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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
homosexuality is an abomination
homosexuality is an abomination. The majority of them are sexual preditors.They have no contience they don't care about age (the younger the better) and I can't even enjoy a rainbow anymore because they've ruined that for us as well. WTF.
The vagina is the only part of mankind that is designed to receive the components of an ejaculation safely. The anus is not and is subject to an extraordinarily high infection rate.
The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections."
The only epidemiological studies to date on the life spans of gay men have concluded that homosexual and bisexual men lose up to 20 years of life expectancy.( The Health Risk of Gay Sex by Dr. John Diggs Esecutive summary (i)
We need to understand the nature for reproduction, that we need a male and female to create a family simple as this, we Know that homosexual cant build a family. But they can adopt a child, which is even worse, and that child what's his chance to become homosexual.
We know that male and female are the perfect couple, with these intimal body parts everything is made for the other to please them.
If a man can give birth to a child in a nature way, I will accept all the gay people. And I will find it normal, but it is not the case!
What if the hole humanity was gay! how could we have children??I dont understand it!
I have meet some gay people, but I never told them its wrong what they do, because they will take it as a offence. It may harm him psychological, to isolation etc. but I will find a sweet harmless way to explain them
We need to understand the nature for reproduction, that we need a male and female to create a family simple as this, we Know that homosexual can't build a family. But they can adopt a child, which is even worse, and that child what's his chance to become homosexual.
YOU need to understand that sexuality is something the womb decides and is set in stone!
We know that male and female are the perfect couple, with these intimal body parts everything is made for the other to please them.
But breasts and vaginas DO NOT please homosexual people! That is part of homosexuality!
If a man can give birth to a child in a nature way, I will accept all the gay people. And I will find it normal, but it is not the case!
What if the hole humanity was gay! how could we have children??I dont understand it!
facepalm
SO YOU THINK THAT ACCEPTING HOMOSEXUALITY WILL MAKE EVERYONE HOMOSEXUAL!
Do you believe the theory of evolution? if not then don't bother with the next one.
Evolution affects reproduction, and what it is basically stating is that people being straight will always be the norm, otherwise there would not be two genders in the first place!
YOU need to understand that sexuality is something the womb decides and is set in stone!
Well I heard about that study that If you are male, having more older brothers makes it more likely you will be gay. If you refer to that, I complety deny it, because you can have sexual anal desire and not become gay.
But breasts and vaginas DO NOT please homosexual people! That is part of homosexuality!
I'm sure there was a moment where it pleased to them, but after they might have some new sexual desires which they aroused through imagination and sexual fantasies.
If that's not the case in what is pleasing them? plz tell me
SO YOU THINK THAT ACCEPTING HOMOSEXUALITY WILL MAKE EVERYONE HOMOSEXUAL!
Do you believe the theory of evolution? if not then don't bother with the next one.
Evolution affects reproduction, and what it is basically stating is that people being straight will always be the norm, otherwise there would not be two genders in the first place!
No I dont believe in that non-sense, but rationale thinking we can understand that the reproduction will decrease, which is maybe good for some state because we are overwhelming.
Well there could be more homosexual people in the world, with mass-media, and propaganda they are able to influence alot of peoples mind. But this was to make a point that the reproduction would stop,no kids,no parents, for what do we live then?
All what we want is a better future for our kids therefore we work,go in war,we are happy,we cry, they are our future, so we cant wait for the end of their reproduction!
And the fact that is disturbing me the most is how homosexual practise the sexual intercourse?!
Women has a vagina which is perfectly made to receive the penis,in a safe way, and to receive the ejaculation, which is not the case for the man!
I can barley understand that some hetero people still have lust for anal desire, but that's still inhuman.
Tell me If a women has vagina which in which moistness is present,without vaginal lubrication, sexual intercourse would be painful to the woman, and that moistness is comming natural! Which is not the case for the anal intercourse is this not showing inoff evidence that homosexuality is something wrong?
I think this is easy as 1+1, that man is made for the women, if you dont accept it I think there is something wrong
Well I heard about that study that If you are male, having more older brothers makes it more likely you will be gay. If you refer to that, I completely deny it, because you can have sexual anal desire and not become gay.
This does NOT disprove the study, it was not about anal desire it was being attracted to the same gender.
I'm sure there was a moment where it pleased to them, but after they might have some new sexual desires which they aroused through imagination and sexual fantasies.
If that's not the case in what is pleasing them? plz tell me
Ok i made one small mistake here by discounting lesbians BUT by saying this you discounted the fact bisexuality exists but we won't get into that now, Homosexuality means being attracted ONLY the same sex.
No I don't believe in that nonsense, but rational thinking we can understand that the reproduction will decrease, which is maybe good for some state because we are overwhelming.
Why do you believe it is nonsense, humor me i'm curious? Also EVERYWHERE is overpopulating. (well maybe not places like antarctica but you know what i mean)
Well there could be more homosexual people in the world, with mass-media, and propaganda they are able to influence a lot of peoples mind. But this was to make a point that the reproduction would stop,no kids,no parents, for what do we live then?
Again homosexuality is not a choice, it is an error in dna. Plus since it is so rare i highly doubt it will stop reproduction completely.
All what we want is a better future for our kids therefore we work,go in war,we are happy,we cry, they are our future, so we can't wait for the end of their reproduction!
Is but what about them? Their happiness? Their love? Do you think they will be happy being denied the chance to be with whoever they love?
Why do you believe it is nonsense, humor me i'm curious? Also EVERYWHERE is overpopulating. (well maybe not places like antarctica but you know what i mean)
Because evolution pretends that everything happen randomly out of nothing! Let me tell you that Out of nothing, nothing comes out. The universe is expanding therefore once it once all together, and then It BEGAN the expand in explosion, which is called the big bang. I will not enter in detail, But IF you want to debate about the evolution, create one debate about it, and be sure that I will be in there, and I will give you inoff evidence! just create one!
Of course everywhere is overpopulating, therefore if reproduction stop is better no? Therefore we support homosexual. Otherwise tomorrow these people might take your job etc( I clearly support that other people come in other nation its their right! No one owns a land!not queen Elizabeth!not communist! no one! but only the one who created it if he existe)
Again homosexuality is not a choice, it is an error in dna. Plus since it is so rare i highly doubt it will stop reproduction completely.
So tell me if you tomorrow invent a new machine but there is a error, will you keep it?No you rectify it , or you smash it in the bin!
Im highly doubting that its DNA error still, as my logic is denying it, and that there is no scientific evidence.
Is but what about them? Their happiness? Their love? Do you think they will be happy being denied the chance to be with whoever they love?
There no prove that its DNA ERROR, therefore the rest is playing their head. As war is in our head, as division is in our mind! All this is happen in our conscious.
Because evolution pretends that everything happen randomly out of nothing! Let me tell you that Out of nothing, nothing comes out. The universe is expanding therefore once it once all together, and then It BEGAN the expand in explosion, which is called the big bang. I will not enter in detail, But IF you want to debate about the evolution, create one debate about it, and be sure that I will be in there, and I will give you inoff evidence! just create one!
Your confusing the theory of evolution with the big bang theory, please learn about it...
Of course everywhere is overpopulating, therefore if reproduction stop is better no? Therefore we support homosexual. Otherwise tomorrow these people might take your job etc( I clearly support that other people come in other nation its their right! No one owns a land!not queen Elizabeth!not communist! no one! but only the one who created it if he existe)
Whuh? THAT CONTRADICTS EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID!
So tell me if you tomorrow invent a new machine but there is a error, will you keep it?No you rectify it , or you smash it in the bin!
Your comparing a living conscious human to a computer?
Im highly doubting that its DNA error still, as my logic is denying it, and that there is no scientific evidence.
Your confusing the theory of evolution with the big bang theory, please learn about it... Im not confusing with it,I told you that evolutionist people believe that the Creation happen randomly, while evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, also believing that all species on earth have the same ancestors. Darwin himself was aware of many facts which could invalid his theory, which he wrote down on the page of his book chapter-difficulties on theory- Fact is that scientist refute these facts one by one as we discover it!
Let me finish on that Darwin did not became famous for his book because of his scientific worth, but instead of the ideological implication to deny the existence of a Creator. Feel free to launch a debate about that matter.
Whuh? THAT CONTRADICTS EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID!
I'm not contradicting, I'm giving your an idea of what the 1% (the oligarchy) could think. And not me.
But forget that argument, because It didn't base on any evidence.
Your comparing a living conscious human to a computer?
It is a surreal comparison, you should see the different comparison which are existing..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
There is no evidence, its just describing the term homosexual.
Im not confusing with it,I told you that evolutionist people believe that the Creation happen randomly, while evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, also believing that all species on earth have the same ancestors. Darwin himself was aware of many facts which could invalid his theory, which he wrote down on the page of his book chapter-difficulties on theory- Fact is that scientist refute these facts one by one as we discover it!
But there are religious evolutionists AND people who believe the big bang but not evolution.
It is a surreal comparison, you should see the different comparison which are existing..
A human FEELS PAIN most computers do not, that is the main difference, you are saying people deserve to be doomed to sadness just because of dna errors.
But there are religious evolutionists AND people who believe the big bang but not evolution.
I dont get your point...who are those religious evolutionists?
A human FEELS PAIN most computers do not, that is the main difference, you are saying people deserve to be doomed to sadness just because of dna errors.
Of course human feels pain, But we are not talking about pain, we are talking about errors, a error on DNA, its like if you see a twins which are born together attached on their face, we try to rectify this, by a operation. I dont say we kill them but instead we try to find a solution
I dont get your point...who are those religious evolutionists?
People who believe in a god that basically started evolution.
Of course human feels pain, But we are not talking about pain, we are talking about errors, a error on DNA, its like if you see a twins which are born together attached on their face, we try to rectify this, by a operation. I dont say we kill them but instead we try to find a solution
Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that we put medical funds into researching into a way to stop something that is not negative but in fact mildly helpful population control wise instead of purely negative mental illnesses (ie. Down syndrome)
It's gross. I don't understand it and I never will, but from my point of view there is obviously something seriously wrong with a homosexual. I'm not religious, so don't think that I say this because the Bible says it is wrong. It just is.
The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue that is blood. Therefore any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids. Sounds like homosexuality is wrong, not only morally but health wise as well.
Studies have shown that heterosexual couples have anal sex more often than homosexual couples. Anal sex isn;t a homosexual act unless it involves homosexuals, by the way. thereby there is homosexual vaginal sex, oral sex, and all the likes. So BOOYAH!
First of all, homosexuality is not anal sex. They are two very different things, and your entire argument rests on the basis that they are the same. Therefore, your argument is fundamentally flawed.
Secondly, on what basis do you say that it is morally wrong? It is bad for my health for me to pick a scab, but I would hardly say that this is morally wrong.
Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex, being in relationships having sex. The sex they have is anal, how are they not related.
Anal sex isn't the only sex homosexuals can have. Plus those risks and dangers you claim decrease with good hygene. And vaginal sex can be unhealthy to without protection.
America was founded on God, remember ''In God we trust''. If homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes that makes it morally wrong.
That is ignorance, it is quite common belief that america was a christian nation but the founding fathers were actually not really religious, and quite secular. Highschool education if not middle school education actually says that our nation was partially founded on escaping religious persecution (in other words we found the nation so that people wouldn't have to force their beliefs on each other, and in other words you never payed attention in grade school). We instantly started persecuting each other as soon as our nation was put into motion (in other words we americans from the very start disrespected why our nation was founded.) It even says in the constitution that we are not founded as a christian nation which I learned in government class in highschool (you either never graduated or lost what you learned as you know less than a highschool student).
The sex they have is anal, how are they not related.
I didn't say that they weren't related, I said that they aren't the same. A very important distinction.
America was founded on God, remember ''In God we trust''. If homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes that makes it morally wrong.
Well woop-de-doop, I'm not American for a start. Second, America was founded on an idea of God, but not a Christian God. Thirdly, homosexuality is not spoken against in the Bible, but man-on-man anal sex. Four, not everyone's Christian, so it's morally wrong to force your beliefs upon them. Five, so you claim that Christianity is not only true, but it's absolutely true, with no qualifiers needed? There are many arguments against Christianity that would make that assumption irrational, which I shall not go into. Six, homosexuality is a naturally occurring trait of many animals - humans included. What fucked up God, or person, would call someone 'morally wrong' for something that they have no control over?
America was founded on God, remember ''In God we trust''. If homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes that makes it morally wrong.
Yes, founded on the idea that god gives us natural rights. But not necessarily the christian god. Most of the founders were deists or atheists. They all believed there was a creator that gave humans their nature for a reason, but most of them did not profess to know what that reason was or what the creator was. America is NOT a christian nation.
Homosexual in fact doesn't mean just anal sex. Man or woman-faggot or lesbian. There's more to it than man on man. You ever just set somewhere and observe ? Watching, seeing their shifty eyes, the way they scan little girls/boys bodies. Just wishing for a chance alone w/them. No! Well until then you need to shut the hell up.
Like I said before if every man became homosexual then you could say goodbye to humanity, now that sounds like an abomination to me as well as billions of others.
Well I wouldn't go as far to say it's an abomination, I would state that I believe it to be wrong.
However I also see sex for the sole purpose of pleasure wrong as well, which is primarily why I see homosexuality to be wrong. I don't think that gays love each other, I just think they lust after each other's bodies. I've yet to experience anything in life that suggests otherwise (though I haven't met any gay people) and so I can only come to this conclusion.
However I also see sex for the sole purpose of pleasure wrong as well
Homosexuality is not gay sex. Homosexuality is a description of someone who feels intimate towards members of the same gender. They are two completely different things. What could you possibly see wrong with a nervous 15 year old who has a crush with some guy he thinks is cute, with two old women who really enjoy each others company, with two men that have lived together all their lives, without wanting to do anything sexual?
And why do you see sex for pleasure as wrong? Sex is nothing special, nothing sacred, it's simply a natural action that's inbuilt into humans, which release certain chemicals in the brain to make people feel happy during & after it. While these chemicals are there to force us to reproduce (especially in a world where we need less reproduction, not more) I cannot imagine see any problem with sex for pleasure, not reproduction.
And, what about straight sex with a condom, or some other form of birth control? Is there any difference between the two, and does that mean that you think that most consensual relationships are 'wrong'? Have you ever had sex with a condom? Your basis for seeing homosexuality as 'wrong' seems ridiculous to me.
I don't think that gays love each other, I just think they lust after each other's bodies.
I have a gay friend that has crushes on boys just as everyone has crushes on girls. I have gay uncles that have lived together happily for over ten years, who I can see make each other happy just by being together. I have seen gay couples bring amazing happiness into each others lives. Your position is fucking discriminatory and baseless, and flat out homophobic.
But, I shall give your opinion the benefit of the doubt (barely). Why do you think so, what grounds do you have to claim this, how could you possibly think that the millions and millions of gay couples are really only in it for sex?
I've yet to experience anything in life that suggests otherwise (though I haven't met any gay people) and so I can only come to this conclusion.
This just shows how absolutely baseless your beliefs are. Everyone else is good until proven otherwise, but gay people are wrong and immoral until proven good. Your prejudice is appalling.
"Homosexuality is not gay sex. Homosexuality is a description of someone who feels intimate towards members of the same gender."
Then where do you draw the line between love and friendship?
"They are two completely different things."
You think I don't know that?
"What could you possibly see wrong with a nervous 15 year old who has a crush with some guy he thinks is cute,"
Considering how these a thoughts, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with anyone thinking anything, unless you one of those who believe thought crimes should be brought in.
"...with two old women who really enjoy each others company, with two men that have lived together all their lives, without wanting to do anything sexual?"
There's nothing wrong, I just assume that they are friends.
"And why do you see sex for pleasure as wrong? Sex is nothing special, nothing sacred, it's simply a natural action that's inbuilt into humans, which release certain chemicals in the brain to make people feel happy during & after it."
It is something between a couple, I believe it is something sacred as it is a process which produces life. Using your logic you could say nothing is special, because we are all biological constructs whose thoughts and feelings are only chemicals.
"While these chemicals are there to force us to reproduce (especially in a world where we need less reproduction, not more) I cannot imagine see any problem with sex for pleasure, not reproduction."
Then why not just stop promoting sex, if the population growth is such an issue?
"And, what about straight sex with a condom, or some other form of birth control? Is there any difference between the two, and does that mean that you think that most consensual relationships are 'wrong'? "
As I said, I believe that sex for the sole purpose of pleasure is wrong. Because then it stops being an intimate form of bonding between a husband and wife and starts becoming a commodity that can be used to promote some people over others. Do you think there would be so much illegal prostitution if sex wasn't done for pleasure?
"Have you ever had sex with a condom?"
How is this relevant?
"Your basis for seeing homosexuality as 'wrong' seems ridiculous to me."
That's because I've yet to highlight why I see homosexuality as wrong. I just said I see it as wrong and I paralleled it to another aspect which I see as wrong as well.
"I have a gay friend that has crushes on boys just as everyone has crushes on girls. I have gay uncles that have lived together happily for over ten years, who I can see make each other happy just by being together. I have seen gay couples bring amazing happiness into each others lives. Your position is fucking discriminatory and baseless, and flat out homophobic."
There is no need to get passionate on such a matter. I just wished to highlight that in the media homosexuality is seen as something fueled by lust instead of love. How do you know that you friend doesn't lust after the bodies of other boys, just as many boys lust after the bodies of girls?
"But, I shall give your opinion the benefit of the doubt (barely). Why do you think so, what grounds do you have to claim this, how could you possibly think that the millions and millions of gay couples are really only in it for sex?"
Because I believe that love is an emotion we a socialised to do, proof of this could be the many cases of feral children who seem to be unable to experience love through the way they were brought up. Therefore, since society for many years has raised every generation to love those of the other sex, I don't understand how two people from the same sex can love each other. However, I will acknowledge that two people from the same sex can 'love' each other as friends do.
"This just shows how absolutely baseless your beliefs are. Everyone else is good until proven otherwise, but gay people are wrong and immoral until proven good. Your prejudice is appalling."
Then where do you draw the line between love and friendship?
How do you draw the line between love and friendship between a man and a woman?
You think I don't know that?
You claimed that homosexuality was wrong, and the primary reason you thought this was due to the lack of reproduction in anal sex between two homosexuals (presumably of the same gender). If you are fully aware that these are independent issues, then I think you have contradicted your own argument, which relied on the two being connected.
Considering how these a thoughts, there is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with anyone thinking anything, unless you one of those who believe thought crimes should be brought in.
Yes, but sexuality is just thoughts, it requires no physical contact between anyone. Unless you can explain to me how a relationship is anything but thoughts and feelings, you have contradicted yourself.
It is something between a couple, I believe it is something sacred as it is a process which produces life. Using your logic you could say nothing is special, because we are all biological constructs whose thoughts and feelings are only chemicals.
Yes. Yes I would say that. The only things that are 'special' are things which we label as 'special' ourselves. And even if sex is 'sacred', how does more of it take away from its 'sacredness'?
Then why not just stop promoting sex, if the population growth is such an issue?
Again, yes. I do not 'promote' sex to the human population as a whole. I would take an issue if entire populations suddenly stopped reproducing, but this is hardly a realistic worry.
Secondly, your assumption that labelling homosexuality as wrong will increase the rate of reproduction is disgusting in its implications - by shaming people into denying a core aspect of their personalities, they will live a lie, in order to try and fit into a society that rejects them. That is what you are implying - that we should label homosexuality as wrong, so gay people tell themselves that they aren't gay and pretend to not be gay, even having kids. I'm sure you agree that that's hardly the 'right' thing to do, once it's spelled out quite like that.
As I said, I believe that sex for the sole purpose of pleasure is wrong. Because then it stops being an intimate form of bonding between a husband and wife and starts becoming a commodity that can be used to promote some people over others. Do you think there would be so much illegal prostitution if sex wasn't done for pleasure?
Wait. No it doesn't. Some gay people having sex on the other side of the street doesn't take away from what you do in your own bedroom. Not even at all. This worry that you have is irrational, gay people doing whatever they want will not affect you.
And sex is done for pleasure, whether you view this as right or wrong is irrelevant. Simply by labeling it wrong (and 10% of the population as inherently wrong) you will not reduce illegal prostitution (which I don't really see a problem in either way).
How is this relevant?
If you have had sex with a condom, then you had sexual intercourse without possibility of reproduction. Then, you claim that homosexuals are wrong because they have sex for the sole purpose of pleasure (but what your argument implies is that it's wrong because they can't reproduce). So, therefore having sex with a condom (and you, if you have) are both 'wrong'. By your own logic, at least.
That's because I've yet to highlight why I see homosexuality as wrong. I just said I see it as wrong and I paralleled it to another aspect which I see as wrong as well.
No. You said 'However I also see sex for the sole purpose of pleasure wrong as well, which is primarily why I see homosexuality to be wrong'. You highlighted the primary reason why you think homosexuality is wrong (unless you were mistaken, or misphrased, which I would be happy to hear). You did not paralell it, you connected the two in an argument, saying that 'because A is wrong, B is wrong'.
There is no need to get passionate on such a matter.
Yes there fucking is. You are casually labeling 10% of the worlds population as wrong, without ever having communicated knowingly with any of them! These are human beings with feelings, there is every reason in the world to get passionate about this.
I just wished to highlight that in the media homosexuality is seen as something fueled by lust instead of love.
And you take the media as an absolute source of information?
How do you know that you friend doesn't lust after the bodies of other boys, just as many boys lust after the bodies of girls?
Again, your prejudice shows. Just because someone is gay does not mean that they cannot love, they are absolutely normal. You assume that all straight people are capable of love (until shown otherwise), yet all gays are not (until shown otherwise). You must give evidence for this belief, or we can both agree that it is baseless.
Because I believe that love is an emotion we a socialised to do, proof of this could be the many cases of feral children who seem to be unable to experience love through the way they were brought up. Therefore, since society for many years has raised every generation to love those of the other sex, I don't understand how two people from the same sex can love each other. However, I will acknowledge that two people from the same sex can 'love' each other as friends do.
It doesn't matter why we love. What I am arguing against is how you perceive the love that homosexuals to feel to be different to the love that hetrosexuals feel.
Again, on what basis do you argue that homosexuals cannot feel love as hetrosexuals can? Love is weird, love is messy, and it is beyond our understanding. People can love another for a moment, a day, a lifetime. They can love one person, two people, or a specific part of a person. They can also love absolutely no one. I see it as ridiculous to claim that they cannot love someone else, simply because they are of the same gender.
What prejudice?
Your prejudice against homosexuals, your assumption that they are different to you, that they are a certain way without a reason other than your own belief, that they are wrong. If you cannot look at them with an open mind, then you have prejudice. And you do (as do I, for that matter).
Ben did a fine job disputing this, so I'm going to leave most of this post alone. However I will say I think if you ever had met any gay people, the prejudice and ignorance of the statement, "I don't think that gays love each other, I just think they lust after each other's bodies." would be immediately apparent to you.
Speaking as someone who has met and befriended loads of homosexuals (my proximity to SF might have something to do with it... ha ha ha...) I can assure you they are in every regard just like you and I (they love, they lust, they care, they get jealous, they empathize, the whole bit) except they are attracted to members of the same sex and you and I are attracted to members of the opposite sex. That is literally the only difference. The only emotion a heterosexual can feel that a homosexual cant is, presumably, an attraction towards the opposite sex, but that sword cuts both ways.
I'm surprised at you. You've been closed-minded in religious debates before, but this is a social issue, one with very real consequences felt in the world today. For you to callously generalize an entire sub-sect of humanity (admittedly on zero evidence, personal or otherwise) seems not only in bad form but in bad taste.
Ok ok you're right, you're right. They're not synonymous. But I know women who call themselves middle age lesbians who would much prefer a teenage girl rather than someone their own age. Or a man in his 20's who is queer wh!o molested an 8 year old, because they're too weak to control their emotions. There is more than just those two. Besides... two whole cities were once destroyed because they were overrun with queers
And, there aren't straight people who behave the same way? Why are you not upset over those people? If the crime is the lust for people younger then themselves, then you're talking about pedophilia, which is not exclusive to homosexuality. In fact, it's probably much more prevalent among heterosexuals.
Besides... two whole cities were once destroyed because they were overrun with queers
Sodom and Gamorrah wasn't about homosexuality, it was about hospitality.
The cities were not destroyed because God was angry specifically with the sodomy, they were destroyed because God was angry with the apathy and hostility from the denizens of the cities against the visitors to the cities.
You can literally ask Catholic Cardinals and countless Biblical scholars, and they will confirm this interpretation as being correct.
""But I know women who call themselves middle age lesbians who would much prefer a teenage girl rather than someone their own age. ""
A lot of straight guys look for younger women too.
"Or a man in his 20's who is queer wh!o molested an 8 year old, because they're too weak to control their emotions"
Pediphilifia and homosexuality are not the same thing. It is an unfortunate fact of life girls are just as at risk as boys for being targeted by a pediphile.
Some people are gay – deal with it. Whenever I come across homophobia a little of the small amount of faith I have left in humanity dies. Why should you care what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own bedroom?
With regards to the common homophobic argument:
“The purpose of sex is to reproduce”
Does this mean you do not accept the use of contraception? That you believe that those who are infertile must remain virginal and that you must only have sex with the prospective mother/father of your child? Of course reproduction is one possible purpose of sex, but it is by no means the only possible purpose. Sexual oppression (deprivation of sexual pleasure) is a cause of later sexual deviancy and mental instability – just ask Freud.
Furthermore, who has decided that the purpose of sex is reproduction? You cannot argue that it is nature’s purpose, because nature has also made sex pleasurable – there is no reason to assume that nature does not also promote sex on the basis that it is psychologically beneficiary. As for God’s purpose – why should we accept God if he is willing to damn perfectly good people to Hell on the basis of their sexual orientation? This isn’t a God I am remotely interested in worshipping, and quite frankly I will actively disobey and despise him. Finally – we have no reason as human beings to impose a purpose on sex; why should we limit sex to an act of simple reproduction? No one is forcing you to have sex for pleasure, but let other people have sex without troubling them - whether heterosexual or homosexual.
I don't care what homosexuals do in private. It's when they openly display their affection in public, that is what bothers me.
I personally don't have a problem with PDA, but PDA isn't strictly a homosexual issue if an issue at all. By this statement you are either foolish enough to think that heterosexuals never display affection which would make you an idiot, OR you have a double standard on homosexuality believing that they have to hide their affection while homosexuals don't which only makes you a tool to irrational prejudices in society. So which are you? A tool or an idiot? irrational or foolish?
Blah123 is a backup account of mine. I don't plan on using it now that I've figured out my log in info for this one, just so you know.
But anyways, I do understand that PDA is not only something that homosexuals take part in. But understand that I am not saying that it needs to be outlawed, all I'm saying is that I find it somewhat disturbing. Is it not understandable that a heterosexual man would find two people of the same sex making love to eachother disturbing? Naturally, I would find a man making out with another man to be more repellent than a man and a woman. That all being said, I don't think heterosexuals have a right to show more affection than homosexuals. Openly displaying PDA has always been somewhat frowned upon (once again I don't mean hand holding, hugging, etc,.).
So am I a tool or an idiot? I would hope neither. I just happen to have a different opinion than you. Irrational or foolish? What makes you believe that you are rational enough to be calling me "irrational"? What makes you think that you are wise enough to call me "foolish"? A good example of a fool would be someone who misinterprets what another has said, and calls them an idiot and a fool for the wrong reasons. An idiot would continue to call them out for these reasons, so I'm curious to see, which you are... an idiot or a fool?
Your argument what on the side of homosexuality being an abomination therefore it would only be natural for me to assume it was an argument for why you think it is wrong.
When you bring up your dislike of the PDA of homosexuality and nothing else of course I'm going to assume a double standard. If PDA in general is what you don't like then it wouldn't be about homosexuality or heterosexuality, it would have just been PDA. Also don't tell me you were talking about the PDA of homosexuality because homosexuality was the topic here, it still wasn't necessary and easily could have expressed that PDA in general homosexual or heterosexual. It would be like if I said "hey I just don't think Asians should flaunt their money" under a racist debate of course people are going to assume I believe that kind of stereotype or have a double standard. ESPECIALLY if I happened to have a dislike towards Asians and was on the side of Asians deserving less rights.
Homosexuality is proven to boost education and lower crime rates in areas. Why don't you go look at the statistics and facts before making wild accusations.
No, he's saying that there is likely to be higher education rates and lower levels of crime. I didn't know that the 'quality' of the world solely relies on these two aspects of society.
You're putting words in his mouth, and seem to be unable to understand the difference between blind and total support for something, and support for something. I'm pretty sure that you're intelligent enough to see the difference.
In your opinion then yes. If these statistics are true than homosexuality does make the world a better place. UNLESS you don't put into the consideration that maybe heterosexuals have statistical advantages in contributing to society which I wouldn't doubt, therefore in my opinion the world may be better or worse on either possibilities of everyone being homosexual or everyone being heterosexual. It depends on personal opinion and education on the statistical differences between the two, you are the one trying to compare the two different worlds not him so you are putting words into his mouth. He may not have been saying a homosexual world is better than a diverse one, all he said was that homosexuals have higher statistics in those specific area.
Respond to this profile for Blah123. That was a profile I made a few days ago because I couldn't remember my old account info. I probably won't check my Blah123 account anytime soon.
But higher education rates and lower levels of crime DO make the world a better place, do they not?
Yes, I will agree with you there. But does that mean that the only way to make the world a better place is through higher education & less crime? Does that mean that the world cannot get worse if they improve?
He gave an example of how homosexuals can benefit others. That doesn't mean that they don't harm people, and that doesn't mean that they have an overall positive effect. But you completely misrepresented his argument, making out that he claimed that the world would be a better place if there were more homosexuals, regardless of the degree of 'more'. There are more honest ways of refuting his argument.
In addition to a domestic violence rate that is 20 times higher than among heterosexuals, these are some of the negative effects homosexuality has on society:
Higher rates of child molestation*
(Nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, and homosexuals are only 3% of the population.)
Daughters of lesbian "parents" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and experience the consequences of that behavior.
In areas in which homosexual marriage has become accepted (The Netherlands and areas of Scandinavia, for example), the fundamental building block of society--the family--has fallen apart. In some of these areas as many as 80% of the children are born outside of a family.
Children of homosexual "parents" do the worst in 9 of 13 acedemic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples.
Homosexual behavior is linked with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic violence--all things that impact society negatively. Don't try to say homosexual behavior doesn't hurt society--it is a major force that tears down society and harms children.
Where did you get your facts from re Child Molestation as I did a quick srarch and could'nt find any hard facts but one article did point out that if an adult male molests a male child this is classed as Homosexual Molestation which is not always accurate and does not always point to the sexuality of the offender. A few things I have read have said that Child Molesters quite often will assault either sex and are not sexually mature enough to be either Homosexual or Heterosexual and the more recent cases I have read have been about adult Males molesting underage females eg: Gary Glitter, Jimi Savile and Ted Nugent. Whilst Ted Nugent has'nt been convicted of anything his involvement with Romney has bought some rather distateful things to light about him and underage girls.
I'd also like some links about the physical health og Homosexuals being worse.
I have read that self harm, suicide and substance abuse is worse in homosexuals than heterosexuals but have you ever considered that thats because homosexuals are bullied more, a bit more understanding and acceptance could go a long way to fixing that problem.
I am totally disagree with the statement,as i think when you are not feel comfortable with the partner of the opposite sex,why should you go against yourself and be with someone you do not life and feel only disgust??Why that people should tournment themselves and their partners by pretending and hiding all the time what they really feel,thinking only about society's opinion.I think think it's ther choice,and we have no right to somehow accuse them,as it is their nature that we are not able to change!
If homosexuality is sin resulting from corrupt Human nature according to religion, explain the observance of homosexuality in the behaviors of animals in the wild.
Evolutionary wise, it is understandable why it is "disgusting" because as a specie as a whole, it is genetically wired into us to dislike anything that prevents potential offspring such as homosexuality. Does it make it wrong? If homosexuality is an abomination, would you find people that are unable to reproduce "abominable"?
It is completely natural, it happens in the wild, and no, it is not abominable, it is only logical that mutation in the genes will eventually result in birth of homosexuals.
they can be whoever they want to be. you dont have the right to tell them not to be something they r not! thats like the holocaust all over again. have you people really come to that again. racism over someone cuz u dont like that?! then ignore them. but just shut the hell up about it.
Hey, gleek pay attention. I don't recall ever saying "they can't be whoever they want " . I said IT is an abomination. That is my opinion. But if you want to be a faggot or lesbo that would be your choice. You can be anything you want to be, except me. Then you too would be an abomination. More power to you . Moron
im not any of those things. morons are retards. i happen to have a 4.0 average. im 13 and in 10th grade (skipped a grade) and its not an abomination. they love who they love so GET OVER IT! and ps im not gay, im not bi, im not homo. im straight but people have their own choices and if they choose this path, well thats their choice. dont tell them not to be somebody they r not. ps, a faggot is a bundle of sticks. whos the moron now?!
