Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[1robin]

It is a function where we send people we think are largely expendable to go kill other people we thought were MORE expendable. What does gender or sexual orientation or religion or whatever have to do with it?

To begin with, it is utterly disgusting for anyone so ignorant of history to suggest our stopping Hitler's concentration camps, holocausts against even more than just Jews, eugenics, and desire to subjugate or murder all non-Arian's, our having stopped Japan's rape of China and Japan's divine mandate to subjugate the entire world, and our having kept the leader of an atheist utopia from killing any more than the at least 20 million of his own country men. The only reason your not speaking German and being forced to torture others (or being tortured your self) is because of those who your condemning fighting the battles you wouldn't and couldn't. The reason your still in possession of your head and are not required to state under oath that the Japanese emperor is God incarnate is because of the sacrifices of your betters. So if you hope to have any discussion with me you will cease condemning those who died to save the free world, from this point forward.

I have studied military history my entire life, my grandfather was shot in WW1 stopping the Germans the first time, my ancestors fought to free the slaves, and others fought to throw off the tyranny of Britain. I also served the military during two wars. It appears that you have no clue concerning military history or how military units function.

I am going to respond to you one more time, but if you continue to berate those who acquired and defended the freedom you now enjoy then we will be done at that point.

To the rest of that mess you posted.

1. Religion matters (though I made no claim it did in the thread) concerning military matters because military action's are primarily based upon the principle that someone else committed an unjustifiable breach of objective moral principles. So if God does not exist then objective moral principles can't possibly exist. Therefor without God you would either have to let Hitler and Stalin do whatever they wished, or your are going to have to act in ways in which are inconsistent with your world view to stop them.
2. I have already stated emphatically that my original argument is secular and religion is irrelevant or redundant, I also said that I was not presenting a solution just pointing out the problem concerning homosexual behavior. I did upon the request by one person venture some minor places to consider for a solution but that I was only going to do so once and only with them.
3. I am not responsible for going back to kindergarten and explaining to you how military units function. I can not and will not try and get you caught up with the level of knowledge I have gained in 30 years plus of research.
4. I will once and only once give you a few basic reasons why homosexuality does not belong in the military but I am done after that.

A. Military units are designed (as Clausewitz stated) to prosecute political goals by other means. Politics is where peaceful solutions are attempted. The military is where force is employed to accomplish a goal.
B. The military does NOT exist to be fair, to cater to special interests, to be used for social experiments, to have different standards for each arbitrary cultural subgroup, nor to give a rip whether it offends your delicate sensibilities or not.
C. It's purpose IS to destroy things as fast and complete as humanly possible. That mission is best carried out by the most capable of us, those which produce the greatest cohesion and trust within units, those who lack certain behaviors that lead to much higher healthcare costs, and those who's inclinations do not cause others is a tightknit unit to feel uncomfortable in the shower for example.
D. I do not care whether you like that, if your triggered, if you want to start spewing accusations at me or anyone else, if you demand a safe space, or if you claim what I said is a micro aggression. I care about ensuring the survival of the greatest and most benevolent (but not perfect) nation which has ever existed. If your a self loathing American or the citizen of a western democratic nation then your betters have bought with blood your freedom to leave and go to the Islamic or atheistic utopia of your choice.

 

[1robin]

I didn't violate either of your "rules", if you care to take a look.

You certainly contradicted the spirit of this statement. 6. Do not say that unless I have a solution I can not claim something is a problem. I do not have to know how to fix my car to be certain it is not working.

I cannot not possibly post every semantic technicality that could arise for every point I made about argumentative mistakes.

I will give you a break here and clarify this in light of your response.

I have made here an argument composed of two sentences. I am trying to limit the debates to those points because it seems that all those who defend homosexuality want to debate anything and everything EXCEPT those two sentences. One of those other things is to bring up a solution to the problem. My argument is about the problem not the solution. I have not thought much about the solution and do not want to make arguments about subjects I have no firm position on.

Firstly, I didn't say you couldn't claim it was a problem... I honestly asked what you would propose to do given that it was deemed a problem. The fact that I, personally, don't consider it a problem is completely beside the point in this instance. If you can't see that then I don't consider you properly engaged to withstand the sort of debate that I could bring your way. It is, quite honesty, a very simple thing to understand. That you so blatantly take EVERYTHING as a personal attack is quite telling about your nature. The center of the universe, my friend, is nowhere near "you".

Ok, there will be no more allowances in your regard. You were new to me so I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now you have assumed the default position of all those who can't make an effective argument, sarcasm.

So we are done at least in this thread. What on Earth do I have to do to get some one to actually attempt to show my two sentence argument is incorrect?

 

[1robin]

This is not explaining benefits of sexual behavior for either population. Thus not possible to put into context the weight between costs and benefits, at this point, other than through inference, which stems from the debate you are engaged in, and that likely varies from person to person (responding to this thread).

Other than self gratification of humanities most dangerous appetite I have no idea what the benefits of Homosexual behavior could be. It's cost is very easily to establish, I have left it up to the behavior's defenders to try and come up with a positive that even remotely balances out the unimaginable cost. That's your job to post not mine.

Following from point 1, all sexual contact is seemingly 'wrong' because of the noted cases in all populations. Again, without explanation of benefits (within both populations), it is hard to interpret otherwise.

Nope, heterosexuality at the very least has perpetuated the human species. That is the greatest benefit possible, and one which homosexuality cannot possibly have in it's corner.

Why not? Cause you say so? I see all sexual behavior as neutral, at best. It technically has no spiritual benefit, but given the nature of the world (where separation from God and brothers/sisters appears real) it has relativity going for it. It can be relatively good or relatively bad or something in between, and is likely best judged by each individual rather than onlookers who likely have plank in their own eye when trying to remove any specks from another person's eye.

No, homosexuals creating 60% of al new aids cases is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact, and just one among hundreds.

I personally see it as unavoidable to crossover the two, given the nature of this world (noted above) and the built-in, obvious solution (or in reality that it is impossible to be actually separate from God, despite perception). Therefore, laying judgment on people as engaged in sexual behavior and filtering that from entirely a secular framework, can work for an individual. I see it as myopic or very shortsighted. Intellectually immature, or spiritually manipulating a discussion to an end that is, as I understand it, not clear/is confused. Such that when I said previously, what about homosexual sexual behavior that is devoted to celibacy, that could be filtered, rather easily, as only pertaining to secular position. When I added on the, 'and is then having more time, or devotion to God' that is perhaps (or likely is) filtered through the spiritual. But whatever time is being devoted to, it is not the physical connection of that relationship, if that is the behavioral choice of that couple, and likely some form of 'god' is occurring, which is possibly another debate, but still is implied in the sexual behavior that I noted.

What? I made a secular argument, and I stated emphatically that my theological views have no relevance to my simplistic two sentence argument. Your response is to respond with some very confusing statements concerning your opinion about the roll of fail in a social construct? I do not get it. Also, celibacy has to do with the solution not the problem. Which I again said is not what I want to discuss.

I have experience in such data. Collecting it, analyzing it, presenting it to a community of peers and citizens. Even with all that said, my general belief is that statistics are made up. I derive that idea from my experience, from what I've observed in a whole lot of methodologies that produce statistics, and particularly in what is being concluded. I have encountered CDC blatantly manipulating statistics, so your choice of using that source I'm sure works for others. For me, I find it laughable. And is why I'm not engaging in that side of the debate.

Well that is convenient. Every statistic you do not like must be fake I guess. Instead of this stuff why don't you instead post why it is that the CDC statistics are actually wrong.

Do not try to control the debate. With others perhaps you think you'll have some sense of victory in what you are aiming for as your position's objective. In our exchanges, I'm yet to see you move from square one.

I will control the debate. However, it was because I was winning so easily (which is boring) that I attempted to point out what arguments do not work and why so by some miracle someone would post an argument that takes more than 30 seconds to annihilate.

The majority of what you said was confusing, unrelated, or simply vacuous. I did however point out what you could have shown instead of what you posted here. This is an example of the problem, not only do I point out what not to do, I even spend significant time trying to get others to post good arguments because that is why I debate.

 

[1robin]

You certainly contradicted the spirit of this statement. 6. Do not say that unless I have a solution I can not claim something is a problem. I do not have to know how to fix my car to be certain it is not working.

I cannot not possibly post every semantic technicality that could arise for every point I made about argumentative mistakes.

I will give you a break here and clarify this in light of your response.

I have made here an argument composed of two sentences. I am trying to limit the debates to those points because it seems that all those who defend homosexuality want to debate anything and everything EXCEPT those two sentences. One of those other things is to bring up a solution to the problem. My argument is about the problem not the solution. I have not thought much about the solution and do not want to make arguments about subjects I have no firm position on.


Ok, there will be no more allowances in your regard. You were new to me so I gave you the benefit of the doubt but now you have assumed the default position of all those who can't make an effective argument, sarcasm. Which is a violating of another point I mentioned, but since your only going to point out technical semantics there is no point in telling which.

So we are done at least in this thread. What on Earth do I have to do to get some one to actually attempt to show my two sentence argument is incorrect?

 

[1robin]

"The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior."

I am sorry but you can't use those statistics to suggest causation, as that is an observational study, There is no, what we call, random assignment, which is what they do in designed experiments, and without it we can't draw valid causal inferences.

I am sorry but I am going to use those statistics. The CDC linked homosexuality in a causal relationship concerning new aids cases. The CDC is the most credible medical statistical organization in human history. You can believe what you want and demand reality adjust accordingly, but it won't.

You can't statistically say that homosexual behavior causes the spread of HIV with those statistics. There could be other variables at play here; like perhaps homosexual men are more often single. Therefore they are more likely to have experienced a greater number of sexual partners than your average heterosexual man. Who has an easier time establishing lasting trusting relationships because his relationship is socially accepted. Or it could be due to the prejudice homosexuals face, they are more likely to seek partnership in unsafe areas like the internet. At any rate, you don't have the right type of study or the right type of data to make those causal inferences.

What you are doing is akin to what people use to do to the blacks (and some still do). Suggesting that since there were more blacks in prison than whites, black people were less ethical than white people. However, as it turned out there were a number of other variables that contributed to those statistics, and having black skin had nothing to do with it.

Always remember in statistics: Correlation does not necessitate causation.

Sorry, but you violated the spirit of rule #9 post #340. I said that anyone who did so would bring our discussion to an end. No hard feelings, but I can not keep wasting the little time I have to debate on irrational, ineffectual, and redundant arguments. BTW I have two degrees in mathematics and know all about causation versus correlation, and even more importantly the source of that data has more experience than anyone concerning those issues. I am out, have a good one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who cares if others are "comfortable" or not. We're not arguing with "feelings" and "emotions," right? Wasn't that one of your rules?

From what I hear, for the most part the troops just do not care. They share their bonds as soldiers, and outside of that, not much else tends to matter because their relationships run so very deep they literally fight and die with their group, and occasionally risk and surrender their own life so that others may live. I've never shared such a relation with others, but I would imagine there isn't really much that can cut through it.

 

[columbus]

Also, I just wanted to say that trying to compare the “plight” of same-sex couples being unable to buy a wedding cake from a particular baker to the rape, murder and violence forced upon the early Latter-Day Saints is shallow and disgusting.

What is lame here is you bringing up a law almost 200 years old to justify 21st century persecution.
Back in pre Civil War Missouri, the white Christian settlers were quite evil in many ways. They hardly singled out Mormons for abuse. They owned slaves, abolitionists were also liable to summary execution. I believe they still offered a bounty for the scalp of an indigenous person. I shudder to think what they would have done to me, a gay atheist.
But that was then and this is now. Now Mormons are the persecutors and they justify it the same way the 19th century pioneers did. With Scripture.
They are not the only ones, and I will grant that they aren't as bad as some others, like Westboro Baptist Church. Likewise, there were probably Missouri people who didn't think the law you want to talk about was a good thing. Just as @Katzpur doesn't like the current laws that the LDS has supported, like Prop8. But the fact remains, Latter Day Saints are not that different from the persecutors of the 19th century. They just can't get away with as much, due to the rise in secular values.
Tom

 

[Skwim]

Sorry, but you violated the spirit of rule #9 post #340. I said that anyone who did so would bring our discussion to an end. No hard feelings, but I can not keep wasting the little time I have to debate on irrational, ineffectual, and redundant arguments. BTW I have two degrees in mathematics and know all about causation versus correlation, and even more importantly the source of that data has more experience than anyone concerning those issues. I am out, have a good one.

Ah c'mon, just because he made a valid point about your post doesn't mean you should run does it?

Or does it?


.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sorry, but you violated the spirit of rule #9 post #340. I said that anyone who did so would bring our discussion to an end. No hard feelings, but I can not keep wasting the little time I have to debate on irrational, ineffectual, and redundant arguments. BTW I have two degrees in mathematics and know all about causation versus correlation, and even more importantly the source of that data has more experience than anyone concerning those issues. I am out, have a good one.

"Sorry, but you violated the spirit of rule #9 post #340. "

Fortunately, you don't make the rules around here.

"I have two degrees in mathematics"

Are either one of them a degree in statistics? Because if they are, then you need to go back to school. You have no random assignment therefore you can't draw valid casual inferences. You can argue it ten ways until sundown, but statistics is a science, and just like you don't make the rules on these forums, you also don't make the rules in science.

"The scope of any inference is constrained based on whether there is a random sample (RS) and/or random assignment (RA). [...] Random assignment allows for causal inferences for the differences that are observed - the difference in treatment levels causes differences in the mean responses. Random sampling (or at least some sort of representative sample) allows for inferences to be made to the population of interest. If we do no have RA, then causal inferences cannot be made. If we do not have a representative sample, then our inferences are limited to the sampled subjects. "

Greenwood, M., & Banner, K. (2016). A Second Semester Statistics Course with R (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Creative Commons. Page. 50

"the source of that data has more experience than anyone concerning those issues"

They are not the ones making this claim: "The massive cost of homosexual behavior is not justified by any benefit of the behavior." That is your claim, and one that is actually unfalsifiable.

Btw, a degree in mathematics is not necessarily also a degree in statistics. If you examine the different options for a math degree, you'll see they differ in both the math they learn, and the intent of their studies. A statistician takes about ten courses that are all about statistics; just to get a B.A. While your typical math major takes only one course in statistics. Just because you have a degree in math, does not mean you are a statistician. Heck, I think business majors have to take more courses in statistics than a non-statistics math major.

 

[columbus]

No, homosexuals creating 60% of al new aids cases is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact, and just one among hundreds.

This is flat out wrong.
And every time that is pointed out to you, you hand wave it away. Then you often put them on <ignore>.
It's obvious to me why you do those things. You don't have an argument that survives even cursory scrutiny.
Tom

 

[1robin]

Don't flatter yourself. Gay men know who is receptive to advances and who is not. You have no idea how many gay men you have already showered with, and they never gave you a second thought. Some straight men are legends in their own minds.

Already showered with gay men! bwahahahaha

This is quite funny. No one has yet to make an argument (or even try to) in defense of homosexuality after I posted what arguments don't work. All I get are responses to an exception I made to one person. I even stated my arguments have emphatically nothing to do with the solution.

So you are not defending homosexual behavior. In fact no one so far has even tried.

1. It says nothing about how attractive I am to suggests that male soldiers feel uncomfortable showering with another male soldier who might find them attractive.
2. Women do not let heterosexual men into their public showers either, they don't even let homosexual males in their showers.
3. Who is receptive to something has nothing to do with anything.
4. Women alone (and they BTW even have a different set of standards even for the same jobs). They let the first two women fighter pilots on my carrier as I was getting out (along with many of the best soldiers) of a military which placed political correctness over the ability to do the job. One of them flipped an F-14 on it's back upon approach, panicked, and ejected herself into the water and killing her. The other filed some kind of a charge against a guy who wondered into the wrong state room after he had served honorably for 15 years and he was court-martialed.

Regardless, the hundreds of reasons I can give to not allow social experiments into the military is not the issue. Since no one can seem to take the final opportunity I gave to produce an actual defense of homosexuality I am shutting down almost all discussions I had kept going. With the exception of SkepticalThinker who can make a challenging argument (even if ultimately unsuccessful) I am in the process of stopping my discussions in this thread. I have spent time in 3 homosexual threads and not once was I challenged by even a bad argument. Just a bunch of non-starters and rationalizations. I would have expected those who defend behaviors that cause as much damage as homosexual behavior does to have better justifications. I suspended my judgment in your case after I couldn't put you on ignore and until I made post #840. I can stop here and get out of all my fruitless attempts to get anyone to post a good defense of homosexuality and not form any permanent judgments about your argumentation, if you will let me. For pity's sake let this end.

 

[Jainarayan]

So you are not defending homosexual behavior. In fact no one so far has even tried.

Probably because it doesn't need to be defended.

The rest of your post is just too inane, asinine, egotistical, and paranoid to take seriously.

If the homophobia in it weren't so sad the post just might be funny. However, considering you are serious, I am not laughing.

 

[Prestor John]

No it doesn't because that's a breach of the First Amendment. Religious institutes do not have any such right because: a) they are not allowed to influence lawmaking and; b) such rights extend only to citizens i.e. legal persons. That's the very definition of 'separation of church & state'.

No, you are incorrect.

I have shared this information with you from the Freedom From Religion Foundation on at least two other occasions:

"Churches can attempt to influence any legislation considered at the federal level (Congress), state level (state legislatures), or local and municipal level (city councils and county boards). The IRS considers legislation to include any acts, bills, resolutions, confirmation of political appointees (including Cabinet members and judgeships), and ballot initiatives or referendums."

Churches and Political Lobbying Activities - Freedom From Religion Foundation

 

[1robin]

"For the second part, I was in the military during two wars and have studied military history for most of my life. Units must have very good cohesion and trust with each other."

First:
1. I am not sure how you did this but this appears to be my claim, not yours.
2. You formatted your post in such a way it is hard for me to figure out what is what. So I am just going to do my best.
3. Also, I believe that I already informed you that I wish to end our discussion. I do not mean to say that you are 100% of the reason why I have given up hope that anyone (even with me helping them) to post any actual defense for homosexuality. I would think that those who defend a behavior so utterly destructive would have a better justification for it but after 3 threads and hundreds of posts I can't even force anyone to post one. So I am getting out of this thread and ending my debates. I might carry on a discussion with SkepticalThinker who so far got the closest to a challenging defense of homosexuality but I must give up on everyone else.

Thank you for your service, but I must point out this is a plead for authority. Generally a plead for authority is not as strong as well formed arguments that demonstrate authority. My position is that, if someone really is an authority on a subject it will show in their debate. As such, I generally disregard authoritative pleads like yours.

There is no need for thanks, my motives were not quite pure enough to justify your thanking me, but many soldiers do deserve al our thanks.

There is no such thing as a plead for authority. There is a fallacy called an appeal to authority. Maybe that is what you meant but it does not apply either. Fallacies like this usually only apply to claims of fact based on someone's belief in them. What I was doing was different. I was saying I in all likelihood have more experience to judge the claims I made than anyone who is attacking them. I am not saying what I said is true actually is just because of my experience. I am saying there is a truth which applies to military issues and I am in a far better position to know that truth than those who would disagree.

I tell you what, since no one has even attempted to post anything defending homosexuality I am ending all my debates in this thread except for those with SkepticalThinker. So I will not waste my time doing so with you either, but I will look at your response to these military points (if you can format your response correctly) and possibly reply to you about that and only that issue.

"Its purpose is not to be fair, not to be politically correct, and not to be distracted by all the things that accompany homosexuals"

Again, my argument not yours. I really can't think of how you formatted things like this.

Its purpose is to defend the American way life, and that includes within its own ranks.The military is in service to the people; not itself. I am sorry, but they don't get to set the standards. That is for us, the American citizens as a whole, to dictate, and it is the job of the military to protect that way of life.

I am confident that in time they will be able to meet our standards, but you seem to have very little confidence in the military. If you honestly think it is not disciplined enough to include homosexuals in its ranks, well I would have to say that is a very low opinion of our military.

Oh no it isn't. For example the military can and has been called upon to shut down our way of life. It was sent to stop draft riots years ago and it fired into crowds of civilians. Also our way of life is a subjective issue. For example at one time the military defended our way of life when it gunned down minority's trying to do the exact same things they now all do. The military is simply an instrument of blunt force trauma. In theory it is merely chained up until politicians fail and then they let slip the dogs of war and do what Clausewitz called politics by other means. Having both women and then homosexuals in the military has already and literally eroded discipline. That is how you maintain discipline, by eliminating anything that ruins it. I can give you actual examples even in just my limited experience in the military where this occurred over and over.

As already pointed out, the chances are you have been in public showers and/or public restrooms with homosexuals already. Homosexual does not mean sexual deviant. To be blunt, that is a really poor reason to justify bigotry.

The world its self is vexing enough without entertaining hypotheticals. You can not show that what you claimed has ever happened, but I can give you objective facts and literal cases by the score of the things I claimed.

However none of this is a defense of homosexuality, so that issue is closed between us. I will read your claims if they deal with how the military works and I may or may not respond in return.

 

[1robin]

Since women learned to deal with it, are you suggesting men are just not strong enough and capable of saying no to guy who may start flirting with them?

What? Are women forced to shower with heterosexual men, heck are they even forced to shower with homosexual men?


Why, since I posted what arguments not to make about homosexuality, has everyone not even tried. No one is even trying to post anything in defense of homosexuality but has instead left the entire playing field to become obsessed about the military (which I was heavily involved with and which it appears none of you were).

Anyway, since no one is even going to badly defend homosexuality and since I have given up anyone ever making a good argument in it's defense I am ending all my discussions in this thread except for possibly SkepticalThinker. If I was defending a behavior as destructive as homosexuality I would hope I had a better defense than anything I have seen so far in all the hundreds of posts in all the homosexual threads I have posted in. No hard feelings but I just can't justify wasting this much time on meaningless arguments. I am out.

 

[columbus]

Why, since I posted what arguments not to make about homosexuality, has everyone not even tried.

We did. You put us on <ignore>
Tom

 

[Skwim]

No, homosexuals creating 60% of al new aids cases is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact, and just one among hundreds.

Please note the fourth column "Adults & children newly infected with HIV." The world total at the end of 2000 was 5.3 million. Also note that of these those not attributed to MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) transmission ( Sub-Saharan, North Africa & Middle east, South & South-East Africa, Eastern Europe & Central Asia) amounted to 4.91 million. The 4.91 million is 93% of the total 5.3 million, leaving, at most 390,000, 7% new HIV infections attributable to MSM .

And since 1998 new HIV infections have been declining.

.​

 

[Jeremiahcp]

First:
1. I am not sure how you did this but this appears to be my claim, not yours.
2. You formatted your post in such a way it is hard for me to figure out what is what. So I am just going to do my best.
3. Also, I believe that I already informed you that I wish to end our discussion. I do not mean to say that you are 100% of the reason why I have given up hope that anyone (even with me helping them) to post any actual defense for homosexuality. I would think that those who defend a behavior so utterly destructive would have a better justification for it but after 3 threads and hundreds of posts I can't even force anyone to post one. So I am getting out of this thread and ending my debates. I might carry on a discussion with SkepticalThinker who so far got the closest to a challenging defense of homosexuality but I must give up on everyone else.

There is no need for thanks, my motives were not quite pure enough to justify your thanking me, but many soldiers do deserve al our thanks.

There is no such thing as a plead for authority. There is a fallacy called an appeal to authority. Maybe that is what you meant but it does not apply either. Fallacies like this usually only apply to claims of fact based on someone's belief in them. What I was doing was different. I was saying I in all likelihood have more experience to judge the claims I made than anyone who is attacking them. I am not saying what I said is true actually is just because of my experience. I am saying there is a truth which applies to military issues and I am in a far better position to know that truth than those who would disagree.

I tell you what, since no one has even attempted to post anything defending homosexuality I am ending all my debates in this thread except for those with SkepticalThinker. So I will not waste my time doing so with you either, but I will look at your response to these military points (if you can format your response correctly) and possibly reply to you about that and only that issue.

Again, my argument not yours. I really can't think of how you formatted things like this.

Its purpose is to defend the American way life, and that includes within its own ranks.The military is in service to the people; not itself. I am sorry, but they don't get to set the standards. That is for us, the American citizens as a whole, to dictate, and it is the job of the military to protect that way of life.

Oh no it isn't. For example the military can and has been called upon to shut down our way of life. It was sent to stop draft riots years ago and it fired into crowds of civilians. Also our way of life is a subjective issue. For example at one time the military defended our way of life when it gunned down minority's trying to do the exact same things they now all do. The military is simply an instrument of blunt force trauma. In theory it is merely chained up until politicians fail and then they let slip the dogs of war and do what Clausewitz called politics by other means. Having both women and then homosexuals in the military has already and literally eroded discipline. That is how you maintain discipline, by eliminating anything that ruins it. I can give you actual examples even in just my limited experience in the military where this occurred over and over.

The world its self is vexing enough without entertaining hypotheticals. You can not show that what you claimed has ever happened, but I can give you objective facts and literal cases by the score of the things I claimed.

However none of this is a defense of homosexuality, so that issue is closed between us. I will read your claims if they deal with how the military works and I may or may not respond in return.

"You formatted your post in such a way it is hard for me to figure out what is what."

I have confidence you'll be able to figure it out.

"Also, I believe that I already informed you that I wish to end our discussion"

Sounds like a personal problem. Really, this is your problem; not mine.

"I have given up hope that anyone (even with me helping them) to post any actual defense for homosexuality."

I have a feeling that you are not capable of seeing the other side. That is how bigotry works; it blinds you. If you were an American patriot, then you would embrace equality.

"There is no such thing as a plead for authority. There is a fallacy called an appeal to authority."

Sounds like the same thing to me.

"I was saying I in all likelihood have more experience to judge the claims I made than anyone who is attacking them. I am not saying what I said is true actually is just because of my experience. I am saying there is a truth which applies to military issues and I am in a far better position to know that truth than those who would disagree."

Sounds like the same thing to me.

" Oh no it isn't. "

It is the military's favorite excuse, but it is really not your call to make, nor is it up to the military. They don't call the shots in this country, and you are just going to have live with that. Also, I don't buy that you are the authority you claim to be. For one, you are very clearly bias against homosexuals. Which means, on any topic involving homosexuals all your "insight" is skewed. You are not a reliable source of information when it comes to homosexuals on any topic.

"The world its self is vexing enough without entertaining hypotheticals. You can not show that what you claimed has ever happened, but I can give you objective facts and literal cases by the score of the things I claimed."

You are right, I can't show my claim is true, but I bet if I started crunching numbers the probability of it being true would be very good. As someone with two math degrees, I shouldn't have to explain that to you. Personally, I don't think you have a firm grasp on what an "objective fact" is, and you clearly don't understand the phrase: Correlation does not necessitate causation.

Since you find "entertaining the hypothetical" so "vexing", I thought you might like this quote:

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

 

[SkepticThinker]

This response surprised me because you believe that the artist in this scenario has the right to not take a job, but a baker placed in a similar situation cannot.

I thought you believed that a baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple regardless of what the baker believes or how the baker feels?

Why the different stance for the artist? Is it because the portrait had to do with Islam?

Why can an artist refuse a job, but when a baker does it, they are forced to pay damages and lose their business?

Yes, they are and your very next sentence proves that they are.

This right here is telling someone what standards they should have or what views they should have on sin and homosexuality.

You do not have the right to assign what about a certain sin or lifestyle is “acceptable” to them and their religious belief. Only the individual has that right.

For example, I believe that homosexuality is sinful behavior and I oppose the concept of “same-sex marriage”, however, I do not personally have any problem with: attending a same-sex wedding, participating in their wedding celebrations, purchasing them a wedding gift, making them a wedding cake, personally providing them with any other wedding services, having a homosexual couple as my neighbors, inviting them to my home or church, having my children play with their children, etc.

It is up to me where I draw the line though. Not you.

If a baker feels that making a wedding cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding violates his/her religious convictions, yet you would force them to make that cake anyway or go out of business – you are telling them how to practice their religion.

Laws have been wrong in the past. They can be wrong now. I believe they are wrong and that they deny business owners the right to freedom of religion. I don’t consider a private business owner to be a “public servant” and they should have the freedom to succeed or fail.

It was just an example of not telling someone what to believe but then telling them how they can act on their beliefs.

You claiming that they must do business with everyone kind of negates this point.

We are not talking about a simple case of, “I don’t like you so I won’t serve you.”

The bakers I have been referring to were willing to do business. They were willing to offer any baked goods for any occasion, even for their wedding. They just did not want to make the wedding cake because they did not want to appear to be supporting a practice they had religious convictions against.

You can try to boil it down to them “hating gays”, but I don’t see any evidence of that.

They wanted to do business, but they had reservations about offering one particular product for a practice they had religious convictions against.

I disagree.

Discrimination is not inherently hostile or necessarily based on hatred.

I understand that not every “call to action” is protected speech.

Expressing your opinion that homosexuality is sinful or refusing to participate in a practice you believe is sinful is not a “call to action.”

Again, these are “calls to action” that would infringe on the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of an individual(s).

Being willing to offer any baked goods for any occasion except the wedding cake for a homosexual wedding does not infringe upon anyone’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Laws have been wrong before. There once was a time when the courts consistently ruled against civil rights being extended to just anyone.

I could tell everyone who complains about the Electoral College that it is the system that the Founding Fathers put in place and they need to accept it, but that would still not invalidate their arguments or appease them to any degree.

I made the distinction here because of what I said to the “we” you used in your last comment.

I just wanted to be consistent.

I never said otherwise. To those few it was extremely lucrative.

Wasn’t it only like 1.4% of the American population ever having slaves? I don’t know where I got the number from.

Anyways, very few Americans had slaves.

I agree. It was wrong and not at all comparable to not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding.

That does not make it the actual reason though.

People can say whatever they want to get whatever they want. That does not make what they say the actual reason they want something.

People can say that they deserve a pay out because of “emotional damages” they have suffered, but all they really wanted was to make a statement and get free money.

Yes, the Lord permitted slavery to take place within ancient Israel. And in many instances it benefited Israel and their enemies, but that is not the same as saying that the Lord wanted the Israelites or anyone else to have slaves.

These are not cases of “We don’t serve your kind here.” They would have served them in any way that did not violate their religious beliefs.

Are you honestly claiming that a baker not wanting to bake a cake for a homosexual couple’s wedding is denying that couple the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Really? Really? Have we diluted what these rights are so much?

No, they were forced to pay damages which forced them out of business.

Their religious beliefs are the focus.

Do you believe a person should be forced to go to war, even though committing violence or assisting in the issuance of violence goes against their religious beliefs?

That person should be forced to go to war?

Entering into a contract is not simply them “being themselves.”

For those who believe that marriage is a divine institution that was intended to be between a man and a woman only, it can be very offensive when homosexuals choose to enter into that contract and then choose to go to that particular believer and demand that he/she participate in what they consider to be an offensive practice.

Again, you can try to make this an, “I don’t like homosexuals” scenario, but I don’t believe the facts support that claim.

These bakers did not refuse to bake the cake because the customers were homosexual, but because they chose to participate in a practice that the baker had religious convictions against.

You believe that you have the right to force someone to participate in a practice that violates their freedom of religion?

That was never the issue here.

It was about “same-sex marriage” and not wanting to bake a wedding cake. That’s it.

The baker was willing to offer any other baked goods, just not a wedding cake.

If a baker refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual couple, that couple is slightly inconvenienced, because they would need to go to another baker.

The Supreme Court does not necessarily speak for the “collective society.”

Their decisions can be challenged. And will be.

In reading all of this, I guess I'm curious as to why a "homosexual" cake is any different than any other cake a baker may bake. A cake is a cake ... flour, eggs, sugar, butter ... what's the difference?

 

[Acim]

Other than self gratification of humanities most dangerous appetite I have no idea what the benefits of Homosexual behavior could be. It's cost is very easily to establish, I have left it up to the behavior's defenders to try and come up with a positive that even remotely balances out the unimaginable cost. That's your job to post not mine.

Why is it my job? You brought up the negative, and it's my job to bring up the positive? For both populations?

Nope, heterosexuality at the very least has perpetuated the human species. That is the greatest benefit possible, and one which homosexuality cannot possibly have in it's corner.

But bisexuality does. So, there's that. In which case, someone would be plausibly be engaging in homosexual and heterosexual acts, and perpetuating the species, as if that is an inherently good thing. I honestly think you cannot name another possible benefit for heterosexual acts without it also applying to homosexual acts.

No, homosexuals creating 60% of al new aids cases is not a subjective opinion, it is an objective fact, and just one among hundreds.

I disagree that it an objective fact. It's based on stats which are literally made up, based on educated guessing. So, informed opinion, perhaps but I wouldn't go with objective fact.

What? I made a secular argument, and I stated emphatically that my theological views have no relevance to my simplistic two sentence argument. Your response is to respond with some very confusing statements concerning your opinion about the roll of fail in a social construct? I do not get it. Also, celibacy has to do with the solution not the problem. Which I again said is not what I want to discuss.

And I presented an argument that pokes a glaring hole into your secular/spiritual position.

The majority of what you said was confusing, unrelated, or simply vacuous.

...is how I feel about your secular BS.