This seems to be a perennial favourite for debate. The argument has been interesting, but curiously similar to an argument about religion, in that a lot of mutually antagonistic
opinions collide, but not always as part of a rational discourse, backed up by
facts. And when respondents have tried to inject some facts, they have often been wrong:
| Mans [sic] penis was designed to fit with a vagina not an anus. |
To begin with, there is no clear evidence that the penis and vagina were 'designed' at all, intelligently or otherwise. At the risk of grossing you out, here are the
facts: Lots of
heterosexual couples enjoy anal intercourse. (There is even a sexual practice called 'pegging' in which the
woman anally penetrates the man with a strap-on dildo, that my more sexually active friends tell me is quite the rage in smart circles!
) However, 'man on woman' anal sex seems to offer biologically less obvious pleasurable benefits than for a (male) homosexual couple. The action of the penis in the (male) anus leads to a stimulation of the prostrate (the gland that produces the fluid in which sperm 'swim' after ejaculation) that is actually highly pleasurable. In view of this fact, if our bodies
were 'designed' (intelligently or otherwise), the only rational conclusion is that at least some bodies were designed for anal sex!
| I have always said that gay people are chemically imbalanced which results in them being gay.... also resulting in the higher suicidal rate... |
This was rebutted quite well elsewhere, but I'll say it again. If you take
any class of people and subject them to varying degrees of social ostracism, humiliation, irrational hatred and random violence, you would expect to find a higher than usual incidence of depression and suicide.
I think you realise this yourself, so you try to plug the hole in your argument with the following piece of twaddle:
| Gayness has a wide acceptance generally speaking and they live peacably in and around everywhere. |
As you are obviously not homosexual yourself, it is worth asking where you get this piece of 'information' from. Suffice it to say that, although some parts of the world are now a little more accepting of homosexuality than was previously the case, and some social attitudes in western societies have changed, a spectrum of antagonism towards homosexuals, ranging from mild distaste to homicidal violence is still the norm pretty much everywhere - with the antagonism weighted towards the homicidal violence end of the spectrum in many parts of the world.
That is not, though, quite on a par with this piece of gross dishonesty:
| Gays can throw bricks through my window if they like ... |
But they probably won't. In fact, as you are probably well aware, outside of a few safe 'ghettos' in certain large cities, most of the bricks (along with the baseball bats, beatings and bullying) are going very much in the other direction.
| Personally, I don't view homosexuality as normal. One reason why, and this is purely scientific, is that homosexuality doesn't promote survival of the species. |
No, this is not scientific at all. Or rather, it is as 'scientific' as those theorists who claim to 'prove' that some races are 'more intelligent' than others. Homosexuality has no significant effect on the reproduction of the
species; when pursued
exclusively it has an effect on the reproduction of the
individual. With approximately 4% of men - and rather fewer women - being exclusively homosexual, there is no danger at all that the human population is about to plummet. It is even possible that a small number of non-reproducing individuals (of whatever sexuality) is an overall benefit for a species that has now reached 6 billion and counting.
To be clear, I have no argument against those who are 'disgusted' by homosexuality, for the perfectly good reason that they are not actually offering an
argument themselves. So when someone says:
| I have gay friends but don't admire their sexuality. |
I find this is an honourable position. You do not allow your 'distaste' to get in the way of friendships.
____________________________________________________________________________________
| Instead of a discourse on how immature we all are, you could have choosen to start a rational discourse yourself. |
Rational discourse is always good. I hope in the above I have tried to do this. When most people are arguing purely from their feelings, informed by their tastes or distastes, it is clearly useful to subject their arguments to some kind of rational examination. I do realise though that, on this subject more than many others, few people will actually change their minds just because their arguments have been shown to unfactual and irrational.
