The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[1robin]

I'm puzzled. How do get from a particular behaviour being ( arguably ) more risky to it being unjustifiable?

My statement was grammatically incorrect but that does not seem to be what you are puzzled about.

I get that the exact same way you and every human in history has. Cost versus gain. Since homosexuality causes massive suffering and costs and is so far beyond and break even justification I don't understand what your rejecting here. I don't set my house on fire if I am cold because the risk is too great versus the reward. You probably don't surf Tsunamis or do other very risky things merely for a little exhilaration because you think it unjustifiable. I really don't see any problem here. Especially since in the case of homosexuality much of the cost is paid by those who do not practice the behavior.

The roads are busy and it's riskier for me to cycle than to walk, but does that make cycling unjustifiable?

Many times it is and people refrain from doing it. However attacking something else (especially a contrived benign action without any data) is no defense of homosexuality. Yes bicycling and thousands of other actions are at times (or at all times) far too risky to justify. I really don't get it. Everyone including you constantly makes these cost/benefit decisions every day (the entire legal institution is based on them). The people who don't do this kind of thinking are called psychopaths and locked away.

Or is it that really you don't approve of homosexuality and are looking for reasons to justify your disapproval?

I am personally neutral on the orientation. I am so naïve about it in a personal sense that I have worked with what were obvious homosexuals for years without ever thinking about it. I have never met one personally I did not like. It is the huge destruction it causes that I hate. I could ask you why you are willing (and possibly would force if within your power) others to accept something that causes so much devastation in so many categories with so little justification. How many millions of lives and billions of dollars do others have to sacrifice on the alter of gratifying a desire for you to be compassionate towards them. However I have never met a gay person I did not like (I have seen many in some of those vain and disgusting parades that I probably wouldn't like however) and have no animosity towards even the orientation. I am to hate the sin but love the sinner and that is one of the few commands I find to be semi-effortless. I am certainly no moral angel myself and wish to be treated with kindness and so I do so to others.

 

[1robin]

So does heterosexuality. We should probably do away with that too.

You know the defense is done when they attack something else instead of defending what is on trial.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How many millions of lives and billions of dollars do others have to sacrifice on the alter of gratifying a desire for you to be compassionate towards them.

You're talking about homosexuals like they are drug addicts or something. Weird.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...defending what is on trial.

So in your mind homosexuality is "on trial"? That's even weirder. I think you need to spend more time with the New Testament and less with the Old. More time practising Christ's teachings and less time judging minorities.
As I've observed before, Christ didn't say "Love thy neighbour, but only if they're straight."
Loving people means accepting, not judging.

And frankly how is it even your business what people get up to in the bedroom? It's a private matter.

And just to clarify I'm not gay myself, but I have gay friends who have been victimised, so these days I have a zero-tolerance approach to this kind of discrimination.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

You're talking about homosexuals like they are drug addicts or something. Weird.

And that rhetoric hasn't changed for a long time here at RF, either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You know the defense is done when they attack something else instead of defending what is on trial.

Basically the exact same cost-benefit analysis you have come up with for homosexuals can be applied to heterosexuals.

That is what I'm trying to point out to you.

As someone else already pointed out, it seems your reasons for not accepting homosexuality are religious in nature and you're desperately looking for outside reasons to justify it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

And that rhetoric hasn't changed for a long time here at RF, either.

I find it very tiresome. It's like being back in the playground, so immature and ignorant. And spiteful.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Well I would say humans will endure risks that are completely unjustifiable to gratify all manner of desire. Humans have shown a remarkable capacity to risk everything to be selfish but in most cases little to act selflessly. We are a horribly flawed as moral agents. My argument is about what is justifiable not about what will people do even without justification.

However what do you base what is "justifiable"? Your base premise of what is good and bad and "worth it" is skewed from what I and most others in the thread would agree with. Surely you can understand that point

I have given mountains of stats of all kinds (STD's, unsafe sexual practices, promiscuity, physical damage, spousal abuse, adultery, broken families, length of marriage, etc....) and homosexuality is worse in all of them and in most it is significantly worse. I will not post all those stats again but will give you one as an example. In the US the 4% of us that are gay account for 60% of all new aids cases. How much more obvious and horrific can it get?

Almost all moral reasoning are value judgments. The gain versus the cost determines (at least in theory) what should be permitted. I have no idea what the specific ration should be but homosexuality causes so much harm and has so little justification that it's justifiability is not really even a question. It costs billions, increases suffering by the millions, causes death by the tens of thousands (or more), etc..... and it's only justification is to gratify physical lust in it's sexual component. BTW I am not debating against the orientation, just the sexual behavior. I am also do not justify promiscuity in heterosexuals either.

First off I have debated with you till I was blue in the face. Woman on woman is safer than woman on man. With invitro fertilization there is no justifiable reason to have woman on man sexual encounters. This is just going by your logic.

What you keep forgetting and have brushed off by calling it "selfishness" but the desire for fulfillment in one self. This can be argued to be of the greatest gain. It is not of any particular gain of society except that a society as a whole will be more fulfilled.

Though this has been addressed to you as well. The fact that the country is so homophobic is the root of why the numbers show homosexuality to be more risky. If we were not in a homophobic country then we can see improvement. We have already seen incredible improvements over the past decade because of an increase in acceptance. So I shall flip your argument on itself. I cam making the claim that homophobia is harmful and has no measurable benefits. Therefore I must be against homophobia logically.

 

[gsa]

I am personally neutral on the orientation. I am so naïve about it in a personal sense that I have worked with what were obvious homosexuals for years without ever thinking about it. I have never met one personally I did not like. It is the huge destruction it causes that I hate. I could ask you why you are willing (and possibly would force if within your power) others to accept something that causes so much devastation in so many categories with so little justification. How many millions of lives and billions of dollars do others have to sacrifice on the alter of gratifying a desire for you to be compassionate towards them. However I have never met a gay person I did not like (I have seen many in some of those vain and disgusting parades that I probably wouldn't like however) and have no animosity towards even the orientation. I am to hate the sin but love the sinner and that is one of the few commands I find to be semi-effortless. I am certainly no moral angel myself and wish to be treated with kindness and so I do so to others.

By way of comparison and contrast, I rarely meet self-professed evangelicals that I find worthy of basic respect, much less admiration. On the whole, I find them to be dishonest, petty, vapid and mean spirited. I cannot really say that evangelical Christianity outweighs its costs, which are considerable, even potentially posing an existential threat to the human race.

I strongly suspect that the reason evangelicals detest gay people so much (your distinction of sin/sinner is not one that I recognize as being possible in principle or in practice) is because it provides a clear illustration of how damaging and false their doctrines are, which explains why they must lie, distort, exaggerate and defame when it comes to the topic of gay men and lesbians. The only reason evangelicals today entertain the "orientation/behavior" distinction is because they realize that their reputation as anti-gay bigots is turning off an entire generation of potential and existing evangelicals; evangelical (and fundamentalist) Christianity is hemorrhaging, and even prominent evangelicals can see that if it continues to exist it will either be radically different or completely marginal. And a major reason for that is the choice of LGBT rights as the demarcation line in the culture wars.

 

[1robin]

Basically the exact same cost-benefit analysis you have come up with for homosexuals can be applied to heterosexuals.

So your client is innocent because some other guy is guilty? Not that the other guy is guilty. Both can be subjected to the cost benefit analysis and heterosexuality passes, homosexuality does not.

That is what I'm trying to point out to you.

I know what your trying to point out. Over hundreds of hours of homosexual debate I know exactly what the defense is. It comes from about 3 points (none of which work) but stated in about a thousand different ways.

As someone else already pointed out, it seems your reasons for not accepting homosexuality are religious in nature and you're desperately looking for outside reasons to justify it.

Then you and someone else are both totally wrong. My two primary points have no theological component what so ever. They are purely secular and if you read my response to that other person you will see that my personal views are not what you think nor are they too theologically oriented either. This just another tactic of those who try and rationalize the irrational. You hate terrorism then you must be Islam phobic, you hate the government bankrupting the country then you must hate old people and the poor, you hate the billions in medical expenses, broken families, spousal abuse, STD's, etc...... of a behavior that has no justification then you must be a bible thumping homophobe. It is one of the most disgusting tactics I have ever been exposed to. Not that that makes you a disgusting person or anything (before you claim I am skeptical thinker phobic or something). Where is your compassion for the millions with aids, the adopted children who's same sex parents divorce so much sooner that the average, the heterosexual who's medical expenses are far greater to cover the uninsured homosexuals, the victims of the high rates of spousal abuse in homosexual relationships. Why are you defending a guilty client and neglecting the victim's. Where is that same compassions for those who cannot be buried in Africa because aids is killing them to fast to keep up?

Anyway I have to go. Have a good one.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My gay friends tell me that homophobes are often worried about their own sexuality. Just a thought.

 

[sojourner]

I really don't see any problem here. Especially since in the case of homosexuality much of the cost is paid by those who do not practice the behavior.

Except, for thousands of gay people, the cost of denying who you are (resulting in emotional illness and even suicide) is riskier than the gain of giving voice and action to who you are. And much of that cost (time lost from work, lower productivity, and the fallout from suicide) is borne by those who don't "practice the behavior."

 

[Drolefille]

So... we're still only complaining about male homosexuality, right?

And bisexuality is... cool still? We're cool? Gee I sure hope so.

 

[sojourner]

I am personally neutral on the orientation. I am so naïve about it in a personal sense that I have worked with what were obvious homosexuals for years without ever thinking about it. I have never met one personally I did not like. It is the huge destruction it causes that I hate. I could ask you why you are willing (and possibly would force if within your power) others to accept something that causes so much devastation in so many categories with so little justification. How many millions of lives and billions of dollars do others have to sacrifice on the alter of gratifying a desire for you to be compassionate towards them. However I have never met a gay person I did not like (I have seen many in some of those vain and disgusting parades that I probably wouldn't like however) and have no animosity towards even the orientation. I am to hate the sin but love the sinner and that is one of the few commands I find to be semi-effortless. I am certainly no moral angel myself and wish to be treated with kindness and so I do so to others.

I bet some of your best friends are black, too. Do you notice them? "Not taking notice" or acknowledging differences is, in itself, a form of discrimination, because you assume that "they" are "just like me." It forces people into your mold for them, and denies them the dignity of who they are.

What's destructive about love? Is severe depression and suicide less "destructive?" Because that's the result of lack of compassion.

Are the "vain and disgusting" parades really any more "vain and disgusting" than MILK's march on Washington? Or the protests that landed him in Birmingham Jail? I bet the white supremacists in 1967 would think so.

 

[sojourner]

By way of comparison and contrast, I rarely meet self-professed evangelicals that I find worthy of basic respect, much less admiration. On the whole, I find them to be dishonest, petty, vapid and mean spirited. I cannot really say that evangelical Christianity outweighs its costs, which are considerable, even potentially posing an existential threat to the human race.

I strongly suspect that the reason evangelicals detest gay people so much (your distinction of sin/sinner is not one that I recognize as being possible in principle or in practice) is because it provides a clear illustration of how damaging and false their doctrines are, which explains why they must lie, distort, exaggerate and defame when it comes to the topic of gay men and lesbians. The only reason evangelicals today entertain the "orientation/behavior" distinction is because they realize that their reputation as anti-gay bigots is turning off an entire generation of potential and existing evangelicals; evangelical (and fundamentalist) Christianity is hemorrhaging, and even prominent evangelicals can see that if it continues to exist it will either be radically different or completely marginal. And a major reason for that is the choice of LGBT rights as the demarcation line in the culture wars.

"Existential threat to the human race." Made me chuckle. You may be spot on here.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So... we're still only complaining about male homosexuality, right?

And bisexuality is... cool still? We're cool? Gee I sure hope so.

Most of the time we're overlooked (nothing personal) except when somebody thinks we're hot and make up threesome fantasies.

Part of me likes being able to fly under the radar. And part of me would rather be able to point to atrocities committed against bisexuals and pansexuals that happen under the radar, too.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Over hundreds of hours of homosexual debate I know exactly what the defense is...

Hundreds of hours! I'm beginning to wonder what need you are trying to fullfill with this relentless homophobic evangelising. Seriously. The more you say the more you sound like a troll.

 

[sojourner]

Where is your compassion for the millions with aids,

AIDS is spreading among heterosexual contact at a greater rate than among homosexuals.

the adopted children who's same sex parents divorce so much sooner that the average

They generally split up at a greater rate, due to their relationships being marginalized and vilified. If they were "acceptable," the rates would go down.

the heterosexual who's medical expenses are far greater to cover the uninsured homosexuals

What about the homosexual's medical expenses being far greater to cover the uninsured meth addict who's on Medicaid and won't work?

the victims of the high rates of spousal abuse in homosexual relationships.

Again, spousal abuse can be at least partially due to the pressure of having to live as marginalized.
If LGBTQ people were treated as "normal but unique," much of the problem you mention here would diminish -- possibly vanish. It is the vilification of homosexuality that is largely the cause of these problems.

Or maybe we should simply tell all the blacks to just "straighten up and be white like normal people." Yeah! That'd work!

 

[SkepticThinker]

So your client is innocent because some other guy is guilty? Not that the other guy is guilty. Both can be subjected to the cost benefit analysis and heterosexuality passes, homosexuality does not.

We’re all guilty. The things you are talking about are human behaviors, and not at all exclusive to homosexuals. Heterosexual couples and homosexual couples can and do engage in all of them. Heterosexual couples get divorced, abuse and cheat on their spouses, spread STD’s, engage in promiscuous behavior, and everything else you mention in your cost-benefit analysis. But for some reason, gay people are picked on as the ones mainly responsible for all of these things; they’re responsible for the downfall of empires and the moral breakdown of society, in your eyes. YOU say heterosexuality passes the test because you refuse to recognize any positive benefits that may result from allowing gay people to be as open, happy, fulfilled and loved as anyone else is allowed to be. But if you were comparing the two from a more objective viewpoint, without starting from the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, you’d most likely be singing a different tune. People from all sexual orientations engage in the behavior you dislike so much.

The problem you have is clearly with promiscuous and risky sexual behavior. But the thing is, such behaviors are not restricted to people who are gay. Not by a long shot.

Then you and someone else are both totally wrong. My two primary points have no theological component what so ever. They are purely secular and if you read my response to that other person you will see that my personal views are not what you think nor are they too theologically oriented either. This just another tactic of those who try and rationalize the irrational.

Ah, but you keep saying that in these discussion you have to ignore half of reality, with the implication being that you have to ignore the religious side of your beliefs about gay people.

You hate terrorism then you must be Islam phobic, you hate the government bankrupting the country then you must hate old people and the poor, you hate the billions in medical expenses, broken families, spousal abuse, STD's, etc...... of a behavior that has no justification then you must be a bible thumping homophobe.

None of those things. It’s because I feel your arguments are flimsy and weak.

It is one of the most disgusting tactics I have ever been exposed to. Not that that makes you a disgusting person or anything (before you claim I am skeptical thinker phobic or something).

What I find disgusting is the repeated assertion that there is absolutely no justification whatsoever in allowing people to follow their given sexual orientation, to be accepted members of society or to be treated equally as the human beings they are.

Where is your compassion for the millions with aids,

I have a ton of compassion for the millions with HIV/AIDS, the majority of whom are heterosexuals, not to mention all the children. I really don’t care what their sexual orientation is.

the adopted children who's same sex parents divorce so much sooner that the average,

The same way I feel about the children whose opposite sex parents divorced. What difference does it make what the parent’s sexual orientation is? I’m the product of two divorced heterosexuals. What’s the heterosexual divorce rate again?

the heterosexual who's medical expenses are far greater to cover the uninsured homosexuals,

The same way I feel about anyone who is covering the medical expenses of anyone else.
Why focus on the gay people?

the victims of the high rates of spousal abuse in homosexual relationships.

The same way I feel about the high rates of spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships.

Why are you defending a guilty client and neglecting the victim's. Where is that same compassions for those who cannot be buried in Africa because aids is killing them to fast to keep up?

Because like I said, all human beings are guilty of such things – not just one particular group of people that you feel like picking on. See above for where my compassion lies.

If I were raped by a Polish heterosexual person, should I assume all Polish heterosexuals are rapists? Should I crusade against Polish heterosexual people and post stats showing the high rate of rape in the Polish heterosexual community and condemn and demonize all Polish heterosexuals? Or would the wiser thing be too crusade against all rapists, regardless of sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, etc.?

Anyway I have to go. Have a good one.

You too.

 

[fantome profane]

Well I would say humans will endure risks that are completely unjustifiable to gratify all manner of desire. Humans have shown a remarkable capacity to risk everything to be selfish but in most cases little to act selflessly.

In my experience people will do just about anything for love. Love, so much more than just "desire" or "pleasure" or anything else has been known to inspire people to take unbelievable risks. Humans have also shown an remarkable capacity to risk everything, indeed to sacrifice everything for love. And humans have shown amazing tenancies to act selflessly.


(But I know, you are not at all interested in talking about or thinking about love, for you it is all about the butsects.)