Male Homosexuality Peanut Gallery:

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This is the moderated Peanut gallery for (link)Male Homosexuality , so all posts will be reviewed by staff before being approved (made visible).

Happy posting!

 

[Gadarene]

Well this should be an absolute shoein for Freodin.

 

[Golden Yak]

Darn, delays.

Glad to see though that the discussion can include female homosexuality when relevant, should the point regarding STDs be raised.

 

[wintermile]

Well this should be an absolute shoein for Freodin.

Not quite. Various CF members can handle Freodin's position. Only one CF member, TCMD, demonstrated enough passion for sexual morality to be the first to engage in a formal debate.

 

[Sayre]

Subbing . I am really curious to see where this goes, especially if there is a defense of the natural law or defense of the "Bride of Christ" analogy.

 

[Oafman]

I'm thinking of offering the following topic for debate:

Being ginger in any Society is a gross perversion / has been, is, and will continue to be harmful /fatal to its Participants / and thus harms Society as a whole in which case it should be banned.

 

[Gadarene]

Not quite. Various CF members can handle Freodin's position. Only one CF member, TCMD, demonstrated enough passion for sexual morality to be the first to engage in a formal debate.

Yeah, have you seen TCMD debate before? Passion doesn't cut it.

 

[Gadarene]

Darn, delays.

Glad to see though that the discussion can include female homosexuality when relevant, should the point regarding STDs be raised.

Yes, given that I've seen TCMD debate this on E&M before and got absolutely paddled with that point, I wasn't surprised the initial motion didn't include it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The opening post is up: #5 !

 

[Gadarene]

Shoe-in.

Called it.

 

[Oafman]

TCMD appears to have opened up with a 'look at all the horrible places which ban homosexuality' argument!

 

[poolerboy0077]

I hope the person for the motion that male homosexuality is harmful takes a bit more of a sophisticated avenue than simply stating:

Premise (1): Homosexual sex is risky.
Premise (2): Risky behavior is immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore, homosexual sex is​

immoral.

Both of these premises, after all, are false as written. Some homosexual sex is risky, as is some heterosexual sex, not to mention many nonsexual activities. Some risky behavior is immoral, but much is not. After all, driving is riskier than walking, football is riskier than chess, coal mining is riskier than accounting, and so on, but we do not conclude immorality or a public health crisis on its basis.

I also hope not to see the silly "universalizing" argument that if everyone were homosexual there'd be no society. That would be as absurd as claiming being religiously celibate is immoral because if everyone practiced it there would be no society. Or if everyone became an English teacher there'd be no society (no doctors, no agrarians, farmers, ranchers, people that transport said food to us, etc.).

Let's keep this sophisticated, guys.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"One must ask why there is such concern among Nations that its Laws would strictly prohibit this Lifestyle "

'These countries wouldn't prohibit it unless they had a good reason.
Therefore they must have a good reason.
Case closed.'

Mmmmmm... nope.

 

[poolerboy0077]

"One must ask why there is such concern among Nations that its Laws would strictly prohibit this Lifestyle "

'These countries wouldn't prohibit it unless they had a good reason.
Therefore they must have a good reason.
Case closed.'

Mmmmmm... nope.

Yeah, I also cringed at that rationale. Many countries have adopted insane laws over the years. The idea that laws are passed for a good reason is itself an unwarranted and unjustified assertion. It's also a fallacy of appeal to the masses (Argumentum ad populum) to say that because a lot of people think a certain way it must be good or true. Um, how so? A lot of people once thought the Earth was flat -- in fact, a majority once thought this. This didn't make it true, of course. I am rather unimpressed with how this is going. I hope the responses to that initial post are well thought-out and exposes the flaws or my keyboard is going to break.

 

[Sayre]

I think if we replace homosexuality with interracial marriage we begin to see the logical flaw in the argument. The fact that the opposition to the concept is found in a few countries means nothing.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Just look at the countries listed,
Iran, Mauritania (I've never even heard of them), the Republic of Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, South Sudan, Uganda, Somalia and Nigeria.

Are these really the countries the US should be looking to as an example?
Is he really making the argument that homosexuality should be completely outlawed?

 

[Golden Yak]

That was just TCMD's opening post. He said that the follow up post would explore reasons why it has been outlawed.

Essentially he's said "Here's a lot of places that outlaw it" and the follow up post will be "and here's why."

So we haven't really seen his first argument yet.

 

[poolerboy0077]

That was just TCMD's opening post. He said that the follow up post would explore reasons why it has been outlawed.

Essentially he's said "Here's a lot of places that outlaw it" and the follow up post will be "and here's why."

So we haven't really seen his first argument yet.

True, although to be fair he did intimate what direction he'd be headed when he said that it was "a dangerous lifestyle" and that it's a "gross perversion."

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That was just TCMD's opening post. He said that the follow up post would explore reasons why it has been outlawed.

Essentially he's said "Here's a lot of places that outlaw it" and the follow up post will be "and here's why."

So we haven't really seen his first argument yet.

You're right. Can't wait to see this pan out.

 

[quatona]

David must have a very powerful argument in store when he can afford to waste one of his three posts on a completely irrelevant point.