Other Controversial Topics

[TrumpCard]

Gun Control - The only people who need them are those ensuring the safety of the people. Everyday citizens do not need guns, and the right to bare arms is dated and unnecessary. 'Guns don't kill people. People kill people.' Yeah, but it'd be a lot easier to try and defend yourself if that guy trying to kill you didn't have the convenience of a firearm.

What I am going to tell you is not my opinion, but a fact(both cold and hard). America is a country where you can get away with anything and get anything if you are smart enough and possess the means. Now, I want you to know something else. Criminals do not follow laws. They do not look to the laws before they break them and they do not fret after the deed is done. Criminals do what they want.

I want you to put two and two together. In the US, anyone is able to do what they want. And criminals do what they want. They get what they want.

Say there is this scenario: In the United States, the Congress has just now passed a nationwide law. It bans any and all civilian use, and ownership, of firearms. No exceptions are made.

Do you think that if that happens, gun-based crimes will be lower? It is possible. But allow me to reference something that is illegal. The ownership and use of marijuana are illegal(with exceptions). Does that stop the illegal use of it? No, the answer is no. Technically, you are a criminal if you smoke weed without the proper paperwork. You, as a criminal, got what you wanted. And what you wanted was a nice, illegal high. How did you do it, if it is illegal? The answer is simple. You no doubt found someone who knows someone(Or something like that).

I could drone on, but I digress. My point is this. Criminals commit the majority of crimes related to firearms. I don't know statistics, but I welcome you to prove me wrong on that account. Criminals do not get their guns by legal means. If guns were completely outlawed, the demand for them would grow higher. Or, at least, the illegal demand would. And since there would be more demand, that means there would be more illegal gun sales. And who buys illegal guns? Criminals do, for the most part.

I will end here. But before I do, hear this: The man makes the crime, nothing else does. I hope you understand what I have told you.

 

[WickedDreams]

What I am going to tell you is not my opinion, but a fact(both cold and hard). America is a country where you can get away with anything and get anything if you are smart enough and possess the means. Now, I want you to know something else. Criminals do not follow laws. They do not look to the laws before they break them and they do not fret after the deed is done. Criminals do what they want.

I want you to put two and two together. In the US, anyone is able to do what they want. And criminals do what they want. They get what they want.

Say there is this scenario: In the United States, the Congress has just now passed a nationwide law. It bans any and all civilian use, and ownership, of firearms. No exceptions are made.

Do you think that if that happens, gun-based crimes will be lower? It is possible. But allow me to reference something that is illegal. The ownership and use of marijuana are illegal(with exceptions). Does that stop the illegal use of it? No, the answer is no. Technically, you are a criminal if you smoke weed without the proper paperwork. You, as a criminal, got what you wanted. And what you wanted was a nice, illegal high. How did you do it, if it is illegal? The answer is simple. You no doubt found someone who knows someone(Or something like that).

I could drone on, but I digress. My point is this. Criminals commit the majority of crimes related to firearms. I don't know statistics, but I welcome you to prove me wrong on that account. Criminals do not get their guns by legal means. If guns were completely outlawed, the demand for them would grow higher. Or, at least, the illegal demand would. And since there would be more demand, that means there would be more illegal gun sales. And who buys illegal guns? Criminals do, for the most part.

I will end here. But before I do, hear this: The man makes the crime, nothing else does. I hope you understand what I have told you.

Yes, that argument has been made a thousand times over. The thing is, I find it would be a lot easier for people to secretly grow marijuana than create firearms. Aside from that, there are many people who commit crimes on a whim. Like spouses who get fed up and shoot the other because they were momentarily not of the right mind. Now imagine if they didn't have those guns. I am not speaking of planned out crimes, but crimes some people do on a whim simply because they have horrible impulse control and snap. Those would instantly lower, because I can ensure Bob, the suburban and unhappy husband, most likely wasn't dealing in illicit arms trades. So when he snapped after a few too many drinks and a heated argument with Linda, he wouldn't have a gun nearby to escalate the situation. Perhaps a knife, but Linda would have a better chance. So I'm talking crimes of passion rather than premeditated murder. But unfortunately, at the moment, Bob can easily buy a gun and have it sitting around his house, so when he does lose it, poor Linda, and anyone in his way, will have a drastically lower chance of making it out uscathed.

 

[TrumpCard]

The thing is, I find it would be a lot easier for people to secretly grow marijuana than create firearms.

Let me stop you there. No one just "creates" illegal guns. The manufacture and sale of firearms persist outside of the states. Guns are not just "made" in America. The majority of illegal guns, without a doubt, comes from across the border(which happens to have shitty security).

As for the rest of your argument... It is pure hearsay. I want you to combat my facts. Domestic crimes cannot be stopped by passing some laws. The drunk husband will use his fists if not a gun. I am not talking about what could happen. I am talking about what does happen. The facts still stand.

 

[WickedDreams]

What I am going to tell you is not my opinion, but a fact(both cold and hard). America is a country where you can get away with anything and get anything if you are smart enough and possess the means. Now, I want you to know something else. Criminals do not follow laws. They do not look to the laws before they break them and they do not fret after the deed is done. Criminals do what they want.

I want you to put two and two together. In the US, anyone is able to do what they want. And criminals do what they want. They get what they want.

Let me stop you there. No one just "creates" illegal guns. The manufacture and sale of firearms persist outside of the states. Guns are not just "made" in America. The majority of illegal guns, without a doubt, comes from across the border(which happens to have shitty security).

As for the rest of your argument... It is pure hearsay. I want you to combat my facts. Domestic crimes cannot be stopped by passing some laws. The drunk husband will use his fists if not a gun. I am not talking about what could happen. I am talking about what does happen. The facts still stand.

Yes, but the problem is the wife has a higher statistical chance against his fists than his gun. Simple as that. People in this country are so obsessed with their right to own guns it makes me laugh. Only some people kill with guns, so why make it illegal to own them? Same could be said about nearly anything illegal. 'Making it illegal won't stop criminals' is such an old argument. You say you state facts but brush aside the fact that someone would have a greater chance of escape when a gun is not involved.

Honestly, who does it harm to simply make guns illegal? No one but criminals, whether some will still attempt to obtain them illegally or not. It's so selfish of the American people. I love this country but the people in it and some of its laws sicken me, at times. For no other reason than to want to selfishly parade around their firearms, people will protest against any potential threat to them being allowed to own them. This country is so backwards, no one wonder we're constantly dogged out by the ones that do it better.

Hey, making sex trafficking illegal won't stop it. So why have laws against it, right? Criminals will always do what they want. Why make anything illegal, if it won't stop criminals? Explain it to me, please? Won't they just find a way to do it since that's just how criminals are?

Also, last I checked guns are indeed 'created'. Doesn't matter where exactly, they didn't just magically appear fully assembled, since you decided to get technical. And much like other countries are suppliers of illegal guns to the USA, so are we to Canada. It's all a big circle, and there is really no reason to make an argument of where exactly these guns are made as there is illegal gun manufacturing in the USA, if my memory serves me correctly based on many news stories of those involved being caught.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

Ooo.. Controversial topics? Gotta pitch in here!

Abortion
I think there are certain situations in which an abortion is the best choice for one reason or another. I do not, however, think that it is reasonable to then conclude that a woman could go around and get pregnant then get an abortion just to avoid parenthood because she doesn't feel like parenting.

The Death Penalty
Speaking strictly from an American's viewpoint here: if our prison/rehabilitation system was better, I think that the death penalty should be reserved for people that could not then be effectively rehabilitated. Considering how flawed our system is, sometimes the death penalty is all we can and should do for certain people. Say a person is a murderer and we know that this murderer will definitely murder again if he is let out because he shows no signs of improvement, then I would argue that the pragmatic decision is to give him death. It is pointless to give people life sentences. That's just a drain on society.

Animal Testing
If it puts the animals through some sort of suffering, then no.

Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth?
If it isn't determined at birth (for at least the vast majority of people), then go ahead and decide to start being homosexual. I know I can't.
Plus, if I'm not mistaken there is now decent evidence for the claim that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.

Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes?
Do these churches actually provide services to their communities? Maybe we could get some in-depth audits by non-biased agents.
"...unanimous U.S. Supreme Court warned in 1819 (in McCulloch v. Maryland) that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy,” so policy-makers need to weigh societal benefits churches provide, often not available otherwise"
The underlined part, in particular, is something I'm concerned about personally.
I don't think churches can provide quality services that can't be made available by a secular organization.
Also do these churches back politicians? Then they should probably lose their tax exempt status.

Gun Control
Guns can not be taken away. Do you honestly think it is even feasible to take every gun away from every gun owner in the US alone?
It's just not realistic. Plus there are very understandable reasons for owning a gun. An otherwise defenseless mother during a home break-in, for example.
Regulations should be tightened and loopholes should be closed. Better background checks. Guns are dangerous, but they are also necessary now.

Drinking Age (raised, lowered, remain the same?)
Why isn't it 18? People are considered adults otherwise at 18.

Euthanasia
Pain and suffering are inevitable, but can be avoided? Then avoid that stuff. Come on.
Would you really rather watch Grandma suffer during her last 3 days or be extremely out of her mind on pain-killers?

Medical Marijuana
Does it provide an actual benefit to patients? Then yes. It is way less dangerous than all of the opiates.

Prostitution
Legalize this and regulate it. It will happen either way. Provide assistance to those that are found doing it, somehow.
Criminilization only makes it more dangerous for the people that have to resort to it.

Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace
I'm not sure I can even think of an argument for why this is an issue unless it's a hazard to a particular workplace environment.

Standardised Tests
We need an entirely new education system in general... Please. Just look at public schools, man.

Bonus: Religious Standing (why/why don't you believe in what you believe?)
I'm an Agnostic Atheist, but only Agnostic in the sense that I also can not be 100% sure that there aren't Fairies and Unicorns in the world.
Went through an interesting past of being staunchly against religion and being involved heavily in religion.
Now if I'm to believe in something, I would prefer to some solid evidence for believing in it. Any at all, really.
Especially if said thing makes very grandiose claims about the nature of reality.

 

[TrumpCard]

You say you state facts but brush aside the fact that someone would have a greater chance of escape when a gun is not involved.

As I said before, criminals do not get their guns legally. making a law will not stop them from having guns.

No one but criminals, whether some will still attempt to obtain them illegally or not.

I shall refer to my above statement.

Why make anything illegal, if it won't stop criminals? Explain it to me, please? Won't they just find a way to do it since that's just how criminals are?

The purpose of laws is to provide a baseline for law-abiding citizens, not law-breaking criminals. As I said, they have no care for laws, otherwise, they would not be criminals.

Also, last I checked guns are indeed 'created'. Doesn't matter where exactly, they didn't just magically appear fully assembled, since you decided to get technical.

Perhaps you would like me to quote myself? My statement was not to be taken in the most literal form. You made it sound as though anyone can just go and make a gun in their backyard. Anyway, here is some information for you. Firearms that are manufactured in the US have strict processing. It is unlikely for a criminal to get their hands on an American-made gun. Hence the mention of foreign distribution.

Look, I am done. You can continue to argue moot points. Facts don't care for your feelings.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

As I said before, criminals do not get their guns legally. making a law will not stop them from having guns.



I shall refer to my above statement.



The purpose of laws is to provide a baseline for law-abiding citizens, not law-breaking criminals. As I said, they have no care for laws, otherwise, they would not be criminals.



Perhaps you would like me to quote myself? My statement was not to be taken in the most literal form. You made it sound as though anyone can just go and make a gun in their backyard. Anyway, here is some information for you. Firearms that are manufactured in the US have strict processing. It is unlikely for a criminal to get their hands on an American-made gun. Hence the mention of foreign distribution.

Look, I am done. You can continue to argue moot points. Facts don't care for your feelings.

Although I feel as though I probably disagree with TrumpCard in some other areas, I have to back him up here.

He has a point in regards to dealing with gun control.

In attacking this issue with legislation, it would be important to remember that the target is not law-abiding, responsible gun-owners.

 

[WolfSol]

Mostly my point was that there are more than two sexes, no matter if you want to go by sexual chromosomes or sexual anatomy. Gender is a whole different issue.

I could be missing your point, and apologies if I am.

Actually, what you identify as and what you are are entirely different, in my opinion. Your sex is female or male, sex does not necessarily mean that your parts work and feel correctly. Technically there are three sexes if you include hermaphrodites (uncommon but real and rare) which include both sexual organs. Gender is what you identify as. Gender is not a sex.

 

[WickedDreams]

As I said before, criminals do not get their guns legally. making a law will not stop them from having guns.



I shall refer to my above statement.



The purpose of laws is to provide a baseline for law-abiding citizens, not law-breaking criminals. As I said, they have no care for laws, otherwise, they would not be criminals.



Perhaps you would like me to quote myself? My statement was not to be taken in the most literal form. You made it sound as though anyone can just go and make a gun in their backyard. Anyway, here is some information for you. Firearms that are manufactured in the US have strict processing. It is unlikely for a criminal to get their hands on an American-made gun. Hence the mention of foreign distribution.

Look, I am done. You can continue to argue moot points. Facts don't care for your feelings.

Although I feel as though I probably disagree with TrumpCard in some other areas, I have to back him up here.

He has a point in regards to dealing with gun control.

In attacking this issue with legislation, it would be important to remember that the target is not law-abiding, responsible gun-owners.

Lol, you literally just repeated the same thing and ignored all the other points. That's nice and all, but in a debate you wouldn't have gotten far. I acknowledged that criminals will continue to get illegal guns, but it will certainly stop some crimes of passion that involve firearms, and that can't really be disputed. You ignore all the points you know can't be argued and give me the same answer yet fail to expand on that answer when it doesn't benefit you.

Criminals will always be able to obtain illegal firearms. That much has already been acknowledged. Now tell me why that means people should still be able to purchase firearms? You argument is essentially, 'Criminals will still find guns, therefore guns shouldn't be illegal'. Cold, hard fact states that wouldn't hold up in any debate.

With reasoning like that I could substitute guns with any illegal activity and it would still make as little sense. We don't have to continue this conversation, mostly because only the threatened give personal insults during a simple exchange of opinions. I always can tell those who truly argue with emotion from those who simply want to debate on subjects where opinions differ.

By the way, the law-abiding citizen thing makes no sense in my example of sex-trafficking. That is clearly not just a guideline for law-abiding citizens. Yet it is illegal. If you can't explain to me the difference between one being illegal and the other not, as both of the targets are not law-abiding citizens, then you failed to prove your point in a sufficient way in my eyes, based on your reasoning of who the targets are.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

I acknowledged that criminals will continue to get illegal guns, but it will certainly stop some crimes of passion that involve firearms, and that can't really be disputed.

I'm not entirely sure of what action you were advocating for in the first place. If it is the banning of all firearms, then I would be concerned for people who are left defenseless in their homes against invaders. Pregnant woman scenario. The invader could even have something as simple as a knife. I wouldn't want to be the one arguing that the pregnant woman should be defending against that with a knife herself. Simply too risky for her.

Criminals will always be able to obtain illegal firearms. That much has already been acknowledged. Now tell me why that means people should still be able to purchase firearms? You argument is essentially, 'Criminals will still find guns, therefore guns shouldn't be illegal'. Cold, hard fact states that wouldn't hold up in any debate.

I think that you just answered your own question there... (Emphasis in bold)

With reasoning like that I could substitute guns with any illegal activity and it would still make as little sense. We don't have to continue this conversation, mostly because only the threatened give personal insults during a simple exchange of opinions. I always can tell those who truly argue with emotion from those who simply want to debate on subjects where opinions differ.

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you provide an example?

 

[WolfSol]

By the way, the law-abiding citizen thing makes no sense in my example of sex-trafficking. That is clearly not just a guideline for law-abiding citizens. Yet it is illegal. If you can't explain to me the difference between one being illegal and the other not, as both of the targets are not law-abiding citizens, then you failed to prove your point in a sufficient way in my eyes, based on your reasoning of who the targets are.

In your reference to sex trafficking... hmmm, I see it as giving power to the government. By making it against the law, it allows law enforcement to attempt to detain all who are involved illegally in sex trafficking, and sentence them as the courts see fit. By making it illegal, it allows action to be taken by law enforcement (not necessarily by us). With that being said, that can also be directed to any other law-breaking citizen. Guns are illegal when it comes to a convict having possession of one for protection. In addition, by making it illegal for convicts, they can try those that do not abide by the law. Without the law, law enforcement and government as a whole can do nothing, legally speaking.

 

[WickedDreams]

So in the end, it is all preference. I, for one, do not think owning a gun guarantees you safety against danger, just as people feel owning a gun does not guarantee danger will come about because of that. People can be impulsive. It is just how the brain works, and some people have poor impulse control. At the end of the day, I simply think it would be safer for all not to have a weapon that's sole purpose was initially meant for killing, to be legal. Simple as that. People give these one-sided arguments that they want only to encompass their point and nothing else, which always amuses me. You can apply their logic to what proves their point but never to something that disproves it.

Now, I think this country simply has too great a fascination with guns. It is just something about this country that probably won't change. Because I have argued this a million times, I will simply give my opinion that I have yet to meet anyone in a debate over this argue against. Gun laws should be stricter. As it stands, it is too easy to obtain a gun, as I know some pretty unstable people who legally obtained them, as they have terrible tempers and one actually has been to see a therapist. So tell me how in the world he legally purchased a gun? I feel the only purpose they serve are for protectors of the law and people and legal hunting. I've never met anyone who disagreed about making it harder for some people to obtain guns. If you feel the same, then we have found common ground, no? It's nice to share opinions, but just remember they're opinions. In the end, it is highly doubtful anyone will actually change their stance so there really is no need to get offended, in my opinion.

 

[Lycanthrosis]

So in the end, it is all preference. I, for one, do not think owning a gun guarantees you safety against danger, just as people feel owning a gun does not guarantee danger will come about because of that. People can be impulsive. It is just how the brain works, and some people have poor impulse control. At the end of the day, I simply think it would be safer for all not to have a weapon that's sole purpose was initially meant for killing, to be legal. Simple as that. People give these one-sided arguments that they want only to encompass their point and nothing else, which always amuses me. You can apply their logic to what proves their point but never to something that disproves it.

Now, I think this country simply has too great a fascination with guns. It is just something about this country that probably won't change. Because I have argued this a million times, I will simply give my opinion that I have yet to meet anyone in a debate over this argue against. Gun laws should be stricter. As it stands, it is too easy to obtain a gun, as I know some pretty unstable people who legally obtained them, as they have terrible tempers and one actually has been to see a therapist. So tell me how in the world he legally purchased a gun? I feel the only purpose they serve are for protectors of the law and people and legal hunting. I've never met anyone who disagreed about making it harder for some people to obtain guns. If you feel the same, then we have found common ground, no? It's nice to share opinions, but just remember they're opinions. In the end, it is highly doubtful anyone will actually change their stance so there really is no need to get offended, in my opinion.

You and I agree on plenty.

I mean, I also believe it would be a safer world if there were no nukes, no bombs, no chemical weapons.

I realize, however, that is not the world we are living in.

 

[Idea]

Do you mind if I asked why you view such orientations as "diseases at best"?

Process of elimination. In regards to the origin of homosexuality, a many theories exist, but the most proiminent and valid ones boil down to the following:
*it´s a choice
*it´s a product of the environment someone grows up in
*it´s genetic due there being "gay genes"
*it´s genetic due to a society behavior that causes it where, as a population starts reaching a certain amount of individuals, homosexuality starts occurring.

The "it´s a choice" idea is something I found a bit apalling, and rather doubtful from the start. Not only could I not phantom why someone would choose to be homosexual in a society that, at least in the past, didn´t view them all that well, and if you consider what homosexual people say about their preferences, it´s just an urge, not something they consciously choose. So, the first idea was rejected.

Homosexuals come from all sorts of family environments. They don´t necessarily live some form of traumatic experience, and the symptoms don´t always manifest in other people in similar environments. This doesn´t entirely negate that there are psychological causes to being gay, but it does very clearly prove it´s not a natural psychological state.

As for the genetics, there is a pretty simple reason as to why those can´t be. Gay people don´t produce, per the definiton, except maybe if they give up on that aspect of their identity for a while. Even if there were gay genes at any point, they would be long since extinct. With one exception...

In genetics, there is something called "mutations". While mutations are part of the process of evolution, there are many mutations that are not. In fact, recurring mutation patterns whose manifestation is harmful to the organism´s ability to socially and organically function are what we call "genetic diseases".

If being gay is in the genes, then by definition it matches what a genetic disease is. If being gay is psychological, then it matches a mental disease.

This doesn´t mean gay people should be shunned for being gay. But it IS closer to a person being born blind than a person being born with brown hair instead of black (for example).

I mean, that would be ignoring the fact that most "cures" are generally ineffective and are actually more harmful than the "disease". In 2009, the American Psychological Association released a report that basically said that; "The results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same-sex sexual attractions or increase other-sex attractions through SOCE (
Sexual Orientation Change Efforts).". Here is the said report.

I know you were replying to something different with this, but I feel that it´s important for me to state, just because a cure has not been found, it doesn´t mean it´s not a disease.

 

[thoughtless]

I could be missing your point, and apologies if I am.

Actually, what you identify as and what you are are entirely different, in my opinion. Your sex is female or male, sex does not necessarily mean that your parts work and feel correctly. Technically there are three sexes if you include hermaphrodites (uncommon but real and rare) which include both sexual organs. Gender is what you identify as. Gender is not a sex.

I had meant the same thing in my reply, that sex and gender are different. Also, you're post still supports what I said by saying that "Technically there are three sexes if you include hermaphrodites (uncommon but real and rare) which include both sexual organs" which is what I was trying to get across (though without using the archaic term hermaphrodites.) So yeah, ultimately we agree XD.

I know you were replying to something different with this, but I feel that it´s important for me to state, just because a cure has not been found, it doesn´t mean it´s not a disease.

I would consider your argument had it not already be disproven by multiple psychological organizations (such as this one).

Even if I entertained the idea that it was a disease, it is literally harmless. It is impossible to turn someone gay (as you have even said, it it not a choice) and they are still able to reproduce (lesbian couples can get a sperm donor, gay couples can get a surrogate mother (which doesn't have to involve intercourse, you could do the same thing as sperm donors do)). So the common argument that the population would go extinct because of homosexuality is false, not to mention that there are too few people who are gay for that even to be fathomable.

The only harm that comes with homosexuality (and literally every other sexuality imaginable) is the harm done to the homosexual person, as they are often killed, beaten, rejected, and ostracized because of their sexuality.

 

[Idea]

I would consider your argument had it not already be disproven by multiple psychological organizations (such as this one).

Even if I entertained the idea that it was a disease, it is literally harmless. It is impossible to turn someone gay (as you have even said, it it not a choice) and they are still able to reproduce (lesbian couples can get a sperm donor, gay couples can get a surrogate mother (which doesn't have to involve intercourse, you could do the same thing as sperm donors do)). So the common argument that the population would go extinct because of homosexuality is false, not to mention that there are too few people who are gay for that evern to be fathomable.

The only harm that comes with homosexuality (and literally every other sexuality imaginable) is the harm done to the homosexual person, as they are often killed, rejected, and ostracized because of their sexuality.

I didn´t say society would go extint due to gay people. I said gay people would never be able to pass down "gay genes" in a manner such that it could end up manifesting after many generations, because gays don´t reproduce with other gays. Yes, it´s possible for them to have children, but that requires a third party. If I stretch the most I can away from the realm of plausability but still within the believable, "gay genes" would have been passed down via a female line of lesbians, but would have been eliminated way before the 21st century.

Also, I read over that study (and several others, might I add). It does not disprove my argument. My premises were not adressed in the slightest within it, and that´s not even taking into account the fact that the study itself and it´s sources are highly doubtable:
1. It does not cite actual studies or how they were conducted, it only states that it is "the best and latest scientific research". Why is it "the best"? Does being "the latest" (so, during a period where saying anything bad about the LGBT community earns you a bad rep) any meaning, and if so, in which sense? What research are you even talking about? These questions are never answered, or rather, rarely answered. And the few studies whose details I did ever learn about could show correlation between things in the best case scenario, often not even having any real connection to what they were studying or any method or showing their results were based on what they were trying to study. This is not even taking into account other biases, sample quality, etc...

2. What it gives as an alternative is a bunch of symptoms, including hormonal disfunctions and social alienation. And that is what the study uses to claim it is NOT a disease.

3. The study is not against the idea that it is a disease per say, it is against the usage of a particular method of therapy. You wouldn´t even have to be pro LGBT to figure out some of the "therapies" used were silly and innefective, but it doesn´t mean being gay is something natural. In fact, all understanding of how biology works claims otherwise. The burden of proof is not on this side.

Again, I did not suggest that we bring harm or discrimination because of this. But looking at facts and logic, it´s in diseases that being gay is placed.

 

[Shireling]

I'd also like to point out that something that is "natural" or "impulsive" is not a priori a good thing. I don't consider having homosexual impulses to be immoral, but think of it like this.

Some people are kleptomaniacs, meaning they have a psychological compulsion to steal. It is "natural" for them to steal, but they recognize just as we would (normally) that stealing is harmful to others and so they (hopefully) combat these natural urges.

With homosexuals, it is a tad different because having homosexual sex is not "harmful" to other people in the same way as we conceptualize harm in the West (Classically anyways). Now, as someone who is a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is morally corrosive, but for those who don't believe in any morality or who follow some abstract ideal of morality that they themselves have constructed, there is no "harm" associated with homosexuality. I don't mind having this opinion, even if I am accused of "hate speech," because I do not hate or loath homosexuals in any way, I merely belief their actions are morally destructive.

I might also point out that the rate of HIV transmission is much higher in the gay community (still). Studies have also shown that most homosexual relationships are non-monogamous, and homosexual teenagers have elevated rates of self-reported promiscuity, drug problems, etc. One of the greatest objections that I had to the gay marriage ruling was that gay couples are generally not sexually monogamous to the degree that heterosexual couples are (the rate of adultery in heterosexual marriages has actually stayed fairly constant, most likely due to no-fault divorce). Thus, to normalize gay marriage is to normalize non-monogamy which might as well be the end of marriage.

 

[thoughtless]

I didn´t say society would go extint due to gay people.

Didn't say you did. I specifically stated that it a common argument used against homosexuality that literally made no sense. Apologies if it insinuated that you had made that argument.

Also, I read over that study (and several others, might I add).

What studies did you read? Either specify so I can refute or don't bother mentioning it.

It does not cite actual studies or how they were conducted, it only states that it is "the best and latest scientific research". Why is it "the best"? Does being "the latest" (so, during a period where saying anything bad about the LGBT community earns you a bad rep) any meaning, and if so, in which sense?

You could argue that by latest it alludes to being during a period were it's bad to talk against LGBT community. But the same could be said that by saying "latest" it means during a time period were we actually understand that lobotomizing people doesn't solve problems. A lot of old science has been disproved in recent years due to the advancement of technology, your argument works both ways.

3. The study is not against the idea that it is a disease per say, it is against the usage of a particular method of therapy.

Are we reading the same thing? In the link I sent it literally says that; "After a review of scientific evidence, the APA determined that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in 1973 and removed it from the DSM in the same year. Since that time, the APA has held the position that there is no rational basis, scientific or otherwise, to discriminate against or punish LGBT people." It was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It would make no logical sense to do such a thing in 1973 (which is still a year that discrimination against LGBT was very common and not frowned upon) if they weren't against the idea of labeling as a mental disorder.

Again, I did not suggest that we bring harm or discrimination because of this. But looking at facts and logic, it´s in diseases that being gay is placed.

I'm 100% unsure of what you were trying to convey in this sentence. Please clarify. Also what "facts" are you looking at? Site your research.

I'd also like to point out that something that is "natural" or "impulsive" is not a priori a good thing. I don't consider having homosexual impulses to be immoral, but think of it like this.

Some people are kleptomaniacs, meaning they have a psychological compulsion to steal. It is "natural" for them to steal, but they recognize just as we would (normally) that stealing is harmful to others and so they (hopefully) combat these natural urges.

With homosexuals, it is a tad different because having homosexual sex is not "harmful" to other people in the same way as we conceptualize harm in the West (Classically anyways). Now, as someone who is a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is morally corrosive, but for those who don't believe in any morality or who follow some abstract ideal of morality that they themselves have constructed, there is no "harm" associated with homosexuality. I don't mind having this opinion, even if I am accused of "hate speech," because I do not hate or loath homosexuals in any way, I merely belief their actions are morally destructive.

I might also point out that the rate of HIV transmission is much higher in the gay community (still). Studies have also shown that most homosexual relationships are non-monogamous, and homosexual teenagers have elevated rates of self-reported promiscuity, drug problems, etc. One of the greatest objections that I had to the gay marriage ruling was that gay couples are generally not sexually monogamous to the degree that heterosexual couples are (the rate of adultery in heterosexual marriages has actually stayed fairly constant, most likely due to no-fault divorce). Thus, to normalize gay marriage is to normalize non-monogamy which might as well be the end of marriage.

I suggest you read this. It sites its sources and completely details how the HIV and AIDS crisis completely wiped out a generation of LGBT people and the government pretty much outright ignored it.

Here is also an anecdotal article, but take that as you will since these are anecdotes. There was also a quilt memorial to remember those who died because of the 1980s AIDS crisis.

You can't simply say that HIV transmission is higher and not understand how LGBT people are stopped from getting treatment for it. If you're going to argue that homosexual people are more promiscuous then back it up with evidence or else I have no real reason to believe you.

Also, you contradicted yourself. You said " I don't consider having homosexual impulses to be immoral" but then go on to say "Now, as someone who is a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is morally corrosive". Those two statements are literally contradictory to each other. And personally I don't care for the end of marriage as I don't really care for marriage in and of itself. That also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and it based off of personal feelings and not actual facts.

 

[Shireling]

Also, you contradicted yourself. You said " I don't consider having homosexual impulses to be immoral" but then go on to say "Now, as someone who is a Christian I believe that engaging in homosexual acts is morally corrosive". Those two statements are literally contradictory to each other. And personally I don't care for the end of marriage as I don't really care for marriage in and of itself. That also has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and it based off of personal feelings and not actual facts.

It's actually not contradictory. It's the same as saying I don't think the impulse to steal is immoral but the act of stealing in and of itself is immoral. I'm distinguishing between a drive to a behavior and a behavior itself.

 

[thoughtless]

It's actually not contradictory. It's the same as saying I don't think the impulse to steal is immoral but the act of stealing in and of itself is immoral. I'm distinguishing between a drive to a behavior and a behavior itself.

I mean..that still doesn't quite make sense to me. If the act itself is immoral than wouldn't the logical conclusion be to have even the impulse be immoral?? Like having the impulse to steal is a immoral, because we've been taught from day one that stealing is bad, it should be something that you don't even want to do. Something that you don't even think about doing. And because we know the impulse is immoral and has real consequences (should you act on it), then we stop ourselves from actually committing the act. Same with murder, rape, assault, ect.

But eh, whatever. It's not that important to the discussion.

 

[Idea]

Are we reading the same thing? In the link I sent it literally says that; "After a review of scientific evidence, the APA determined that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in 1973 and removed it from the DSM in the same year. Since that time, the APA has held the position that there is no rational basis, scientific or otherwise, to discriminate against or punish LGBT people." It was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It would make no logical sense to do such a thing in 1973 (which is still a year that discrimination against LGBT was very common and not frowned upon) if they weren't against the idea of labeling as a mental disorder.

which doesn´t eliminate nor adress genetic disease

I'm 100% unsure of what you were trying to convey in this sentence. Please clarify. Also what "facts" are you looking at? Site your research.

The "facts" are not some study or article. It´s the common knowledge and current understanding of basic biology, history and psychology that puts in my hands the capacity to rule out absurd hyphothesis.

I don´t have any intention of convincing you or anyone else.

 

[Colgate]

As for the genetics, there is a pretty simple reason as to why those can´t be. Gay people don´t produce, per the definiton, except maybe if they give up on that aspect of their identity for a while. Even if there were gay genes at any point, they would be long since extinct.

But isn't it possible for it to be a recessive gene?

 

[Idea]

But isn't it possible for it to be a recessive gene?

not with the given frequency. There are far too few for it to be a recessive gene.

Furthermore, other sexualities, like bisexuality, would also have to be genetic, and that is just not possible if being gay was a recessive gene, since the "both ways" option simply wouldn´t exist

 

[Datbrony]

Abortion: I'm pro life when it comes to the unborn.
The Death Penalty: Hang em high! A good rope and a tall tree is cheaper than lethal injection although electric chair can be entertaining.
Animal Testing: As long as it is ethical, but some criminals they keep can be counted as animals so human testing is also acceptable.
Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? You either got a dongle or a twat. This "genderfluid" is such BS. I identify as an Attack Helicopter, check your non rotatory-wing privilege.
Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes? Of course.
Gun Control: My ability to protect my life and property should not be dictated by some aloof bureaucrat who has their own security on the tax payer's dole. The only way you'll get my gun is if you pry it from my cold dead fingers and even then you can have my gun, bullets first...
Drinking Age: Lowered. If you're old enough to go into the military at 18 and kill people then you're old enough to drink.
Euthanasia: This should be at the discretion of the family and on the understanding that one has a choice to end their own life on account of extreme suffering and medical complications.
Medical Marijuana: Why medical? Legalize it, tax it and toke it up. It's better than alcohol and you grow it like you can tobacco.
Prostitution: Some of the oldest "professions" in existence and there has been attempts to make it illegal everywhere else but you can't control every bedroom or backseat in the US so that leaves tight regulations and harsh punishments if things get out of line.
Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace: Company's discretion but above all I think people should not be denied a good career on the account they got some ink on their skin.
Standardized Tests: Standardization and centralizing education is the reason why this country falls so far behind. I think you have a public standard to meet bare minimum requirements to enter the work force, but there should be incentives and efforts to make tests varied as each private entity to suit the career path for students and pursue the best education money can buy.
Bonus: Religious Standing: I'm theistic, but I do not subscribe to any denomination of Christianity. I despise organized religion.
Bonus: Immigration: There's over 350 million people in this country, do we really want more people here? Where's that wall I was promised?

Anything else?

I agree with everything you said.
You deserve a follow my friend.

 

[Axel The Englishman]

Abortion - Abortion isn't exactly the most pleasant subject to talk about, but I would agree with it's use within justified parameters, such as if it could severely affect the health of the parent during birth.

The Death Penalty - It may be seen as a way of ridding planet Earth of criminal scum who commit atrocious acts against others, but I'd rather not provide an offender with the satisfaction of a quick and easy death over a long prison sentence.

Animal Testing - Animal testing to develop and enhance medical treatments is a fine by me, as well as being able to advance knowledge within the scientific community within reason. However, I wouldn't agree with such a thing for cosmetics and such, nor would I agree with animal testing that severely affects the health of the subject.

Is Sexual Orientation Determined at Birth? - Well, to me you've got either an arrow or a quiver. Unless you're intersex. Then you got both. I'm more of one of those guys who chooses Sex over Gender.

Should Churches Remain Exempt from Taxes? - Despite being the filthy capitalist pig that I am, the Church is there to provide social services for those affiliated with Religion.

Gun Control - Though I respect guns for being personal property, there are still deadly weapons that can put an end to one's life swiftly, and sometimes painfully. I'd say tighter restrictions when it comes to obtaining a license to own a firearm, and nothing that goes beyond bolt-action and above pistol calibre.

Drinking Age - I think it should stay the same. We don't want to be losing our liver JUST yet.

Euthanasia - I'd favour legalised euthanasia over suicide. If somebody is going through terminal illness that will surely result in their death, we shouldn't force them to bear through it.

Medical Marijuana - Personally, I'm not for the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Let's just leave it at that.

Prostitution - I'd rather it not be legal. It's a nasty business where many escorts are normally exploited by both the client and the employer. It can also leave these escorts in quite a vulnerable position during their 'sessions'.

Tattoos and Piercings in the Workplace - I'm more concentrated on someone being able to do the job than what they'd look like doing the job.

Standardised Tests - To be honest, spending years of your life learning something and doing only one legitimate exam that only covers certain subjects can be quite questionable. I'd rather be tested when applying for a job since each field of work tends to be different than the other.

Bonus: Religious Standing - I choose to be a Nihilistic Atheist. Religion doesn't exactly appeal to me and I can't force myself to believe in something that I do not.