CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I can spend hours looking up photos from a gay pride parade, but I think you get the idea.
How is shit like this going to happen and people AREN'T going to laugh and make fun of them?
Face it, if a group wants to stand out and look different, they are going to be the butt(sex) of a joke.
I am all for open homosexuality, but I'm also for making fun of anything that exists. The more open a lifestyle, the more it opens itself up to the rest of the world, including comedians.
This is all responding to your description, not your question. I just want you to realize that laughter does not equate intolerance.
Yes it does. Do you realize that a homosexual person could take this personal and kill himself or be really hurt because you wanted to be funny and make a joke out of what kind of person he is and what gender he is interested in.
:) That is interesting, considering it should apply to yourself.
That maybe was just a hypothetical, to indicate that even some homosexuals make fun of each other.
This might be because of some self-hatred, or division amongst them, but more it may be out of good fun.
your preconceived notion that someone who is humorous or tells jokes and hypotheticals is prejudiced, is well a prejudice itself. Btw, your reactions are entertaining and yes I'm encouraging it. The curse of grey face infests everything, so gobble gobble; and let the ridiculousness begin!
you know criticism is reflection on self. and its fun to be over dramatic. it makes the debate more fun for me and others. who says you have to be serious all the time lol
In relation to homophobia over homosexual men, once reason is male fear of feminism. Men hate women, so men hate men who are like women.
Why does this translate this way?
Because ignorant heterosexual men all assume that, in a male homosexual relationship, one or both of the men in the relationship play the role of or take turns playing the role of a female. The very idea of male homosexual intercourse lurks around in an ignorant mind as being the position of a female.
What does a coach or trainer or sergeant on some team to do to demean you? He calls you a girl, a sissy (little sister), a lady, etc. If there is any traditional way to examine gynophobia, it's to examine the male tradition of demeaning each other by calling other men women. It's traditionally demeaning because women, in the eyes of men, are traditionally weak. Dur. That's why we end up with chauvinism.
There are many reasons beyond this why people demean homosexuals, but male chauvinism is one of the root ignoramuses that lead to homophobia.
Again, your questionable claim is not a great basis for this continuation.
Because ignorant heterosexual men
Now that is just sexist.
If there is any traditional way to examine gynophobia, it's to examine the male tradition of demeaning each other by calling other men women. It's traditionally demeaning because women, in the eyes of men, are traditionally weak
The more you used the word "traditional", the less valid your argument became. Also, this is another sexist generalization.
That's why we end up with chauvinism
I'm pretty sure this is not the origin of chauvinism.
Hate in this case refers to malice and arrogance. You can't tell me men don't feel above women, and you can't tell me they don't discriminate against them. If men didn't hate women, then they wouldn't have had to fight for voting rights for over a hundred years.
Again, your questionable claim is not a great basis for this continuation.
You're naive if you think it's a questionable claim.
Now that is just sexist.
No it's not, it's entire true. The entire demographic of heterosexual men is not ignorant, but a large portion is.
The more you used the word "traditional", the less valid your argument became. Also, this is another sexist generalization.
Traditional as in referring to a habit and/or ritual that has been carried on over the centuries (or millennium). It's not sexist if it's true, which it is. Do you see women demeaning each other by calling them men? No. You do on the other hand see men demeaning one another in common practice by calling each other women.
I'm pretty sure this is not the origin of chauvinism
to discriminate against women in every way and sincerely see yourself, a man, as being above them, is chauvinistic. Traditions among men that view women as lesser and weaker is what leads to men believing themselves superior.
What do you think makes men feel utterly superior to women, hm?
Hate in this case refers to malice and arrogance. You can't tell me men don't feel above women, and you can't tell me they don't discriminate against them. If men didn't hate women, then they wouldn't have had to fight for voting rights for over a hundred years.
Well, you could have said men feel malice towards women. Also, while social tendencies may be on your side, this is still a drastic generalization. If you haven't noticed, homosexuals are still somewhat rare in the human race. These big generalizations you are making simply cannot apply to such a small percentage of the human population.
You're naive if you think it's a questionable claim.
I'm naive because I think not all men hate women?
No it's not, it's entire true. The entire demographic of heterosexual men is not ignorant, but a large portion is.
I refuse to believe that.
Traditional as in referring to a habit and/or ritual that has been carried on over the centuries (or millennium). It's not sexist if it's true, which it is. Do you see women demeaning each other by calling them men? No. You do on the other hand see men demeaning one another in common practice by calling each other women.
I know what traditional means, I was implying your argument was becoming weak and redundant, as you used the word traditional many times. It is a stretch to say a common practice by men is calling each other women. Also, this argument could not be used for lesbians, as you said women don't call each other men.
What do you think makes men feel utterly superior to women, hm?
These big generalizations you are making simply cannot apply to such a small percentage of the human population.
The generalization is being applied to the number of people afraid of homosexuals, not the number of people who are homosexual, considering this debate is about homophobia. If it makes you feel better, I can admit that there are a lot more homophobes then actual homosexuals.
I'm naive because I think not all men hate women?
I never said all men hate women, did I?
I refuse to believe that.
Large does not equal most. That's why I used the word large, so that you wouldn't think I meant most.
If you actually understood, on the other hand, that didn't mean most when I said large, then you are naive to not understand that a large portion of humanity, not just men, are extremely ignorant.
It is a stretch to say a common practice by men is calling each other women. Also, this argument could not be used for lesbians, as you said women don't call each other men.
How is it a stretch to say it's a common practice? It is. There is not a single male in any modern country who hasn't been insulted at least once by another person by being called some sort of word that is analogous to female.
Also, homophobic men don't generally hate lesbians in the same intensity they hate homosexual men. If they do hate them at the same intensity, it's usually more primarily over religious reasons instead of non-religious cultural biases.
And from the very beginning, I said that hatred of women was not the only reason for people being homophobes. I was offering gynophobia as one of many explanations that all collaborate into a homophobic culture.
I don't believe there to be one or even a few simple reasons as to why this is but I will try to list a few of the prevalent ones:
1. Intolerance - Some people are just not content with sharing a world with someone who doesn't look like them, act like them or shake hands the same way they do… unless that someone is being ridiculed and drove underground or stamped out of existence cause then it becomes a form of entertainment.
2. Low self esteem - Often times, the people who bully do so as a way of getting attention to boost their self esteem. That or they point their finger at others as a way to divert people’s attention away from the bully for fear that if people paid more attention to the bully, they would notice his/her faults.
3. Status quo/Trends - Many humans are often impressionable creatures. If a large group of people are raising their hands, the select few who didn't immediately will often follow suit and raise theirs. Societies (including family and friends) teach people from very early on what the status quo is. People who detach from it are often looked at as being strange or an enemy. Even media and advertisement industries follow these trends and effectively reinforce them through broadcasting and by using rhetoric.
4. Religion – This could probably fit into each one of the aforementioned points, but I personally feel that religion deserves a place of its own considering the amount of corruption and suffering it has (and will continue) to spread in the world. As long as people continue to blindly follow the intolerant bullying institution called religion, humankind will never know peace.
People hate things that they don't understand. Most heterosexuals don't understand how a homosexual can be happy, normal, and even a good follower of their religion. People are also intolerant and close-minded. Not being educated about homosexuals and how they can be a normal part of society is probably the biggest reason gays are frowned upon. That, and religion. I'm noticing there's a lot of corruption not just in our society and government, but in religion. Mainly in Christianity.
I'm a gay Catholic teenager of NY, and I'm ashamed of the ignorance in my church...
Because gays think that they are some special breed, so when they announce to the world that they are gay, they act as someone is supposed to give a damn.
There is no nothing wrong with being gay, but it is a private matter, so keep it that way.
As a libertarian, you, of all people, should be okay with public forms of expression. In fact, the public sector is supposed to be MOST accepting of free speech. This includes open homosexuality.
To get all pissed off whenever someone mentions that they are gay is detrimental to the libertarian cause. You're advocating censorship through intolerant mistreatment. It's like the virus of political correctness, but from a Conservative angle.
Since when is it not? What has delegated it as something different from all other topics guaranteed by the first amendment?
This idea of wanting certain freedoms of [removed]be it religion, orientation, or racist views) to be in a private area is the censorship brought upon by politically correct thought. It is wrong, to be blunt.
i don't think of it as a private matter, if they want to let the world know that they are gay then it shouldn't change anyone's views on those certain people. they should be able to express themselves no matter what cause they are human beings like everyone else.
Honestly, I don't think they are as much as people think. In fact, I think a bigger problem lies in those who frown upon those who frown upon homosexuals. Obviously, there are still many living in the U.S. that don't support gay marriage. But these people tend to be quieter and not as discriminatory as most people assume.
It also seems like more people than ever before have this homosexual orientation. This may be a complete coincidence, however it could be because some young people are truly confused about how they should act and what people will think of them if they make a claim to be heterosexual or homosexual. In recent years, there has been a nationwide push in the U.S. to legalize gay marriage. While this may be rare, I think it is not totally unlikely that some people claim to be gay, simply because they want attention and think that it will prove to win them a better lifestyle.
I know I may be picked apart by everyone for saying this, but I really think people who ask questions like "Why are Gays frowned upon so much?" are simply feeding the fire. It's not a huge issue in the first place. If everyone would calm down, maybe there would be a lot less overall "frowning."
Honestly, I don't think they are as much as people think. In fact, I think a bigger problem lies in those who frown upon those who frown upon homosexuals. Obviously, there are still many living in the U.S. that don't support gay marriage. But these people tend to be quieter and not as discriminatory as most people assume.
Really? People who are critical of intolerance are a bigger problem than intolerant people?
If this is true, how is gay marriage still be illegal in most places?
While this may be rare, I think it is not totally unlikely that some people claim to be gay, simply because they want attention and think that it will prove to win them a better lifestyle.
How does being gay win someone a better lifestyle when gays are subject to discrimination and restricted rights?
I know I may be picked apart by everyone for saying this, but I really think people who ask questions like "Why are Gays frowned upon so much?" are simply feeding the fire. It's not a huge issue in the first place. If everyone would calm down, maybe there would be a lot less overall "frowning."
Really? People who are critical of intolerance are a bigger problem than intolerant people?
By a bigger problem, I meant people critical of those against gay marriage are becoming more and more aggressive. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion on an issue such as this. Simply personally believing that gay marriage is wrong does not warrant vicious attacks by self-righteous proponents of it.
If this is true, how is gay marriage still be illegal in most places?
Gay marriage must be legalized through state governments. No amount of protests or campaigns for gay marriage will make it legal.
How does being gay win someone a better lifestyle when gays are subject to discrimination and restricted rights?
I am giving an idea as to why there seems to be an increasing number of self-proclaimed homosexuals in the U.S. While a better lifestyle might have been a stretch, it certainly gains them attention. Also, because of the growing movement of those supporting gay marriage, they might feel as if it is the popular thing to do. This may seem far fetched, but many teenagers are heavily pressured and influenced by the media.
Civil rights is not a huge issue?
You misunderstand. I never referred to civil rights. I am simply making the case that homosexual discrimination or "frowning" is not as bad as many people say or think. For the record, while I believe homosexuality is immoral, unlike many, I do not think I have the right to disallow gay marriage.
By a bigger problem, I meant people critical of those against gay marriage are becoming more and more aggressive. There is nothing wrong with holding an opinion on an issue such as this. Simply personally believing that gay marriage is wrong does not warrant vicious attacks by self-righteous proponents of it.
When a demographic is being wrongly denied equality, I feel aggression is acceptable as long as it does not transcend to violence.
Gay marriage must be legalized through state governments. No amount of protests or campaigns for gay marriage will make it legal.
You appear to be saying that the majority of people against gay marriage are passive; if this was so, why would so many government officials bother to take such a vehement, persistent stand against something most voters do not feel strongly about?
I am giving an idea as to why there seems to be an increasing number of self-proclaimed homosexuals in the U.S. While a better lifestyle might have been a stretch, it certainly gains them attention. Also, because of the growing movement of those supporting gay marriage, they might feel as if it is the popular thing to do. This may seem far fetched, but many teenagers are heavily pressured and influenced by the media.
I am more inclined to believe the increase in open homosexuals (if there is one) is due to the acceptance of homosexuality also increasing. It is less likely one will get beaten for being gay, and legal equality is not far away.
However, even if what you say is true, I do not see the problem or the relevance. If confused young people go through a phase where they think they might be gay, fine. If more people in general experiment with their sexuality, also fine.
You misunderstand. I never referred to civil rights.
People who discriminate or want to discriminate against homosexuals are trying to violate their civil rights, aren't they?
For the record, while I believe homosexuality is immoral, unlike many, I do not think I have the right to disallow gay marriage.
When a demographic is being wrongly denied equality, I feel aggression is acceptable as long as it does not transcend to violence.
Yes, but in many cases, it has transcended to violence.
You appear to be saying that the majority of people against gay marriage are passive; if this was so, why would so many government officials bother to take such a vehement, persistent stand against something most voters do not feel strongly about?
Government officials vote based on their personal beliefs. Voters vote for candidates that share their personal beliefs. I am saying that while there are many people that support gay marriage, not all government officials are, therefore that is why gay marriage is not legal in many places as you pointed out.
I am more inclined to believe the increase in open homosexuals (if there is one) is due to the acceptance of homosexuality also increasing. It is less likely one will get beaten for being gay, and legal equality is not far away.
Fair enough, but if homosexuality is still frowned upon, like you people are saying, what would make a homosexual think they wouldn't get beaten?
People who discriminate or want to discriminate against homosexuals are trying to violate their civil rights, aren't they?
There is a fine line between opposition and discrimination.
I find this a respectable viewpoint.
Then there isn't much more to talk about, is there?
Yes, but in many cases, it has transcended to violence.
Really, gay people and activists are frequently resorting to violence against their opponents these days?
Government officials vote based on their personal beliefs. Voters vote for candidates that share their personal beliefs. I am saying that while there are many people that support gay marriage, not all government officials are, therefore that is why gay marriage is not legal in many places as you pointed out.
If people are voting for someone who is anti-gay marriage because they are anti-gay marriage too, they are not being passive in their resistance or opposition.
Fair enough, but if homosexuality is still frowned upon, like you people are saying, what would make a homosexual think they wouldn't get beaten?
Because, as I said, acceptance for homosexuality is increasing, meaning acceptance for violence against gays is decreasing,
There is a fine line between opposition and discrimination.
What do you consider the difference to be? Neither have a connotation of passivity.
Then there isn't much more to talk about, is there?
I still disagree that gay activists are a bigger problem than people who oppose gay marriage or discriminate against gays.
Really, gay people and activists are frequently resorting to violence against their opponents these days?
As a matter of fact, yes.
If people are voting for someone who is anti-gay marriage because they are anti-gay marriage too, they are not being passive in their resistance or opposition.
Well, by passive I mean the only active action they take is voting for an anti-marriage candidate, not really having many protests/campaigns compared to the other side.
Because, as I said, acceptance for homosexuality is increasing, meaning acceptance for violence against gays is decreasing,
Yes, so you are admittingthat gays are not frowned upon as much as people think, which was my original point.
What do you consider the difference to be? Neither have a connotation of passivity.
Well, obviously you can oppose something without disvriminating against it.
I still disagree that gay activists are a bigger problem than people who oppose gay marriage or discriminate against gays.
Do you have any evidence that pro-gay violence is increasing?
Well, by passive I mean the only active action they take is voting for an anti-marriage candidate, not really having many protests/campaigns compared to the other side.
Then they are taking action to be discriminatory, contrary to your original post. If most people were personally against gay marriage but were actually non-discriminatory, I don't think there would be a problem.
Yes, so you are admittingthat gays are not frowned upon as much as people think, which was my original point.
Does decreasing violence against gays = gay activists are overstating discrimination?
No. Pretty sure the biggest complaint is that gays are not afforded equal rights...which is still mostly true.
Well, obviously you can oppose something without disvriminating against it.
op·pose
1. to act against or provide resistance to; combat.
2. to stand in the way of; hinder; obstruct.
3. to set as an opponent or adversary.
4. to be hostile or adverse to, as in opinion: to oppose a resolution in a debate.
5. to set as an obstacle or hindrance.
How does someone go about acting against or standing in the way of something without discriminating against it? I'm willing to operate on an alternate definition of 'oppose,' but you have to tell me how you are defining it, then.
Its obvious! They fuck each other is the arse...........Why is it when someone walks around in circles talking to themselves that this is considered "weird behaviour" but fucking someone of the same sex in the arse is considered normal in these days and times? There are some serious mental issues going on here that are being normalised by TV, magaines and whatever else. A man acting and talking like a woman...not weird? Not only do they spread disease like wild fire is just against nature, nature ment for male + female, to confuse generations of childeren by normalising something so fucked up is just wrong. Most people dont care what you do in your private time but the gay cock smoker like to advertise how gay they are and rub it in everyones faces!....we dont want to know
Why is it when someone walks around in circles talking to themselves that this is considered "weird behaviour" but fucking someone of the same sex in the arse is considered normal in these days and times?
Anal sex isn't new, ask the Greeks. The person that is walking in circles and talking to themselves obviously have some underlying reason (such as a mental disorder) to do so. Homosexual people do not have any mental disorder. Their behavior is only abnormal in the eyes of bigots.
There are some serious mental issues going on here that are being normalised by TV, magaines and whatever else. A man acting and talking like a woman...not weird?
I see it makes you uncomfortable, are you not comfortable enough with your own sexuality that you have to point out what you see as flaws in that of others.
Not only do they spread disease like wild fire is just against nature, nature ment for male + female,
There is no reason, to assume that being Gay makes you more susceptible to disease, you may be more at risk, but that is only unfortunate.
Nature originally and still does have asexually reproducing animals that don't need your male and female separate partners, there is also many species other than humans that practice homosexuality.
to confuse generations of childeren by normalising something so fucked up is just wrong
Well being that homosexuality is a naturally occurring state, it is more confusing for children to be told that being gay is wrong, it only leads to prejudice and ignorance, and isolation of those that are this way.
Most people dont care what you do in your private time but the gay cock smoker like to advertise how gay they are and rub it in everyones faces!....we dont want to know
You don't want to know, I don't really mind. There is no hardcore gay sex on TV or in advertisements, so what is the problem? Like I asked before, does an effeminate man make you that uncomfortable?
Christians, they love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet ONE who does not practice hypocrisy to the highest degree.I notice that no one has said much about lesbian, is it because men like to look at them, sex is fun,and a whole lot better than killing,some lady boys look better than women; I been to some shows i thought they were women,what gays do most men do to there wives and the wives don't like it up the butt some do but most don't ,that a gay act so is going down on your wife lesbian act.Gays are frowned upon because of Religion of Christianity and Islam,straighten them out and we get rid of a lot of bigotry and hate.
Since when have humans ever been concerned with what is natural? Plastic is not natural, Skyscrapers are not natural, Fighter jets are not natural, the Internet is not natural, and most of our food is not natural.
unnecessary
Bingo is unnecessary, Tattoos are unnecessary, Cinema is unnecessary, Dungeons and Dragons is unnecessary, and debate creating websites are unnecessary. So I have a hard time believing that the prejudice comes from homosexuality being unnecessary.
and banned in nearly every religion.
As if religion wasn't the social institution with the single largest accumulation of believed fables, false promises, unnecessary practices, and self-righteous pricks. Show me a person who respects religion and I will show you a person who hasn't been paying attention to the world around them. Judaism, and Islam forbid pork but allow slavery, and Christianity allows both.
Give me one good reason I should consider what religions have to say about the matter?
A lot of other banned things are most often ignored. Essential one's. But, people take pleasure in bullying innocent and harmless ventures of two individuals who happen to share the same gender!
There are 1500 species, many of them mammals. Take your pick.
You need married couples of husband and wife to produce children, homosexual couples can't produce children and are therefore unnecessary.
1. Marriage is not necessary for the production of children, people produce children out of wedlock all the time.
2. Homosexual couples can produce children, they are not infertile. They just cannot produce children with each other. They can still adopt, use IVF, or raise children from previous relationships.
3. Strictly speaking, heterosexual sex is not even 'necessary' to produce children. Sperm and egg can be combined in a lab and implanted in a uterus.
4. Why should something be prohibited just because it is unnecessary to the production of children? The vast majority of any person's life is not necessary to the production of children.
"There are 1500 species, many of them mammals. Take your pick."
Any of them evolved into civilization yet?
"1. Marriage is not necessary for the production of children, people produce children out of wedlock all the time. "
But they are a man and women, are they not?
"2. Homosexual couples can produce children, they are not infertile. They just cannot produce children with each other. They can still adopt, use IVF, or raise children from previous relationships."
Which many people disagree with and claim is unnatural.
"3. Strictly speaking, heterosexual sex is not even 'necessary' to produce children. Sperm and egg can be combined in a lab and implanted in a uterus. "
I do know all this by the way, and once again lots of people disagree with this.
"4. Why should something be prohibited just because it is unnecessary to the production of children? The vast majority of any person's life is not necessary to the production of children."
You clearly haven't read the debate title, it says "Why are Gays Frowned up on so Much? " that means "Why do so many people disagree with homosexuals?"
it's not asking for the prohibiton of anything, I'm not arguing for the prohibition of anything, I'm just stating why so many people disagree with homosexualism.
"Still don't care."
Are you thick? this isn't your personal view, this is about everyone.
That was not one of the qualifications from your original post. You just claimed it was unnatural, which is not correct.
But they are a man and women, are they not?
Yes. And?
Which many people disagree with and claim is unnatural.
A different issue, as none of these are specific to homosexuality.
I do know all this by the way, and once again lots of people disagree with this.
A different issue, as none of these are specific to homosexuality.
If you know all this, why did you say a married heterosexual couple is necessary to produce children?
You clearly haven't read the debate title, it says "Why are Gays Frowned up on so Much? " that means "Why do so many people disagree with homosexuals?"
it's not asking for the prohibiton of anything, I'm not arguing for the prohibition of anything, I'm just stating why so many people disagree with homosexualism.
My mistake. These are regular points of discussion in most other debates about homosexuality but it's true they weren't relevant here.
I took from your original post and your defense of it that these are your personal views. If they aren't, then there's nothing else to say.
Are you thick? this isn't your personal view, this is about everyone.
I don't care what religion says about homosexuality and this point is the only one in your original post that I don't know to be false. That is why I have nothing to say about it.
"That was not one of the qualifications from your original post. You just claimed it was unnatural, which is not correct."
The definition of unnatural is "deviating from a behavioural or social norm". Never before has homosexuality been accepted in society (unless you're Chrisitain and believe the bibles account of Sodom and Gomorrah).
"Yes. And?"
Therefore it proves my point that gay couples cannot produce children naturaly
"A different issue, as none of these are specific to homosexuality. "
Your argument stated that people won't disagree with homosexuality because they agree with infertility treatment. My point is that infertility treatment is also frowned upon. You brought the subject into the debate and therefore you thought it was a related issue, you can't then claim that it's completly different.
"A different issue, as none of these are specific to homosexuality. "
If it's a different issue why did you bring it up?
"If you know all this, why did you say a married heterosexual couple is necessary to produce children?"
Sorry I naturally assoicated couples with marraige, yes and unmarried couple involving a man and a woman can produce a child.
"My mistake. These are regular points of discussion in most other debates about homosexuality but it's true they weren't relevant here.
I took from your original post and your defense of it that these are your personal views. If they aren't, then there's nothing else to say. "
Actually these are my personal views as well, though I believe that homosexuality is wrong I know that nothing can be done about it unless the world resorts to Nazism, which I disagree with as well.
"I don't care what religion says about homosexuality and this point is the only one in your original post that I don't know to be false. That is why I have nothing to say about it."*
Every country in the world claims to be dedicated to some form of belief, though large areas of the population may believe something else, you cannot deny that religious views have a large impact on the morality of this world.
The definition of unnatural is "deviating from a behavioural or social norm". Never before has homosexuality been accepted in society (unless you're Chrisitain and believe the bibles account of Sodom and Gomorrah).
Except for Greece, Rome, African and Native American populations, China, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Canada, Argentina, etc...
Also, just because something has never been accepted before does not mean it should not be accepted now, and vice versa. Once, womens' rights could have fallen into this category.
2. If you use this definition, there are a great many things that may deviate from social norms but are harmless to others, so people really should not concern themselves with them. Sexual behavior with a consenting adult is one of these things. A few decades ago, this argument could have been used against interracial marriage.
Also, many major organizations consider homosexuality to be a facet of normal development, including the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization.
Therefore it proves my point that gay couples cannot produce children naturaly
I repeat: Gay couples are not infertile. They are just as capable of producing children as anybody else, just not with each other.
Also, why is fertility even a factor by which you judge a relationship's normalcy or necessity?
Your argument stated that people won't disagree with homosexuality because they agree with infertility treatment. My point is that infertility treatment is also frowned upon. You brought the subject into the debate and therefore you thought it was a related issue, you can't then claim that it's completly different.
If it's a different issue why did you bring it up?
The argument begins to drift when we get into discussions concerning the acceptability of IVF treatment or adoption- that's not what this debate is about. It is still a fact that these are methods couples, regardless of gender, use to bring a child into their relationship.
Every country in the world claims to be dedicated to some form of belief, though large areas of the population may believe something else, you cannot deny that religious views have a large impact on the morality of this world.
Except for Greece, Rome, African and Native American populations, China, Thailand, Papua New Guinea, Canada, Argentina, etc...
Also, just because something has never been accepted before does not mean it should not be accepted now, and vice versa. Once, womens' rights could have fallen into this category."
You cannot really compare woman's rights to homosexuality.
"2. If you use this definition, there are a great many things that may deviate from social norms but are harmless to others, so people really should not concern themselves with them. Sexual behavior with a consenting adult is one of these things. A few decades ago, this argument could have been used against interracial marriage.
Also, many major organizations consider homosexuality to be a facet of normal development, including the American Psychological Association and the World Health Organization."
Yes, there are many organizations which support homosexuality but there are also several campaigns against it: http://www.icwseminary.org/evil_abomination.htm this is just one example of many groups against homosexuality.
"I repeat: Gay couples are not infertile. They are just as capable of producing children as anybody else, just not with each other. "
Gays couples can not produce children naturally they are therefore classified as infertile, they can only produce a baby with artificial help.
"Also, why is fertility even a factor by which you judge a relationship's normalcy or necessity?"
The whole point of people marraige is to produce a next generation of children, if you cannot produce a child you might as well have not bothered getting married.
"The argument begins to drift when we get into discussions concerning the acceptability of IVF treatment or adoption- that's not what this debate is about. It is still a fact that these are methods couples, regardless of gender, use to bring a child into their relationship."
IVF treatment is one of the reasons people frown on homosexual couples as they have to use a treatment many people disagree with to produce children. It is therefore relevant to the debate.
"When did I deny this to be true?"
You never denied the truth of it, but you denied it's relevence to this debate when you replied "Don't care".
You cannot really compare woman's rights to homosexuality.
You said homosexuality has never been accepted (not true), and because of that, it should continue to be unacceptable. Equality for women was once unacceptable in most of the world, and someone could have tried to use the exact same argument in that case.
Yes, there are many organizations which support homosexuality but there are also several campaigns against it: http://www.icwseminary.org/evil_abomination.htm this is just one example of many groups against homosexuality.
I meant to illustrate that the contention 'homosexuality is unnatural' is dubious and disputed by many psychologists and health workers (not religious leaders). But maybe I am approaching from the wrong angle. Homosexuality is not unnatural to gays, so how can your claim apply to them? Do you mean it is unnatural for you? If so, why should that have any bearing on the acceptability of homosexuality?
Gays couples can not produce children naturally they are therefore classified as infertile, they can only produce a baby with artificial help.
A person who is capable of producing children would never be classified as infertile. Just because he/she might not ever have a child doesn't make him/her infertile and shouldn't be a concern of anyone else's.
The whole point of people marraige is to produce a next generation of children, if you cannot produce a child you might as well have not bothered getting married.
In addition to offering plenty of concrete benefits, marriage is widely considered the most powerful symbol of an enduring relationship. People who get married may not do so for children at all, but because of this.
The desire to have children is not a prerequisite for marriage. Any straight couple can get married, remain purposefully childless for the rest of their lives and nobody has a right to do anything about it.
IVF treatment is one of the reasons people frown on homosexual couples as they have to use a treatment many people disagree with to produce children. It is therefore relevant to the debate.
This now falls into the same category as the next point. I don't think it should matter what these 'many people' against IVF think, but I can't argue with the truthfulness of this statement.
You never denied the truth of it, but you denied it's relevence to this debate when you replied "Don't care".
Why would I bother arguing about something I agree to be true?
