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.
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.
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.