CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
68
Agree Disagree
Debate Score:114
Arguments:32
Total Votes:132
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (7)
 
 Disagree (24)

Debate Creator

Grugore(849) pic



Is homosexual behavior harmful to society?

This is not about whether it's right or wrong. It's about whether or not homosexuality has a harmful impact on society. Morality has nothing to do with question. I think the facts support this position. first, a few questions.

  1. If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?
  2. If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?
    1. Examples of such businesses where a person should be free to refuse services could be things like wedding photographers, masseuses, tutoring, etc.
  3. If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?
  4. If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?
  5. If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?
  6. If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?
  7. When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

Add to this the fact that the vast majority of aids victims are homosexuals. Aside from countries like Africa, this is the case. This disease has spread to the heterosexual community, causing direct harn to others. We spend billions of dollars a year treating aids patients, so there is also financial harm. So, what do you think? I think the facts speak for themselves.

P.S.

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this, but I don't care. I'm not here to earn points. I'm here to educate people. Once again, this is not about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Morals have nothing to do with this question. So whether or not you support homosexual behavior, you have to admit that it's harmful to them, as well as society.

Agree

Side Score: 46
VS.

Disagree

Side Score: 68
0 points

Yes! Faggotry is always negative to society! What's next? Incest?

Side: Agree
nerdunity099(7) Disputed
1 point

Give me any good reason outside of bible verses. chances are you cannot. society sees this as a terrible ace because of our dominant religion Christianity, I have not seen any other reasons this is a bad thing. they quote Leviticus and claim it evil. Without the bible tell me why it is bad.

Side: Disagree
0 points

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this...

Yeah, you're bloody right about that, you troll. How are those facts?

Are Christians harmful? Yes. Why? Because for thousands of years they've stifled dissent from every other important group of people.

Side: Agree

First of all, you are a bigot.

If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?

Nobody is getting ridiculed or jailed just because they're homophobic. Looked down upon? Yes. Ridiculed/jailed? No.

If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?

People aren't sued for not providing services; and if they are, they certainly aren't going to go bankrupt from one court case.

If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

Um... I'm pretty sure an institution (such as an orphanage) cannot refuse people just because of their sexuality. Forced to comply? Yes. Forced to shut down? No.

If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?

Yes, but it's his own fault for openly sharing that he is a bigot who does not accept people for who they are.

If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?

Act-UP is an advocacy group formed in the lesbian and gay community that strives to bring support and recognition to people infected with AIDS. Source. They are NOT activists supporting pro-homosexuality (this whole idea of pro-homosexuality is ridiculous anyways). Also, it would be fucking hilarious if a group of people did throw condoms at Church service. Christians need to get comfortable with methods of birth-control anyways.

If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

OMFG. Seriously? Majority of people are god damn Christians. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT BEING PROSECUTED.

When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

Yes, and they deserve it for being closed-minded.

Add to this the fact that the vast majority of aids victims are homosexuals.

" In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice, such as anti-homosexual/bisexual attitudes. There is also a perceived association between AIDS and all male-male sexual behavior, including sex between uninfected men. However, the dominant mode of spread worldwide for HIV remains heterosexual transmission." Source

This disease has spread to the heterosexual community, causing direct harm to others.

Again, what are heterosexual people doing then to get infected?

We spend billions of dollars a year treating aids patients, so there is also financial harm.

Your point is? We also spend billions of dollars on the military as well as other things.

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this, but I don't care. I'm not here to earn points. I'm here to educate people.

More like "here to troll".

Note: Majority of my sources are from wikipedia, but wikipedia provides it's own sources... so yea.

Side: Disagree
HumannamuH(209) Disputed
1 point

We spend billions of dollars a year treating aids patients, so there is also financial harm.

Your point is? We also spend billions of dollars on the military as well as other things. Yes, but is it worth the billions of dollars? Or are we wasting it when we could be treating more urgent problems? This is only meant to be an example, not to seem impertinent, despite the fact that the highest cause of HIV transmission rates are understandably highest; it is an example of either statistical manipulation or carelessness - the majority of the population are heterosexual!

Side: Agree
Grugore(849) Disputed
0 points

"If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?

People aren't sued for not providing services; and if they are, they certainly aren't going to go bankrupt from one court case."

Remember the bakers who refused to bake a gay wedding cake? They weren't forced out of business, but they did have to close their store and relocate to their home. And a small business CAN be forced out of business if sued.

"If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

Um... I'm pretty sure an institution (such as an orphanage) cannot refuse people just because of their sexuality. Forced to comply? Yes. Forced to shut down? No."

You don't think they would shut down, rather than place children in an environment that they believe would be harmful to them? Think again.

"If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

OMFG. Seriously? Majority of people are god damn Christians. CHRISTIANS ARE NOT BEING PROSECUTED."

Christians are not a majority. The Bible even says so. "Narrow is the way that leads to life, and FEW there are who find it." I would guess that at least 90% of people, who claim to be Christians, are not. And Christians ARE being persecuted. They are probably one of the most persecuted groups in the world today.

"Add to this the fact that the vast majority of aids victims are homosexuals.

" In many developed countries, there is an association between AIDS and homosexuality or bisexuality, and this association is correlated with higher levels of sexual prejudice, such as anti-homosexual/bisexual attitudes. There is also a perceived association between AIDS and all male-male sexual behavior, including sex between uninfected men. However, the dominant mode of spread worldwide for HIV remains heterosexual transmission."

Homosexual men, are about 50 times more like to get aids. Look at the numbers again. There are more heterosexual cases, true. But there are also about 30 times more of them. MSM are responsible for about 25% of new cases. Per capita.

Side: Agree
3 points

If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?

This doesn't happen. It is illegal to take a child out of school and not educate them but it is okay to move schools. Its their choice.

If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?

Yes. Criminal deserve to suffer the consequence of their actions.

If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

If the children go to atheist children's homes, then no.

If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?

Teachers cannot do things that brings their school into disrepute. Including this.

If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?

This is an illegal act. The person that does this should be treated like any other criminal.

If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

Too vague to answer.

When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

Most conservatives are big enough, fat enough and bald enough to be able to take it ;)

Side: Disagree
Grugore(849) Disputed
1 point

"If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?

Yes. Criminal deserve to suffer the consequence of their actions."

How is one a criminal for following deeply held religious beliefs? What if a Christian photographer was asked to do a nude photo shoot? Are you saying it would be a crime for him to refuse? What if a Jewish baker was asked to bake a Nazi themed wedding cake? Does he not have the right to refuse?

Side: Agree
2 points

Because freedom of religion, much like freedom of speech, is respected only insofar as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

The Old Testament prescribes stoning for numerous offenses; Christians and Jews are not allowed to stone sinners to death either.

Part of holding a business license is agreeing not to discriminate against protected classes. This is why businesses can be sued for not being handicapped accessible, for example. In many jurisdictions now, sexual orientation is considered a protected class. Your examples do not fit, because desiring a nude photo shoot, or supporting the nazis, do not constitute protected classes.

Side: Disagree
Atrag(5550) Disputed
1 point

How is one a criminal for following deeply held religious beliefs?

Because when someone runs a business in a country with a secular government they have to obey by it's laws. As I understand it, the USA has laws against discrimination.

hat if a Christian photographer was asked to do a nude photo shoot? Are you saying it would be a crime for him to refuse? What if a Jewish baker was asked to bake a Nazi themed wedding cake? Does he not have the right to refuse?

He has a right to refuse to do something that he doesn't usually do. So yes he can refuse to do the things you mentioned. However, he does not have the right to refuse service based on the personal characteristics of the customer.

Side: Disagree
3 points

If anything, all of these are arguments against homophobia, not homosexuality. Imagine each of these situations without homophobia. See? No problem.

Side: Disagree
1 point

True, if only it were that simple though...it would be like asking people not to have any opinion/ suppress it.

Side: Disagree
2 points

Can you give examples of when these things have happened? If you are preemptively complaining don't you lose credibility?

Side: Disagree
Stickers(1037) Clarified
2 points

What, you never took a "pro-homosexuality" class? It's in the common core!

Side: Agree
1 point

Hehe, no I never took that.

Side: Disagree

A few questions:

Does repressing one's sexuality cause harm?

If marriage is beneficial, then is denying it harmful?

If a gay or mixed-race (or other) couple lives in a town with sufficient bigotry that they are completely denied services, are they harmed?

If the catholic church choses to close its orphanage rather than place an orphan with a loving gay couple - who is the one doing the harm?

If a person is a bigot, is calling them a bigot harm?

If homosexual women have a lower rate of HIV than heterosexual women then is being a heterosexual woman inherently harmful?

Side: Disagree
2 points

No but hating people who love the same sex, denying services to them, or trying to 'change' them because you don't approve, is harmful to society.

Side: Disagree
2 points

If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed, is he harmed?

Yes. But not by homosexual behavior. The child is hurt by the actions of the parents.

If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed?

Yes, but not by homosexual behavior. They are harmed by their intolerance.

Examples of such businesses where a person should be free to refuse services could be things like wedding photographers, masseuses, tutoring, etc.

If you are in a business that deals with the public then you must accept that there may be certain things you will run across that you don't agree with. It is your choice not to service homosexuals however again, it is the choice of the business, not the actions of homosexuals, that hurt the business.

If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

Yes, but not by homosexuals. The children are hurt by being denied loving parents that happen to be homosexual.

If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?

Yes, by their own idiocy. Most schools/universities have a contract that is signed upon hiring that employee's are to conduct themselves both in and out of the office in a manner that won't bring shame upon the school.

If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?

Yes, by the actions of those who are in the group. Not by homosexuals as a whole.

If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

How is that different from Homosexuals having to hide who they love for fear of legal, social, and financial retribution? For fear of their lives?

When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

If they do those things and act like that then yes, but not by homosexuals, by their own actions. It's perfectly fine to disagree with homosexuality, however to preach hate against it, to be intolerant of it, to spread hate regarding it and to deny the same basic rights that a heterosexual couple has, hurts themselves.

Side: Disagree
1 point

The examples you gave only demonstrate how homophobia could be construed as detrimental, not so much homosexuality itself.

The part about most aids victims being gay is just not true. Even if it was, they don’t “own” the disease; they are not the beginning and end of AIDS.

This disease has spread to the heterosexual community

Thats strange, dont you think? What are those heterosexuals doing that would cause that?

So, what do you think?

I think you’re scared. Like a child is afraid of the boogeyman.

Don’t worry; there are no monsters under your bed. ::pats you on the head::

Side: Disagree
thousandin1(1931) Clarified
3 points

To be fair, if the numbers are presented in the right way, there is on the surface something to the whole gay-aids thing, but it's not nearly as extensive as he would indicate.

Per the CDC, receptive anal intercourse with an infected partner represents the largest risk factor aside from tainted transfusions. It is more than an order of magnitude riskier than penetrative anal intercourse with an infected partner, which itself is slightly riskier than vaginal intercourse with an infected partner. Receptive anal intercourse is also more than double the risk of sharing needles with an infected partner. These are all backed by numbers, and when the risk is worded in this particular way it looks like it's a big deal.

However, sometimes the actual numbers are more important than their relative values. Look at the actual rate of transmission associated with these acts- the risk of contracting HIV through receptive anal intercourse with an infected partner is still just over 1% per encounter. Penetrative anal intercourse, or either penetrative or receptive vaginal intercourse are around or below 0.1%, and needle sharing at around 0.6%. This wording is using the exact same numbers, but looks at them as absolutes rather than relative to one another; the implied severity is significantly lower.

All of these values assume that barriers such as condoms are not in place as well.

Even if we were to use the prior wording and embellish somewhat, it still falls flat when we try to call it a 'gay' disease because of two important factors that are left out:

1) The risk of transmission between lesbian partners is almost completely negligible; the blame he places on the lesbian community is blatantly false.

2) Anal intercourse is by no means limited to homosexual males.

This is just another case of someone massaging numbers and manipulating language to support their own agenda.

Side: Agree
Grugore(849) Disputed
0 points

Disease

2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

"A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

$12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

$1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/prcostaids.htm)

Now, tell me how that doesn't harm society. Also the examples I gave have actually happened.

“I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

“We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously”.

“Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”

He was in fact arrested. No harm done there, huh? Here's the link to the full story. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html

Btw. Heterosexuals catch aids from bisexuals all the time. Not saying thats the only way. There is IV drug use, among other things. But you can't deny that its is spread by the gay/lesbian community.

I think you're in denial. I have given facts to support my position. You have offered nothing but opinion.

Side: Agree
Coldfire(1014) Disputed
3 points

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others

A male homosexual lifestyle is more susceptible to contracting HIV, yes, on account of anal intercourse increasing the susceptibility. This is not the same as saying that homosexuals account for most of the population of people affected by HIV.

I disagree that that indicates that homosexuality is harmful. The heightened risk is apparent in those who have anal intercourse. Heterosexuals can have anal intercourse heterosexually. And homosexual males don’t have to have anal intercourse in order to be considered gay. Homosexuality is not the end all be all to AIDS. Homosexuality, in itself, is not harmful to society.

This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

I suppose we could find ways to reduce the risk of the disease in homosexual people that engage in anal intercourse… I suggest they be monogamous… maybe allowing them to marry can encourage that type of behavior ;)

Financial Impact… … Now, tell me how that doesn't harm society.

It doesn’t harm society.

In fact it helps. People who are encouraged to get tested at the governments expense allows for more people to be aware of whether or not they contracted the disease. People who then get treated are less infectious to a rate of almost 96%. Both reduce the risk of spreading the disease.

Financially speaking, it’s a matter of weighing the cost effectiveness. And keep in mind that that money doesn't just end up in the trash, it goes to medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies; stimulates the economy.

At any rate, this still doesn’t do anything to prove that homosexuality is harmful to society.

Also the examples I gave have actually happened.

Doesn’t make them any less anecdotal. Nor does it offer anything to prove that homosexuality is harmful, it only illustrates how homophobia can be harmful.

Heterosexuals catch aids from bisexuals all the time. Not saying thats the only way. There is IV drug use, among other things.

Yea… like heterosexual; vaginal or anal, intercourse…

But you can't deny that it is spread by the gay/lesbian community.

I can, and I do. It’s absurd.

You seem to think that homosexuality is the beginning and end of AIDS. That if everyone in the world would not be gay, AIDS would cease to be. You’re pitifully mistaken

I have given facts to support my position. You have offered nothing but opinion.

The facts you gave do not support your preconceived notions, I don’t need to provide any supporting evidence to point this out; you already made it clear to your audience that your reasoning doesn't coordinate with your research. I'm just pointing it out to you.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Double Post .

Side: Disagree
1 point

If a parent objects to a school teaching pro-homosexuality and pulls his child out of school and because of it is ridiculed and/or jailed

Can you please give me an example of when and where this has happened? Thanks.

is he harmed?

If such a thing has ever happened, then yes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a self-employed business owner with strong religious convictions refuses to offer his services to homosexuals and he is sued and goes bankrupt, is he harmed? Examples of such businesses where a person should be free to refuse services could be things like wedding photographers, masseuses, tutoring, etc.

No one has gone bankrupt from this. Since you mentioned photography, are you referring to this case? I agree that forcing the photographer to take the pictures, or suing them for not doing so is completely abhorrent. Given that the services are necessary and cannot be facilitated at a similar cost elsewhere, I don't think that gov't intervention should take place.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a Catholic orphanage is forced to shut down because it is against its religious moral code to turn children over to homosexual couples, is someone hurt?

Again, yes, if it has ever happened. I'm not sure if you're asking loaded questions on purpose, or you actually believe that this has occurred. I'm going with the latter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a public school teacher voices his disapproval of homosexuality on Facebook on his own time, away from work, in his own home, on his own computer and is fired from his teaching position, is he harmed?

Yes, and this has happened. Personally, I think that whether or not this should happen depends on the context. Jerry Buell has clearly not committed hate speech in his comments, but it appears that where he teaches is a secular and publicly owned school. His insistence on shoehorning religion into the classroom is unprofessional, but he shouldn't be fired for it.

The Knox case is a little different, like Buell, she is not guilty of hate speech. There is no evidence as to whether or not she leaves her religious beliefs at the door, but I think that punishing her is outrageous.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If a group of pro-homosexual activists (Act-UP) disrupt the worship service of a Christian congregation by throwing condoms at the pastor, is the congregation harmed?

The congregation is unduly disrupted. However, promotion of homosexuality is not part of Act-UP's agenda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If Christians are forced into silence because of fear of legal, social, and financial retribution, are they harmed?

This is vague, can you clarify what they're silenced from saying, and which Christians in particular?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When morally conservative people who disapprove of homosexuality are labeled as "moral dinosaurs," "bigots," "hate mongers," "right wing fanatics," "preachers of hatred," "intolerant," are they harmed?

Don't forget "rethuglican" and "republiKKKan".

I agree.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nothing on the list above has anything to do with whether or not "homosexual behavior" is harmful. It sounds more like a rant about how a "pro-homosexual agenda" does bad things.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Add to this the fact that the vast majority of aids victims are homosexuals. Aside from countries like Africa, this is the case. This disease has spread to the heterosexual community, causing direct harm to others. We spend billions of dollars a year treating aids patients, so there is also financial harm. So, what do you think? I think the facts speak for themselves.

Well... At least this is relevant to the topic. aids transmission is not solely the result of gay sex, and gay sex does not always lead to aids transmission. This is more of an argument that irresponsible deeds (namely the kinky ones) lead to aids transmission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S.

I'll probably catch a lot of flack for this, but I don't care. I'm not here to earn points. I'm here to educate people. Once again, this is not about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Morals have nothing to do with this question. So whether or not you support homosexual behavior, you have to admit that it's harmful to them, as well as society.

It seems like you're blowing off some steam, because you aren't able to talk about this offline.

Side: Disagree

Homosexual behavior, in my opinion, is not harmful to society.

Side: Disagree

It's good for population control because same-sex people can't reproduce.

Side: Disagree

Think futuristic! In the future we will (should) live much longer. And if we live longer, we cannot keep reproducing....

So - sex has nothing to do with conventional (Abrahamic) logic.. so sexuality will be more for pleasure. Homosexuals don’t reproduce!!! So it’s good!!

Side: Disagree

It's a form of population control since they can't reproduce, so that is a good thing. Outside of that, to each his/her own.

Side: Disagree
1 point

Wish you only fortune Give you good health Wealthy. It's really good to use on your website. I will support you forever. Hunting Simulator 2

Side: Disagree