How do you respond when a homosexual rights advocate claims you are "homophobic" and "bigoted"?

[razredge]

Wait, I thought furries liked drawings of anthropomorphic animals and dressing like them not necessarily sex. Now, if you want the creators of Soft Paw locked up I say go for it.

Some of the more radical elements with FF do, or the alt.sex.bestiality UseNet group

Eating other creatures is very common amongst the natural world those who do it are called “carnivores”, eating eggs is also fairly common and these provide sustenance so does using milk. Using their fur is not wrong because it would otherwise go to waste. (these are all guesses to how they would respond since I haven’t seen that response).

And so is incest, rape and infanticide - so by those standards sex with animals is well within bounds

 

[razredge]

Here is another homosexual rights argument:
Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is only found in one. Which one seems unnatural now?

Rubbish, while animals may occassionally engage in homosexual sex, long term homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom are pretty much non-existent, so that’s not really an argument.

Simple fact is homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour in evolutionary terms since it reduces fitness of the creature effectively to 0

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Rubbish, while animals may occassionally engage in homosexual sex, long term homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom are pretty much non-existent, so that’s not really an argument.

Simple fact is homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour in evolutionary terms since it reduces fitness of the creature effectively to 0

You’re right. While I have seen footage of male homosexual chimpanzees sodomizing each other (it was actually hilarious, since they were both “laughing” while doing this----they were actually “acting” for the camera), I did not get the feeling that they were a “couple” and that they wanted to adopt children together and or get “benefits” from the other chimpanzees in their group. Good point. :thumbsup:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

THAT ^ is my favourite response so far.

Mine as well.
I would also say:

“Homophobic? I am not anything of almost nothing in this world, except my God, Jesus, and my mother. You are using ad hominem words to silence the fact that I disagree with you.”

Like I said, though—like the response, as well.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Some of the more radical elements with FF do, or the alt.sex.bestiality UseNet group

Eating other creatures is very common amongst the natural world those who do it are called “carnivores”, eating eggs is also fairly common and these provide sustenance so does using milk. Using their fur is not wrong because it would otherwise go to waste. (these are all guesses to how they would respond since I haven’t seen that response).

actually incest isn’t very common, the concept of rape is kind of irrelevant since animals can’t consent according to humans (so all animal sex is rape). Infanticide is arguably quite a bit different because the goal is killing (unfortunately infanticide is existent among humans, especially stepchildren). BTW the bonobos who are widely know for their proclivity to engage in sex frequently with both genders do not practice infanticide (in comparison to other primates).

 

[John21652]

Here is another homosexual rights argument:Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is only found in one. Which one seems unnatural now?

Which proves that one species can actually think about the behaviour and then decide whether or not to behave like the other 449 species of animal.

 

[RobbyS]

This is a great question. I can tell you how I did. I had a family member (through marriage) try to convince me that the CC was wrong when it came to SSA and their sexual expression. They were, I thought, devout Catholics. Needless to say, their stance shocked me.

When the Catechism was put out in 1992(?) any number of priests sneered at it. The sad fact is that a substantial number of priests–even bishops–are homosexuals. They bought into the new morality, because it serves their purpose. And so the Church has been slow to instruct the upcoming generation on the facts of their faith.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Rubbish, while animals may occassionally engage in homosexual sex, long term homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom are pretty much non-existent, so that’s not really an argument.

Simple fact is homosexuality is a maladaptive behaviour in evolutionary terms since it reduces fitness of the creature effectively to 0

Actually, animals don’t engage in homosexual sex at all if we mean homosexual sex in the same way liberals use it. An animal doesn’t have a sexual identity. An animal has no sexual orientation. When it has sex with another animal of the same sex it’s not actively thinking “Yes, this is what I enjoy, this is what brings me happiness and pleasure and this is a true expression of who I am”. So I don’t buy the homosexual idea that animals can be gay. An animal doesn’t even know what being “Gay” is.

Also, just it’s good to keep in mind that there is no such thing as a “slippery slope fallacy”. It’s become popular to mention such a fallacy but it actually doesn’t exist. There are two types of slippery slope arguments, and they can both be valid or invalid/sound or unsound depending on how the argument runs. It isn’t a slippery slope argument qua slippery slope argument that makes it fallacious. We have “causal” slippery slopes and we have “logical” slippery slopes. The causal slippery slope is harder to defend and relies more on empirical evidence, but the “logical” slippery slope we unknowingly incorporate all the time into our arguments and thinking (usually in reductio arguments where we say “if we accept premise x, as a logical necessity we must then accept premise y, but premise y is unacceptable”).

 

[Kouyate42]

This is actually precisely why it’s an excellent argument. Not to get graphic but masturbating into either end of the digestive tract does not equal sex. Since homosexual “sex” is not really sex, they cannot get married, since marriage is for the sake of sex.

Last time I checked a dictionary, all the word ‘sex’ meant was an activity which involved the genitalia of two people (of any gender). And not to get too graphic or into too much detail (this is a religious and family site!), homosexual sex involves the genitals of one or both people.

I just happen to actually be gay myself and I don’t see why any partner I choose to be with shouldn’t have the same rights as if they were in a heterosexual relationship when they choose to be with me and vice versa. And you might find that a court disagrees with you- I seem to remember a judgement given in English law where the judge ruled that because there was transfer of bodily fluids between two men in a homosexual sex act, it could be considered a sex act like any other.