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?

[Purple Knight]

I'd be interested to know how you'd react to a cop telling you you're going to be sued and implying he'll testify against you.

Acknowledge what the cop has told you.
Ask him if he intends to testify against you or not because his implication is not enough.
Ask him what his claim is.
Take his name, number and station address.
Give your own details.
Explain that any case will be defended.
.......................done.

You seem certain of your rights. I'm interested to know how you got that way, and since you won't answer, I'm assuming that if the government simply legislated to remove your rights, you would object. Not every law is a just one, which is why laws change. Segregation was unjust, and it changed. Slavery was unjust, and it changed. Thinking that all the laws we have right now are perfect is the kind of lazy thinking that allows Nazis, or whatever is next. And not only am I not accusing you of it, I know you don't think that way.

So I'm interested to know how you discover that you have some right, as opposed to rights like free ice cream (you know I don't mean when someone offers) which no one thinks they have.

In America there's no right not to be bullied. If there are laws against it, they aren't enforced. If there should be such a right (or rather, if there is, and the law needs to catch up) then I want to know how you know that.

[oldbadger]

You seem certain of your rights.

I just know what I would do in that situation, is all.

I'm interested to know how you got that way, and since you won't answer, I'm assuming that if the government simply legislated to remove your rights, you would object.

You can't even bring yourself to tell us which State you live in, and since you tell me that I won't answer your questions........... I don't think I will bother any more with such answers.

Not every law is a just one, which is why laws change. Segregation was unjust, and it changed. Slavery was unjust, and it changed. Thinking that all the laws we have right now are perfect is the kind of lazy thinking that allows Nazis, or whatever is next. And not only am I not accusing you of it, I know you don't think that way.

There you go again, assuming what we think about present day laws. But you need to learn about the laws, and you need to keep them until politics can change any bad ones.

So I'm interested to know how you discover that you have some right, as opposed to rights like free ice cream (you know I don't mean when someone offers) which no one thinks they have.

You need to bother to learn them! The internet provides you with all the legislation for your district and country in western lands. And if you go on holiday abroad you need to check out that country's laws as well.

In America there's no right not to be bullied. If there are laws against it, they aren't enforced. If there should be such a right (or rather, if there is, and the law needs to catch up) then I want to know how you know that.

Of course there are laws in every part of America about bullying. What do you think would happen if a person on their way home from work/school was stopped and had their watch taken off them? Bullying comes in all kinds of forms.

[Clownboat]

You were critiquing with this question: " Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?"

And then I put a mirror to make you see the error of your ways:
"Is there an age limit? Would a teenager in middle-school/high-school be subjected to punishment for continuing to rape/sexually assault another teenager for example?"
You dropped it so fast it was funny.

Well then, you failed.
Sounds like a recap is needed.
In regards to punishing those who bully: "Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?"
Copy/Paste alexxcJRO "My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it."

Can you answer the question or can you still not answer it? You're funny!

Again: I was using your words. I simply copy pasted your words and replaced some to show how you sound and how you argument is going against it self. Your argument was self defeating. You were self defeating.
Q: Are you being obtuse on purpose?
English is not my native language. Maybe I am not making myself understood.

You are most certainly not being understood with your copying, pasting and mirroring. It would be great if you would answer questions posed to you though.

I know! Here is one:
"Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?"
Copy/Paste alexxcJRO "My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it."

Q: Have you bullied yourself?!

I don't believe so. Do you even know why you asked this question?

You should call the police on your self.

Why? Are you trying to be funny?

Mirroring events only show yourself not the other guy.

Off topic, but um.... ok.

Mirrors are not windows but they reflect back yourself.

Um.... Come back alexxcJRO! This way... we are over here!

Is it a sexual offense to hit on girl in a more insisting way? Some will think so.

You just asked a question and then answered it ("some will think so"). Let me know if you have any questions for me.

What the punishment should be?

I don't think there should be a punishment for hitting on girl if that is what you are asking and your 'insisting' comment provided zero additional information about what happened. Sorry, but I cannot answer your question unless you clarify.

It is as complicated sir to prosecute and clearly make the difference between just hitting on a girl a more insisting way and sexually harassing someone.
Someone might be a Karen and exaggerate.
That does not justify letting evil run rampant because whining is a thing and we don't like to deal with complicated things.

You obviously do not understand my stance if you think I'm trying to justify letting evil run rampant. Come back alexxJRO! This way! Over here!

[Purple Knight]

Of course there are laws in every part of America about bullying. What do you think would happen if a person on their way home from work/school was stopped and had their watch taken off them? Bullying comes in all kinds of forms.

That's a law against stealing, not bullying. I've told you I live in Colorado, but I didn't have horrid experiences here; I had them in Florida.

You still won't answer me about how you know you have some natural right (like not being bullied) and that the law should follow suit. If you really just look up the laws, what on Earth would you do on a desert island, or in the distant past? Real people had to navigate such landscapes, you know, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't have any laws now. You're very confident about how things ought to be, and I want to know where it comes from.

[alexxcJRO]

Well then, you failed.
Sounds like a recap is needed.
In regards to punishing those who bully: "Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?"

Can you answer the question or can you still not answer it? You're funny!
You are most certainly not being understood with your copying, pasting and mirroring. It would be great if you would answer questions posed to you though.
I know! Here is one:
"Is there an age limit? Would toddlers in daycare be subjected to punishment for continuing to steal the pacifier of another toddler for example?"

Sounds like another mirror event is needed:
In regards to punishing those who sexually harrass, rape "Is there an age limit? Would middle age children in school be subjected to punishment for continuing sexually harrass, rape of another middle-age child for example?"
Can you watch in the mirror or you still not see the reflection? You're funny!

Copy/Paste alexxcJRO "My point was that bullying is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it."

Juvenile detention centers, fines for parents.
Parents should be fined because one is responsible for their bringing of another being into the world and the raising of such being to be a good member of the society.
If you are irresponsible with your behaviour and your child behaviour one should reap the consequences.

I don't believe so. Do you even know why you asked this question?
Why? Are you trying to be funny?
Um.... Come back alexxcJRO! This way... we are over here!

There are only two options:
Playing dumb which is dishonest.
or
Stupidity is always a thing.

Dear sir I mirrored what you said.
Ergo all your remarks against me are in fact pointed against yourself.

mirror
noun
mir·​ror ˈmir-ər ˈmi-rər
Synonyms of mirror
1
: a polished or smooth surface (as of glass) that forms images by reflection

You just asked a question and then answered it ("some will think so"). Let me know if you have any questions for me.
I don't think there should be a punishment for hitting on girl if that is what you are asking and your 'insisting' comment provided zero additional information about what happened. Sorry, but I cannot answer your question unless you clarify.

I don't think there should be a punishment for "calling someone a liar" if that is what you are asking.

You obviously do not understand my stance if you think I'm trying to justify letting evil run rampant. Come back alexxJRO! This way! Over here!

You obviously do not understand my stance if you think I'm trying to equate "calling someone a liar once" with bulling. Come back Clownboat! This way! Over here!

[oldbadger]

Of course there are laws in every part of America about bullying. What do you think would happen if a person on their way home from work/school was stopped and had their watch taken off them? Bullying comes in all kinds of forms.

That's a law against stealing, not bullying. I've told you I live in Colorado, but I didn't have horrid experiences here; I had them in Florida.

You got that completely wrong.
Firstly it was robbery, stealing with force or threat of force, and secondly that is what can happen to a kid at school when a bully frightens him and takes his
mobile phone from him. What's the difference between a growen man and a child being frightened and robbed? Nothing, really.

You still won't answer me about how you know you have some natural right (like not being bullied) and that the law should follow suit.

My rights and yours and written in legislation! I've told you!
This begins to look as if you think that bullying is ok, maybe you want to bully people?
Adults get bullied as well, you know.

If you really just look up the laws, what on Earth would you do on a desert island, or in the distant past?

Where I live people travelled in groups to protect from threats/violence, and lone travelers carried weapons.
I don't live on an isolated island.
Are you trying to support the rights of people to harass and bully others? I wonder why?

Real people had to navigate such landscapes, you know, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't have any laws now. You're very confident about how things ought to be, and I want to know where it comes from.

And you wouldn't manage too well in those situations, I'm guessing, so you can thank your lucky stars.
People have been protected by ancient laws for thousands of years, and the laws of Moses offered protection, fairness and security to every person alive. Nobody was left out.
So I am used to the application of law and order.
If you don't like it you can go and live where such laws don't exist, but I don't think that you'll be leaving the safety of your existing place, somehow.

[Purple Knight]

Of course there are laws in every part of America about bullying. What do you think would happen if a person on their way home from work/school was stopped and had their watch taken off them? Bullying comes in all kinds of forms.

That's a law against stealing, not bullying. I've told you I live in Colorado, but I didn't have horrid experiences here; I had them in Florida.

You got that completely wrong.
Firstly it was robbery, stealing with force or threat of force, and secondly that is what can happen to a kid at school when a bully frightens him and takes his
mobile phone from him. What's the difference between a growen man and a child being frightened and robbed? Nothing, really.

Yes it's theft. Calling it robbery is a quibble. And I see that you see it as the same when a child does it, even though the law sees it very differently when a juvenile offends. You see it as the same because it is, even though the law disagrees. I want to know where that comes from.

You still won't answer me about how you know you have some natural right (like not being bullied) and that the law should follow suit.

My rights and yours and written in legislation! I've told you!
This begins to look as if you think that bullying is ok, maybe you want to bully people?
Adults get bullied as well, you know.

No, I think everything is okay until I have the slightest bit of evidence that it's not.

If you really just look up the laws, what on Earth would you do on a desert island, or in the distant past?

Where I live people travelled in groups to protect from threats/violence, and lone travelers carried weapons.
I don't live on an isolated island.
Are you trying to support the rights of people to harass and bully others? I wonder why?

Is there nothing you support that you might not want done? I don't want you to go fishing. I don't want anyone to. Hooking them by their mouths bothers me. But guess what? Not everything that bothers me is something you should be prevented from doing. I will stand up for your right to go fishing sustainably, despite the fact that it bothers or hurts me. Now you haven't answered, still, how you discover you have a right. You mention carrying weapons. It's a sensible thing to do when you're out and about in your TARDIS. I assume you mean to use them if cavemen come running at you with clubs? This is progress. Now just tell me how you know you have a right to defend yourself. It's not based on extant laws, and since you're not denouncing the fellows carrying weapons as immoral, I assume you don't think they are immoral and if your time machine takes you there/then, you'd follow suit. Why?

If you say, well, in the absence of civilised laws, everyone has a right to defend themselves, you know that in one of three possible ways: Either internally, through reason, or because someone showed or told you.

Real people had to navigate such landscapes, you know, and if they hadn't, we wouldn't have any laws now. You're very confident about how things ought to be, and I want to know where it comes from.

And you wouldn't manage too well in those situations, I'm guessing, so you can thank your lucky stars.

I don't think ad hominem is a fallacy so I do have to defend against it. Just FYI, I didn't ask you about how I'd do, I asked you about what you'd do and how you'd justify it. I'd do better than you because I'd just run, and I have survival training. I wouldn't enforce rights I don't have any evidence I have, however. So I wouldn't go shooting cavemen and taking their stuff, thinking I have a right to it. I have zero evidence I have a right to other people's stuff.

It looks to me as if you're just refusing to answer about how you know you have a right, because you don't know. I think you might take it for granted. I don't. It's very important to me that I respect rights that exist, so I can't defend one that I have no evidence of (a right not to be bullied) over one I have some evidence of (a right to bully others).

And I defend people better than you do, too. Gay people included. I do it by applying whatever rights are given to me, to everyone. I have never really had my sexuality disrespected. Nobody ever said I was not allowed to be straight or that it was a bad thing. I thus have evidence that there is a right being respected, and apply it to all. See?

I agree, and I think we do have it. For example, when I became a believer, I was forced to make a choice. As a practicing homosexual I had to choose to live by Jehovah God's standards or my own. At the time I didn't think it possible for me to abandon my lifestyle so I chose it over God. I call this period of time my Dark Days. Promiscuous sex, drugs and alcohol. I'm amazed that I came out of that unscathed. And having that choice allowed me to see that that lifestyle wasn't "just the way it is" but there was a better, for me, alternative. I don't morally judge people who choose that lifestyle, or any other. My motto is live and let live, but I believe as sovereign Lord, Jehovah God has the right to protect and guide his creation, and though I think it fair that he allows those to choose destruction over that, it isn't our right to inherit his purpose for mankind to live forever in peace without following his wise council thereby spoiling it.

As someone who is very straight, this scares me a little, because as a very smart person I have the ability to see all sides at once. I am constantly putting myself in the shoes of the other person. And if someone told me, being straight is an abomination, I couldn't just switch myself off. I could probably be celibate but in no universe could I pound butts. I don't want to. It's disgusting to me. So what really disgusts me, if I universalise, is the idea that God wants one thing or the other.

I don't know why homosexual males have this tendency toward promiscuity and drugs, but they do. Homosexual females do not. If it's what I think it is, and the female is just naturally more reserved, and acts as a reserving influence on the male, it's going to take more effort for a male-male relationship to be wholesome but that doesn't mean it can't happen. And I can't believe that being gay is wrong, because then I have to believe being straight is wrong. I can't just change and be gay, if that happened to be the right thing. Why should you try to change and be straight? If I'm not attracted to men, I'm not. If you're not attracted to women, you're not.

[oldbadger]

Yes it's theft. Calling it robbery is a quibble. And I see that you see it as the same when a child does it, even though the law sees it very differently when a juvenile offends. You see it as the same because it is, even though the law disagrees. I want to know where that comes from.

Yes, juveniles get arrested and cautioned/convicted for any violence or theft of any kind here. Infants do not because the are beneath the age of criminal responsibility, but if you think that means that they can terrorise other kids and take the property then that's very worrying.

Is there nothing you support that you might not want done? I don't want you to go fishing. I don't want anyone to. Hooking them by their mouths bothers me. But guess what? Not everything that bothers me is something you should be prevented from doing. I will stand up for your right to go fishing sustainably, despite the fact that it bothers or hurts me. Now you haven't answered, still, how you discover you have a right. You mention carrying weapons. It's a sensible thing to do when you're out and about in your TARDIS. I assume you mean to use them if cavemen come running at you with clubs? This is progress. Now just tell me how you know you have a right to defend yourself. It's not based on extant laws, and since you're not denouncing the fellows carrying weapons as immoral, I assume you don't think they are immoral and if your time machine takes you there/then, you'd follow suit. Why?

The law here gives everybody the right to defend themselves if they have to.
Fishing? Lots of fishing has been banned here to preserve stocks, and many rivers have private fishing rights.

I don't think ad hominem is a fallacy so I do have to defend against it. Just FYI, I didn't ask you about how I'd do, I asked you about what you'd do and how you'd justify it. I'd do better than you because I'd just run, and I have survival training. I wouldn't enforce rights I don't have any evidence I have, however. So I wouldn't go shooting cavemen and taking their stuff, thinking I have a right to it. I have zero evidence I have a right to other people's stuff.

Can you explain to me what ad-hominem means? Do you know?
It's good to read that you don't believe in stealing from or hurting people.
I'm very relieved to see that you are a fast runner and have survival training.

It looks to me as if you're just refusing to answer about how you know you have a right, because you don't know. I think you might take it for granted. I don't. It's very important to me that I respect rights that exist, so I can't defend one that I have no evidence of (a right not to be bullied) over one I have some evidence of (a right to bully others).

Where I live it is an offence to harass, use violence or bully anybody.....one law which makes this clear is the Equality Act of 2010.
You just don't seem to understand what legislation is.
But in any event, Bullying of any kind is just sick......nasty.

And I defend people better than you do, too. Gay people included. I do it by applying whatever rights are given to me, to everyone. I have never really had my sexuality disrespected. Nobody ever said I was not allowed to be straight or that it was a bad thing. I thus have evidence that there is a right being respected, and apply it to all. See?

You haven't explained where you get your rights from........ who gives you rights?
If it is not legislation, then what?

As someone who is very straight, this scares me a little, because as a very smart person I have the ability to see all sides at once. I am constantly putting myself in the shoes of the other person. And if someone told me, being straight is an abomination, I couldn't just switch myself off. I could probably be celibate but in no universe could I pound butts. I don't want to. It's disgusting to me. So what really disgusts me, if I universalise, is the idea that God wants one thing or the other.

Well don't follow any religions, then.
It's really good to see that you have empathy for others.

I don't know why homosexual males have this tendency toward promiscuity and drugs, but they do. Homosexual females do not.

Do you know a lot of male and female gays?
If not, where did you discover what they are like?

[Clownboat]

Sounds like another mirror event is needed:

In place of debating! Why? Oh well... let's see where it takes us.

In regards to punishing those who sexually harrass, rape "Is there an age limit?

I don't know, I thought we were talking about bullying. Is there an age limit to sexual harrasment/rape and did I say something on the lines of "My point was that sexual harassment/rape is wrong/evil/malevolent and should be punished no matter who does it". If I did, I should probably defend such a thing wouldn't you think? Now, look in that mirror you are so fond of please.

Would middle age children in school be subjected to punishment for continuing sexually harrass, rape of another middle-age child for example?"

I don't know, I thought we were talking about bullying. Is there an age limit for sexual harrassment/rape for middle-aged children?

Can you watch in the mirror or you still not see the reflection? You're funny!

I see my reflection in mirrors by the way.

Juvenile detention centers, fines for parents.
Parents should be fined because one is responsible for their bringing of another being into the world and the raising of such being to be a good member of the society.
If you are irresponsible with your behaviour and your child behaviour one should reap the consequences.

Off topic and no question posed. Why are you trying to distract away from the claims you made about bullying?

There are only two options:
Playing dumb which is dishonest.
or
Stupidity is always a thing.

There are more than two options. General confusion because you are not answering questions posed to you is in fact on the table.

Dear sir I mirrored what you said.
Ergo all your remarks against me are in fact pointed against yourself.

Thank you for evidencing my complaint. You are not answering questions. You are pretending that you are when you are not and it is making debate very difficult.

<Snipped and un-needed definition of a mirror as it doesn't help to further debate>

I don't think there should be a punishment for "calling someone a liar" if that is what you are asking.

And there is the crux of it. One person may feel like they are being bullied for being called a liar. For that person, you are a bully. In your mind, you are not. Then you dare to compare this to rape! Do you actually think that rape is as unclear as bullying? It seems so with your mirror, but you are not actually debating, so it is hard to say.

You obviously do not understand my stance if you think I'm trying to equate "calling someone a liar once" with bulling. Come back Clownboat! This way! Over here!

Some people will feel bullied by being called a liar and just because you don't think that calling someone a liar is bullying doesn't make it so. Rape is not unclear like bullying is as you have demonstrated for us. Instead of dealing with this, you play mirror games and pretend you are debating.

Readers, I was able to supply a clear definition for rape. AlexxcJRO doesn't feel that calling someone a liar is bullying, yet others clearly will. A clear definition for bullying is needed but unavailable which makes prosecution of bullying difficult, unlike prosecuting rape.

This is a problem and no mirrors are to blame.

[Purple Knight]

Yes it's theft. Calling it robbery is a quibble. And I see that you see it as the same when a child does it, even though the law sees it very differently when a juvenile offends. You see it as the same because it is, even though the law disagrees. I want to know where that comes from.

Yes, juveniles get arrested and cautioned/convicted for any violence or theft of any kind here. Infants do not because the are beneath the age of criminal responsibility, but if you think that means that they can terrorise other kids and take the property then that's very worrying.

It does mean that. The worst that will ever happen is that the police will talk to the parents. Stealing is essentially allowed, in most places in the US, if it's children doing it. Maybe in extremely nice neighbourhoods it's taken seriously. They "don't know any better" and if they do something worse than stealing, or breaking and entering, like killing somebody, or selling drugs, they go to juvenile hall.

You mention carrying weapons. It's a sensible thing to do when you're out and about in your TARDIS. I assume you mean to use them if cavemen come running at you with clubs? This is progress. Now just tell me how you know you have a right to defend yourself. It's not based on extant laws, and since you're not denouncing the fellows carrying weapons as immoral, I assume you don't think they are immoral and if your time machine takes you there/then, you'd follow suit. Why?

The law here gives everybody the right to defend themselves if they have to.
Fishing? Lots of fishing has been banned here to preserve stocks, and many rivers have private fishing rights.

Again not answering. Why do you think you can defend yourself in a lawless state?

My point about fishing is that it bothers me but it's something I would not stop anyone from doing sustainably, even if I could. Not everything that bothers someone means action should be taken against the bothersome party. Do you disagree?

Can you explain to me what ad-hominem means? Do you know?

It's very plain that you'll just continue to attack me even if I explain that attacking the person, rather than the argument, is considered bad form in debate. Telling me I wouldn't do well in a lawless state rather than addressing the issue of how rights are discovered in such a state, is an example.

It's good to read that you don't believe in stealing from or hurting people.

No I don't believe I have the right to steal or hurt people. Not even in conditions where there aren't any laws. How about you? Do you think stealing is fine if there aren't any laws, or if the law endorses it?

You just don't seem to understand what legislation is.

I understand, I just don't care, because the law can be wrong.

You haven't explained where you get your rights from........ who gives you rights?
If it is not legislation, then what?

Other people. I already explained this, and now I've shown you. If I notice people respecting or defending my rights, I respect and defend those rights for everyone in turn. But if I've only been told I do not have such a right, then it's the tooth fairy and I don't do that. I need evidence before I believe something exists. The evidence I require that a universal right exists, is that I have had that right respected.

Do you know a lot of male and female gays?

Yes. Besides, what I said about male promiscuity is well-supported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promiscuity
Lesbians who had long-term partners reported having fewer outside partners than heterosexual women.
Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives use promiscuity among gay men as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they're wrong. Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don't have women to constrain them."