The debate "Homosexuality is okay and really no different from heterosexuality" was started by
January 5, 2015, 11:42 pm.
78 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 44 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
ChubbyBunny posted 1 argument, Vivinary posted 3 arguments, Sosocratese posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Vigilante posted 7 arguments, Wantonjon posted 1 argument, abuhodayfa posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Disasterology, truenick19, Edward, Mr_Anonymous, Socrateezus, MACE, ChubbyBunny, prithvi_raj, Flimpy, Unfathomable, Bailz, Curious_Student, braxton414, KaterinaVinther, Vivinary, amwright, CodeGonzalez, Raissa, sophistry, Gurkavitch, mdavis1309, SpiritofDeath, cocky_queen, marxist4life, JonL, strawberryfieldsforever, sickboyblonde, Sosocratese, JoseTheAwesome, Dbass24, DeathsDespair15, Vikram, Hollister_boy, Sasha777, resiliently, countrybumpkin and 42 visitors agree.
Vigilante, kireevr1996, wmd, Wantonjon, Parzival127, username_gracie, Officialrenaldi, muslim, abuhodayfa, krusty, egybro, Intellect, DavidStuff777, ty, denmob, DebaterKing, jessicaS02, hollieg and 26 visitors disagree.
I ask because you made the claim that it is objective and I wanted to know by which method you got there. As I've said, there are plenty of philosophies that claim objective morality, yet they are very different in how they get there and how we look at morality. Morality by divine decree is, of course, the most well known, however philosophies such as the categorical imperative, utilitarianism, etc...are others. They differ greatly in how they describe morality and so one act may be moral in one philosophy and immoral in another. All claim an objective nature, but they don't all agree in how they get there. Simply claiming something is immoral without providing some sense as to how you got there is like making an unsubstantiated claim. You ridiculed people when they assumed you used religion to come to your position, so please tell us how you got there so we can have an honest conversation.
The life span argument
While hiv infection rates are higher in homosexual males, the infection rates are lower in homosexual females (lower than heterosexual couples) . The studies that you are citing are also old. They were done at the height of the aids epidemic and is no longer a valid source as infection rates have dropped significantly and treatment options have become more successful.
The mental illness argument
Yes, they did a statistical analysis of sexuality orientation and found it to much more common than originally predicted. The reason that homosexuality was removed from the dsm 2 wasn't just due to public pressure, but also due to the realization that defining homosexuality as a disease was based on a flawed understanding of human sexuality.
The early studies in psychology that led to this classification was based on clinical observation rather than empirical testing. It was basically a concensus rather than an actual study. These studies also failed to account for the fact that all the "study subjects" were already under psychiatric care. It would be inappropriate to classify all heterosexual as clinically sick based on a sample of heterosexuals already in psychiatric care.
The declassification was therefore a combination of flawed initial data along with a deeper understanding of human sexuality as a whole. The evelyn hooker study helped bolster that understanding as well. It was a shifting of social norms and empirical data that eventually led to the removal of homosexuality from the Dsm, not just social pressure.
Alfred Kinsey's study was also selective.... and he admitted it by saying he did not believe a random sample was possible.
the study I mentioned has been reviewed and retrialed again and it has been proved multiple times by hard fact that homosexuals due to their massive aids intakes life spans are at the very least 20 years less than the average human.
Alfred Kinsey's study wasn't proving homosexuality right, it was stating statistics.
popular demand doesn't make it suddenly not a mental illness.
the hysteria had tried and tested proof. it did not go against law and there were non biased studies made, because hysteria does not involve the legal system or a religion.
you can nearly guarantee every time it's a case against religious beliefs or legal systems there is corruption in facts more frequently.
isn't morality objective? logic is to provide a sound moral foundation.
what are we debating for?
to find the truth of course.
what is truth?
if morality is not an objective than there is no need for law , no need for any religion and it becomes a state of confusion.
Your argument rests on the concept that morality is objective, that it's not debatable, that it's a constant. By what method do you propose that we obtain this objective knowledge and by what standard are you concluding that it's immoral.... There are plenty of philosophies out there that claim the same, however by which method do we get there? This is vital to your claim that it is immoral as you must provide some proof that it is. Simply stating it doesn't make it so. Is the based on something like the categorical imperative, or something more like utilitarianism... If it's not objective than it must be subjective, so your point about morality would be moot.
The mental illness argument
Simply because something was once classified as a mental illness doesn't constitute it as a mental illness today. We used to have a diagnosis of hysteria too which no longer exists.
There were plenty of studies into human sexuality that eventually led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness. Most notably Alfred Kinsey's study.
The life expectancy argument
This argument is based on a discredited study by Paul Cameron and his group family research Institute. Their research was discredited due to sampling errors. Even conservative scientists don't consider his research valid. Nicholas Eberstadt, a noted conservative demographer criticized the data for being selective and not representative of the study group.
I love how you guys bring religion into this it's hilarious!
you don't need religion to prove this wrong.
and you just countered my question before of you providing one logical fact on the rights of homosexualality....... by asking me to prove it wrong, which I did anyway.
I have shown that homosexuality is wrong by showing it is a mental illness,
as I have said, homosexuals are denying their reality by trying to be something that they physically are not.
where do you pull the line?
if a person decided they were an dog or cat......how is that different from homosexuals and why is it wrong?
denying your reality throws everything out of wack, there is no longer a line between right and wrong.
that life span thing I 'pulled' out is a study (which you are welcome to check) on homosexuals and their short life expectancy due to the drugs and medications the general amount of them are on.
I respect your views but do not agree.
Pretty sure the whole world will not turn gay overnight. Don't worry, there will still be people like you to keep the human race alive.
Also, AIDS is transferred through bodily fluids, so blood is included too. Is it only gays who have blood? And AIDS can be tranferred through a man and woman having sex too.
Isn't it great that a child can be adopted and have two parents even if they are of the same gender? Would you rather the child suffer and never know parental love? Life for an orphan or a child in care is so so tough, isn't it better if they are able to be under the care of people who will love and raise them as their own? That's like saying you'd rather have the child suffer than have two loving parents. And THAT is what is wrong.
because God has created humans to increase themselves.
if the whole world would be gay, would there be childrn born? no, humanity would die.
and how filthy is it to have intercourse with the same sex.
evrything the creator has forbidden, if you do it you will end with a disease.
what did homosexuality bring ? aids!
God forbade that kind of act, if people do they wine up with diseases.
and how terrible is it nowadays that gays can adopt children?!
mike has instead of a mom and dad 2 dads!
how terrible would that be for the child.
excuses if i hurt someone, but the truth must be said.
may God guide us all on the straight path.
In my opinion, your arguments do not show why homosexuality is immoral either.
Please tell me where you got that life span fact from, I'm facinated to know how in the world your sexuality effects your lifespan. And, in the slight chance that you are right, if someone is willing to sacrifice years of their life for love, who are you to stop them?
I still disagree that it's a mental illness, and frankly, it's incredibly disrespectful to refer to it as such.
That is a natural family according to YOU. You do realise that not everyone is Christian, or has the same beliefs as you, right?
Should YOU even be arguing this? If there were not so many narrow-minded peopls, I wouldn't have to argue it at all, would I? Why can you not understand that sexuality should be a personal decision? Fair enough if you don't agree with it, don't have a relationship with someone of the same gender, but don't take away other peoples' right to love who they want. I think that's really immature and selfish. What you're esentially saying is 'oh i'm not happy with this so even though it doesn't effect or harm me at all, it shouldn't be allowed.'
I have just showed why homosexuality is immoral, but you haven't showed me yet why it isn't?
probably because the only arguements a homosexual has is an emotional one.
homosexuals life span is between 25-30 years old......all in the name of love?
didn't you get my point about the mental illness?
it wasn't proved wrong!! but still taken of the charts because of the patients interference, corrupted!
a 'natural family' I don't think I have to go into detail but the Adams and Eves work......not the Adams and Steve's....
do you need me to tell you what a natural family is?????
look at nature!
should you be arguing this at all?
what exactly is a 'natural' family? is that the only thing you're worried about, that homosexuality means we lose people to create children? we don't need any more than there already are to be honest.
alzo, it is not an illness. it may have been listed as one until 1974 but that's only because people were narrow-minded. in case you haven't realised, we have moved on from that but you seem to be stuck in the past. The way I see it, there is no reason for homosexuality to be seen as morally incorrect. Homosexuals are humans too, and by liking a person of the same gender, they are not causing any problems at all. We as a human race should be worried about other far more important things. i agree that homosexuality is ok and not vastly different to heterosexuality.
I see where your coming from,
but flavours of ice cream?
ice cream doesn't have moral value so is therefore irrelevant in this debate that is about morals.
ok using your happiness as a guideline to making moral decisions is definitely wrong.
let me explain, happiness is defined as whatever makes you feel good at the time, there is no boundary, standard or limit to this feeling, yes?
while Morals, right and wrong has boundarys, standards and limits, yes?
therefore not everything that makes you happy is right or moral, yes?
so then how do you justify a life decision with the only arguement of "but I'm happy".....?
blacks were slaves, physically mistreated and were then freed and so forth by moral reasoning and logic.
they were not dealing with an illness that impaired their logical thinking.
I would say this is ok but that it is a little different than heterosexual families, for obvious reasons of gender and also reproductive ability. the problem that nay arise in the future (very distant indeed) is that of a birth rate. if too many people have homosexual relationships the birth rate could lower drastically to population problems. this is obviously a hypothetical and very distant problem, but it should be thought about.
It's not illness tho? It's what that certain individual likes. We're not all born the same if we were we would all like vinilla ice cream instead of chocolate ice cream or vice versa. People have there own taste and wants some like vanilla others chocolate and every now and then we see people who like a little bit of both. To call whatever makes someone happy an illness is insanity. You can argue the biological structure of human reproduction dose not add up which is true and you have me beat there but to call it having a "normal" family is wrong. If you haven't notice there is no such thing as normal. As time goes on our views and opinions of normal will change. Don't believe me? look at our past our history in America. There's a time were we didn't see blacks as human but property and animals little later fine there human but not equal and now they have the same rights as you and I.
we don't live in a unrealistic world you know.
why are there two genders at all if that is your view.
for one, heterosexuals can have a natural family, which is the whole point of marriage and is the foundation of our social structure.
homosexuals are dealing with a mental illness and need help, not encouragement.
until 1974 homosexuality was listed as a mental illness and it wasn't taken off the list because it had been proved wrong, it was taken off because of the officials being made "uncomfortable" by the homosexuals themselves!
homosexuals have no logical arguements.
heterosexuals have a million.