What's wrong with being gay?

[Daedalus X]

This thread is a continuation of an off topic conversation from here.

First, I think that we all agree that it's important to promote understanding, respect, and equality for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated with dignity and allowed to express their identity without fear of discrimination or harm.


Question for debate is LGTBQIA2S+ a harmless social contagion, or are there serious unintended consequences awaiting the individuals and societies that are going down this road?

[boatsnguitars]

There is a danger: that bigots will make gay LGBTQ+ people's lives miserable.

big·ot
/ˈbiɡət/
noun
plural noun: bigots
a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Why would it be deemed reasonable to expect a bigot to not make some people's lives miserable? There are a bigot by definition in your scenario.
You're basically saying that bigots will be bigots, something we all know already. Bigots will continue to be bigots by the way, with or without LGBTQ+ peoples, religious peoples or those of a race other then their own.

What you fear will be a danger just seems to be an aspect of bigotry, so I am not understanding your point. Surely it's not that bigots will be bigots, yet that is all your statement seems to be currently.

Therefore, Bigotry is the contagion that ought to be eradicated.

Careful now. A bigot might see this as hate speech (eradicated relays violence) towards them.
Should we put to death anyone that is somehow deemed to be unreasonably attached to a belief or opinion? Just imagine the Holy Wars we could justify! What if you feel a person is being prejudiced or antagonistic towards a person or people? Can we then eradicate them? Perhaps we can torture them for a while before we eradicate them?

Your thoughts?

You're equating bigotry with LGBTQ+? Do you also equate Nazi's, ISIS, etc. with LGBTQ+, too?

Just trying to get an idea of how much you want to make this comparison. Are you Pro-ISIS, or do you think it's a contagion that ought to be eradicated?

Careful now, you might have to hurt their feelings! (Or, not, depending on your affinity for them)

[Clownboat]

You're equating bigotry with LGBTQ+?

Nope and I even provided a definition of bigotry for you which did not mention LGBTQ+. If you feel that bigotry and LGBTQ+ go hand in hand, please explain how you think they do.

Do you also equate Nazi's, ISIS, etc. with LGBTQ+, too?

I do not, but I do note that this response reeks of desperation.
I would possibly equate those that would seek to eradicate others with Nazi's and ISIS though. How about you?

Just trying to get an idea of how much you want to make this comparison. Are you Pro-ISIS, or do you think it's a contagion that ought to be eradicated?

I am not pro ISIS. However, feel free to explain how you propose to eradicate ISIS and I will then let you know if I would support such a thing.

You now give the impression that you are comparing someone that would use another persons pronoun incorrectly with ISIS. Please clarify, especially after asking if I equate Nazi's and ISIS with LBGTQ+. That would be some irony wouldn't it, especially since you are the only one here suggesting eradication?
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something.

Careful now, you might have to hurt their feelings! (Or, not, depending on your affinity for them)

Whos feelings have I hurt and how did I do such a thing? If you find this hard to address, please see 'reeks of desperation' above once again.

[alexxcJRO]

Even if you hold gay marriage near and dear for yourself, it does not make it a human right. I think that it is an illness and/or perversion

All humans should have the same rights no matter the race, religion, sexual preferences.
That seems like a fair thing to have in a society.
Asserting “being gay is an illness” means nothing without providing evidence for your positive claim.
Assertions not backed by evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
What is considered a perversion is one the most subjective thing ever that has changed though out history like the weather.
The baseless subjective ponderings of a certain one individual mean nothing.

If it is not a human rights issue, then we can denny LGBTQ the right to marry. Just like we would denny a father (who just lost his wife to cancer) the right to marry his 16 year old daughter. Or would you say "love is love" and if the daughter is willing then you would be fine with it?

Unlike gay behaviour interbreeding is dangerous. It results in homozygosity by increasing the chances of offspring having serious problems because of recessive traits.
Gay behaviour among certain animals(Homo Sapiens Sapiens) is only a threat to pathetic fictitious gods(cough Yahweh-Jesus).
To other rational, knowledgeable beings such behaviour means nothing. Not a mere eyebrow is raised.

I used to gag from spoiled milk before anyone in my family even knew the milk was bad. But, when I got married my wife ate very healthy foods that I could not stand, the worst was kefir, she would make it at home by leaving milk sitting on the kitchen counter for two days and it was nasty. But she would add a little bit to my yogurt everyday along with a bit of honey, and she would gradually increase the amount of kefir in the yogurt. By the time I realized that she was doing it, I had become accustomed to it and did not mind it. I no longer eat any of the junk food that I was so attracted to and eat only healthy foods including a cup of kefir. It is just amazing how many things we can learn to like if we just want to do it.

If a billionaire were to fall in love with you and ask to marry you, you might be tempted by a life on the French Rivera with all the great toys a person could ever want, the best sports cars, airplanes, yachts and anything that money can buy. At first you may have to do things you find repulsive, but over time you could condition yourself to enjoy it. Classical Conditioning: Sex & You

Common sir. I cannot condition myself to like men if I am a heterosexual guy. I will not get a successful erection naturally not in a million years.
That’s just phantasmagorical, delusional thinking in order to justify the unjustifiable.
I challenge few 100% heterosexual religious males to condition themselves and engage successfully in gay sex without help of pills. Make a sturdy, double blind test study with scientists and publish.
Babbling nonsense on a forum is easy.
“Putting your your money where your mouth is” is another thing.

I think it would be silly to justify human behavior based on animals. Shall we pee on every fire hydrant that we pass, roll around in poop, sniff each others butts when we meet a stranger or hump someones leg for fun, shall men fight each other to get a female for mating. How would you like it if we gave each other a Bonobo handshake every time we meet.

Human animals already have peed on hydrant and a myriad other things and still do it, many engage in poop play, sniffing buts in sexual games, men very often now-days fight over women.
We are not that different from the rest of constituents of Kingdom Animalia.
Like many animals the animal: Homo Sapiens Sapiens engages sometimes in homosexual behaviour. All this is perfectly normal.

[LittleNipper]

It is evil to equate gay sex equal to procreation sex.

Please show that you speak the truth.

Sex for sex sake is inferior to sex for the purpose of procreation.

Incorrect. I know this to be a fact as I have enjoyed both and one type of sex is in fact not inferior to the other.

The smell of rotting fish and fecal matter is disgusting to most people. And both rotten fish and fecal matter is dangerous to one's health.

Therefore what?

"The sky is blue!" What does he win Johnny?

You seem bent on being able to do whatever you wish no matter what the end result. Sodomy cannot procreate another individual. GOD blessing is not upon it ---- go read the Bible and the truth will set you free.

It is obvious to me that you do not have a God on your side helping you to debate and that you are also unable to show you speak the truth. Why do you think that is?

I was a born again, tongue talking, street evangelizing, drunk in the Holy Ghost Christian for two decades that has read the Bible from cover to cover by the way, but you continue to pretend what you will in order to maintain your religious beliefs. Perhaps one day you will be set free from your beliefs...

You are unable to show that you speak the truth. I place my trust in GOD's Word, and not in my opinions. There is no such thing as losing one's salvation. You either are saved or never were.

[boatsnguitars]

You're equating bigotry with LGBTQ+?

Nope and I even provided a definition of bigotry for you which did not mention LGBTQ+. If you feel that bigotry and LGBTQ+ go hand in hand, please explain how you think they do.

Do you also equate Nazi's, ISIS, etc. with LGBTQ+, too?

I do not, but I do note that this response reeks of desperation.
I would possibly equate those that would seek to eradicate others with Nazi's and ISIS though. How about you?

Just trying to get an idea of how much you want to make this comparison. Are you Pro-ISIS, or do you think it's a contagion that ought to be eradicated?

I am not pro ISIS. However, feel free to explain how you propose to eradicate ISIS and I will then let you know if I would support such a thing.

You now give the impression that you are comparing someone that would use another persons pronoun incorrectly with ISIS. Please clarify, especially after asking if I equate Nazi's and ISIS with LBGTQ+. That would be some irony wouldn't it, especially since you are the only one here suggesting eradication?
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something.

Careful now, you might have to hurt their feelings! (Or, not, depending on your affinity for them)

Whos feelings have I hurt and how did I do such a thing? If you find this hard to address, please see 'reeks of desperation' above once again.

Me: Therefore, Bigotry is the contagion that ought to be eradicated.
You: Careful now. A bigot might see this as hate speech (eradicated relays violence) towards them.

Why would I have to be careful about a bigot seeing their eradication as hate speech, in the same way that wanting to eradicate LGBTQ+ people is considered hate speech? Please explain.

[Clownboat]

You are unable to show that you speak the truth.

In regards to what please? Clarification is needed and it would be absolutely silly to suggest I can never show that I speak the truth, so you must be talking about something specific. What is it that I cannot show that I speak the truth about?

I place my trust in GOD's Word, and not in my opinions.

You have an opinion that one specific book of religious promotional material out of many is the words of a God. This is an opinion you hold, try to be honest please. In reality, you have made an idol out of this book of religious promotional material. So much so that you claim this book, written by humans is the word of some god concept. Can you justify this opinion you hold about this book?

i·dol
/ˈīd(ə)l/
noun
an image or representation of a god (this book is the words of a God) used as an object of worship.

There is no such thing as losing one's salvation. You either are saved or never were.

You live in fantasy land then, as I in fact did lose my salvation. Your claims to the contrary are irrelevant to this fact and quite frankly are just silly. You pretend to know things that you cannot know. Pretending to know will keep a person in ignorance.

[Clownboat]

Me: Therefore, Bigotry is the contagion that ought to be eradicated.
You: Careful now. A bigot might see this as hate speech (eradicated relays violence) towards them.

Why would I have to be careful about a bigot seeing their eradication as hate speech,

You quoted the answer to your question, but seemed to have missed it: "(eradicated relays violence)". Hate speech encourages violence.

To be clear, you probably don't have to be 'careful', unless we start creating laws that would dominate and control your speech that is. I would find it to be very useful information if I heard someone desiring the eradication of certain types of people. Again, I think it is important to let people state their true colors so that others can know them (generic). By their words... not by letting them actually eradicate groups of humans. Actions have consequences as we know. Simply being a doody head let's those around you (generic) understand what kind of person you (generic) are. I don't think we should eradicate doody heads though as perhaps their thought on a matter will change. The acceptance of homosexuality has come a long way over the decades, all done without completely destroying any humans I would like to add.

If you heard that someone desired the eradication of LGBTQ+ peoples, would you not have learned something about said person?
Now what if you heard a person desired the eradication of those they feel are bigots? Is their hate speech somehow justified?

in the same way that wanting to eradicate LGBTQ+ people is considered hate speech? Please explain.

Yes! If a person stated that they desired the eradication of LGBTQ+ people, that would be hate speech. Please note, that in this post, you are the only one requesting any eradication. On top of that, you asked if I was pro ISIS. That was some irony! I reject your notion for the eradication of people (those you deem bigots) same as I reject ISIS from eradicating anyone.

[boatsnguitars]

Just as I said, and you denied: you equated them.

Eradicating ISIS is not the same as eradicating LGBTQ+ people.

You seem to equate the two. I don't. I see them as entirely different.

[Clownboat]

Just as I said, and you denied: you equated them.

What is it that you claim I equate? Please be very clear what it is and how I do it. Perhaps I need to amend my thinking?
Or is this simply a distraction from your desire to have some people eradicated, like some would suggest a bigot might argue for?

This is why your stance doesn't seem consistent:
You have suggested to eradicate bigots. How is this not you being bigoted towards (one who is prejudiced against) those you feel are bigots (those that might make an LGBTQ+ persons life miserable due to their prejudice), or Republicans, Democrats or any other group a person (you or not) might determine to be bigots?
Way to much eradication taking place for my liking with no clear line about who we destroy, nor does it give them a chance to change their thinking like has taken place with homosexuality over the decades (without eradicating anyone).

Eradicating ISIS is not the same as eradicating LGBTQ+ people.

The meaning of the word doesn't change. The same act is taking place, just with different groups of humans. Your statement makes as much sense as saying that eradicating Republican is not the same as eradication Democrats. It would be the same though and I would appose both for the same reasons.

You seem to equate the two. I don't. I see them as entirely different.

Then please correct your thinking on the matter.
e·rad·i·ca·tion
/iˌradiˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
the complete destruction of something

Whether ISIS is being completely destroyed or whether all Republicans are being destroyed (for example) doesn't change that fact that complete destruction is taking place.

So again, "I reject your notion for the eradication of people (those you deem bigots) same as I reject ISIS (only because you keep bringing the up) from eradicating anyone."

[LittleNipper]

You are unable to show that you speak the truth.

In regards to what please? Clarification is needed and it would be absolutely silly to suggest I can never show that I speak the truth, so you must be talking about something specific. What is it that I cannot show that I speak the truth about?

I place my trust in GOD's Word, and not in my opinions.

You have an opinion that one specific book of religious promotional material out of many is the words of a God. This is an opinion you hold, try to be honest please. In reality, you have made an idol out of this book of religious promotional material. So much so that you claim this book, written by humans is the word of some god concept. Can you justify this opinion you hold about this book?

i·dol
/ˈīd(ə)l/
noun
an image or representation of a god (this book is the words of a God) used as an object of worship.

There is no such thing as losing one's salvation. You either are saved or never were.

You live in fantasy land then, as I in fact did lose my salvation. Your claims to the contrary are irrelevant to this fact and quite frankly are just silly. You pretend to know things that you cannot know. Pretending to know will keep a person in ignorance.

You are the one who promotes being "GAY" as acceptable behavior, and you say that I'm living in a fantasy? I feel that if you were/are truly saved, that your life will be in a constant turmoil if you try to now reject GOD. And the fact that you try so hard to prove you point of view only undermines your position and props up the Biblical view without any work on my part.