Almost every species on earth

[Annhialator Zero]

Unprotected sex and gay sex are heavily connected to each other. Pleasure is often the ultimate goal and condoms can numb some of the feeling, and since they know they won't have an 18-20 year penalty, why bother, they ask themselves? Normalizing homosexuality would lead to an increase in this behavior. On a broad scale protection is not used, thus the massively higher rate of STD's and AIDS in gay and bisexual men in Canada.

Because of course, only gays feel more pleasure when having sex without condoms, how did I never realise!

I don't know why protection is less used by homosexuals, possibly because of lack of awareness, which can easily be fixed by telling high school kids that using protection applies to homosexual sex as well as hetero, BUT WAIT, that's teaching children that gay is OK, so we can't do that, can we?

You also resorted to your regular tactic of implying that all homosexuals think the same.

EDIT: By that I'm referring to the "they ask themselves" part.

Also normalising homosexuality would lead to more awareness about using protection (As it would almost certainly be taught in sex ed classes) so normalising it would actually REDUCE the spread of STDs in homosexuals.

 

[mf]

OK so I was reading through that post and this part leapt out at me:

To be honest, Lesbianism bores me far too much and I haven't really bothered to google the associated negative effects of it and get a concrete study.

This seems strange to me - why are you so interested in male homosexuality? What makes it stand out so much more than female homosexuality in your mind? It can't be the negative health effects, because as you say, you cannot be bothered to look into the negative health effects associated with lesbianism. This is a complete contradiction of the importance of disease in your argument against homosexuality, because if this were the case then you surely would care equally about the health risks associated with both male and female homosexuality.

Furthermore, if I have interpreted your post correctly, what you're saying is that if you were to form an opinion on lesbianism, the first thing you would do is to look up negative effects. In fact this is the only type of study you mention in your post. So it appears that you would be looking only at the negative health effects, not for example the positive mental effects of being accepted in society for your natural sexual disposition.

 

[diinbong]

If I'm correct, the main point against it is that it's unsafe to anyone who engages in it, but what m0nkfish said holds true imo. You're ignoring other information like

Mental

Since it was first described in medical literature, homosexuality has often been approached from a view that sought to find an inherent psychopathology as its root cause. Much literature on mental health and homosexual patients centered on their depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Although these issues exist among non-heterosexuals, discussion about their causes shifted after homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in 1973. Instead, social ostracism, legal discrimination, internalization of negative stereotypes, and limited support structures indicate factors homosexual people face in Western societies that often adversely affect their mental health.[115] Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination stemming from negative societal attitudes toward homosexuality lead to a higher prevalence of mental health disorders among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals compared to their heterosexual peers.[116] Evidence indicates that the liberalization of these attitudes over the past few decades is associated with a decrease in such mental health risks among younger LGBT people.[117]

Gay and lesbian youth

Gay and lesbian youth bear an increased risk of suicide, substance abuse, school problems, and isolation because of a "hostile and condemning environment, verbal and physical abuse, rejection and isolation from family and peers".[118] Further, LGB youths are more likely to report psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, and more sexual abuse. Suggested reasons for this disparity are that (1) LGBT youths may be specifically targeted on the basis of their perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conforming appearance, and (2) that "risk factors associated with sexual minority status, including discrimination, invisibility, and rejection by family members...may lead to an increase in behaviors that are associated with risk for victimization, such as substance abuse, sex with multiple partners, or running away from home as a teenager."[119]

If anyone was actually concerned about the health of gay people as much as you are, Deck Night, wouldn't it be accepted? (This is me just honestly confused.) Also, why should a whole bunch of straight guys get to make the descision if the physical health risks are worth it?

 

[Richard]

Oh man, one of these topics.

This is one of those issues that I, personally, can not even comprehend how someone could be that much against it. In fact, I don't believe it should even be an issue. The very fact that it's become as controversial as it is today is very nearly an insult to rational human beings.

In a society where poverty, war and genocide run rampant around the globe, what do people fight against? People wanting to be happy. I think we have our priorities a little mixed up here.

Let me just say that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence that homosexuality is a danger to one's health. The only credence that is given is either psychological or sociological, and any true blue scientist (and those intelligent "social" scientists) will agree that those are not true sciences. But that's beside the point; the point is that anyone who says homosexuality is "bad" can not give reasonable evidence as to exactly why, barring psychology and sociology. But, going by the latter, look into the rates of divorce among heterosexual relationships. I think it's safe to say that any straight family is far more messed up than a gay family.

Really, what this debate sizzles down to in the end is religion. I've yet to see a single person opposing gay marriage not sink to the level of saying "the Bible said so", or the likes. No one can give scientific credence to it, no one can give a truly logical/scientific argument against it. It's just because the Bible - the same work of fiction that condones slavery, misogynism and murder against those who don't believe in the same thing - says so. Period.

Check, please?

 

[mf]

Richard did you read the thread before posting in it? Deck Knight has actually provided links to studies and it really does nothing for our side of the argument for you to jump in mouthing off about religion when very few people (if any) have brought it up in this thread.

 

[umbarsc]

Unprotected sex and gay sex are heavily connected to each other. Pleasure is often the ultimate goal and condoms can numb some of the feeling, and since they know they won't have an 18-20 year penalty, why bother, they ask themselves? Normalizing homosexuality would lead to an increase in this behavior. On a broad scale protection is not used, thus the massively higher rate of STD's and AIDS in gay and bisexual men in Canada.

So in other words... you concede jrrrr's point that we should be teaching about the dangers of unprotected sex rather than gay sex?

 

[Doctor Heartbreak]

i was going to say "as if AIDS isn't a twenty-year penalty" but then i realized, hey - it's not!

 

[Richard]

Richard did you read the thread before posting in it? Deck Knight has actually provided links to studies and it really does nothing for our side of the argument for you to jump in mouthing off about religion when very few people (if any) have brought it up in this thread.

Truthfully, isn't that what it comes down to? Religion? If you boil everything off the bone, leaving the raw centre where this all derived from, I guarantee you it has its roots in religion, so I feel it's a rather important aspect of the debate.

As for Deck Knight's links to studies, he has only provided sociological/psychological statistics when, if dealing with actual health hazards, I want scientific, biological/biochemical studies. Saying a homosexual boy has more of a risk in suicide means nothing when he's spouting against them. It's a contradiction in and of itself, no?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not flaming or spreading hate mail, by no means. I'm actually a fairly tolerant person. However, I am intolerant of one thing: intolerance.

 

[possession999]

Also, the only reason divorce rates are higher among straight people is because there are a lot more straight families than homosexual. Is there any proof straight families are more messed up?

/edit: the rest of the post was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. No where does anyone bring up the Bible condoning / opposing slavery. Try to stay on topic. - obi

 

[Luduan]

Unprotected sex and gay sex are heavily connected to each other. Pleasure is often the ultimate goal and condoms can numb some of the feeling, and since they know they won't have an 18-20 year penalty, why bother, they ask themselves? Normalizing homosexuality would lead to an increase in this behavior. On a broad scale protection is not used, thus the massively higher rate of STD's and AIDS in gay and bisexual men in Canada.

Then you agree that health risks are not related to homosexuality but to unprotected sex, thus negating the only argument you have advanced thus far in support of your antihomosexual views.

Sports does bear risks, but it encompasses a variety of physical activities each with different risks. Rugby is infinitely more risky than Tennis, for example. Homosexuality only encompasses sexual acts, at least if it is expected to be acted on instead of thought about. If you're a fan of Rugby you aren't really engaged in Rugby and its hazards, are you?

The point remains: both sex and sports are risky behaviors. I don't see how being a 'fan of Rugby' is relevant.

To be honest, Lesbianism bores me far too much and I haven't really bothered to google the associated negative effects of it and get a concrete study. No one who supports it will do any of the lifting, so it's basically a one man show here. I have to be every little schoolboy's personal researcher because they can't be assed to check into anything. Even if they question and then bring up their findings, they will be insulted and intimidated. There is no quarter for anyone who wants to oppose homosexuality and doesn't want ad hominem attacks in return.

We have, as I said before, repeatedly pointed out flaws in your arguments; you then ignore them while repeating yourself incessantly. If you were to say 'blackness is a social cancer', I would call you a bigot. You have said the same about homosexuality. The confirmation bias so candidly revealed in your first sentence is further proof of this.

Big Bad Brain needs to of course, continue to insult me. Nice ad hominem - champ. Reading comprehension and bigotry are not even remotely correlated, except of course when the topic is Homosexuality. There poor reading comprehension is causal to bigotry, of course. What drivel.

An ad hominem attack is dismissing someone's arguments on grounds of a perceived personal or character flaw. Brain came to the conclusion that you are a bigot after posting cogent, well-reasoned arguments against points you have made. And yes, reading comprehension is related to bigotry. Narrow-minded individuals tend to ignore contrary evidence and arguments while perpetually echoing contended claims.

Ultimately I realize I'm flailing in the wind here. Society is going towards a death spiral where all things that bring prosperity and morality to a society will be "deconstructed" by postmodernists with an axe to grind. Health risk is hardly a good moral argument at all, but no longer can we oppose anything just because it is immoral at its foundation. Instead we have to justify why something is immoral based on its effects, and defend traditional morality despite its track record of historical success.

And here I thought 'liberals' and 'Marxists' were responsible for social decay, not axe grinding 'postmodernists'. Regardless, I don't see advocates for 'traditional morality' defending marriage as an institution of one man and many women -- certainly more traditional than monogamy. Nor do you defend homosexuality on the basis of tradition -- homosexuality was common in the ancient world, and Catholic historian John Boswell has argued that it was accepted in the early Catholic Church, until around the 12th-13th centuries. But this is all irrelevant: morality should not be decided by traditional fiat.

Unfortunately arguing on these grounds always leads back to a discussion of rights, and the definition of rights amongst today's youth (Smogon's fanbase) lacks entirely the fact they come with responsibilities and exist for the specific purpose of prohibiting encroachments on liberty, not establishing a reward structure for political interest groups.

Yes, those damned black agitators in the South; uppity (BAN ME PLEASE)s who demand equal legal 'rights'. What nonsense! We certainly should never reward these political interest groups.

The path of destruction caused by homonormative thought has great depth and great breadth, ranging from fractured families, a poorer understanding of the function and purpose of rights, perverts infiltrating schools and indoctrinating schoolchildren to believe life is a cornucopia of equally valid sexual choices, justification for impregnating any woman who wants a child or enabling any unspecified two people from adopting, and in general coarsening the public discourse with an entirely invented new "fear" and accusations of bigotry.

Ah, yes, those gays are responsible for the collapse of western society as we know it! Jerry Falwell was right! How, pray tell, does 'homonormative thought' lead to any of these perceived social ills? This is not an argument but a vacuous assertion. Sexual choices involving consenting adults are equally valid; any woman who wants a child should be allowed to have one, provided she can support it; and any two responsible adults should be allowed to adopt. Invented fear and bigotry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_homosexuals

And to what end? So that people no longer view the nuclear family, the most successful model in history, as the most practical, viable choice for raising a family. The gold standard which should be aspired to. All of this stems back from the same ideological roots, and I'd much rather have that discussion that the myopic one of "yes Virginia, homosexuality has health risks."

The nuclear family did not exist as the primary social unit in Western society for millennia; you have a wonderful tendancy to claim that every institution and belief that you personally support and subscribe to is 'the most successful in history'. But this is, yet again, irrelevant. Homosexuality has always existed; homosexuality will continue to exist. The Purple Menace will not dissolve the nuclear family. Around 4% of the American population identifies as LGB, hardly a notable percentage, even accounting for the large number 'in the closet'. If two consenting same-sex adults wish to adopt and raise a family, there is absolutely no reason that they should not be able to do so. There is no empirical evidence -- a currency in which you rarely deal -- to support the notion that homosexual parenting is deleterious to youth. Indeed, it is supported by many psychological and health professionals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting#Support

Also, the only reason divorce rates are higher among straight people is because there are a lot more straight families than homosexual. Is there any proof straight families are more messed up?

Is there any proof homosexual families are?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Po-Mo bullshit standard: It's society's fault.

Cause homosexuals don't have free will or anything like that.

I do, and my "free will" leads me to being attracted more to one gender than the other, just like yours does. If I still chose to have sex with women, that wouldn't change the fact that I am still much more attracted to men. Just like if you chose to have sex with men, you would still hate gay people.

Whenever I post I get a steady stream of insults by a large number of bandwagoning trolls. I really don't think the side of this argument supported by political correctness has room to talk about the drivel they put up with.

Way to throw up the straw men early. You aren't arguing against "political correctness", you are arguing against the common sense that is refuting your original post....remember when you said that homosexual sex is dangerous even though lesbians have a much lower rate of STDs than heterosexuals?

Unprotected sex and gay sex are heavily connected to each other.

Unprotected sex is also heavily connected to straight sex. In fact, unprotected sex is how most of the people who have ever existed were created. What's your point? If anything, since you are saying that the only goal of sex should reproduction in your argument against gays, wouldn't unprotected sex be MORE connected to straight sex?

Pleasure is often the ultimate goal and condoms can numb some of the feeling, and since they know they won't have an 18-20 year penalty, why bother, they ask themselves? Normalizing homosexuality would lead to an increase in this behavior. On a broad scale protection is not used, thus the massively higher rate of STD's and AIDS in gay and bisexual men in Canada.

And normalizing heterosexuality hasn't increased the rate of STDs, AIDS and unwanted pregnancies in straight people in Canada? It sounds like you are making a case against sex as a whole, not just against gay sex.

Do you even realize that all of your arguments against homosexual intercourse can also be directly applied to heterosexual intercourse without changing any of the words?

Sports does bear risks, but it encompasses a variety of physical activities each with different risks. Rugby is infinitely more risky than Tennis, for example. Homosexuality only encompasses sexual acts, at least if it is expected to be acted on instead of thought about. If you're a fan of Rugby you aren't really engaged in Rugby and its hazards, are you?

Just like if you support equal rights for gays, you arent really engaged in the "dangers" of gay sex.

You basically just said "sports don't have any risk because you can stand on the sidelines and not get hurt". Way to evade the point, again.

To be honest, Lesbianism bores me far too much and I haven't really bothered to google the associated negative effects of it and get a concrete study. No one who supports it will do any of the lifting, so it's basically a one man show here. I have to be every little schoolboy's personal researcher because they can't be assed to check into anything. Even if they question and then bring up their findings, they will be insulted and intimidated. There is no quarter for anyone who wants to oppose homosexuality and doesn't want ad hominem attacks in return.

You're right, it is a one man show: nobody else is falling for your contradictory, ignorant "arguments".

Let me do some research for you:

And while transmission rates are indeed lower for women who have sex with women, it's still possible for lesbians to acquire and transmit infections through mutual masturbation, oral sex, or sharing sex toys.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/te...ealth/blasting-myths-about-lesbians-25476.htm

Here's an interesting thing you might like, Deck. Gay marriage bans immediately followed by an increase in HIV rate. It looks like the best thing to do to keep us safe is prevent us from having normal, stable relationships after all!

This is just an interesting aside, its interesting to see that most of the states with the highest rate of STD infection are red states. "Moral majority" my ass. Maybe instead of harping on the dangers of gay sex, Deck Knight, you should be warning your straight, morality crusading compadres of the dangers of straight sex. You'll have a much broader audience http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm

Big Bad Brain needs to of course, continue to insult me. Nice ad hominem - champ. Reading comprehension and bigotry are not even remotely correlated, except of course when the topic is Homosexuality. There poor reading comprehension is causal to bigotry, of course. What drivel.

Well to be fair, all of your "points" in this thread are easily refuted by even one quick Google search or by changing the word "homosexual" to "heterosexual". I don't think his statement was that far off- you are the one lacking the critical thinking and reading comprehension in this thread yet you are accusing everyone else of it...

Unless of course you are trolling all of us, trying to play Stephen Colbert's character on Smogon etc. In that case....DAMN, you got us.

Ultimately I realize I'm flailing in the wind here. Society is going towards a death spiral where all things that bring prosperity and morality to a society will be "deconstructed" by postmodernists with an axe to grind. Health risk is hardly a good moral argument at all, but no longer can we oppose anything just because it is immoral at its foundation. Instead we have to justify why something is immoral based on its effects, and defend traditional morality despite its track record of historical success.

Health risk is a great argument against partaking in a particular activity. I completely agree with you on the point that people should not engage in unprotected sex. However, you are using STD statistics to justify not normalizing homosexuality, as if the only thing "homosexuality" means is "find male butt. stick penis in. enjoy.". Constantly trying to demonize homosexuality is only attacking the symptoms and not the actual issue at hand: people refuse to use condoms and other practices of safe sex. If you really wanted to lower the rate of STDs in the gay world, you would not be advocating a ban on gays. You would be advocating safe sex.

If you were using your health concerns to propose a solution to the actual problem (unprotected sex) instead of what the problem is in your mind (gay sex), maybe people would take your words a bit more seriously.

Obama just passed an executive order giving benefits to federal employees in same sex relationships. Why exactly, do two gay men with no dependents need to get spousal benefits from the federal government that were previously awarded only to married couples that either already have or could reasonably expect to have dependents? It treats two entirely different things as the same based on the lowest common denominator: a consenting adult relationship. It continually lowers the standard until hardly any standard exists at all. It's insidious to it's core and yet people seem to think it is an advancement for society. Treating categorically different things the same is ludicrous.

Oh dear god, encouraging people to have consenting, stable adult relationships?! How can we possibly get any worse!!??!

Oh dear god, giving gay people the same rights as straight people? THE INSANITY

Deck, can you answer this one question that you seem to know the answer to but keep dancing around: How is a gay marriage different than a straight marriage? The only differences I can see are the gender of one of the consenting adults and the fact that gays have to go to an outside source to have children (not really an issue in todays world).

Unfortunately arguing on these grounds always leads back to a discussion of rights, and the definition of rights amongst today's youth (Smogon's fanbase) lacks entirely the fact they come with responsibilities and exist for the specific purpose of prohibiting encroachments on liberty, not establishing a reward structure for political interest groups.

Well this is true, only if you consider people looking for equal rights as a "special interest group" in the same way that the tobacco lobby is a special interest group. Oh wait, you actually do. Never mind.

The path of destruction caused by homonormative thought has great depth and great breadth, ranging from fractured families, a poorer understanding of the function and purpose of rights, perverts infiltrating schools and indoctrinating schoolchildren to believe life is a cornucopia of equally valid sexual choices, justification for impregnating any woman who wants a child or enabling any unspecified two people from adopting, and in general coarsening the public discourse with an entirely invented new "fear" and accusations of bigotry.

Fractured families? When has a gay person ever destroyed a family?

Poor understanding of rights? Are you kidding? The reason why I want the same rights that my mother has is because I DO understand rights and I realize that I am getting fucked by the system. I think the system is female, so obviously I have a problem with it.

Perverts? How is a gay person any more perverted than a straight person?

Indoctrinating children to believe that people should be equal no matter what they are? Actually, we are guilty of this one.

Impregnating people who actually want children? that sounds a lot more reasonable than forcing pregnancies on women who don't want children.

Calling bigots out when they show their faces? Yeah, we're guilty of that one too.

I'd like to see some sources on how we are destroying families and teaching kids to be perverts. I would also like to see a source regarding how the reason why gay people want equal rights is because we don't understand rights.

And seriously, this fear and bigotry is not invented. Hate crimes against gays and people that are perceived to be gay are on the rise.

And to what end? So that people no longer view the nuclear family, the most successful model in history, as the most practical, viable choice for raising a family. The gold standard which should be aspired to.

Actually, we are not looking to destroy anything. I just want to be treated as an equal. I want nuclear families to not be discriminatory based on gender, like you are advocating. Let's look at the definition of nuclear family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_family

Nuclear families can be any size, as long as the family can support itself and there are only children and two parents, nuclear families meet its individual members’ basic needs since available resources are only divided among few individuals or the family would be known as an extended family.

What about gay marriage is trying to destroy the nuclear family? I don't see it.

Also, another interesting note from the same source: from 1970 to 2000, the percentage of nuclear families fell 16.2%. I'm sure that had everything to do with gay culture and nothing to do with straight people, at all.

All of this stems back from the same ideological roots, and I'd much rather have that discussion that the myopic one of "yes Virginia, homosexuality has health risks."

And once again, you are wrong. Homosexuality has no health risks. Having unprotected sex has health risks.

I dont know why I even made this post, you are just going to ignore it anyways =\

 

[Synre]

As much as you're all enjoying posting posts that are just outside the realm of infraction, you all know damn well you've had this fruitless discussion before. We all know how this plays out as nearly everyone in the forum argues the same points we've all known for years while Deck Knight fires back the same strawmans while avoiding, sidestepping, and/or otherwise evading the point behind the posts he picks out irrelevant details in. This is, as usual, going no where, you all have your opinions and you're not going to change them by trying to flame each other around a debate. Closing this.