There are 18 choices, 51 votes for Gosh I Love You's debate

I'm against hetero-sexuals

Yep.

I think heterosexual sex is GROSS and just plain WRONG.

All heterosexual people shall burn in hell.

Yep, I'm against the idea of a man and a woman being together. It's sickening.

See how it feels?

• And humans are extinct...

  Um, well then if things went your way, they human race would cease to exist. Unless you decide humans shall resort only to artificial insemenation. Doesn't that seem unnatural to you in any way. I see your frustration with those who are against homosexuality (me being one of those) but if the world was all homosexual, it would have ceased to exist long ago.

  13%  Voted for by jonesz12, Embers of Elm, rubbishbook, RuthArabellaTrasher, looking4realtruth. (7 total)

  View 41 comments Hide Comments

  Please login or register to comment.

  Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!

  • right now

    Adding your comment:
  • Gosh I Love You
    July 10, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Nope

    Being a tube baby is GREAT. In fact, that's the ONLY way humans should be made. Because when a man and a woman have sex, it's GROSS AND ICKY AND DISGUSTING. IT'S IMMORAL
  • • jonesz12
      July 10, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      We do not understand each other, and probably never will. This I accept.
    • • Gosh I Love You
        July 11, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        I guess not. I don't have the anger control to hold myself back. Opposites.
  • Philosophical-Pug
    July 11, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I wish you could express your anger in more constructive ways.
  • • jonesz12
      July 11, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Who are you talking about? Me?
    • Gosh I Love You
      July 11, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      So, it's alright for hetero's to say the same thing about homo's? But not for homo's to say it about hetero's?
    • • 
        Energizer Bunny
        July 29, 2005
        Edit | Reply

        The Point Being..

        It does not matter which side of this issue you are on, it's best to realize that people on both sides can be very hurtful with their words.
  • seanbrowning
    July 12, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I don't see how anyone that has the ability to discuss topics on this website can be against homosexuals. It just boggles my mind. How can someone be that stupid? Not everyone is homosexual, and the possibility of that is just astronomically minute that it shouldn't be a worry. If that is your only arguement then please, keep it to yourself.
  • • jonesz12
      July 12, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Once again I don't even know if you are talking to me or not. I think your first sentence should end with heterosexuals, but it does not hence I am confused. There are many people who are against homosexual behavior on this web site. And having that opinion or the opposite does not make anybody incapable of discussing philosophical material. That is not my only argument against homosexuality, it is my main argument for heterosexuality, if you missed the context of this debate.
    • • 
        Kazrith
        July 14, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        um, i really think you are the one that missed the context of the debate. believing homosexuality is wrong is a restriction of free thought, and no philosopher should have any kind of restricted thinking.
      • • jonesz12
          July 14, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          And somebody who thinks heterosexuality is wrong is not restricting thinking. I don't think all philosophers are completely open minded. At least not the ones I've identified with. Even philosophers have opinions about what is right and wrong.
        • • 
            Kazrith
            July 22, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            alright i will explain. theis thread was meant to show people how stupid saying that homosexuality is wrong and discusting due to the ways they preform sex.
    • 
      Energizer Bunny
      July 29, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Good point sean.
  • ElisaRose
    July 15, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    A philosopher thinks therefor he makes opinions. If someone makes an opinion on an issue that does not restrict his thinking. That's just a cop out and you know it. Why does it bother you that people don't like homosexuals? If you are so comfortable with your sexuality you wouldn't care what us gross heterosexuals think. One thing that is REALLY bugging me because it is just plain wrong is this quote from Kazrith, "believing homosexuality is wrong is a restriction of free thought" Telling me that if I believe homosexuality is wrong then I'm restriction my free thought. NOOO My free thought allows me to believe it is wrong. You have a lot of misconceptions and misinformations. Jones you can believe homosexuality is wrong, that doesn't impede your free thought.
  • • jonesz12
      July 15, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      Thanks ElisaRose, I appreciate the support.
    • 
      Kazrith
      July 22, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      lwt me clarify my reasons for saying what i said. god says its wrong. this is the main reason why people do not like the so called "act." a book has said that it is wrong, so it must be. that is a restriction of free thought. you, personally, havent looked at the situation and debated with yourself if it is alright to be this way. the second reason why people dont like homosexuals is because of their way of doing things. this is especally true with males. people cannot stand the thought of two men being sexually active with one another. but heterosexuals doing the same acts isnt so wrong. nothing thing is this "lust vs. love" issue. for some reason people have gotten it into their heads that homosexual love is a "lust" based love.but no one really realises that alot of love is lust based. homosexual and heterosexual. but then again these people have mixed up the meaning of love with sex. hmmm, most sexual procedings usually start with a lust doesnt it?
    • • Scrap
        July 23, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        Most to ALL, actually. I kind of doubt many people have found someone to be ugly when they fell in love with them.
      • jonesz12
        July 24, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        I don't quite understand how you can tell me that I haven't looked at the situation and debated it with myself and answered it is wrong to be that way. You have no idea. That so called book you are talking about also says a lot of things that I'm sure you hold to be truths and not restrictions of thinking, simply because they are more obvious (Thou shalt not murder). Perhaps you can say you came to discover killing another human being was wrong by another road than the Bible (or perhaps you think it's ok, but I'm doubting that), just as I can say that I've come to decide homosexuality is wrong for other reasons besides what the Bible says. Don't assume things about people you don't know whatsoever.
      • • 
          Kazrith
          July 29, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          just as a point, murder can be right, all depending on how you look at it. your playing hide and seek with your cousin, and all of a sudden this man with a gun pops up right in front of you in the park. you have a nice heavy book in your backpack and you decide to take action. you hit the man but unfortunately you kill him. yes you just saved the day! well on closer inspection you find out that you just killed a cop. murder. the crime of unlawfully killing a person well, now he had a gun and wasnt wearing a badge. well, you acted properly. no fault on you. or you are chatting with your friends and you start pushing each other.you get mad and push too hard, he slips and cracks his scull on the pavement. he is DOA. well it is essentually murder cause you thought he diserved it. but you are let off due to the fact it was an accedent.
        • • gobuggy99
            September 14, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            the first case you presented is not murder, it's self-defense. as regards the second, that's obviously not self-defense, (and you would not get off, you'd get some degree of manslaughter) but neither is it murder. "murder" is defined as "the unlawful killing of a human being WITH MALICIOUS AFORETHOUGHT."
          • • 
              Kazrith
              September 14, 2005
              Edit | Reply
              actually its malicious INTENT
        • gobuggy99
          September 14, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          i agree with jonesz12. do you honestly think that people just automatically believe something because they read it in the Bible? of course not. lots of people constantly question and examine and explore their beliefs. here's a statistic from my science vs. religion debate class: (taken from an article published by UCLA) "A majority of [freshmen] students (69%) believe in God, but many (48%) describe themselves as "doubting," "seeking," or "conflicted."" So yes, i can see where people come from when they say that religious people read soemthing in the bible and are automatically sheep to that particular conviction, and are therefore restricted in their free thought. NOT!!!!
        • • jonesz12
            October 5, 2005
            Edit | Reply
            I'd go so far as to say in all reality, no matter who you are, whether the Pope or even a disciple of Christ back in the day, you still doubt and are seeking and conflicted. It is human nature to question things.
      • 
        Energizer Bunny
        July 29, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        "a book has said that it is wrong, so it must be. that is a restriction of free thought" ----------------------------------- maybe it's a restriction of your free thought but not for everyone. Just because you see it as a resriction in no way means all will see it your way. To alot of people on this site your quote is restrictive in nature. It depends on each person and their beliefs, whatever they may be. One man's restriction is another man's free thought process and that does not make it as you say "stupid" in any way. There is a world full of people of different races, religions, beliefs, backgrounds and etc., so I doubt that everyone will agree that such opinions are restrictive or not in total agreement. Opinions, as they really are, does not make either side right or wrong.
      • • Scrap
          July 30, 2005
          Edit | Reply
          I don't understand. The definition of restriction is simply not allowing passed certain points or boundaries. By saying everything in this book, person, singing monkey, whatever, is the only truth and you can't even attempt thinking another way without being wrong, would be a restriction of free thought. You could argue that you free thought is bad in the face of your singing monkey or whatever your using that is always right, but that seems a bit circular since one would assume that free though and the use of logic is pretty much the only coherent way of PROVING something to be right. I guess your best bet would be to argue that we are all held up in restrictions of free thought. Not in the sense that we are fallible or we're pretty limited to to the understanding of the world society has given us (the world is flat, the way physics works, etc), but in any which way. That "laws of logic" themselves are a restriction of free thought. Though you'd have your work cut out for you there, because how could you prove your case without using logic?
        • • ExistentialTheist
            July 30, 2005
            Edit | Reply

            My idea of free thought as it is conceived on this post

            Due to alleged inabilities to hold certain truths without restricting free thought, although giving reasons why one must not hold certain truths is restricting free thought itself, there seems to be no way out. It really doesnt seem possible to me that radical free thought can be something one holds personally seeing as at any giving moment, every individual believes something about some things, for even if one believes in nothing this is a philosophical position (existential absurdism of Camus or nihilism of Nietzsche). Someone cannot restrict him/herself from believing something nor can one confine him/herself within a belief as both could be described as restrictions. Therefore RADICALLY free thought on a personal level is impossible. Indeed as Scrap noted we have used a law of logic here, but only the most basic-- that p and not p cannot both be true, nor can they both be false. Laws of logic help govern both our imperfect personal freedom and the only radical free thought that can exist-- radical free thought BETWEEN individuals rather than within individuals. So either way, no matter what belief system you hold, even if you hold none, as Scrap was saying, you are restricting your own free thought in some sense. It therefore seems reasonable that any belief system entirely based on the concept of free thought is self-defeating. The only belief systems that can possibly be tenable are the ones that dont put so much premium in radical personal free thought, especially ones that put something above radical personal free thought (be it God, gods, the State, virtues, pursuit of a universal language, etc.).
          • • gobuggy99
              September 14, 2005
              Edit | Reply
              very well stated!
  • ExistentialTheist
    July 30, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I suppose I didnt define radical free thought between individuals, but this should be relatively evident-- a community in which opinions and beliefs of all sorts exist. But even in such a community, even if radical free thought exists, it is not logical to say that any given individual truly wants it to exist, for as Sartre has distinctively pointed out, "Hell is other people", or put in a more positive sense, the only restriction on one's freedom is someone else's freedom. If one only desires radical freedom within this community, then one wants to stifle the projects of those who want something different and therefore are stifling radical communal freedom.... the very thing that they held most sacred to begin with. It must be accepted that no one has radical personal freedom, nor does anyone truly desire universal communal freedom, for neither are logically possible. We must therefore not reject a belief system that "restricts radical free thought", for none of us truly want this phenomenom, nor can this phenomenom ever exist. On the contrary, we must embrace the class of belief systems that DO in some way restrict "radical free thought" because something impossible, or at least self-defeating, seems undesirable to say the least.
  • • Scrap
      August 9, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      I see your point, but must disagree with it in part. Someone's desire to choose to follow the Bible in face of anything, while in my opinion is just stuborn resitance to reason, is in fact someone excercising their free thought. Their free thought has led them to the concolusion that free thought is degenerating and the Bible or WHATEVER is the only "right" to be found out there. While I disagree witht he idea of adhering too strictly to a certain concept, I also entirely respect someone's ability to participate as such. I myself have in some sort of similar fashion strapped myself onto a concept of rationalizing situations to the best of my ability (whic is proving to become more and more confusing than leading to any definite answers). Aside from this there is also other "ideas" I will stick to. There are people in my life that, short of them committing a very vile deed, I will "do anything" for. Someone could provide plenty of bits of logic that prove that I might be being foolish and selfish and headstrong and rash and unreasonable, but I wouldn't budge. I guess all we can do is present our points, hope others see our way, and accept the depressing news that we're probably not going to reach anything close to changing people to what we think is right anymore than they're going to change us.
  • gobuggy99
    September 12, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Apparently all homophobes are christians....

    ....according to Kazrith. Dude, understand that there are Christian gays and atheist homophobes. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean that everyone automatically adheres to it. That's like saying that since you published your opinion on homosexuality, and I read it, you restricted my free thought.
  • • 
      Kazrith
      September 13, 2005
      Edit | Reply
      ah, so now the contradictions start.
    • • gobuggy99
        September 14, 2005
        Edit | Reply
        what the blue fuck are you talking about???!!! i'm pointing out that you made generalizations about large groups of people and then made unfounded assumptions about them to make an issue apppear black-and-white, when really it's not. people aren't defined by labels that other people such as yourself assign them. it's not a "contradiction" of anything.
      • • 
          Kazrith
          September 14, 2005
          Edit | Reply

          Man you are really hot headed.

          oh i have stated many times that the world has never been black and white, i have just presented where the feelings of fear and hate can origionate. nowhere did i say that that was the only place it comes from now did i?
  • drkbrdmstr
    September 27, 2005
    Edit | Reply

    Kazrith, murder is..

    Yes, murder is a premediated act of killing someone. the kid who killed the "cop" was simply killed. Not murder. Anyways, what bout war? Soldiers who kill the enemy dont commit murder. They just kill. Difference tween klling and murder.
  • atrain
    October 1, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    the problem with your first example is simple, it is not murder. Murder is the killing of someone in a preconceived, passionate, or vengence laden manner. Self defense is not murder.
  • atrain
    October 1, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    funny thing is though...same sex couples have a higher divorce rate (I use divorce loosely as many were never "married" legally) than heterosexual couples.
  • freeduck
    November 2, 2005
    Edit | Reply
    I'm not worried about anyone elses free thought because I know I dont' have any authourity on how you think, so I won't mince my words. To beleieve that someone's sexuality is wrong requires a certain level of fucking stupidity. WHO THE FUCK CARES!! as for all these attacks on kazrith, he stumbled in his wording, but the main point, which he may be afraid to say, is that , yes, if you think that being gay is wrong, you are restricting yourself mentally. You are not using logic. You say you have a logical argument in your test tube theory. Who cares if babies grow up in test tubes? Do you think women like forcing nine pound living screaming creatures out of their genitals?
  • 
    petethemeat
    January 18, 2006
    Edit | Reply
    deleted
  • 
    IvoryRose
    July 19, 2006
    Edit | Reply

    This hurts my brain

    This is entire argument is anti-philosophical. Philosophers accept everyone and everything as long as it doesn't obstuct the flow of thoughts and ideas. Therefore arguing for or against homosexuality or heterosexuality is in itself anti-philosophical. SInce both are ethically (if you wnat to argue this go find out what ethics really are) sound choices, it's not a philosophical debate but a moral one. The only non-ethical thing here is people telling each other that someone is wrong for believeing or living life a certain way. The point of philosophy to accept all opinions and choices and make valid conclusions about the universe, and the world, not to argue over what's wrong with being gay or straight.
  • • jonesz12
      July 20, 2006
      Edit | Reply

      You want to talk about ethics

      All right if you want to talk about ethics lets talk about ethics. Who better to use in an ethical debate than Kant. What did Kant say? He said that when faced with a decision, one should universalize the effects that the decision would have and if everybody could do that thing which he was struggling with, he should do it. If everybody doing that thing would be detrimental to the world, he should not do it. So for instance, if you wanted to kill somebody Kant would ask you, if everybody killed somebody, what would happen, well there wouldn't be very many people left. The exact same is true of homosexuality. If everybody was a homosexual, the human race would cease, so ethically, homosexuality is wrong because it cannot be universalized to the population and have a population still exist. The point of philosophy is not to accept all opinions and choices, but to find out which ones work and don't work. Philosophers debated with eachother throughout the ages as to who had the right ideas. It wasn't happy-go-lucky as you make it seem. Kant despised John Stuart Mill and other Utilitarian thinkers, he didn't accept their opinions or choices at all, and if Kant isn't a philosopher, or a solid authority on ethics, then I'm not sure anybody is.
    • • 
        IvoryRose
        July 23, 2006
        Edit | Reply
        I didn't say you have to agree with everyone's opinions and theories. I understand the impossibility of that. I am also tempted to believe, though I can't say for sure, that Kant didn't disagree without first acknowledging and thinking through the idea placed before him. Then logically proving or disproving them. The competing idea to Kant's and one that predates his, is that any decision made should not disrupt the conversation (so called) or flow of ideas between individuals. In rape for example you are refusing to hear the other person say 'no'. Refusing to acknowledge what is being said, and therefore acting unethically. This theory attributed to Socrates is one I prefer, although I see your point. However the human race wouldn't have to cease existing if everyone was homosexual...unless of course the many scientific techonologies were no longer accessible. Without this, we're still assuming too much. People procreate in order to remain alive. I know several individuals who have had sex with the opposite sex simply to have a child, without any attraction or other reason. In fact in all but one of these cases one of the people way homosexual. So in order for your theory to be true, we have to remove much of our survival instinct as well. I just don't see the logic. Personally (and this is just me) I would like to step out of their bedroom, and do what our society claims the most moral (mind not ethical) thing, and leave sex where we claim it should be in privacy.

  Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
• right now

  Adding your reply:
• Your Comment: