Do You Want To Be Homosexual?

[James R]

Willy:

You clearly believe if people do not accept homosexuality as a norm they are somehow uneducated.

I said nothing about a "norm".

I see you still haven't worked out what your argument is, especially concerning what is "natural". For example, we have:

It is about sexual desires and if one can change them, it happens in the animal kingdom, so why not in humans?

Here, you argue that because it is "natural" for animals to change their sexual orientation, it is also right for humans to do so.

But then, a little later, we have you saying things like this:

My point is that just because something happens "naturally" does not make it right.

Here, you are arguing that just because homosexuality occurs among non-human animals, that doesn't make it right.

Either natural makes right, in which case you can have that humans might be able to change their sexual orientation, but only at the price of accepting that homosexuality is natural. Or natural does not make right, in which case you can't argue that changing sexual orientation is good, but you can have that the fact of homosexuality in the animal kingdom doesn't make it morally right.

So, which is it? You can't have things both ways.

Just because I think homosexuality is wrong does not make me a bigot. I'm not trying to stop homo's from being homo's, I can totally tolerate homo's.

What's wrong with homosexuality?

So what makes you think that being homosexual is good for any percent of the population?

They say it is good for them.

The point is before you do something, think what the world would be like if everyone did that.

Not everyone wants to be homosexual. I thought the purpose of this thread was to establish that very point. Have you lost track again?

Who of you can or will explain why they believe homosexuality is right, and not wrong?

You go first. Explain why it is wrong, then I'll tell you why you're wrong.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

you obviously still want your hate to keep going, hence your bumping it up to the top of the forum.

 

[Repo Man]

Wow, we are still in this discussion?

Homosexuality is wrong and should be punishable by the most sever punishment possible.

end of discussion.

I hope one of your children is gay.

 

[Norsefire]

your children? good for them. They wont be though unless you make them. No human is a natural gay.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

your children? good for them. They wont be though unless you make them. No human is a natural gay.

You have no argument left so you are just going to keep chanting crap from now on?

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Homosexuality is wrong and should be punishable by the most sever punishment possible.

You're advocating what is called a status offence here.

A status offence is a crime punishable just because of who a person is, and not because of anything they have done.

An equivalent law would be "All Muslims will henceforth be rounded up and put in jail, because they are Muslim."

Do you think that would be fair?

You might argue that homosexual people could always "convert" to heterosexuality to avoid punishment, but it would be far easier in my example for Muslims to convert to another religion to avoid a like punishment. Do you think it would be reasonable to ask all Muslims to convert to Christianity or be punished?

 

[Kadark]

You're advocating what is called a status offence here.

A status offence is a crime punishable just because of who a person is, and not because of anything they have done.

An equivalent law would be "All Muslims will henceforth be rounded up and put in jail, because they are Muslim."

Do you think that would be fair?

This is an argument under the assumption of a predetermined sexual orientation, via genetics. I believe you yourself said that you disagreed with a definitive homosexual gene. And, considering I'm not (not certain about you) a genetics expert, this argument is pointless.

You might argue that homosexual people could always "convert" to heterosexuality to avoid punishment, but it would be far easier in my example for Muslims to convert to another religion to avoid a like punishment. Do you think it would be reasonable to ask all Muslims to convert to Christianity or be punished?

Ann Coulter thinks it's reasonable.

 

[Fugu-dono]

Eh I love women so I don't want to become one. Give me several million and I would seriously think about turning though. There better be a bloody sexy looking pretty boy or a fantastically goddess-like tranny though. Hahaha...

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

:bugeye:


Is there a Muslim gene?

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



You're advocating what is called a status offence here.

A status offence is a crime punishable just because of who a person is, and not because of anything they have done.

An equivalent law would be "All Muslims will henceforth be rounded up and put in jail, because they are Muslim."

Do you think that would be fair?

You might argue that homosexual people could always "convert" to heterosexuality to avoid punishment, but it would be far easier in my example for Muslims to convert to another religion to avoid a like punishment. Do you think it would be reasonable to ask all Muslims to convert to Christianity or be punished?

Nope, it wouldnt be fair. There's nothing wrong with being moslim, any more than there is with being christian or jewish.

But being gay is wrong, it doesnt fit in and doesnt produce results and is disgusting. When has there ever been gay parents that naturally had a baby? Never, because that's not how its meant to be.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Nope, it wouldnt be fair. There's nothing wrong with being moslim, any more than there is with being christian or jewish.

But being gay is wrong, it doesnt fit in and doesnt produce results and is disgusting. When has there ever been gay parents that naturally had a baby? Never, because that's not how its meant to be.

So you have definately given up constructing an argument in favour of spurting crap the. OK.

 

[James R]

Qa'Dark:

This is an argument under the assumption of a predetermined sexual orientation, via genetics.

No. It's an argument against punishing people for what they are, rather than what they do. Understand?

Ann Coulter thinks it's reasonable.

Do you agree with her that it is right to punish people for what they are rather than for things they do?


Norsefire:

Nope, it wouldnt be fair. There's nothing wrong with being moslim, any more than there is with being christian or jewish.

So, do you think it is fair to punish somebody for what they are, rather than for anything they have done? Yes or no.

 

[Repo Man]

This is an argument under the assumption of a predetermined sexual orientation, via genetics. I believe you yourself said that you disagreed with a definitive homosexual gene. And, considering I'm not (not certain about you) a genetics expert, this argument is pointless.

All current data on the subject agrees that it is a mixture of nature and nurture, though the exact balance is not known at this time. And all current evidence agrees that you do not choose which gender sexually excites you more, nor can you choose to change your fundamental orientation. All non acceptance of gays leads to is unhealthy underground behavior, and people leading double lives. They have always been with us, and it looks as though they always will be. I think that a cultures acceptance of this unimportant difference will be one of the things that separates the advanced cultures of the world from the backward ones.

 

[Kadark]

No. It's an argument against punishing people for what they are, rather than what they do. Understand?

Like I said, this is the presumption of a predetermined sexuality.

Do you agree with her that it is right to punish people for what they are rather than for things they do?

Of course not. What a question!

 

[James R]

Qa'Dark:

So, you agree that it is not ok to punish homosexuals just for being homosexual. Right? That view of Norsefire's is just narrow-minded bigotry. Right?

So, let's move on. Do you think homosexuality ought to be a crime? If so, why?

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Like I said, this is the presumption of a predetermined sexuality.

It is no more an argument of predetermined sexuality than banning Muslims would be an argument of assumed predetermined genetics.

 

[Kadark]

And all current evidence agrees that you do not choose which gender sexually excites you more, nor can you choose to change your fundamental orientation.

Incorrect. There is much controversy on the "gay gene", and if you'd like, I can link you to sources which deny such claims of a predetermined sexuality.

They have always been with us, and it looks as though they always will be.

I agree.

I think that a cultures acceptance of this unimportant difference will be one of the things that separates the advanced cultures of the world from the backward ones.

What are some modern advanced cultures?

 

[Norsefire]

Norsefire:



So, do you think it is fair to punish somebody for what they are, rather than for anything they have done? Yes or no.

No, hell no. You should not punish people for what they are. You punish gays for what they DO, (become gay)

 

[Kadark]

So, let's move on. Do you think homosexuality ought to be a crime? If so, why?

My answer will not satisfy you, I can tell, because it is (mostly) religiously orientated.

"The people of Lut rejected the apostles. Behold, their brother Lut said to them: "Will ye not fear (God)? "I am to you an apostle worthy of all trust. "So fear God and obey me. "No reward do I ask of you for it: my reward is only from the lord of the Worlds. "Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, "And leave those whom God has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)!" They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!"

 

[Carcano]

You punish gays for what they DO, (become gay)

Being gay isnt a 'doing'...not an action.

If you really want to toss them all in jail for something however, just make sodomy illegal.

Thats an action!