child. You've mentioned that you're making a point, but you generalize and that is a form of falsifying facts. Also, the way you state things makes it seem like you're announcing faults in all homosexuals and that all heterosexuals are pure and innocent, which you know as well as I do is not the case. You responded by saying you don't care about consent with inanimate objects or pets, but you were using that as a key argument in a previous example. You need to care about what you're using to argue with or your arguments aren't going to be valid. Your final response was that you didn't understand the statement. Rcarter basically said that because a hand isn't a female sex organ, masturbation is wrong according to your previous statement, which said that male and female sex organs were made only for each other. I didn't really need to respond to this since rcarter already covered it, but I wanted to make sure you understood.

It's admirable of you to support your ideals, but you have to fight your battles properly. You have to support your information with facts and logical evidence. If you have an opinion, state it as an opinion. In that post, you, again, only referred to men as homosexuals when women can be homosexual as well. And, again, you compared people to objects. You mentioned history, which was a very unstable subject. People used to think that there were witches, and that drilling a hole into someone's head could cure mental illness. These things were proven not only to be wrong but to have killed more people than they could ever have helped. And in this post, you started to bring Biblical facts into this. The Bible was written by man, adapted and altered by man, and has had so many re-releases and changed versions that there's no telling how accurate it actually is. My bible is quite different from the bibles at the churches I visit, and many other churches demand money to actually go to the church. God doesn't care how much money one has and God made people the way he wants them to be. Homosexuality is NOT a disorder and proof is in this source:

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

I know you'll probably never read it, but this is information about homosexuality and the differences between a homosexual and a heterosexual. Frankly, it's not a disorder and what people did in the past was immoral and cruel. In the past, people believed that those with different ethnic groups shouldn't marry and many parents would beat their children to try to "teach them a lesson", very similar to the parents of homosexuals. It's quite easy to pretend to be "cured" and to pretend to be straight; many actors in movies act out the role of a gay character. I admit, I'm also getting really tired of the "masculine rear" and "female body" references. There are homosexual women, also, so quite a bit of your examples only contribute to homosexual men. Not to mention there are men who like to have sexual intercourse with women's behind instead of in the front, but it is rarely mentioned in these debates. I sympathize with your brother, too; being forced into something that isn't comfortable for you is quite difficult and people who don't encounter that couldn't understand. But on the bright side, he's ambidextrous, which means he can likely use either his left or right hand to write with, and that is a remarkable trait. And after this, you AGAIN compare people to food. Bacon has no feelings; bacon is a food. It makes someone wonder: are you planning to eat your bisexual friend? You stated that sex is for reproduction and for relationships, but the reason behind sex is solely for reproduction. There are many, many other ways to show one's affection for their significant other. For example, my boyfriend and I have been together since 2007. We have plans for marriage, but we both made a promise of abstinence until after marriage. We find other ways to be affectionate and our relationship is flourishing better than some other married couples we know. You stated that children should be with their birth parents. There are cases where the birth parents are abusive and beat their children nearly to death. But you still feel that these parents are the best parents for these children? I disagree and the best parents for children should be the ones who teach them proper morals and how to survive in the world. Another point is that you feel that gay parents can't raise and nurture children and that it isn't a natural thing. Well, I beg to differ. These two FATHER penguins, for example, took that baby penguin and adopted it when the mother left it for dead. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/denmark-gay-penguins-fathers_n_2104190.html)  The rest of the post was, again, fallacies that you have no supporting evidence for. And congratulations, sir, for having offended everyone from California public school system, everyone who is either homosexual or bisexual on this forum, and for anyone who has a family member or a friend who is also homosexual or bisexual.

However, I understand you quite a bit better now that I've read this:

"You might be able to sort out the truth after a lot of time and study, but I don't have enough time for that. I find it best to debate people in simple context without much Internet research that everyone can understand and see from their own perspective."

Without information, you can't possibly have a complete and informed opinion. Knowledge is something that builds a persons opinion. Otherwise, they're just stubborn and closed minded. If other arguments can't reach you and you can't counter these arguments, there's no debate. There's you standing your ground and others trying to debate with you. So the question now is why am I still typing? Your response will not convince me and I feel you will learn nothing from my post.

Mr. Zed : It's nice that you're accepting of other ideas and are still supportive of your own views. That is a very respectable trait that I don't see very often. I feel similarly, but I am more strict when it comes to the arguments against my views; I'd like for them to be supported by facts, you know? God bless.

tgags123 :
A user of this :

Well stated. Thank you for your post.

rcarter2 :
sloanstar1000 : Thank you so much for your posts! I always enjoy reading what you write, and it's always logical and supported by facts! I learn so much from you!

PokefanKala : You have a lot of feelings about this topic; I wish I knew you because you wouldn't be bullied with me and my friends around. Hang in there; you're not alone! Thank you for sharing.

deg2000 : It seems you haven't read much in this thread; please do so. I encourage you to learn as much as you can before adding to a debate.

(I truly have no intentions of insulting people through this post; I am sorry if it comes across that way.)

I have few gay friends, And I'm really happy if they find some good boyfriend they want to spent rest of their lives, Never understood why those christian fanatics are so homophobic. Like it will ruin their own lives for some unknown reason if they see happy homosexual couples. But Love is love as long it stays in between humans in sexual ways. Of course you can love your pets and all that, but not in "that" way.

I think love by it's very nature is illogical and impossible to completely understand, if people love those of the same sex why should it change my view of them? Some of my friends are homosexual (males and females) but that doesn't change how I see them.

to be with someone because of the feelings of safety and familiarity you have for them (love) is not wrong in any way. BREEDING with that person just because you love them is 100% wrong. you are throwing your childs future into the wind just because you dont want to find someone with good dna AND that you get along with, to breed. you can get the feeling of "love" with anybody. its nothing more than a group of feelings that develop based on security and familiarity, which we then turn into an imaginary emotion that we call "love".