How do you respond to the argument that homosexuality is immoral because anal sex can spread disease & they don't have PIV option?
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.
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.
'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.
'disease spreading' is an incredibly low bar for morality... any and all human contact, likely, immoral
I'd be willing to bet that that the person making that argument was not properly wearing fitted N95 masks for the duration of the pandemic...and during the 2023/4 flu season...
I totally should have called out that hypocrisy. You're right, they are anti-vax and didn't care about spreading COVID, and yet they used whatever argument they could think of against homosexuality including "spreading disease". Why are those kinds of people so predictable? Like not to be offensive, but why are the kinds of people who are homophobic so often also anti-vax, anti-vegan, and misogynistic Christian conservatives? I didn't even mention it but people in the comments predicted it accurately. It really is a type of person.
Oh they already made the "can't cause pregnancy" argument. It went something like this:
Them: "Gay people can't procreate and therefore they're causing the downfall of civilisation and therefore they're immoral." Me: "Not everyone needs to procreate, gay people are a minority and they wouldn't cause a decline in births on their own, plus we already have an overpopulation issue, and gay people can procreate in other ways like surrogacy/donation anyway. Gay people aren't harmful for being gay and certainly aren't immoral for simply being who they are which is fine." Them: "Cancer is a minority, does that make it ok or not harmful?" Me: "Cancer is harmful in any numbers, gay people aren't, and they aren't equatable to cancer." Them: "Gays are a cancer of humanity."
And they basically made the "not the intended purpose argument" as an appeal to nature fallacy in claiming gays people were immoral due to supposedly being unnatural. That just turned into a ridiculous semantical argument.
Them: "Gay people are unnatural and therefore immoral." Me: "That's an appeal to nature fallacy. Also, not only is something not automatically immoral (or moral) just because it's unnatural (or natural), but also homosexuality does exist in nature and is observable among other animals." Them: "Now look who made the appeal to nature fallacy. Hypocrite." Me: "I simply pointed out that claiming homosexuality is immoral because it's unnatural is not only illogical but also factually incorrect because it arguably is natural. Stating something is natural isn't an appeal to nature fallacy unless you make a normative or moral claim based on its natural status. The reason homosexuality is not immoral isn't because it's natural but because it's not harmful and is a basic right of individuals to embrace their sexuality." Them: "You said it's natural. Therefore you're making an appeal to nature fallacy. Now you also have to admit that the scientific method, scientific consensus about COVID-19 vaccines and evolution are an appeal to nature fallacy since science makes empirical observations about nature." (They also used Christianity to claim homosexuality is a sin, and were anti-vax) Me: "Again, making an appeal to nature fallacy and forming normative or moral judgments based on what's natural isn't the same as simply observing nature and drawing likely conclusions about how it functions objectively, as in the scientific method. One is prescriptive solely based on the fact of something being natural or unnatural and makes claims about what ought to be based on what is, the other is simply descriptive about nature and what is." Them: "Predictable that a gay shill can't understand words."
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.
This. If disease and morality were linked, they'd reject animal husbandry as a concept, and definitely not mind wearing a mask.
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.
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.
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.
Any kind of sex can spread disease.
you can even get viruses from cybersex
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.
Anal sex isn't a requirement for, nor is it exclusive to, homosexuality.
Start poking holes in their logic:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
All kinds of sex spread diseases 🤷 user a condom, bam! and you're done.
You tell these people to fuck off because they are not arguing in good faith and just want to waste your time
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.
I'm pretty sure their underlying reason was a fundamentalist conservative Christian ideology against homosexuality as well as against feminism, which they explained. They accused me of having no morality since I'm not religious, and said that without a religious authority to govern morality, it can't exist. Like you said, all the other arguments were just distractions to cover up their true motivations for being against things like LGBT rights, women's rights, and animal rights/veganism. I don't know how it relates to their vaccine and covid ideas though, that just seemed like conspiracy theory nonsense.
Is it immoral to survive eating fast food all day? As far as I know it is only a health risk, not immoral.
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.
Don’t, there isn’t enough deodorant in the world for conversations with people like that. Don’t suffer fools.
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.
They think getting a covid vaccine is immoral because it's "bowing down to government interference in personal freedoms which sets a precedence for them to do that with other things". Or something like that
Don't converse with idiots and you'll be a lot happier
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.
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.
Not every couple have sex.
And not every gay couple has anal sex.
Not all gay people engage in anal sex.
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.
I'd tell them that they're in the wrong community, for that is in fact a stupid question.