Homosexual conduct should be free in private life but public manifestation should be restricted

June 11, 2019, 1:11 am

Agree17 Disagree28

38%
62%

The debate "Homosexual conduct should be free in private life but public manifestation should be restricted" was started by Rodolfo on June 11, 2019, 1:11 am. 17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 28 people are on the disagree side. That might be enough to see the common perception. It looks like most people are against to this statement.

Rodolfo posted 15 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 10 arguments to the disagreers part.

hollieg, InfinityMachine, Rodolfo, sssk, MADHURA and 12 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, historybuff, Nemiroff, Raquel24, kuku, ShiroSpeaks, bernie, kadijatu, Allirix, maksonmakson and 18 visitors disagree.

Nemiroff
replied to...

you claimed that they are following bad impulses, aka their desires. straight people are following the same natural desires that they have no control over. please stop dodging the questing and tell me whether we have any control over these impulses that are at the heart of this topic.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

They are not homosexual, they help to care for the breeding they reproduce with a male, they do not deny sex, they leave the nest to breed with males! The lack of interest in the male may be due to the excess of females, they go from nest to nest!

Do not define animals as homosexuals, you do not know what they feel, only if they help take care of the baby!

2 months, 1 week ago

Females mated for life. Thereby never having heterosexual sex. You said that never happens when that is a lie. Are you now moving the goal posts?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Did you at least read the article I want to send? There was a large female immigration, so females came together to raise their heterosexual sex offspring!

They did not deny the Heterosexual relationship, only had ecological problems!

Read Boy

2 months, 1 week ago

again, no you are are just straight up wrong. for example, in one study 31% of Laysan albatross pairs (which mate for life) were same sex female couples. So saying that "they never deny a Heterosexual sex!" is just wrong.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2008.0191

I'm not sure you know what the word nature or natural actually means. It means, "existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind." So if there are monogamous same sex animal couples occurring in nature, then it is by definition natural. So saying they are acting against nature shows you either don't understand the words you are using, or you are just ignoring reality.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Aren't

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Animals have homosexual behaviors, but they are indeed Homosexuals, they never deny a Heterosexual sex!

And they can also act against nature, in their sexual impulses, There is nothing in biology that of coherence to homosexual sex!

And I will not run away from the subject, to explain desire, evolution and self-control to you, do not insist on that question!

2 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

also, do you get to choose what you find attractive?

2 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

using a condom rules out all biological congruence.... is your point that people should have sex only for reproduction?

homosexuality has been found across the animal kingdom, so your human imagination point is false.

aggressive sexual behaviors can be done by heterosexuals too. meanwhile gay people can be nonagressive sexually. how would you compare a straight persons with numerous sexual partners they don't actually love, with a gay person who has 1 monogamous partner that they love and want to spend the rest of their life with?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

It seems you are not reading what I write, or do not understand the causal relationship of habits in the human psyche!

And the problem is not just sexual behaviors, but aggressive sexualization, and negative sexual behaviors, which rule out all biological congruence by deviant sexual desires!

What I meant is that homosexual sex has no biological meaning or biological compatibility, it is a desire that is not based on reality, but on the human imagination!

2 months, 1 week ago

So if the problem is sexual conduct in public, why are we even discussing homosexuality? Heterosexual people express sexuality in public too. If that is actually what your objection is, then homosexuality has nothing to do with it.

Virtually all humans have powerful sexual desires. It is part of being human. It is absolutely connected to our biology. Why is caring through with a biological instinct that doesn't harm anyone "putting insane desires above reason"? You still have fundamentally not put forward an argument to what the harm actually is. You just keep repeating vague statements without showing anyone has ever been harmed.

Again, you do not get to determine what love it, who can have it and the correct way to love. You are stating the way you think it should be as if it were somehow a fact that everyone agreed on. You would be wrong. You can't just redefine words at will. The definition of sex is "sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse." There is nothing about heterosexual in there.

What does this even mean? "Homosexual are slave of the projections of his imaginations!"

That's nonsense. Did you just put random words together?

2 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

does the down vote mean you dont like the answer you have to my question?

can you control what you find attractive?

2 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

it isnt just sex. you are forbidding them from even kissing the person they love outside of their house!

may I ask you if you are able to choose what you find attractive in women? or does it come naturally?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

I said that the representation of your sexual conduct in the public environment, It is the problem, read! a state that makes one to be a slave of sexual desires totally disconnected from their biology, It will clearly convey to society the same problem of putting insane desires above reason!

And i did not say that l did not believe in love, i said that sexual desire and love are different things, hetero can love the same gender, but it does not have anything to do with wanting to have sex with them! Heterosexual sex is the purpose of life, there is only the term sex for the Heterosexual sex act! Do not compare with fetishes, created by the human mind!

Homosexual are slave of the projections of his imaginations!

2 months, 1 week ago

I did read it. You said being gay is immoral and it causes problems for society. But I've yet to see any reasoning for why being gay is immoral or what problems it causes. Since you have been unwilling or unable to explain this, it lead me to assume it was religiously based. If I am incorrect please use a rational reason for why it is immoral or what problems it causes, because so far you haven't.

Ok. so if you don't believe love exists, then heterosexuality should be just as immoral as homosexuality since it is also based on desire. your points don't seem to make any sense.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Tell me when I quoted the Bible? I'm using rational arguments!

And do not hide behind the fallacy of love, homosexuals are not what they are because they love, but because they have desires and sexual relations with the same gender, love is nothing of that is a romanticized word to justify their insane desires!

And I already gave the arguments read what I write!

2 months, 1 week ago

So all I am getting from your arguments is "the bible says it is bad so I am going to say it is bad".

Who said love is sexual acts? I certainly didn't. Gay people love their partners. They also engage in sexual acts. This is in no way different than a heterosexual couple who also love each other and engage in sexual acts.

You still have not established any negative effect "to the public environment". What negative effects do gay people cause?

Lol you think you can dictate what sex is and the correct way for consenting adults to have it? You have no right to tell other people the "right" way to have sex.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Love is not sexual acts, and it is not explicit! They can do whatever they want, they should only be aware of the negativity of their actions, and responsibility to the public environment!

The huge majority does not use anus, who actually does, have homosexual inclinations! Do not use absurd generalizations to try to match something so uneven, Heterosexual sex has nothing to do with anus, the homosexual act comes down to it!

2 months, 1 week ago

Ok. So allowing people to live their life creates a culture of freedom and tolerance. I fail to see the downside or the harm that is doing. Lots of heterosexual people use their anus as well. That isn't a homosexual thing. That is just a sexual thing. So again i say, there is no difference between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple except their ability to procreate. They are 2 people that love each other in a relationship.

The topic says that public expressions of love for gay couples should be "restricted". What could that mean other than punishing people for daring to express their love in public?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Like the same? They are completely different just as a man is a woman, sex is just playful! I have already explained and I will go again, that this couple creates in the public a whole culture and influence, which leads to the same lifestyle, not specifically homosexual, they express their values!

But a style that puts reason below its own impulses! The representation of a man in a state so incoherent desire that uses the anus of the other as a sexual organ, does not only drive them mad, but all around, Everyone influences everyone, if we leave the public environment at the mercy of addictions it will guide everyone, our current society is an example, has sex as God and Purpose of life!

And never said to punish someone, only limit the express of their addiction, just as we limit pornography! What went wrong were extreme and aggressive averages!

2 months, 1 week ago

How can you get hurt? A gay couple is no different that heterosexual couple, except that they can't produce children. That can easily be overcome with adoption, surrogacy etc. There is no evidence that it hurts anyone. There is however a mountain of evidence that says trying to suppress being gay, or stigmatizing being gay is harmful to people. So it isn't gay people hurting anyone, it's people like you that are trying to hurt people.

No, you have not explained why it is bad. you have yet to provide any legitimate reason why being gay is bad, other than your personal religious hangups.

How does 2 people loving each other outside of the strict limits you would prefer harm society? There is no evidence it harms anyone.

Your last sentence, I really have no idea what you were trying to say. It didn't really make sense.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

How can you not get hurt? How can you isolate an act only someone's private life without knowing all the causality it causes abroad?

Have I just explained that every representation of this conduct is bad for the environment? We live in the same society, the vice of one affects all!

Do not ignore the power of a conduct and its political / social representation, it creates ideas, so values ??today are limited to the banality of sex!

2 months, 1 week ago

lol good luck with that. Humans are hard wired to like and want sex. Trying to shame and guilt people into not expressing these desires is not healthy. One obvious example being all the pedophile priests. People need to express their sexuality. It is healthy to do so. The government should not meddle in issues of "morality". Morality laws do not work. You can't stop people from doing these things, you will just drive people underground.

People need to learn that you cannot force your morals onto other people. As long as no one is getting hurt, leave other people alone.

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Heterosexual acts can also be immoral if they rule out any commitment to life or relationship would be, but the act itself is not immoral, but the way it uses it! Already the homosexual act is constitutionally wrong, it is pure desire without duty! They are different acts, but Heterosexuals who only think of pleasure are also immoral, so sexualization and eroticism should also be prohibited!

2 months, 1 week ago

ok, you just said it is not an opinion, but it very much is. You (i'm guessing because of your religion) believe there is some sort of moral issue. Most people don't agree with you. You can't just state your opinion like it is a fact.

Lots of heterosexual people engage in sexual acts with no intention of reproduction. is that immoral too? Are you also suggesting that anyone who engages is sex without the intention of procreation is also immoral?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

It is not opinion is a negative and foolish sexual conduct that leaves the beings slaves of their desires, entering into senseless acts like animals! And how all this evil is reflected in the public and thus becomes a bad influence!

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

unequal are treated in unequal ways but fair and understanding!

2 months, 1 week ago
Nemiroff
replied to...

so much for equal rights

2 months, 1 week ago

Your underlying premise is flawed. You think the government should put rules in place to police people's behavior when it doesn't harm anyone. The only effect such rules would have would be to stigmatize and punish people who do things you don't like. The job of the government is to protect it's citizens. Your suggestion is that it should punish and restrict the rights of a group of it's citizens for absolutely no reason other than you don't like them.

If i decided that being christian was immoral, could we have the government ban Christianity in public?

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

They can, but the limits of contact would be more rigorous and would demand more discretion, for the sake of public morals!

2 months, 1 week ago
Rodolfo
replied to...

Because heterosexuality follows the biological and evolutionary virtue of compatibility, Already homosexuality is an immoral vice that beings dominated by desires are trapped in disconnected relations objectively, slaves of their impulses!

One is a vice that by its impulses deviates from the life, another is a virtue that by conscience and reason it develops!

2 months, 1 week ago

Why not apply that same logic to heterosexual conduct? No PDA at all.

2 months, 1 week ago

so they cant kiss in public?

2 months, 1 week ago
Discuss "Homosexual conduct should be free in private life but public manifestation should be restricted" philosophy politics
Add an argument!
Use the arrow keys to navigate between statements. Press "A" to agree and press "D" to disagree.