Why should we accept, respect, or tolerate homosexuality?

Question

If we accept homosexuality we have to accept all and any other sexual orientations and practices, however abnormal. Why should incest between consenting adults be illegal? You can say medical problems like children deformed at birth, but what if they use birth control? Gays have a far greater AIDS rate than straights, so does avoiding medical problems by using condoms make homosexuality acceptable? Why shouldn't zoophilia be acceptable? Animal abuse? What if the owner and his dog are very attached and the dog doesn't resist the owner penetrating him, or if the owner puts mayonnaise on his penis so his dog will give him oral sex? Some psychologists believe zoophilia is natural. How about necrophilia? What if it's the body of a loved one and no family or friends want it for burial? You have the right to masturbate on an armchair because the armchair can't say no, and a corpse can't say no!

All these sexual orientations or practices are considered crimes and psychological diseases, so why not homosexuality? Maybe homosexuality is natural in the animal kingdom where there are no sex laws and anything goes, but we're human beings. We have no reason to accept, respect, or tolerate homosexuality.

Bigoted nonsense? Read it again, it's logically well explained and presented with examples and reasons. If you're against me for being logically against homosexuality, then maybe you're the one who's bigoted.

Voodoid, why don't you either say something constructive or get lost? Reported for insulting other participants.

Answer 1

Wow. Aren't you the brilliant debater?

If we allow "except after c", then everyone will be spelling words with e before i all the time, and then we'll have to accept h before t and so on. There will be just no rules at all.

If we allow right turns on a red light, pretty soon no one will respect the red light at all, and they will just drive through intersections whenever they want to, and we'll have disasterous traffic accidents all over. After all, red lights are just like green lights except for their color, and if you can go through green lights, why not red ones?

Once we start on the sllippery slope of allowing men to have sex with one woman (their wife), it is just one more step down the slippery slope till they will be having sex with all women or any woman. Once we let someone do what they want with their own property, it will be just a matter of time before they start doing what they want with other people's property. Once we let people go through a green light, it is just another step on the slippery slope till they are going through red lights en masse.

("If you let the camel put its nose into the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will be in your tent.")

~sigh~

Apparently you think that people cannot make distinctions. Apparently you think that if there are exceptions to rules that no one will ever follow the rules at all.

There are people who do not follow rules or laws. It's certainly not clear they need some sort of exception to do so.

There are people who rob, cheat, embezzle, drive drunk, and murder; there are people who run red lights intentionally when they think they can get by, drive slow in the fast lanes of freeways, drive 25 mph faster than the speed limits, and people who walk on the grass or litter the roadside when signs clearly say not to. But these people are not breaking rules because there is some sort of exception to them; they are just breaking the rules because they think they do not need to follow rules they don't like. They may or may not even have a reason they think justifies breaking the rule.

If they do have a reason, it is not likely to be "well, there's an exception to that rule, so the rule shouldn't count at all."

I don't think speeders tend to go to court and argue that if it is okay for ambulances to exceed the speed limit they should be allowed to also, or that if it is okay for NASCAR drivers to go 200 mph on a track, they should be able to go as fast as they can on the highways.

I have a LOT more confidence in the average Joe than you do. Regular folks (and, thank the Goddess, judges) are generally perfectly capable of making distinctions between one kind of case and another, especially when relevant differences are pointed out to them. In important social issues, it is very unlikely that one kind of case will be treated like another just because they are alike in a few ways, particularly a few trivial or superficial ways. If they are treated alike at all, it will because they are considered to be similar in morally relevant ways or because they each have their own (different) rationales that justify the same treatment.

The average Joe, no matter how distasteful he finds the thought of gay marriage, doesn't think that it's morally equivalent to marrying three people, or marrying the barnyard population or necrophilia.

I think that the average Joe is too smart to buy into this "slippery slope" stuff that y'all are so fond of. I think that most of the people who use this as an argument actually are too smart to believe it themselves, and smart enough to see the errors in the argument, but I'll make an exception in your case.

Because the exception really does prove the rule, it doesn't invalidate it.

Answer 2

To answer your question...you are right. You do not have to tolerate homosexuality if you as an individual choose not to. However when you make that decision be sure to say you just don't agree with it rather than trying to bring up points which have no bearing on homosexuality let alone are completely accurate.

First of all in regards to your "points", AIDS is now considered prominent among African Americans, specifically heterosexual women and men...does that mean you think that black people should not be tolerated? Historically when AIDS became a more prominent disease among Americans it was contracted by heterosexuals as well. However the only reason that homosexuals had contracted the disease more so was due to the fact that certain acts of sex made it easier to contract it. Its not that it was a "gay" disease, it was just not growing as rapidly with heterosexuals. Truth is, a disease is a disease. Cancer kills women through breast cancer, are you going to say they have committed some form of sin and as a result this is there punishment?

As for your point about zoophila (better known correctly as bestiality), the reason you cannot compare these sexual acts is because animals do not have the ability to say no. Forget the fact that it’s a form of bestiality, its plain rape. And just because some animals do not "understand" what is going on when they as you claim "lick mayo of the guys penis" doesn't change the fact that it still not consensual.

The same would be true for Necrophilia. A dead body is unable to say no to the act of fornication which is exactly why it's illegal and always should be. The simple fact is that none of this is truly about sex; it's about whether or not you have the right to take free will from another person. Between two gay adult men it's consensual and aside from your reference to incest which causes birth defects, has no bearing on taking that will.

In the end, as I have said prior, you have every right not to tolerate homosexuality in your life and home. However you do have a law that states you can't go running around murdering people, beating them up and burning them at the stake because you do not agree with it. We have a system of lawmakers that people vote on as to what is and is not legal. And if you do not like the form of government that America has in order to distinguish these laws...then move. For you are taking advantage of these laws yourself and I guarantee that there are things you do that many other Americans believe you are wrong for doing. How would you like to have those privileges taken away?

Answer 3

The same kind of stupid bigoted illogical clap trap was used in this country to Ban interracial marriage.

It's amazing what kind of mental gymnastics people will put forth to justify their own agenda/beliefs.

Fear and loathing are two of the most commonly used weapons in the bigot's tool box, the third is ignorance.

Answer 4

Here's an idea. Why don't we judge homosexuality on its own merits rather than others? I mean, if I'm to judge whether my gay friends deserve to live openly in relationships, why do I have to bring in zoophilia into the picture? They're just guys who love each other.

Answer 5

Homosexuality is morally neutral so we should treat it exactly the same as heterosexuality, and for the same reason. All the rest of your rant is just bigoted nonsense.