Keep in mind they’re sophists so it has to be a well-structured logical argument. I don’t know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people. Disclaimer: I’m pro-LGBT.
‘disease spreading’ is an incredibly low bar for morality… any and all human contact, likely, immoral
this is just like the’ doesnt/cant lead to pregnancy’, ‘not the intended purpose’ justifications with extra steps, which make no sense in reality.
you cannot logic someone out of a position they didnt logic themselves into… you have to know your words do not matter to these people.
They already conceded that hetero anal sex must also be considered immoral to maintain the view. Here’s what I’ve got; Anal isn’t a necessity. Homosexual people shouldn’t be framed as immoral simply for engaging in basic parts of life based on their sexual nature. Homosexuality isn’t inherently harmful and certainly not immoral. It’s not their fault for being the way they are, which isn’t wrong in any way, and it’s also possible to use protection to prevent STDs.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
Then driving is immoral because it’s dangerous. Cars kill way more people than butt sex, tell them they’re not allowed to drive anymore.
Also, no more ice cream, just look say how many people die annually because of diabetes.
Living in Utah is deadly because the air here is so thick with pollution you can cut it with a knife. They estimate it’s taking at least 10 years off most people’s adult lives.
Not every couple have sex.
And not every gay couple has anal sex.
Vaginal sex can also spread disease. If “spread disease” is your factor, no sex is allowable.
Except safe sex
Meh. Condoms break and won’t prevent crabs or warts.
Then again, I contracted herpes as a never been kissed virgin. Bar or restaurant probably didn’t clean a glass properly, so I now occasionally have cold sores as do 70% of the population.
That’s life. You can only manage the risks. Locking yourself up on the top floor of an abandoned hotel probably isn’t great for your health either.
Gather up the people making that ridiculous argument, put them in a shipping container and drop them in the oceanReject the premise that disease and morality are in some way causally related. Once they make a claim close enough to reality to tell you what they’re really wrong about, start there.
Spreading disease can be immoral, but when it comes to sex, that should be two properly-educated and consenting adults doing something that won’t affect anyone beyond the two of them.
We can reassess the situation when diseases transmitted by gay sex are overwhelming hospitals.
Homosexuality IS NOT IMMORAL and never could be. Only if all human sexuality is immoral, and it isn’t. Only a total uneducated idiotic piece of filth would ever say that homosexuality is immoral. It is not immoral. It never could be immoral.
Yes, did you reply to the wrong comment? Lol
I said “Spreading disease can be immoral”. Not that homosexuality can be immoral.
I probably did respond to the wrong comment then - wouldnt be the first time. : / I was responding to the idea of sexuality of any kind being immoral - which is ridiculous. Willfully spreading disease WOULD be immoral in my opinion, including refusing to get COVID vaccinations every year.
I don’t know why I keep arguing with these kinds of people.
This is actually by far the more important question you need to be answering, IMO.
Most of the time the particular specific objections people have to homosexuality are just things that they’ve come up with to excuse a deeper and more visceral problem they have with it. They may not even be aware of that, the human mind is a master of rationalization and self-deception. So generally speaking it’s pointless to address those surface-level objections, at least if your goal is to debate with the person themselves over it. Even if you convince them anal sex isn’t particularly disease-spreading, the fundamental “homosexuality is wrong” conviction will remain and they’ll just come up with something else to justify it. Unless you can somehow address the more fundamental issue you’re just playing whack-a-mole.
It’s a different matter when it’s a public debate, such as here on the Fediverse. In those cases arguing with someone who is fundamentally not convincible can still have value because the onlookers may be convinced.
