Then I said that's only true if your having with huge amounts of people you don't know, at which point they said "well, that's what homosexuality is about'...
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
Is it possible to convince them otherwise?
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
I've tried that, and they said "there will always be exceptions". Which I thought was kinda crazy, since if you're determining wheter or not an action is moral or not, it should be judged by itself, and not by things that are correlated with it but not acutally caused by it.Pick wrote:Probably not; they'll keep denying your information in a pathetic attempt to try and keep themselves in the right. I think the best you could do is point out that there is a notable percentage of the homosexual population who are in committed relationships (even a small percentage would decimate their point of that being what it is "about".) That or you could mention the closet gays, who are clearly homosexual but obviously not having sex with anyone.
If homosexuality was the only way to transmit HIV, then I wonder where the AIDS epidemic in Africa (where a prophylactics are discouraged, and one of the "treatments" for the disease is to have sex with virgin girls) and Asia is coming from. I'd even wonder where a significant fraction of AIDS cases come from in the industrialized world, since homosexual sex only accounts for something like 50% - 60% of AIDS cases in a nation like the UK with a third of the cases coming from heterosexual sex.Mongoose wrote:I've been arguing with some one in real life about why homesexuality is immoral, and my main point was that no one is actually harmed by it, and they kept arguing that it was harmful because it meant that you would get AIDS and then give them to other people.
Then I said that's only true if your having with huge amounts of people you don't know, at which point they said "well, that's what homosexuality is about'... :?
Is it possible to convince them otherwise?
It's probably not possible to pry them off their pre-conceived notion. However, if you were to try, you can call them ignorant, by stating that homosexuality is physical attraction to someone of the same gender. Nothing in that definition demands promiscuity at all. Nor is AIDS or any STD generated by homosexual contact and being gay doesn't guarantee you will get one. Anyone who fucks around is actually likely to get an STD whether you are gay or not, most of the time not as bad as AIDS, but it is quite likely if you have multiple anonymous partners.Mongoose wrote:I've been arguing with some one in real life about why homesexuality is immoral, and my main point was that no one is actually harmed by it, and they kept arguing that it was harmful because it meant that you would get AIDS and then give them to other people.
Then I said that's only true if your having with huge amounts of people you don't know, at which point they said "well, that's what homosexuality is about'...![]()
Is it possible to convince them otherwise?
If they were here, you could simply demand evidence that homosexuality is inextricably linked to promiscuity and unprotected sex, and then declare open season on them when they fail to produce it. Unfortunately, most forums do not have the "can't repeat contentious claim without evidence" rule, so they can keep stating it as a fact all day long and there's not a damned thing you can do about it.Mongoose wrote:I've been arguing with some one in real life about why homesexuality is immoral, and my main point was that no one is actually harmed by it, and they kept arguing that it was harmful because it meant that you would get AIDS and then give them to other people.
Then I said that's only true if your having with huge amounts of people you don't know, at which point they said "well, that's what homosexuality is about'...![]()
Is it possible to convince them otherwise?
Then the simple answer to that is homosexuality isn't about sexual promiscuity. You said you were arguing with someone in real life? Perhaps it'd be easier to demand evidence for his claims if they're someone whom you can easily come in contact with.Mongoose wrote:I've been arguing with some one in real life about why homesexuality is immoral, and my main point was that no one is actually harmed by it, and they kept arguing that it was harmful because it meant that you would get AIDS and then give them to other people.
Then I said that's only true if your having with huge amounts of people you don't know, at which point they said "well, that's what homosexuality is about'...![]()
Is it possible to convince them otherwise?
In real-life, people like this just say they read it somewhere, and when challenged they say they can't be expected to remember all the details.Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Then the simple answer to that is homosexuality isn't about sexual promiscuity. You said you were arguing with someone in real life? Perhaps it'd be easier to demand evidence for his claims if they're someone whom you can easily come in contact with.
Then the discussions ends when you respond, "Then I can't be expected to believe you." Yeah, I've ended too many real-life arguments that way.In real-life, people like this just say they read it somewhere, and when challenged they say they can't be expected to remember all the details.
Well, since the transmission method was likely bushmeat and then cuts in the mouth, perhaps it's anthropophagy with poor dental hygeine that's immoral.wolveraptor wrote:Since AIDs was originated in chimpanzees, it's really bestiality (which transferred this to humans) that's immoral. You may succeed at getting to a common ground with these people by bashing something that you both disagree with: animal fucking.
Pongiphagy is probably a better word, even though it's made up, since legally, no one considers chimp-eating to be as bad as cannibalism.[/ultra-nitpick]anthropophagy
That argument is saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder (i.e. that it is mostly psychological and has little or no biological component, that it is harmful, and that it should be treated) but the only evidence given for this is that, back in times which were much more prejudiced against gays, homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder. This isn't real evidence, just an appeal to improper authority. If someone pulls this bullshit, ask what they mean by "mental disorder" and then ask for evidence that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder.Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I really don't know what to say to these things, but that is the most common slur against gays I come across: it's a mental disorder, but was taken off due to political pressure. I don't know if people have the same problem when dealing the accusations of promiscuity.
The usual reply to that claims that nature intends for men to be with women. This leads to reproduction which is good for the species. If men start sleeping with men, it harms the human race by wasting what could be perfectly good genetic material.sketerpot wrote:That argument is saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder (i.e. that it is mostly psychological and has little or no biological component, that it is harmful, and that it should be treated) but the only evidence given for this is that, back in times which were much more prejudiced against gays, homosexuality was once listed as a mental disorder. This isn't real evidence, just an appeal to improper authority. If someone pulls this bullshit, ask what they mean by "mental disorder" and then ask for evidence that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder.
Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.Gandalf wrote:The usual reply to that claims that nature intends for men to be with women. This leads to reproduction which is good for the species. If men start sleeping with men, it harms the human race by wasting what could be perfectly good genetic material.
And how could one willingly engage in such an act without being mentally ill?
Maybe I should have been more specific in that I don't actually buy into what I stated.sketerpot wrote:Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.Gandalf wrote:The usual reply to that claims that nature intends for men to be with women. This leads to reproduction which is good for the species. If men start sleeping with men, it harms the human race by wasting what could be perfectly good genetic material.
And how could one willingly engage in such an act without being mentally ill?
I realize that. The ICE link was meant to be interesting and give you ammo when you encounter that argument. ICE provides a neat way in which evolution can hand you genes which actually decrease your evolutionary fitness. It seems backwards, but it makes sense once you think about it.Gandalf wrote:Maybe I should have been more specific in that I don't actually buy into what I stated.sketerpot wrote: Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.
Methinks some "political pressure" is needed here... Well, I can dream, at least.Darth Wong wrote:Look at the psych definition for delusion, which presents a picture-perfect description of religion and then adds the disclaimer "except for religious beliefs".