Is it wrong to be gay?

[rushyrulz]

And for those who use the "homosexuality is unnatural" argument:

Gays and lesbians just feel for the same sex the way that they're supposed to feel for the opposite sex. It's not unnatural, and they didn't just wake up one morning and decide they didn't like the opposite sex. Think about it, why would anyone in their right mind choose to be gay? It's a large minority and obviously a not very clear topic as we can see from this 30 page thread.

For everyone arguing that being gay is wrong, you're obviously straight and got the better end of the deal by already having infatuation for the opposite sex programmed into you at birth, so putting aside the excuse of "I don't need to change, I'm normal and I'm not wrong the way I am," imagine if society was flipped around and you had feelings for the opposite sex when 89% of the rest of the world had feelings for the same sex. Would you just change because everyone says it's wrong and you're in a minority? Would you really be willing to get into a relationship with someone of the same sex just because the bible of one religion that hasn't been confirmed nor denied says so? OR would you know that the feeling inside you is completely natural TO YOU and accept that there's, in fact, nothing wrong with your sexual preference?

I feel normal and awkward at the same time, part of the group as well as an outcast. I know that if I follow my heart I will get judged and frowned upon by many people in my lifetime, but it's worth it to be with the person I love, without a care what anyone else thinks of me. It pains me to think of people in this world who are simply unable to see that everything in this world has some type of gray area and there is no such thing as definitive right and definitive wrong. And those same people who are generally super religious who worry for my soul leave me worrying for their souls instead.

So here goes, I'm gay and I'm proud because I know I can follow my heart and I don't need to listen to what a book tells me. If there is a God, I'll listen to the spirit he put inside me at birth instead of listening to the book that was written by man centuries ago.

[fido123]

Also this disproves the whole "it's unnatural" argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals

Got my mom off my back~


@rushyrules: I know what you're saying exactly. It sucks that being gay is even a deal at all to people. My friend's at first treated me fairly differently but after a while they'd honestly forget about it and now we have a good time joking about it. There's no excuse to be homophobic, and if you are or think it's 'wrong', I don't care if it's your opinion it's a bad and ignorant one (unless somebody would like to share the first plausable anti-gay point I've heard of). Hopefully society will stop being apeshit retarded some day.

[rayword45]

Popular anti-gay arguments:

It's unnatural/anti-religious: Already defended.

It will cause a slippery slope towards incest and bestial marriages: Gay marriage, unlike incest, shows NO evidence of sprouting handicapped offspring for obvious reasons. And homosexuals are humans. Regardless, there's no evidence of said "slippery slope" theory.

Homosexual marriages cannot produce children: *Points at China/India, then sterile/elderly couple*

Marriage is an institution/religious bonding/tradition between one man and one woman: Who is this defined by as an institution? Why do atheists/people of other/minor religions get married all the time? Isn't slavery a tradition along with public stonings?

Gays want to adopt, and children need a father and a mother: Firstly, MANY children are raised in single-parent homes. And I'm pretty sure having 2 same-sex parents is better then staying in an orphanage for over 18 years. With so many children stuck in adoption centers nowadays, it's a blessing they want to adopt, not a curse.

I must admit, I'm against artificial insemination of lesbian women, for the narrow-minded, selfish thought of hoping they'll instead adopt.

will update with more arguments and shit. Meantime, relevant video (WATCH IT FOOL): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o

[Reincarnate]

god how is this thread still going on

no, it's not wrong to be gay

if you disagree, you're a closeminded, bigoted tard with no argument

/thread

[RubiedCross]

This post has no relevance to topic.

Thank you fido and rushy for complimenting my post. I hope this opens your mind to an idea that perhaps religious people aren't stupid and to introduce some logic to new members. I'm rather disappointed in the other posts though. It's almost ironic how offensive I find these, since I originally the one offending everyone else. That's all I have to say, since just a fragment of what I think could justify this issue has already been posted.

[fido123]

I went to a Christian school and some of the teachers there were the most hardcore Christians I know but the ones with the philosophies I respected the most. They practice what I believe to be the true "message of Christ" who focus on love, compassion, and trying to keep out of "judgment" issues. Although I'm agnostic, leaning heavily towards Athiesm, I can definitely agree and respect the true morals behind Christianity according to Christ. It's pisses me off to see so many Christians practice against their own religion and twist it into ignorance. Trust me, I respect the true Christian message, and probably others too.

[TheNoSoMan]

Wait, aren't you gay? If so, how does it feel be around people who are homophobes?

[flipsta_lombax]

Before this thread really does hit its bottomless abyss of fail, I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents, just because I'm given an opportunity. I'll keep it short because this thread has explicitly presented its arguments and suggestions already, unfortunately most as inadequate as it can get... but I'm going to talk about not homosexuality itself but the other half of the question: Is it wrong? Was going to make another thread, but in my mind, I highly doubt this matter ought to be argumentative.

Coming from a very strong philosophical point of view: Is it wrong, or ought it be wrong to be gay? "Is" proposes a matter of fact, whereas "ought" is a personal desire towards a subject. Suggested by the Is-Ought False Dichotomy, one's own standards in value is an evaluation toward a reality, forming a judgement as to the degree in which it furthers or acts against one's life. One can only make a judgement by the reality he/she has experienced, a knowledge perhaps. Where am I going with this?:

"Is" it wrong to be gay?: I don't know, because I have no definitive explanation of what is morally or ethically right and wrong.

Ought it be wrong to be gay?: No, because in my knowledge it's okay to be gay.


Coming clean, I'm a homosexual. But should your judgement deter you to think "Hey, your gay so OF COURSE you'd feel that way."? It shouldn't! Why? Because we all have freedom to make a judgement and we all feel. BUT... Can you say "Well, you're wrong/right to be that way."? Would you be able to proof? Neither you nor I can prove anything we feel or desire because subjectivity is not a matter of fact.

Whatever you are, whichever side of the argument, philosophy suggests the idea of right and wrong is mostly, if not all, subjective. One who is effected by another's judgement ought to be ignorant. But with how we are going about "trying" to prove our knowledge to others (gay prides, laws against gay marriage, etc.) has gone too far, in my eyes.

I say, if someone disagrees with you, accept that they are entitled to their own knowledge, opinion perhaps. But one saying another's knowledge is wrong is not at all fact, but just another opinion. Anything furthermore extreme in action is just... dumb. Seriously.

Originally Posted by fido123

Although I'm agnostic, leaning heavily towards Athiesm, I can definitely agree and respect the true morals behind Christianity according to Christ. It's pisses me off to see so many Christians practice against their own religion and twist it into ignorance.

Ignorance cause havoc within people dude, only because most people believe that what they know is fact and NOTHING can alter their opinion, which is sad.

[Superfreak04]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1_vD...&feature=feedu

Get Straight.

[fido123]

lombax: Although what you say is mostly true I think I'm quite entitled to say that any ait-gay argument I've heard is stupid. I'd say pretty much all of these claims boil down to simply being uncomfortable with the idea of two men being intimate with each other in a sexual way. It's not based off knowledge, but irrationality. If you can't properly rationalize something, it hold ZERO ground when opposing a rational argument. Saying gay marriage is wrong holds as much ground as eating broccoli is wrong outside of a religious context.

[The_Toymaker]

i was dumb

[fido123]

Why is the only point of life to spread your seed? It's the only reason any of us are here but is there any reason to keep the human race going? In my eyes life is pointless, I just choose to enjoy it. I think that way of thinking originates from nation building by increasing the population which is nothing but nationalism.

[Reincarnate]

There is no objective purpose or meaning to life other than what you make of it. It's not just about population growth. It's just that the evolutionary impulse to spread your seed was a necessary condition for you to be here in the first place.

[flipsta_lombax]

Originally Posted by fido123

lombax: Although what you say is mostly true I think I'm quite entitled to say that any ait-gay argument I've heard is stupid. I'd say pretty much all of these claims boil down to simply being uncomfortable with the idea of two men being intimate with each other in a sexual way. It's not based off knowledge, but irrationality. If you can't properly rationalize something, it hold ZERO ground when opposing a rational argument. Saying gay marriage is wrong holds as much ground as eating broccoli is wrong outside of a religious context.

I fully understand what you're saying. It is dumb to do something off-based knowledge because then that would be called stupidity, not ignorance. Difference. I definitely agree with the fact that people who go off without rational actions in defense of what they may think or believe are dumb and foolish (probably how wars and arguments like in this thread are started).

But here I'm talking about actions toward an opinion, not an opinion itself. With what I said before was people will have opinions, whether or not we agree to it, like it, or go with it. Let's take your statement and use it as an example:

-Jon is uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality.

What actions I believe is OKAY to do here are as follows:
a) Jon continues to respect a best friend/neighbor/sibling who's attracted to the same sex.
b) Pete, a homosexual, realizes that Jon is uncomfortable with his sexuality so he respects his space, but would eventually tell Jon the aspect of his being and some truth about him, hoping Jon would have negated his uncomfort acknowledged by ignorance. Otherwise, he keeps his distance.

What actions I believe is NOT OKAY are:
a) Jon neglects, abuses, or even kills a best friend/neighbor/sibling who's attracted to the same sex because he feels more comfortable that way.
b) Pete accuses Jon a bigot, a ****ing moron in that matter for being uncomfortable because it's stupid to him.

Actions speak louder than words, and am a firm believer of that too. So what if people feel a certain way, either are uncomfortable of homosexuality or of eating broccoli because of a prophecy. Let people think that way. But it's what people do just to try and prove this feeling is where I do NOT agree.

[Mike Weedmark]

Originally Posted by fido123

Also this disproves the whole "it's unnatural" argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals

No it doesn't. Existing in nature doesn't make something natural. Nature always selects for the survival and reproduction of the fittest. Homosexuality goes as against the grain on that one as it's possible to go. It pisses on and says **** you to the grain. There is nothing nature squashes out of existence faster than the genes of two people who don't reproduce. (And also, wikipedia doesn't disprove anything on any topic. It's wikipedia.)

Whether something is natural or not has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong, though. It's possible for something to be natural and still be evil from a human perspective, like a tiger mauling the shit out of your best friend; or to be unnatural and still fine, like homosexuality.

There's one problem I've had with almost every gay person I've ever met, though: They're almost never just gay. They're never just a guy who's a normal guy who happens to like other guys. It's always a thing for them, that they can't seem to get past. Something that has consumed their life to the point that there's nothing else defining about them. If you took away their ability to talk about and do things they perceive as contributing to their gayness, they'd have to stop talking and moving at all. It's these kinds of people I can't stand. People who only bother to develop the one thing that sets them apart from others, and do it in contrived ways like forcing a lisp or wearing outlandish bullshit, and for stupid reasons like this strange compulsion they all seem to have, to "beat" other gay people at being gay or something. It's almost like it's not even a sexual orientation for them, but some kind of weird, sociopathic hobby.

I have no problem with people who are just plain gay, the same way I'm just plain straight. But, give them permission to be a wacky annoying clown jackass, it does not.

PS: brb reading rest of thread.

[rushyrulz]

wikipedia returned more accurate and detailed results than the encyclopedia in several searches a recent study and is no longer the not-so-credible source people make it out to be.

Originally Posted by Mike Weedmark

just a guy who's a normal guy who happens to like other guys.

Thanks for describing fido and I perfectly.

[Mike Weedmark]

Uh, you're welcome, but my post wasn't about whether I like you or fido. It was just a matter-of-fact post.

[rushyrulz]

It's not a matter of fact that all or even nearly all homosexual men act gay and it consumes their life. You probably know two or three homosexuals yourself who you don't even know are homosexual because they don't flaunt it and haven't come out yet, but to your knowledge are straight because they look, act, talk, and walk not flamboyantly gay. Most of the people I told were surprised since I don't exactly broadcast that I'm a homosexual with my body language or voice, as fido stated in the OP of this thread.

The main reason all the gays you say you know act the way they do is because they're obviously openly gay, whereas others aren't so much.
Side note: If all gay guys act flamboyantly gay like you say, I'd like to renounce my gaydom since that is a complete and total turnoff for me at least.

[Mike Weedmark]

I never said all of them do. I was careful to use the word almost and point out the ones that don't bother me, more than once :3

It is a matter of fact, though, a fact being anything that isn't opinion. It's something that's verifiably true, even if it's not necessarily true. Judging from the fact that cities can organize entire parades with thousands of exactly the kind of people I described, my best crapshoot guess is that no less than 60% are like that. It might not be "nearly all," but it's almost definitely "most."

Uh, when I say things like this:

They're never just a guy who's a normal guy who happens to like other guys. It's always a thing for them

I'm using the words never and always casually and non-literally. I type the way I speak. I thought it was clear enough that I wasn't trying to make a blanket statement about something so easily disproven.

[rushyrulz]

There's parades that a total of no more than 100,000 actual homosexual people participate in every year and the world population is 7 billion. It's hardly an example strong enough to derive fact from.

There's the million man march with a bunch of african american social activists, but that doesn't mean all african americans are social activists. Just because a large population of something gathers doesn't mean the majority is represented there.