"I think gays are wrong and unnatural...just my opinion though"

[Bluelight]

Well, it's "just my opinion" that they're small-minded people. That's all I have to say about that. At the end of the day, if someone has the courtesy to respect me as a human being, I will likewise respect them.

[SoverignQuantum]

I always said opinions are like a holes eveyones got one but I always try to use logic to the best of my ability to enlighten people, this however does not work with emotional people.

[JWS]

I think they just don't understand it so because of that they judge it. What they don't think is why would people chose to be gay or they think its a choice. I'd like to say to them when they watch porn do they pick what attracts them... NO. There attracted by what comes naturally to them.
I think it's arrogance of those people and there not grown up enough people.

[Ekwarph]

What do you guys think of people who are very much anti-gay for all the reasons science has proven incorrect, but defend themselves by saying something like "It's just my opinion, don't get so upset." ?

If someone says things like they think homosexuals are just whiny deviants who choose to be risque and everything about them is wrong and unnatural, when they say it's just their opinion it kind of annoys me. Sure it's their opinion, but it's a very narrow-minded and uneducated opinion. If they bothered to do a little research, they might change their mind. I usually respect all kinds of opinions if they can defend themselves, but I can't if it's one based on ignorance. It's like if someone said "I believe 2+2=9. That's just my opinion and I hope you can respect it."

I'm saying this because I see it a lot. When someone who's anti-gay gets in a debate with someone who's pro-gay or accepting of it, the anti-gay person usually just gets very angry and hateful or forces the debate to end by saying it's just their opinion and won't listen any further.

I think they need a big dick stuck in their ass to get uninhibited.

[davearoo]

Interesting idea that "hate" could be caused by genetics. I've always assumed opinions and ideas were the result of grooming/upbringing.
What if we do have a gene that says to hate what is different, but also have a gene that says to stray from the path of our parents? Both make sense, if you think about survival and development of the species, but they would also contradict each other.

My dad is a bit of a racist and my mum is very open and accepting. I consider myself very open and accepting, could the racist "gene" be recessive, if such a thing exists?

Just some thinking, no facts, other than my observations concerning mum and dad, from my side.

Hate by itself is just an outgrowth of the 'fight-or-flight' instinct.

WHOM to hate is a matter of social programming.

[Pix]

I think they need a big dick stuck in their ass to get uninhibited.

Reminded me of this:

[TonyAndonuts]

While still debating with that guy I mentioned earlier, he claimed that natural feelings are impossible to conclude as "okay" or even "natural". He said that people will always debate on what's natural and what's okay, especially in regards to homosexuality. This is what he said.

"Natural to them" is based on feelings, and feelings are a poor indication of what's "natural" or "good." Consent alone doesn't make things right by default either. To say there's "nothing wrong" with something is to make a claim to an absolute moral right, but by what standard are we deriving this moral right? Who decided this? Humans are unfit to decide morality, as humans have been the ones to decide for themselves that genocide and slavery were okay, at least for a time. Human logic will try to justify anything it wants to be right for the sake of gain or convenience. If you want to say there's nothing wrong with it, I'll have to ask for some sort of absolute that exists outside the musings of the humans who are already biased as simply wanting it to be right.

Does he have a point? Maybe someone can say that they feel homosexuality is unnatural "in their opinion" after all?

[davearoo]

While still debating with that guy I mentioned earlier, he claimed that natural feelings are impossible to conclude as "okay" or even "natural". He said that people will always debate on what's natural and what's okay, especially in regards to homosexuality. This is what he said.

"Natural to them" is based on feelings, and feelings are a poor indication of what's "natural" or "good." Consent alone doesn't make things right by default either. To say there's "nothing wrong" with something is to make a claim to an absolute moral right, but by what standard are we deriving this moral right? Who decided this? Humans are unfit to decide morality, as humans have been the ones to decide for themselves that genocide and slavery were okay, at least for a time. Human logic will try to justify anything it wants to be right for the sake of gain or convenience. If you want to say there's nothing wrong with it, I'll have to ask for some sort of absolute that exists outside the musings of the humans who are already biased as simply wanting it to be right.

Does he have a point? Maybe someone can say that they feel homosexuality is unnatural "in their opinion" after all?

You can just as easily flip this argument on its head, as follows:

"If you want to say there IS something wrong with these feelings, I'll have to ask for some sort of absolute that exists outside the musings of the humans who are already biased as simply wanting it to be wrong."

[Miles]

You can just as easily flip this argument on its head, as follows:

"If you want to say there IS something wrong with these feelings, I'll have to ask for some sort of absolute that exists outside the musings of the humans who are already biased as simply wanting it to be wrong."

I was trying to think of the best way to articulate my response to the argument, but turns out you already did that for me.

[TonyAndonuts]

*sigh* I've been debating with this guy for a while and I kinda wanna stop, especially because I can't think of anything else to say to him. It's becoming difficult for me to even understand where he's coming from now.

I said: Yes, this has been going on for a while and at some point should end. But what you're saying could basically apply to anything. I'm sure someone could justify anything if they tried hard enough. I could just as easily flip this on its head and ask for some sort of absolute that exists outside the musings of humans who are already biased and want homosexuality to be wrong. The only thing people argue is wrong about homosexuality is that they can't make babies, which is an important aspect of living creatures. But if that's what makes people so mad, then what about heterosexual couples that refuse to have kids? Shouldn't they get chastised just as much for shirking their responsibility as a human being of keeping our species going? I like to think of homosexuality as a form of population control if you really wanna think about it. They can contribute plenty to the world, but babies aren't one of them (unless they do the surrogate thing). Homosexuality's been proven to exist in the animal kingdom as well, so it's definitely not some human invention. The only other thing people say against homosexuality is either "it's just weird" or "it's against my religion", which are very weak arguments.

But he said: If you're just going to use someone's religion against them, then you're at the same time arguing that their religion is a lie, which is in turn your OWN belief. No matter how you try to spin it, you (the non-religious) and others (the religious) are all trying to force your beliefs to be a starting point. The reality is that there either IS a God or there is NOT. If there is, God decides what is moral. If there is not, humans decide what is moral. However, each human would have this right equally, unless natural selection occurs, wiping out the people with beliefs that hurt their chances at survival and reproduction. (news flash, this ideology invites tyranny, but in this same world view, tyranny is just a logical extension of nature, not a crime against humanity).
If we're going to continue on with natural selection, "population control" ought to be a non issue. Species thrive and species die. That's how nature works. Evolution essentially means some species make it and others die out. If anything, humans are undermining the very law of natural selection that many of them have decided to trust in by protecting species on the brink of extinction and by trying to support weaker, unproductive members of its own species through welfare and charity. At least in the male population, homosexual activity has been proven to be much higher risk for disease. If you want to try to argue that homosexuality does no harm from a naturalist perspective, you're denying this fact and at the same time allowing an ideology that is packaged with disease that weakens the body of the carrier, those the carrier has intimate contact with, and the offspring of the carrier if they ever do have children of their own. So really, you're trying to say it's natural and harmless when really, from a logical naturalist perspective, it could potentially weaken the human gene pool in the long term.
(Disclaimer: This is not my personal belief, just a logical extension of an evolutionary belief)
And please, don't demean yourself and your species with the "animals do it" argument. Animals have also been documented to throw or chew their own feces, but see any human do it and tell you they like it, you'll probably be sending them to a padded room with heavy surveillance.