Those Against Homosexuality Are Not Bigots

Personal preferences change. Human rights don't.

I now realize that there was no particular reason why I used to have a double standard about who should suck dick. Just my age, I guess. I still don't care to see gay guys ass fuck each other, but I've never wavered on my conviction that they should have the right to do whatever they want. It's not all about me and my personal preferences, and it's not all about any other individual or group.

As for any medical concerns with any sex practice or custom, safe sex education (from reputable medical organizations) is the ultimate solution.

 

Maccabee, you might find an internet audience somewhere that will entertain your thoughts, but it's not going to be at Hip Forums, lol

 

As myself and other people have explained, no one here takes you seriously. You're either a troll, a naive, sheltered, 18 year old kid blinded by your religion, or you actually are a bigot.

If you are one of the latter two you need to grow up and realize the world doesnt revolve around you and your personal beliefs.

What is the point of this thread anyways, if you arent a troll? What do you wish to really DO about the sin of homosexuality? Do you think Hitler had the right idea? Or do you just think it should be illegal and gays thrown in jail? If you don't really want to do anything about it then why do you feel the need to discuss it on a hippie forum with several active gay posters?

 

No, I stand by my statement of the only two unnasailable arguments against gay marriage being ickyness-based and biblical in nature.

Firstly, to say that something deviates from the norm is not a valid argument against that thing. Being a rarity does not make something immoral or dangerous, merely unusual. therefore, to my mind an argument hinging on "It's not normal" is at best incomplete and at worst irrelevant.

Secondly, I think you're on particularly shaky ground saying something that has been observed in nature is "not natural" on the basis that It does not perform "the function" or "purpose" of another action that can be performed with some of the same equipment. It is natural by virtue of having been observed occurring in nature.

(I reject the idea that this makes it any more or less valid or moral, incidentally, and would therefore reject this naturalistic argument even if animals had not been observed in homosexual actions)

(I also reject an assumption based in the sentence "actually most arguments "justifying" homosexual behavior presented when taken at the most simple and basic level/definitions fall on their face." The implication is that homosexual behavior requires justification. nope.)

On the question of purpose; personally I would not say that the "purpose" of sex is reproduction, I would say that the result of sex is reproduction (sometimes). The term "purpose" carries with it implications that are not provable.

Even from a doggedly pragmatic evolutionary perspective, if we argue that the "purpose" of any biological action is to pass on genetic material succesfully, we have to admit that sex has other benefits for this process asides from reproduction. It creates bonds between people which in turn lead to the development of social structures which benefit all and help protect the young even if the couple do not themselves reproduce. One of our most important evolutionary jumps was losing the bones in our penises, making sex longer. This was important not because it made reproduction more likely but because longer sex lead to bonds forming between people that created stronger social groups.

(Much like the naturalistic argument again, I would reject this reasoning even if this were not the case.)

Frankly however, I think it's safer to shy away from questions of "purpose" entirely. Things either facilitate the passing on of genetic material or they don't. We value loads of things that don't directly help or hinder this process, so why on the issue of homosexuality does it make sense for us to suddenly pretend that things that don't lead to children are inherently immoral or invalid?

Because some of us find it icky

Reproduction is not the moral yardstick we apply to any other human activity and I find it disingenuous to assert its importance only in this case.

At its heart, the problem is that these bigots/not-bigots are essentially advocating a societal shunning and removal of rights from a certain segment of the population. To my mind, that's something you need a fucking good reason for. Frankly I've yet to hear one.

 

The fact is, all these arguments are completely irrelevant anyway, those who propose them fail in anyway to forge a link between "this is ____" and "this is wrong".


"It's not normal!"

well, to be honest at around 6% of people in my country, It's pretty fucking normal. That's 3.6m people. Incidentally we also have 6% church attendance in this country. Are these church-goers immoral simply by virtue of being in a small subset of the population? or does size of a demographic (i.e. how "normal" something is) have nothing to do with its moral standing?

"It's not natural!"

Well, yes it is, it's been observed in nature time and time again and is therefore by definition natural. If you subscribe to the view that things that humans do/make exclusively are "not natural" and things that occur without our help are "natural" (I disagree, by the way) then things that are non natural include medicine, airplanes, boats, toasters and netflix. Things that are "natural" include bone cancer in children. Again, there is no link between morality or validity (let's for a moment ignore obvious potential moral relativity rabbit-holes here and all just assume that no-one likes to see children die.) and "naturalness".

"It doesn't lead to reproduction"

A very odd one, this. Gang rape and sexual slavery can lead to reproduction, there is nothing inherently moral about reproduction, it just continues the species. It will continue to do so whether or not we needlessly victimise those who do not contribute to it.

"It leads to disease"

While it is true that there are higher rates of STD's in the MSM community, this is combated with sex education and, ironically, significantly worsened by the stigmas around homosexuality created by those who decry it as "disease ridden". Demonising someone's lifestyle will not change their sexuality but may well prevent them seeking help and advice on sexual health issues. As I demonstrated in my original post, there is no real correlation between being in a group more vulnerable to disease and morality.

 

Hmmm, I'm not going to waste my time trying to address each point.
suffice it to say you obviously did not fully comprehend what I was saying and like so many others are allowing your emotional reactions dictate your logic and responses.

sorry to break this to you, but the ONLY purpose for sex in nature is REPRODUCTION, any and all other "benefits" of sex are merely enticements to induce animals to mate.

again. please folks, I made the clear distinction between "BEHAVIOR" and biological function/purpose.
homosexual behavior is observed and is relatively normal among mammals, but not resulting in offspring means that it isn't meeting the basic purpose of sex.

everyone that has replied to my post is confusing the two.
Is it really that difficult to comprehend the difference????????????????????????????????????????????


ps., just because you "reject the idea" does not invalidate it nor make your opinion "correct".

 

We've already covered this. So what? I don't think anybody here seriously disagrees with this point, or thinks that it's terribly relevant in modern times.

 

did I ever make that assertion? It is YOU that are making that leap from something completely neutral and benign, sex, and applying moralistic significance to it.

I guess you didn't read autophobe2es post above.

it is only relevant in terms of where we draw the dividing line on what is "biologically natural/normal" and what are "natural/normal behaviors".
When people make the assertion that homosexuality is completely normal and natural, I have to ask, "at what level are you referring?".


I guess I'm just better at being able to compartmentalize topics such as this and consider seemingly disparate aspects on their own merits.

 

Parts of it. It was long.

Dividing line? Level? I don't see why that matters in this case. It happens in nature and it isn't harmful to the species, so I don't see a problem. Without a compelling public interest for government to address, it becomes simply a matter of personal choice.

Evolution has succeeded in making us the dominant species on earth. It's a done deal. We don't have to worry about any of that anymore.

 

In real life, how are you going to make everyone agree with you, see the logic, if you can't even do it in this thread?

Countries like in north and west Africa and many of the Muslim countries; the remaining parts of the world where homosexuality is illegal. Do you think having those laws stops homosexual activity or even limits it? Do you think the government's of those countries have any kind of control over their own people?

Let's talk about GLBT, what does the B stand for? In your current and future social circles, how are you going to know which ones are bisexual? The tiny percent of homosexuals that are obvious to you, you admit you don't mix with, so how would you influence them if you never even meet face to face?

As for all the bisexual guys around you, that for the most part will be hidden from you, so how are you going to do anything about it if you don't even know they are bisexual?

If you can't 'see' them in America, what makes you think anyone can see them in these other countries with those laws.

Hell, you'd have no real clue what your parents really get up too. Your own dad can't be a part time pole smoker, becuase why? What he says to you, or what he says in public to his mates or family. You think your mum is clueless about sex becuase she acts disgusted every time someone says a dick joke?

 

UK

 

This thread seems like a magnet for drama.

But! If I'm comprehending your point correctly, I'd have to agree on some points.

People are entitled to their own opinion, whether it's right or wrong, which, in reality, only others create that type of decisiveness.

Right and wrong, good and evil are all (imo) a product of society. Then, so are things that are essentially evil. One person does something thinking it's okay to do that certain thing, then others' create a decision determining if this action is a good thing to do, a bad thing to do; whether to do it knowing it is in fact (or 'perceptual fact?') a good thing or in total disregard 'knowing' it is a bad course of action and do it anyways, whether it be out of circumstance or just to 'fit in with the rest of the crowd.' a.k.a. Society (perhaps median society? Conditioned society?)

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong. It's all what you perceive that attributes to that notion.


I'm going to assume by the nature of the original post and thread title that you're speaking of religious views on homosexuality? I'm just taking a shot in the dark.

It's unclear to me what the point is. Other than to stir up controversy. If you're "Against Homosexuality," then that means there is something you must "Dislike" about what being homosexual means. Something you feel that isn't 'right' about being homosexual making you 'against homosexuality.'

I feel as though this thread is a paradox.

 

OP is against being called a Bigot.

That's all.

 

I See This As A Good Thing, Things Can Get Pretty Quiet Here At HF And When A Thread Like This Comes

Along It Brings Members Out Of The Woodwork And Sometimes Reveals A Side Of Them We

Had Not Previously Seen......



Cheers Glen.

 

Bullshit. People fuck for fun. They do it for money. And a busload of other reasons.

Oh wait, you were talking about animals?

Well that changes everything.

 

People are allowed their own opinions. And they should be allowed to express those opinions.

But if you feel the need to share your opinions about other peoples' sex lives, you're probably an asshole.

 

Actually, changes nothing. Bonobo females have been seen to trade sex for food. Yep, Bonobo prostitutes.
Also, animals with hands masturbate and those without hands rub on stuff.

 

I didn't know money existed in nature.

 

Trolls can be very tasty!

 

Sorry. Forgot the sarcasm button ....