Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Sly_Wizard]

I just realized you're arguing U.K. law while I'm arguing U.S. law. Therefore, I'm gonna' skip all of your "There should be a seperate kind of marriage" parts 'cuz I don't have a problem with that.

 

 

 

Would that include the 63% of Russians who consider themselves Orthodox? Or the 89% of Poles who consider themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church (of which more people accept homosexuality than oppose it, by the way)? Hardly a majority of irreligious people.

 

 

 

I don't know where you're getting your reports regarding Russia, because 63% is quite high. Most estimates run the number of irreligious people in Russia runs up to about 50%'ish of the population (Depending on the study). And who the hell mentioned the Poles? I sure as hell didn't.

 

 

 

You're quite naive if you think the legislature is the only body in the land which facilitates or puts into practice the Law.

 

 

 

Good thing I didn't say that, huh?

 

 

 

People don't vote on legislation. Again, your beliefs are mistaken. People vote representatives, who vote on legislation. Neither of us live in a plebiscite.

 

 

 

Silly me. And here I thought representatives were people.

 

 

 

:wall:

 

 

 

Anywho, aside from the grievous error on your part, I suppose you've never heard of referendums?

 

 

 

It would have taken you all... 5 seconds to look up my profile? It even states what city I live in. You can't go wrong.

 

 

 

No, but this way was easier. Didn't have to click on anything (:

 

 

 

You can flower up your argument with fancy wording all you like - you're the one here telling people to believe homosexuality is wrong, and with absolutely no evidence to back the claim up too.

 

 

 

O RLY?

 

 

 

I challenge you-- In fact, I double dare you-- To find where I said anything of the sort. I'll be waiting (:

 

 

 

You quite clearly implied being black was an action. I'm not the only one in this thread to believe in that implication either. It's not a strawman - it's a sign of your complete ignorance towards other people's inescapable destinies.

 

 

 

All right. Let's go back, shall we? I don't recall who said it, but someone said that he believes homosexuality (Or was it gay marriage? I forgot) was wrong but himself had gay friends. You turned around and tried to pull a straw man. I showed up and said, in reference to the first post, that hating an action does not equate to hating the person and that asserting as much is to pull a straw man. You then tried to call me ignorant for reasons unknown. And here we are.

 

 

 

What corollary?

 

 

 

The corollary to the argument you just quoted.

 

 

 

If you're going to Bible bash me with the whole "Homosexuality is a sin" and tell me it's a choice then don't bother. I and about three-quarters of this board really aren't interested in a theological claim which has no tangible evidence to back it up.

 

 

 

LOL! See, you constantly go off on tangents regarding things no one mentioned. The only thing in that jumbled mess which I did say was that no one is born gay. And, before you go on about how I have to prove it, I don't. "No one is born gay" is the negative assertion to the line "People are born gay", and the onus is on you to prove the positive assertion; not for me to prove the negative assertion.

 

 

 

 

Source: Wikipedia (it's sourced too)

 

 

 

"Should homosexuality by accepted by society?"

 

 

 

United States: 49% Yes; 41% No.

 

Britain: 71% Yes; 21% No

 

Canada: 70% Yes; 21% No.

 

 

 

The Netherlands have had same-sex marriages (not just unions) for seven years now.

 

 

 

If you're arguing it should be banned because the majority of people don't like it, you lose this argument anyway.

 

 

 

LOL x2! That's really not what I said at all, nor the argument I made, so would you care to try again?

 

 

 

Unless you can prove me to me homosexuality is a choice (and I mean homosexuality, not the act of).

 

 

 

It's not on me to do so. You're the one making the positive assertion that people are born gay, so you have to prove it. Scientifically speaking, this is the way things work. You can't say that people are born gay, and when someone says they aren't demand that they prove it. It's akin to me saying aliens exist, and when you say they don't exist asking you to prove that they don't exist. It's pointless and mind-numbingly complex to even try to do so.

 

 

 

*See above*

 

 

 

...Then I'll continue to support pro-Gay campaigns, and I'll get at religion if it chooses to be a force for conservatism.

 

 

 

LOL x3! I don't really even know what to say here. Now you're arguing against conservatism? Liberalism run amok.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Wow. You want to get rid of the Church because they won't marry gays? I've never even heard a gay person say that.

 

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said.

[baron8000]

Ladies and gentlemen, I present the biggest obstacle to reconciling this issue (in europe at least)

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTICLE 8 - Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life

 

 

 

ARTICLE 9 - Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

 

 

 

As long as the ECHR remains part of EC and UK law there will be no legislation that forces one side to curtail to the other - homosexuals will be unable to demand a marriage in a church/religious manner and the church will not be able to stop a civic union (or however you wish to phrase it) being available as a substitute.

 

 

 

Provided homosexual couples have an avenue to gain the same rights as a hetrosexual couple I see no problem.

[Toxic388]

I don't care about homosexuality as long as no public displays of affection are visible.

[llcoolguy972]

I don't care about homosexuality as long as no public displays of affection are visible.

 

 

 

Then ban heterosexual PDA, too.

[monkeyboo2]

I don't care about homosexuality as long as no public displays of affection are visible.

 

 

 

Then ban heterosexual PDA, too.

 

 

 

Exactly. If you think that Gay relationships are imposing on you, simply by being in your view; why do you not think the same about Hetro Relationships?

 

 

 

The problem here is not Gay relationships- Its your darn attitude. You just associate gay with negative conotations (unfairly) so you feel it is a problem. Sort it out in your head- Nothing is wrong with being gay.

 

They're not imposing any more on you than Hetros or Squirrels...

 

Just maybe you don't mind Hetros PDA because you can eye up the girl- who knows...

 

 

 

The problem is in your head, not the gays.

[mmmcannibalism]

I don't care about homosexuality as long as no public displays of affection are visible.

 

 

 

thats not intolerant at all :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

and to ginger

 

 

 

your going to go after churches for supporting conservatism? Guess you dont believe in freedom or anything like that. Want to tell me something distinctly wrong with the concept of supporting traditional values?

[Zierro]

LOL! See, you constantly go off on tangents regarding things no one mentioned. The only thing in that jumbled mess which I did say was that no one is born gay. And, before you go on about how I have to prove it, I don't. "No one is born gay" is the negative assertion to the line "People are born gay", and the onus is on you to prove the positive assertion; not for me to prove the negative assertion.

 

 

 

I really dislike when people do that. "My argument is right yours is wrong. Evidence? I don't need any! I'll just bring up the burden of proof card!"

 

 

 

Hmm... How about trying to prove this since it's a positive assertion: Homosexuality is a choice. As opposed to the negative "homosexuality is not a choice"? See how easy it is to fling the burden of proof onto someone?

[jackattack]

Wow. You want to get rid of the Church because they won't marry gays? I've never even heard a gay person say that.

 

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is just completely ridiculous.

[Agunimon979]

I don't care about homosexuality as long as no public displays of affection are visible.

 

 

 

Then ban heterosexual PDA, too.

 

 

 

it's because of the non-homos (regular society) view straight sex (we may not know it, but subconsciously we support of straight sex) because it's a natural thing, it's how children are made, we subconsciously believe sex is a wonderful thing, however we also believe homo sex is just sweaty greasy hairy men.

[Sly_Wizard]

I really dislike when people do that. "My argument is right yours is wrong. Evidence? I don't need any! I'll just bring up the burden of proof card!"

 

 

 

Hmm... How about trying to prove this since it's a positive assertion: Homosexuality is a choice. As opposed to the negative "homosexuality is not a choice"? See how easy it is to fling the burden of proof onto someone?

 

 

 

The problem you have is that responses such as "People aren't born gay!" or "It's a choice!" are responses to the people who use the inverse arguments-- Not the other way around. These rebuttals only began appearing when people began using the arguments which begat (sp?) them. It's similar to how theists bring up people such as Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot when atheists mention Hitler. Cause then effect, not effect then cause. You can't bring up an argument, and when someone says that your claim isn't true ask them to prove it. It's disingenuous. The onus is on you to prove that gay people were, indeed, born gay. Not on someone else to prove that they aren't. Simply because you can reword the argument and play a game of semantics doesn't change the burden of proof. It's akin to me, instead of asking you to prove that God doesn't exist, asking you to prove that no God exists.

[Rebdragon]

LOL! See, you constantly go off on tangents regarding things no one mentioned. The only thing in that jumbled mess which I did say was that no one is born gay. And, before you go on about how I have to prove it, I don't. "No one is born gay" is the negative assertion to the line "People are born gay", and the onus is on you to prove the positive assertion; not for me to prove the negative assertion.

 

 

 

I really dislike when people do that. "My argument is right yours is wrong. Evidence? I don't need any! I'll just bring up the burden of proof card!"

 

 

 

Hmm... How about trying to prove this since it's a positive assertion: Homosexuality is a choice. As opposed to the negative "homosexuality is not a choice"? See how easy it is to fling the burden of proof onto someone?

 

Aren't they both positive assertions...?

[The Observer]

Well, the problem with today's society is either don't ask, don't tell or just to shoot yourself in the head with a gun which I find pathetic. I mean, we're all supposed to be intelligent and moral, but I don't see it. We go to people and pick out their flaws, no matter how small it is.

[Zierro]

Simply because you can reword the argument and play a game of semantics doesn't change the burden of proof.

 

 

 

Actually, it technically does Sly. I am asking you for your proof that being gay is a choice. That's a positive assertion just like saying people are born gay. I can just say the onus is on you to prove that gay people, indeed, choose to be gay.

 

 

 

And to Reb: Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough about that.

[Sly_Wizard]

Actually, it technically does Sly. I am asking you for your proof that being gay is a choice. That's a positive assertion just like saying people are born gay. I can just say the onus is on you to prove that gay people, indeed, choose to be gay.

 

 

 

Okay. Let's try this again.

 

 

 

Your original statement was that people are born gay. I said they weren't after which you (Not you, specifically) tried to shift the burden of proof onto me. After I wouldn't have any of it, telling you that since you made the positive assertion, you have to prove it , you changed your original statement to "People don't choose to be gay" (Which is a rewording of your original statement. If you're born gay it's not a choice). Well, guess what? Nothing's changed. Simply because you can play semantics doesn't shift the burden of proof.

 

 

 

You're the one making the initial claims. All claims I make follow from the claims you make. No matter how you try to word them, you still have to prove them.

[Zierro]

Yes, let's try again.

 

 

 

Your original statement was that people are born gay.

 

 

 

Statement? You're going off on a tangent regarding things no one mentioned. It's a bit funny how you ask for a quote where you said homosexuality is wrong, even though almost every single one of your posts imply that. If you didn't think it's wrong, then you're on the wrong side of the argument pal. Yet you tell me that I made a statement that people are born gay... No, it was only implied, and by your own book, we're not allowed to make inferences.

 

 

 

Simply because you can play semantics doesn't shift the burden of proof.

 

 

 

Yes it does. Good name you have there Sly Wizard. I will ask again, where is your proof that being gay is a choice? (Hint: Positive assertion) In fact, I believe I asked you the same question a few pages ago, and I was the first one to bring it up, making it impossible for you to use the "you're rewording and using semantics" card. What did you do? You stopped replying. You know you don't have any proof, and to avoid that, you just fling the burden of proof onto the other party when you get the chance.

 

 

 

You're the one making the initial claims. All claims I make follow from the claims you make. No matter how you try to word them, you still have to prove them.

 

 

 

Tell me, do you have a How to Debate for Dummies book right next to you? You're the one bringing up semantics in the first place. You're telling me that the way in which I am arguing is the "incorrect" way, therefore my point is invalid. Sorry, but you just sound like a sore loser when you pull that. But we all have that ability don't we? Sly, your argument is invalid. There I said it. I guess that makes it true.

[TheChamp]

hey guy i went to gay stright allience meeting at school and i sorry but homosexual is wrong!

[Orpheus]

hey guy i went to gay stright allience meeting at school and i sorry but homosexual is wrong!

 

 

 

Translation: Hey guys, I went to a gay/straight alliance meeting at school and I am sorry but being homosexual is wrong! (And I don't even back my reasons, how snide, and ignorant of me :twss:)

 

 

 

Seriously, your English is horrible though. My first language was Dutch, but I don't have problems. Expand on why being homosexual is wrong. I've gotta hear this.

[doomy]

hey guy i went to gay stright allience meeting at school and i sorry but homosexual is wrong!

 

 

 

Translation: Hey guys, I went to a gay/straight alliance meeting at school and I am sorry but being homosexual is wrong!

 

Off-Topic but I think we all knew what he said, you don't need to 'translate' it, it just makes you look stupid imo. (*expects reply saying that statement made me look stupid*)

 

 

 

But yeah we do want some evidence on your views.

 

 

 

And my views are that its ok, doesn't affect me whatsoever, why should I dissapprove of it?

 

But if your gay don't push your views on others.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Wow. You want to get rid of the Church because they won't marry gays? I've never even heard a gay person say that.

 

Yes... I mean that's exactly what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that is just completely ridiculous.

 

I was being sarcastic. I'm saying you're putting words into my mouth.

 

 

 

At no point in this thread have I said "OMG, the Church hates gays so Church should be abolished".

 

 

 

Allow to make my position absolutely crystal clear (although it will be no doubt muddied again by people pathetically playing semantics) - if the Church chooses not to accept religious homosexual marriages, then I would support the concept of a secular, state marriage being provided as well as religious marriages as a suitable alternative for gays to achieve equality to their heterosexual counterparts.

 

 

 

It's really not a hard argument to understand.

[Howlin1]

hey guy i went to gay stright allience meeting at school and i sorry but homosexual is wrong!

 

Care to tell us how you came to that conclusion?

[tintin113]

Just means more girls left for straight guys! \

 

 

 

To be honest the only thing that annoys me about homosexuality is people actively discriminating against people for it. As long as gays don't encourage other people to be gay - which they never do - and only flirt or chat up (or whatever they do) other men who they know are gay then I'm fine with it. It's not natural in my mind, but it's hardly like the population's suffering because of it, so if they seriously prefer men to women then something in their biological make up or the way they were bought up must be different and there's nothing they can do about that, so there's no point torturing them for something that doesn't affect us and isn't their fault.

[Nightsword]

To be fair, I think the action in question is anal sex. Or sex between two males or two females.

 

I fail to see the difference between being a bi/homosexual and participating in homosexual acts. I'm a heterosexual, which is widely regarded as normal, and if were to participate in heterosexual intercourse, that too would be deemed normal within reason. I can't see the difference just because the action in question is between two people of the same gender.

 

 

 

Simply put, if being a homosexual is OK by them, why isn't participating in homosexual acts? One logically follows the other.

 

 

 

You've not seen the commercials? "CELEBRATE HOMOSEXUALITY" or using characters like spongebob to promote homosexuality in children (we are family organization). And then there's the people that try to promote homosexuality to make money off of it. as said before, despicable.

 

No I haven't, not even during the annual Manchester Pride festival when I was in Manchester this year.

 

 

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

 

 

You do realize that 2 men having intercourse can cause internal problems(health) and have no outcome of it besides pleasure. So I fail to see how being gay is genetic, yet the whole principal behind a man and woman is to create offspring.

 

 

 

Maybe being homosexual is gods way of darwins theory working? You know since 2 men or 2 woman cant produce off-spring, their genetics arent re curculated back into the population.

 

 

 

P.S I have no hate towards homosexuals at all, my dad decided he was homosexual when I was in 7th grade and has been with the same man since. I visit him reguarly and have a good relationship. Do I think he was born gay? nope. Do I think he should be allowed to marry? Nope.

[Howlin0001]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

A man don't actually make the off spring they just add one of the important ingredients to it. But still you can have sperm donors can't you?

 

 

 

Our point on Earth is to reproduce. Two guys can't reproduce. It is a choice to be homo.

So the same applies to women then?

[Range_This11]

 

You do realize that a woman has a vag and a male a penis. What are they SUPPOSED to be used for other then pleasure? Creating offspring. When you can prove to me 2 men can create off-spring, then Ill be perfectly fine with homosexuals.

 

 

 

You do realize that 2 men having intercourse can cause internal problems(health) and have no outcome of it besides pleasure. So I fail to see how being gay is genetic, yet the whole principal behind a man and woman is to create offspring.

 

 

 

Maybe being homosexual is gods way of darwins theory working? You know since 2 men or 2 woman cant produce off-spring, their genetics arent re curculated back into the population.

 

 

 

P.S I have no hate towards homosexuals at all, my dad decided he was homosexual when I was in 7th grade and has been with the same man since. I visit him reguarly and have a good relationship. Do I think he was born gay? nope. Do I think he should be allowed to marry? Nope.

 

I know plenty of homosexual men and none of them proclaim to have chosen to be gay. It just happens. Whether it is triggered later in life, or it happens at birth, it is not a choice. I have never known a gay person to EVER say it was just an offhand choice. Why would anyone want to choose to be something that ignorant societies shun and limit rights to?