How do you respond to the argument that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex can spread disease & they don't have PIV option?

Lafari@lemmy.world to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.world – -14 points –

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.

50

'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.

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.

The idea that gay sex is anal sex is a myth. From what I've heard, it's mostly cuddling, blowjobs, mutual masturbation and a bit of sword fighting. For most people anal takes a lot of prep. Eating, douching, etc.

Remember reading a study which suggested a third engaged in anal sex (semi-)regularly. Ie. plenty of gay men don't have anal sex often if at all. And for those who do engage in anal sex regularly they're mostly using a condom or if not on something like truvada which almost entirely prevents the risk of contracting HIV.

On the other hand, anal sex is also surprisingly common in heterosexual sex. Quick google suggests just under half of heterosexual men have had anal sex. Sexual practices among heterosexual people are also often very poor. I mean, outside the gay community it's unlikely people have even heard of truvada or stuff like that. Gay people actually do talk openly about that kind of stuff.

Is heterosexuality immoral because straight people have so much anal and take so many risks?

Gather up the people making that ridiculous argument, put them in a shipping container and drop them in the ocean

Reject 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.

While I wouldn't oppose putting the people in a shipping container and dropping them in the ocean, recklessly spreading disease or engaging in behaviour more likely to spread disease can absolutely be amoral. For instance, people who refuse to get vaccines (but otherwise could). People who refused to mask during the height of the pandemic. etc.

These are the same people who would condemn gays.

This. If disease and morality were linked, they'd reject animal husbandry as a concept, and definitely not mind wearing a mask.

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.

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.

What is PIV?

However a lot of things can spread disease, and it's mostly breathing.

I'd recommend to just not talk to nazis who are only permanently searching for "arguments" to justify being intolerant assholes.

Penis in vagina.

(Might be some more labcoaty wording like "insertion" but it works out the same)

Aye thanks. I can't see how having or not having certain physical characteristics can be immoral

The Bible is full of these vile, deceitful creatures that are always getting people into trouble. They are called women and their lack of a penis drives them to evil hysteria! Although, I guess there was one good one, but not until she was forced to have her rapists baby.

Yeah, I thought "PIV" was supposed to somehow mean, well, condoms. So, that they were saying you can't use a condom for butt sex, for whatever reason.

Because that's the only answer you need here: If you're exchanging bodily fluids, stick some rubber in between. Whether that's anal, oral or vaginal sex.

And I mean, kissing can spread diseases. Sitting in the same room can spread diseases. Arbitrarily drawing a line around anal sex, not to mention assuming that all and only all gay folks do anal, that entire argument is just completely flawed.

Then that absolutely means that heterosexuality is also immoral, because ask any man alive and they'll (if theyr'e honest) tell you they crave anal sex whether they are hetero or homo. Recent reports have shown that anal sex is more prevalent among hetero couples than it ever has been among gays.

Anal sex is NOT the most common way that homosexual men have sex together, and it isn't even practiced by many gay couples.

So if that's your standard for what is moral or immoral, a) you're an imbecile in every possible way, and b) all human sexuality is wrong and immoral. I choose to see sexuality as something good and enjoyable, so if I'm going to hell for it, I'm gonna have as much fun as I can getting there.

I think they’re unironically using it to mean ‘penis in vagina’.

There are plenty of things that people do every day that contribute to the potential spreading of diseases, from every kind of sex to not wearing a mask when you're sick.

To single out anal sex as a sign that homosexuality is immoral (despite the fact that vaginal sex can also spread diseases, and despite the fact that anal sex is not exclusive to gay people) is a sign that the person you're talking to is biased and arguing in bad faith.

Ethically speaking, if someone wants to live by a moral system that differentiates between right and wrong based on the potential to spread disease, then that's fine, but that logic still needs to be coherent and apply to all things, not just selectively to things that they dislike.

But anyway, if they're sophists, you probably aren't going to convince them. If you have to engage with that shit, then your best bet is probably the socratic method: ask them targeted questions to poke holes in their flawed logic until they back themselves into a corner. You know what they're saying doesn't make any sense, so simply asking them questions which reveal more contradictions will force them to adjust or abandon their position.

All kinds of sex spread diseases 🤷 user a condom, bam! and you're done.

Wait, is there really people using that kind of arguments ? There is a moment where you should simply stop arguing with asshole, I'm sure you heard about the don't feed the troll

  • Sexual intercourse can spread STD (not just gay sex, even worse straight sex can lead to pregnancy), this is why you should use condoms (and lube) when having sex with a new partner no matter whether you're gay/straight.

  • Sexuality is way more than sticking a dick into a hole. I am not in other person bedroom, and don't care about what they do. Technically just like many straight person do practice anal sex, I have no doubt that many gay persons don't practice anal sex (Also not all homosexuals have a penis, so penis into ass might not be an option either)

Anal sex isn't a requirement for, nor is it exclusive to, homosexuality.

Start poking holes in their logic:

  • Ask their position on straight couples who practice anal sex (there's no physiological difference between a male and female anus)

  • Ask their position on homosexual women

  • Ask their position on homosexual men who don't have anal sex (there are plenty).

Any one of these questions should help take the fake, pragmatic, "I'm just concerned for their health" mask off and get to the root of their bigotry.

If something is consentual it isn't immoral.

Option 1, the vast majority of STI transmission is between m/f sexual partners.

Option 2, plenty of m/f couples have anal sex so it is either immoral for both or for neither.

Option 3, not all gay couples have anal sex, plenty just do oral and some don't even have sex, plenty of ace people out there.

Option 4, condoms work well and really do prevent the spread of STIs.

Option 5, what about lesbian sex? They are also homosexual but don't have penises, so is anal sex not an option for them?

Option 6, what right do we have to judge other people's sexual preferences and activities? You are allowed to drink, smoke, and eat unhealthy foods, not to mention people refusing the vaccines for covid and influenza, so even with things that kill a lot of people every year we let you do it, so what makes anal sex for men different?

Option 7, what about pegging? Can anal in an m/f relationship involve penetration of the male? Is that the same or different to the gay men situation?

And lastly, option 8, if they get to say gay anal sex is immoral then what stops gay men from saying exercising power over a community based on unsupported claims is immoral? If their specific religion is correct then all others must be someone scamming or lying, so that must be immoral, right? If not, how and why?

Don't forget that there are many STI's that are more rampant among heterosexual populations that homosexual ones, like Gonorrhea. Somehow that is always either overlooked or forgotten. HIV itself was mostly initially spread among heterosexual populations first, it only took off in the gay community in the USA more quickly than it did the straight population.

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.

Scan the room, make sure you know where the exits are. Look for friends and potential allies in the crowd in case things go badly. Make polite excuses as to why you'll be leaving now. Back away slowly.

Keep in mind they're sophists

If they start talking, be ready to make a run for it.

Is it immoral to survive eating fast food all day? As far as I know it is only a health risk, not immoral.

You tell these people to fuck off because they are not arguing in good faith and just want to waste your time

Other things that spread disease: hetero sex, breathing, kissing, touching surfaces other people have touched, generally existing.

Therefore, if gay sex is immoral because it might spread disease, so must all those other things be.

Don’t, there isn’t enough deodorant in the world for conversations with people like that. Don’t suffer fools.

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.

Going outside spread disease, I wouldn't argue it is inherently immoral. If you had COVID and went on a visiting spree you'd be immoral. If you had aids and didn't tell people you slept with you'd be immoral. End of.

There is no morality issues between two consenting adults doing what they want to.

Not all homosexuals have diseases. In fact most don't. By a wide enough margin to make the argument utterly ridiculous.

Meta answer: Consider what you want to achieve with them. Because a valid response differs depending on what you choose to affect.

Some examples:

A) Do you want to display disagreement but not engage?

B) Do you want to change their mind right here right now in this argument?

C) Do you want them to doubt their stance and maybe change their mind later?

D) Do you want them to feel reluctant to bring that argument up another time?

E) Do you want to display conviction and wit to impress an audience or when retelling the encounter later?

E.g. for A you could say "That's a misconception" and try to leave it at that.

For D you could rebuke or ridicule. Like "That argument comes from intolerance rather than reality - it makes you sound like a zealot" or "Why do you spend so much effort thinking about penises gliding into anuses"? Or just "Oh my GOD I'm so tired of hearing that old myth. Can you find something better?"

For E, the Twitter approach, something snide and aggressive. This will however just make them double down and feel like they are right and their opponents are glib assholes.

These were just some quick examples to illustrate that your intentions are important - by no means all possible or even the best responses.

I'd tell them that they're in the wrong community, for that is in fact a stupid question.

The "argument" is idiotic enough to not really need or deserve rebuttal. People like that are a waste of skin and nothing can be gained by arguing with them. Since it would be a waste, I might as well waste that time in a more pleasant way.