Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Arguments

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1. That argument makes no sense. Think before you speak please? Homosexuality happens in Humans. No one is saying that we should do something because it happens to tigers or llamas, because we are NOT tigers or llamas. We are Humans. If something happens to humans, you accept it. If something happens to tigers or llamas, you accept it. Just dont try and ignore the fact that something naturally happens by making shitty arguments that make no sense.

#2 I pretend to wear dresses and played with polly pocket in kindergarten, i was very very gay. However, i didnt rape the little girls in my kindergarten class. Maybe if i was raped by the teacher in kindergarten, i would go on to be a pedophile, but that is not being born that way is it? People are born gay. Accept it rather than trying to make a shitty excuse by dragging in a mental illness and compare it to sexual orientation?

#3 Fuck the Red Cross.

#4 Women count fora large percent of people with breast cancer. AMFG WOMEN ARE EVIL! BREST CANCER IS GODS PLAUGE TO KILL ALL WOMEN BECAUSE GOD FUCKING HAAAATES WOMEN! *cough* yea, you get my point. Diesese that target specific groups of people is not a "new" thing with gay people. If AIDS only affected gay people period, this argument may be a tiny bit better (not that it would be good then either) but thats just not the case

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1
"If gay people say that homosexuality is natural in our species, we say so what? Some species eat their young and own excrements, does that mean we should to?"

This makes no sense, if it's natural to OUR species we do as our species do, not others.

#2
"if homosexuals can claim they're born that way and must be respected, what about pedophiles? Why not support incestuous relationships?"

Homosexuality is a relationship of 2 consented people.
Paedophilia is the act of an adult making sexual contact with an underage child, who most likely does not know better, and most likely had not consented.
Incestuous relationships are not supported due to the risk of conception causing the baby to have severe health problems.

#3
"If homosexuality is really safe and natural, then why do organizations like the Red Cross prohibit gays from donating blood?"

This was based on mindless prejudice with thought that gay people have AIDS.
The red cross are now changing it's policies to allow gay and transgender people to donate.

Linky from 2006


#4
"Why do gay men still account for a huge percentage of the American population with HIV/AIDS?"[/B]

HIV and AIDS are more easily passed on through anal sex, seeing as this is the only form of penetrative sex for gay men it is as much of a risk as it is to heterosexuals.
A simple condom is all that is needed to prevent such things.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1
"If gay people say that homosexuality is natural in our species, we say so what? Some species eat their young and own excrements, does that mean we should to?"

Animals do that, yes, however eating young is murder and probably would be very painful for the young, plus, I'd like you to find one parent who would eat their young. Eating excrement is also dangerous for our health, and again, I'd like you to find someone who would eat their own excrement.

However, homosexuality, when done in a safe and loving manner, is no more dangerous than heterosexuality. It does not directly harm another being and does not cause health problems.

#2
"if homosexuals can claim they're born that way and must be respected, what about pedophiles? Why not support incestuous relationships?"

Pedophiles use children. Pedophiles try to have sex with those who do not even understand the concept of sex. I'm all for mutual relationships where both parties understand what they are doing. If a pedophile takes advantage of a naive child or if an incestuous relationship takes place with one person being "used" without consent, then I believe that is wrong. Just as wrong as heterosexual or homosexual rape.

Two loving homosexuals in a relationship does not involve taking advantage any more than heterosexual relationships. I'll admit, yes, homosexual rape can happen, but then again, so does heterosexual rape.

#3
"If homosexuality is really safe and natural, then why do organizations like the Red Cross prohibit gays from donating blood?"

Because they know that AIDS can be passed easier through the anus than through the vagina. They are being overly cautious in this matter.

#4
"Why do gay men still account for a huge percentage of the American population with HIV/AIDS?"

Yes, it is a "huge" percentage, but african-american women account for an even larger percentage.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

character limit

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1. This argument is timeless. If your friend told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? No. But, as Homosexuality has occurred in several species of Apes, which are in the same Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Family AND Genus as humans (basically, we're like comparing a Terrier to a Collie if we were talking Dog), then surely it can't be THAT un-natural.

#2 The children of incestuous relationships share that much DNA with their parents that they end up genetically deformed, so for humanity's sake (and so as not to completely destroy natural selection). And Pedophilia is a psycosis, not a determined trait since birth, and a bit of an oxymoron, seeing as the peodophile will have been a child at one point.

#3 Because of the environment created by idiots who put forward these arguments, gay people feel ashamed to ask for help and advice about sex and contraception, resulting in more gay people having HIV.

#4 As above.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1
"If gay people say that homosexuality is natural in our species, we say so what? Some species eat their young and own excrements, does that mean we should to?"

First, even mentioning other species is a red-herring argument and a fallacious argument. Therefore the assertions here are baseless and not worth debating. Human beings are not other species.

#2
"if homosexuals can claim they're born that way and must be respected, what about pedophiles? Why not support incestuous relationships?"

What about pedophiles? CHILDREN cannot give informed or legal consent, so the entire argument has no merit. Gay adults can give both legal and informed consent, unlike a child. As for incestuous relationships, it is well-known that incest gives rise to all sorts of genetic deformities and mutations, so limiting incestuous relationships has a greater social benefit, as children born of such unions create an immense burden on educational, public welfare assistance, public Medicare/Medicaid, and other social support systems.

#3
"If homosexuality is really safe and natural, then why do organizations like the Red Cross prohibit gays from donating blood?"

The gay blood ban was born of an era when there was practically no information on the causes of AIDS and the disease was raving the population and threatened to become a pandemic. In 2003, the Red Cross and other professionals recommended removing the gay blood ban, only to be twarted by the administration of a president that openly campained to enshrine a discriminatory anti-marriage amendment into the U.S. Constitution (specifically George W. Bush, one of America's worst presidents).

#4
"Why do gay men still account for a huge percentage of the American population with HIV/AIDS?"

Religious fascists have managed to inject bad policies and lack of education into the mainstream, all under the guise of "abstinence only education." Instead of acknowledging that people are going to have sex and making resources available for them to do it safely, religious groups have instead chosen a "stick your head in the sand" mentality, and by getting such ignorance enshrined into law and public policy, they've put the entire public health at risk because of their misguided religious beliefs.

At the same time, the same religious fascists have created an environment where many gay people still cannot be themselves openly, and thus seek clandestine encounters. As the stigma associated with being gay dissipates, the clandestine encounters will largely go away, and the associated risks of disease transmission will also decrease. Having sex with some shady character you met in the airport restroom isn't exactly safe.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

I'd say that even if we assume the assumption that homosexuality is not natural, that did not mean it is wrong.
A human society is the opposite of a state of nature, and the more it is civilised, the farest it is from a state of nature.
If we consider what the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau says about the state of nature, it is ruled by violence and physical strenght and civilised societies are built against the prevalence of the strongest and on to the well being of all its members.
Then I would say that if our biological needs are natural, such as sleeping, eating and sexual impulse, the way we satisfy them is far from being natural, the are cultural.
If you take the exemple of eating : any human being has the biological need to eat, but each society has it's own rituals about how to eat and what you should eat (not even mentionning the religious interdictions). Eating is natural, what we eat is cultural.
It is the same about sex. Sexual implulse is natural, but having sex is cultural.
Lets face it : how many people have sex only based on reproduction purpose ? Sex have been ritualised in any human societies, each one using it's own codes like each one has it's own way of cooking. The reasons why human beings have sex are much more complex than only natural urge. So it is not so surprising that some people developped sexual attraction for the same sex, despite of the fact it implies that's not for reproduction purposes. There sexual pulsion is natural, but the object of there desires is cultural. And as human beings are cultural beings, homosexuals have a completly human behaviour.

I would aswer the rest letter, I should go back to work. Buy the way, sorry for the language's mistakes. I hope you would understand me anyway.
Eleanor

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

#1
"If gay people say that homosexuality is natural in our species, we say so what? Some species eat their young and own excrements, does that mean we should to?"

Humans are not just 'some species', we have proved ourselves above such base actions as eating faeces and young (most of us anyway). It is a completely irrelevant comparison to make, as we are not purely instinctive animals with little conscious thought, but are human beings.

#2
"if homosexuals can claim they're born that way and must be respected, what about pedophiles? Why not support incestuous relationships?"

Personally, I think paedophiles who do not molest children deserve the utmost respect of the human race. I know how strong a mind it takes to resist every sexual urge for an extended period of time and my respect for non-practising paedophiles is enormous. The difference between a homosexual relationship and a paedophilic one is immense and obvious. Homosexuality harms neither participant, whereas sex between an adult and a child can be extremely harmful to the child, both psychologically and physically. Incestuous relationships should not be supported because the offspring of such relationships has been proven to be, well, inbred.

#3
"If homosexuality is really safe and natural, then why do organizations like the Red Cross prohibit gays from donating blood?"

I was unaware of this. I would imagine it is because of the high percentage of the homosexual community infected with HIV, which is transmitted through unscreened blood transfusions extremely effectively. Either that or the Red Cross has a very backwards and homophobic attitude.

#4
"Why do gay men still account for a huge percentage of the American population with HIV/AIDS?"

The reason why HIV spread so quickly through homosexuals is well known: Gay sex was though to be safe because it is impossible for a man to become pregnant, so safe sex was not practised in the past, and still often isn't among homosexual couples, which allows the spread of the virus from gay man to gay man.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

This is actually quite a thought provoking answer you have given, even though you are playing devil's advocate. Obviously child pornography involving sex with a child should remain illegal, but what about 'soft' porn, plain nude photos? I realise how controversial what I am saying is, but it could help paedophiles to have some outlet for their sexual desires, without harming anybody.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

Hehe...your devil's advocate routine was quite good but I totally disagree with your one point here. Of course child pornography is damaging. Sexual abuse doesnt have to be physical.....having to sit naked in front of a camera can have a huge emotional impact on a child.

I love topics like this they get my brain working....I just had a heated discussion at work with an egit who believes all gay men are promiscuous....I managed to get her down to "most gay men are promiscuous"....small victory, but more work to be done!

#1
"If gay people say that homosexuality is natural in our species, we say so what? Some species eat their young and own excrements, does that mean we should to?"

I'm with pirateninja on this one...awesome argument. The other thing to mention is that not all instincts and traits are shared by all species in the animal kingdom. That statement is making a huge generalisation. Yes some species (such as lions) eat their young, but some dont. And actually in terms of eating faeces....all babies who are born vaginally are exposed to their mother's excrement, which is actually beneficial to the development of the gut bacterial flora (i dont think that was the point of the argument though). Homosexuality is another trait exhibited by most species to a varying degree....but not all. Just because fish can swim doesnt necessarily mean bees are abnormal because they cant swim. Animals are different, and this just allows diversity in the kingdom.

#2
"if homosexuals can claim they're born that way and must be respected, what about pedophiles? Why not support incestuous relationships?"

Pretty much been covered by everyone else. Gays are consenting adults, kids do not have the capacity to give consent. In terms of incestuous relationships, I actually believe that as long as there is no chance of reproducing offspring...then who are we to judge two consenting adults.

#3
"If homosexuality is really safe and natural, then why do organizations like the Red Cross prohibit gays from donating blood?"

This is simply due to the higher prevalence of HIV in the homosexual community in the Western world and the increased risk of passing the virus on via anal sex. This does not mean that all gay people are at risk of contracting the virus and if they practice safe sex or are in a monogamous relationship they should be allowed to donate blood.

Fortunately there is no shortage of blood products in the Western world. Unfortunately this means that the blood donation agencies can exclude as many people as it likes and as gay men has a proportionally higher prevalence of HIV, there is a blanket exclusion of all men who have sex with men.

However in developing countries HIV is predominantly an infection in heterosexual individuals and it is wrong to assume that gay sex is unsafe.

#4
"Why do gay men still account for a huge percentage of the American population with HIV/AIDS?"

I think the others have already covered this.

 

Re: Pretend You're In A Debate - How Would You Respond To These Anti-Homosexual Argum

Personally, I am not against "art" of nude children. As someone has said before, I respect pedophiles who can control themselves. Children do not understand the concept of sex or nudity, and I reckon they should at least be allowed the freedom to remain innocent of that fact. The art doesn't harm anybody, it gives a pedophile an outlet without having to take away that innocence of a child. Nude photos and sex can.