Help me in a debate about homesexuality...

[Phillip Hone]

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?

[Pick]

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.

[Phillip Hone]

Sorry about the double post, I hit 'submit' instead of 'preview' and I can't seem to edit my post.

I'll add that they're not extremely religious, but they seem to hate gays for some reason. They're using the "the people I've talked to..." and the "every one knows" arguments and they seem attached to them.

Perhaps the moral of the story is that no matter how shitty a debator you are, there's almost always going to be someone worse then. Franky, this is a good thing from my perspective.

[Phillip Hone]

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.

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.

An argument that had mild sucess was pointing out that many straight people do the same thing, therefore being striaght = having sex with random people, and spreading AIDS.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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 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.

[Pezzoni]

People within hetrosexual relationships also spread AIDS. People in hetrosexual relationships often have many different sexual partners: Somtimes these two combine. Does that mean that hetrosexual relationships are immoral as well. Oboviously not.
It is also incorrect for him to automatically make the assumption that homosexuals are explicitly responsible for the spread of AIDS without providing any reasonable evidence to back this up.

[Plekhanov]

Why not follow through on pointing out that by his logic heterosexual sex is also ‘immoral’ because large numbers of people catch HIV and other STIs through it by pointing out that he seems to be arguing in favour of female homosexuality. Lesbian sex is less likely to pass on STIs than straight sex so by his logic lesbianism must be the most moral sexual orientation.

[Gil Hamilton]

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.

Further, you might throw it in their face that in sub-saharan Africa, AIDS is spread virtually exclusively heterosexual contact via massive promiscuity amongst men having multiple partners without birth control.

However, I think that is unnecessary, because they dug their own grave based on ignorance by stating that fucking around is what "homosexuality is about".

Finally, keep in mind that "gay" comes in a rainbow of flavors. Your little bigot friends have forgotten the muffmunching segment of the gay population; lesbians. Since lesbians don't do dick, while it is technically possible to transmit HIV, it is very very hard, so there is a very low occurance of it in lesbians simply because they engage in significantly lower risk sexual behaviors. You can very easily cite lesbians, who have a much lower rate of infection, as proof that "if you are gay you will get the AIDS and give it to everyone!" is bullshit. The problem is high risk behavior, which applies to everyone, not just gays. That makes their argument wrong.

Of course, they aren't going to admit to this, since they need it to be twats, but there you go.

[wolveraptor]

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.

[Darth Wong]

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.

I would suggest that you phrase it as a hypothetical: "suppose you have a homosexual couple which is monogamous their whole lives, doesn't get or transmit AIDS, and generally live as upstanding members of the community in every other way. Has this couple done anything wrong, or would you praise them as the virtuous people that they appear to be?"

[Pint0 Xtreme]

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.

[Darth Wong]

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.

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.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have been around some people like that, but I have also had problems trying to talk to them. In some cases, they do produce evidence, but it usually seems dubious. A lot of stuff I find googling tries to make general statements that male homosexuals are more promiscuous than male straights, but I don't really know the credibility of all of these. Some are obviously uncredible sources.

However, I have had a similar problem that I really do not know how to deal with. Some of my colleages have commented that homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder (which I do know), but that it was only removed due to threat of riot and political pressure.

Now, I was reading a journal at Borders on the history of psychiatry/psychology, and it did seem to mention that they did break down due to a desire to avoid problem. Now, there was a demonstration, and most of the evidence the aticle cited consisted of interviews with the actual committee members that took it off the list. Many said they regretted bowing down to political pressure/protest and reorganizing the concept of a mental disorder.

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.

[wolveraptor]

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.

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.

Here's a tip: sometimes these people pull up statistics saying that gay couples are more likely to have an assorted list of relationship and psychological maladies. Then, however, you can say that unless a vast supermajority of such couples are highly prone to these things, they still deserve individual treatment when being profiled for adoption and the like. After all, there are similar statistics for black families, but this doesn't mean they don't deserve at least a chance for adoption and marriage. Imposing an outright ban on them would be barring those who do have strong families from reducing the strain on orphanages, and would be a blatant example of stereotyping. "Because most of them do, all of them do..."

[Rye]

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.

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]

Yeah, I always wondered whether it were even possible to have sex with a chimp while simultaneously avoiding castration and bloody death.

anthropophagy

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]

[sketerpot]

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.

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.

[Gandalf]

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.

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?

[Darth Wong]

Psych definitions have historically been adulterated by religious bigotry. Look at the psych definition for delusion, which presents a picture-perfect description of religion and then adds the disclaimer "except for religious beliefs".

[sketerpot]

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?

Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.

[Gandalf]

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?

Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.

Maybe I should have been more specific in that I don't actually buy into what I stated.

[sketerpot]

Nature doesn't intend anything; that's not how evolution works. You might be interested in reading up on Interlocus Contest Evolution.

Maybe I should have been more specific in that I don't actually buy into what I stated.

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.

Here's a link that doesn't fuck up the BBCode.

[Justforfun000]

For the record....

I as a "practicing" homosexual here in Toronto...

I have noticed a very interesting trend going on. Surprisingly there is a great deal more partnership going on in the gay community here. (I'm referring to gay men here specifically as I'm not as familiar with the lesbian side).

Actually, I have been tripping over long-term relationships like crazy for a good 5 years now. I moved back here in '99, so it might be that I'm just seeing it from then, but the amazing thing is that this rampant promiscuity that is supposedly rampant in the gay world is highly exaggerated. I know a fair amount of couples that are up to and over 30 years together.

Actually of all the ones I'm familiar with, I would have to honestly say that a good 80% or more of them have been long-term, and most people I can rattle off as "Hey, you know Tony and Jim?", have been couples that have stuck together for long periods.

However..there is one small qualifier here if I'm going to be honest....A fair majority of these couples do swing. Most of them only play together, and a small minority have an open relationship.

In my opinion, this is probably because of the nature of men. Biologically men can have sex without emotion or love being thought of as any important component, whereas women TEND to be more the other way. Meybe this is simply upbringing, but in any case it seems to be accurate. Regardless of this though, these people have absolutely NO intention of splitting up, and are completely devoted to their partners. In every other measurement of love and partnership, they would pass the test with honours.

So there may always be a higher level of umm.....sharing in the gay male community, but this in and of itself is irrelevant to the moralistic judgement of homosexuality in relation to disease. Unfortunately, it's a potential negative side-effect. It's a form of parasitic evolution. Sucks to be part of the food chain.

But that's the way it is, and bigots will always use whatever "weapons" they can bring to bear no matter how misrepresented they may be.

Oh and for the record as well, I myself have been in a long-term relationship for the last 5 years +, and my only previous boyfriend was 2 and a half years. So I guess I also fall in the less promiscuous category that supposedly is opposite to the hedonistic slut I'm supposed to be.

[felineki]

Look at the psych definition for delusion, which presents a picture-perfect description of religion and then adds the disclaimer "except for religious beliefs".

Methinks some "political pressure" is needed here... Well, I can dream, at least.

[SVPD]

Since he apparently thinks homosexuality is harmful because homosexuals transmit AIDS to other people, ask him how he thinks homosexuals will transmit it to anyone who's not gay.

(I'm willing to be he's so ignorant that he thinks there's some wall that means straights only have sex with straights and gays only with gays)