The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[dgirl1986]

I try very hard not to think of it but every orientation has risks that increase suffering without sufficient justification. The one you mentioned just happens to be the most obvious and makes a more emphatic point.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think about it at all.

I consider heterosexual sex to be just as risky. When you come down to it...heterosexuals and homosexual men have high risk of STDs and therefore should take steps to ensure they practice safe sex. It is not so common among homosexual women, I would assume that is because we do not have a wang involved.

 

[dgirl1986]

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

It is not on trial and has not been on trial for some time. People continue to reject it when there is no place to reject it anymore.

 

[dgirl1986]

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

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

I reckon they don't complain as loudly about bisexuality or female homosexuality is because porn lol.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am not really a scholar on the dynamics and history of homosexual debate. I have no way to know why others may argue one way or another.

Keep this in mind. All sex has dangers inherent to it. The difference is that homosexuality has an increased risk over heterosexuality and it lacks any compensating gain to off set the cost. So I am not denying that heterosexuality is free of risk, nor that homosexuality has the same risk in every facet of it. Just as a general behavior homosexuality is not justifiable.

Except that lesbians are on average far less likely to contract STI's than their heterosexual counterparts. And they're also not going to have accidental pregnancies like their heterosexual counterparts. But of course that just may have accidentally slipped your mind, good sir/madam?
I have no doubt you are not aware of the nuances of a homosexual debate, I also lack that insight. But I find it telling that not only are bisexuals entirely left off the equation, but that in order to suggest that homosexuality is "inherently" more dangerous than heterosexuality, one must also conveniently neglect to mention the stats pertaining to Lesbian sex. I mean lesbians are still gay after all.

As to AIDS, err, heterosexual people get more frequently. And those supposed stats that suggest gay men are more "prone to it" is more than likely a combination of societal influence, lack of education, overall fear of being ostracized when seeking help, embarrassment, the promiscuity culture found in today's youth, youth being filled with hubris and complacency (as often happens with teens just in general) and other such potential causal factors. Rather than it all being the gay mens fault, so to speak. In other words, your representation of stats looks incomplete, superficial and oversimplified. I mean no offense or anything, I certainly am not a Statistician. But is there more to those stats? I'd be willing to wager that there are.

 

[Storm]

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

That's actually the bulk of the difference between heterosexism/ supremacy and homophobia, though the distinction is rarely drawn outside of queer activist circles, since there's a huge overlap.

Homophobia is technically the fear of being perceived as other than straight, often correctly. To protect themselves from those who would abuse them, they lead the charge on abusing the kindred spirits who would gladly take them in.

It's quite tragic, really. All the same, I can only pity them, as their choice of defense mechanism leaves me unable to muster real sympathy.

 

[1robin]

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

1. Talk about skewing data. Picking only what those in a homosexual thread as your data set is absurdly biased.
2. The majority of people and societies throughout history by a wide margin have not been accepting of homosexuality.
3. Non of this matters. Whether something is justifiable or not is not a matter of popular opinion. If it was I would have been using the fact that most people through out history have not been accepting of homosexuality but it is not so I have not. Doing so is actually a fallacy.

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.

Of course I can understand it. You guys only have about 3 defenses and I have heard them stated in a thousand different forms. I am quite well aware by now of what you and others, have said or will say. Neither of these changes anything as I have said till I am blue in the face.

1. Less risk is no less justifiable when no justification exists to counter it.
2. Invitro is not available to everyone or even most. It is expensive and not even done in many places at all.
3. Attacking heterosexuality is the worst possible defense imaginable for homosexuality. Your client is not innocent even if you found something else that was guilty.

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.

Anything can be argued and in the defense of homosexuality apparently anything no mater how horrific will be argued. Only the potential creation of life is a compensation the loss of it. You can call selfish gratification by any 100 dollar terms you want it will not change anything. Many people stop having sex to find the fullness of life, many people do not engage in it because of moral concerns outside of marriage, many do not practice it because it is part of a bigger problem of promiscuity and may cause themselves or others harm, and many do so without any loss of fulfillment. Anyone who wishes to rationalize an unjustifiable behavior dresses it up to appear to be far more noble than it is. When I was watching my Mother slowly die of cancer I abused drugs to help me escape from the depression. I however used all kinds of flowery and flattering explanations to justify my doing so. Hitler literally thought he was making mankind stronger by killing the weak. Human beings can cloak the most disgusting of practices in the most perfumed and noble language there is but they remain a garbage dump. My periods of celibacy led to gains in other areas and a reduction in the complications that more that compensated for the loss of gratifying physical lust in dangerous ways.

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.

Oh lord, the victim card. No the numbers are not biased they are from the CDC and insurance companies who go bankrupt if they get them wrong. Give me a break. There are certain tactics that after decades of debate I see accompany failed arguments for positions who's only justification is the emotional commitment and preference of it's holder. You exhibit just about every single one.

I am not homophobic so none of that is relevant to me. I am however compassionate for the millions dying of aids, those (like me) who must pay the medical bills, those who suffer the effects without participating in the behavior, the adopted children who homosexual parents split up far earlier on average than heterosexual parents, those in Africa dying from Std's faster than they can be buried, the empires that descended into chaos after homosexuality devastated the ruling classes, etc......Where is your compassion for them? Why are you defending the cause and neglecting the real victims?

 

[1robin]

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.

I guess that is a logical question given that amount of debate. When I was born again I knew for a fact God existed because I hade met (spiritually his son), but I had little biblical knowledge and had constant questions about specific doctrines and conflicts. I set out to find answers. Over time I found there was a huge number of extremely competent scholarship about the bible. Some of the greatest minds in every relevant subject over the course of 2000 years had tackled every possible question I ever had. I became obsessed with the professional debate format. I prefer it to preaching or any one sided conversation. I like two very competent people spending hours resolving a single issue from either side. After many years of watching, reading, and listening to these brilliant men exhaustively debate issues I had absorbed quite a bit myself from them and a little I had created of my own. I eventually decided to see if I could hold my own in a debate. Years ago I started to debate on sites like this. I almost always debate theological topics and relevant subjects like science, history, and philosophy, etc... One day about a year ago I saw a homosexual thread and decided to see what was being said. I did not think I could debate the subject as I had never been interested and the issue has such emotionally committed defenders that I was sure they would be able to counter any claim I made. To my surprise I hit upon a secular line of reasoning that I thought made homosexual sexual activity unjustifiable. So I gave my two primary points and was overwhelmed with emotionally charged but ineffective responses. As you can see in this thread it is usually me against a half dozen or more defenders of the behavior. You guys are also so emotionally committed and your case IMO so weak that you will spend a lot of time and effort trying to make something out of nothing. It is like a perfect storm of futility. Two immovable points against basically three types of defenses which are stated in a thousand different ways from those so committed that giving up and agreeing with me is just not an option. Plus the first thread I was in I debated the most prolific poster I have ever seen. They were almost robotic. Posting dozens of full size posts every single day. So whenever I present my two primary arguments I get an avalanche of responses and no hope of resolution, just undying efforts to salvage what can't be. One last word on why am willing to spend so much time debating:

1. I work in a DOD lab and my job requires me to make things designed to work in a certain way actually work. They almost always fail and many times are sent back for redesign so that leaves me with free time to waste on something else. Theological debate was the most noble way I could think of to waste that time.
2. I am required by my faith to always be ready to defend it.
3. I hope I occasionally can supply an answer to a new Christian's questions the way great scholars did for me when I was a new Christian and still are doing.
4. I hope to occasionally learn something along the way.

 

[1robin]

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

I think you meant amount, instead of rate. The 4% of the US that is gay has created 60% of the aids cases. You have the wrong target.

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.

I regard the application of the victim card an admission of defeat. Christians retained a relationship with their God despite being hunter to extermination by the most powerful empire on earth. It is not anyone's fault but their own they can't stay together and claiming it is damages credibility. That is not to say that exceptions do not exist where outside pressure does not take a toll but that would be true of any relationship. There is always an excuse to be found to fail to honor commitments if one is desired.

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

I am against meth use as well but this is not a meth thread. So far you have played the victim card and attempted to defend homosexuality buy attacking drug abuse. Both are signs that your argument has failed.

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.

I am just not going to buy that the general problems that gays have a other peoples fault. I have no problem with granting that it has been the cause in individual cases but the data sets are so large that exceptions would have minimal impact. BTW in many cases vilification increases solidarity. For example persecution of the Jews led them to group up and stick together, persecuting Christians did the same. Again I am sure it can have the opposite effect but that would be the exception not the rule.

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

I have no idea what your talking about.

1. White is a color not a choice.
2. Black is a color not a choice.
3. Even if you wished to claim that orientation is determined be genetics (something no one actually knows and many say is not the case) acting on that orientation in a sexual way is still a choice. I am not for promiscuity even in heterosexuals where he orientation is not a choice. Acting on it is and is not justifiable.

Once again you have tried to defend homosexuality by attacking something else. This whole post appears to be an admission that no real defense is possible.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. Talk about skewing data. Picking only what those in a homosexual thread as your data set is absurdly biased.

Do you honestly believe anyone here is using just an online thread as a data set?

2. The majority of people and societies throughout history by a wide margin have not been accepting of homosexuality.

Actually, the concept of homosexuality is still fairly new. Until sometime I think about the mid-to-late 1800's there was no term for it, there was no concept of it, and it was nothing more than just having sex with another man, or another woman. And actually many cultures, such as Greek, Roman, Native American, Euro-Pagan, and many others have been accepting of people having same-sex sex. To say most people throughout history and all cultures is very blatantly wrong, and it's also to assume they understood a concept that they didn't even have within their culture.

 

[1robin]

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.

This is a homosexuality thread and no the overwhelming majority are not guilty of that.

I never said that any stat I gave was exclusive to homosexuality. I must have said several dozen times in justly this thread that they occur at greater rates in homosexuality plus homosexuality does not have the gains to compensate for the costs. Again my argument was two simplistic sentences long and I must have had to correct the distortion of them dozens of times and it is still occurring. In fact I think I am going to stop explaining why my claims were misunderstood and simply paste my two primary point again. So when you see them over and over it is because you and others keep claiming things my two points do not say.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

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.

Yes I am against promiscuity in general and have said so a half dozen times but this is not a promiscuity thread. Homosexuality adds additional suffering beyond what promiscuity causes alone and that is the thread we are in.

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.

I do not have to but I found that the points I intended to found my argument on were secular and since any theological issues would not be persuasive to anyone who denies the entire subject a priori I have only rarely mentioned them. I have no unique animosity towards gay people (I like every one I have ever met)
but even if I did my argument is independent of my personal views.

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

Then why can't you dent things that flimsy. When I originally came up with those two points months ago I fully expected to be overcome with sound counter explanations that I had no defense for because homosexuality is not what I watch and read so much about. I was very surprised to see that my points can not even be grazed and the tactics used in response are those well known in the legal profession to be signs of a failed argument.

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.

What I find disgusting is trying to justify the mountain of suffering and death (that even those that do not practice the behavior must endure) with the mole hill of theoretical gains you think exist.

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.

Again the 4% of us that are gay have created 60% of the new aids cases so your willingness to neglect the 60% of those with aids for the benefit of not inconveniencing the 4% of us that are gay seems the diametric opposite of compassion.

Not that I think you are general uncompassionate, just that your emotional preferences are distorting what you think is compassion in this case.

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?

Less than the homosexual divorce rate. Again

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

Every point you make is either a distortion of one or both of those simplistic points or neglects one al together.

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

Well cancer is not a choice in most cases, wrecks are not choices, strokes are not a choice, etc..... You can only change what occurs because of behavior and only what is unjustified behavior should be changed. The reason I am focused on homosexuality is because THIS IS A HOMOSEXUAL THREAD and because it is an unjustifiable behavior that costs billions.

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

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

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.

THIS IS A HOMOSEXUAL THREAD
1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

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.?

What? You certainly should suggest rape is unjustifiable. Polish is merely incidental to rape, homosexuality is not incidental to increased rates of all those problems I have mentioned over and over.

 

[1robin]

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.

That is true. But not everything called love is love, and not all love justifies what is done in it's name. Love is a weird thing. I can love tennis shoes, love hurting others, love drugs, love money, etc.... Love does not make everything ok and love is not always good. An addict literally has a love affair with his habit. When stopping an addiction that has gone on a long time you will actually feel separation anxiety similar to losing a loved one. Yelling love does not fix anything but I agree will use it (like we use God) in the attempt to rationalize anything.

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

Not only is that completely pathetic, I do not believe it is even true. I don't even think you believe it. It is love that wants 4% of us that are gay to stop creating 60% of new aids cases. It would not be love to defend the 4%'s right to produce 60% of new aids cases. In fact I am not going to dignify that statement with additional responses. Give me a break.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think about it at all.

Why?

I consider heterosexual sex to be just as risky. When you come down to it...heterosexuals and homosexual men have high risk of STDs and therefore should take steps to ensure they practice safe sex. It is not so common among homosexual women, I would assume that is because we do not have a wang involved.

Again you guys never ever seem to keep just two simple sentences in mind that are my primary argument. After having corrected this dozens of times I have grown to weary with it to do so any further so I will from now on simply paste in those two primary sentences where you have either distorted one or both or completely neglected one. If you actually leave in tact both statements and include both they counter almost every argument made in eh defense of homosexuality.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

 

[1robin]

It is not on trial and has not been on trial for some time. People continue to reject it when there is no place to reject it anymore.

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

You have not proven it increases suffering.
Actually, a tremendous advantage is a small part of the population will not reproduce. It's not much, but it's a start.

 

[1robin]

Except that lesbians are on average far less likely to contract STI's than their heterosexual counterparts. And they're also not going to have accidental pregnancies like their heterosexual counterparts. But of course that just may have accidentally slipped your mind, good sir/madam? I have no doubt you are not aware of the nuances of a homosexual debate, I also lack that insight. But I find it telling that not only are bisexuals entirely left off the equation, but that in order to suggest that homosexuality is "inherently" more dangerous than heterosexuality, one must also conveniently neglect to mention the stats pertaining to Lesbian sex. I mean lesbians are still gay after all.

My stats included Lesbians. It is impractical for me to debate every single subcategory that a defender of homosexuality can come up with. I have seen at least 20 subcategories so far. I am not debating any particular version, any particular sexual act, nor even the orientation it's self. I am debating a sexual behavior in general. Lesbians are not left out of the equation, they are in fact included in it and they much higher risks in a quite a few categories I have mentioned than heterosexuals and still have the same lack of justification for them that gay men do. Anyway since even after correcting others dozens of times my initial two claims are either forgotten or distorted I have resolved for the sake of time to simply repost them instead of explaining how they were forgotten or distorted over and over. If carefully remembered and understood my claims answer about 90% of the contentions I see in this thread. If I remember correctly you have not really done this very much and you probably did not see my initial post with my two primary claims so do not think I am frustrated with you here. Regardless I will give those two claims again and if you carefully consider them you would find they answer almost all your responses and even allow for these subcategory type of claims.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

As to AIDS, err, heterosexual people get more frequently. And those supposed stats that suggest gay men are more "prone to it" is more than likely a combination of societal influence, lack of education, overall fear of being ostracized when seeking help, embarrassment, the promiscuity culture found in today's youth, youth being filled with hubris and complacency (as often happens with teens just in general) and other such potential causal factors. Rather than it all being the gay mens fault, so to speak. In other words, your representation of stats looks incomplete, superficial and oversimplified. I mean no offense or anything, I certainly am not a Statistician. But is there more to those stats? I'd be willing to wager that there are.

The 4% of us that are gay account for 60% of the new aids cases in the US. As I have mentioned I have posted the mountain of stats that show the homosexuality causes way more suffering, death, and costs than heterosexuality per person. However if your point was that in some categories heterosexuals produce more total suffering then point no. 2 above would eliminate that as a defense and also well over 90% of us are heterosexuals so of course the total cost would be higher but the rate lower and heterosexuality has justifications for the level of risk.

Now, I just do not buy blaming a thing so closely related to homosexual statistics are really being caused by other things. If you have taken in statistics classes you know that stats are tricky things but in this case they trend so closely with orientation that orientation is inexorably linked with the effects. The only argument left would be to suggest that homosexuality is not causal but only incidental but I think that so obviously flawed as to not even warrant an evaluation. I also view the attempt to excuse on thing by blaming another as the sign of a weak defense. If a lawyer says his client who is convicted of larceny should be pardoned because some guy in China is guilty of murder I would say that he must have ran out of any actual defense and is only trying to distract.

 

[1robin]

Do you honestly believe anyone here is using just an online thread as a data set?

Yes that is exactly what the person did. Here is their exact words.

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

My points were labeled skewed based on the claim that most in this thread disagreed with them. That is like saying that I am extreme because most people in the gay parade disagree with me.

Actually, the concept of homosexuality is still fairly new. Until sometime I think about the mid-to-late 1800's there was no term for it, there was no concept of it, and it was nothing more than just having sex with another man, or another woman. And actually many cultures, such as Greek, Roman, Native American, Euro-Pagan, and many others have been accepting of people having same-sex sex. To say most people throughout history and all cultures is very blatantly wrong, and it's also to assume they understood a concept that they didn't even have within their culture.

I am confused by what you mean. Homosexuality has been around since the early OT time frame. It is well written on by the Romans, the Greeks, etc....Maybe you meant the term of the genetic studies or something but I have no idea why because neither are relevant to my claims. After re-reading maybe you meant the idea of stigmatizing the behavior is modern. That one is not true either but does appear to be what you meant. The OT judges homosexuality quite harshly. It actually places it above other immoral actions. It considers sexual immorality as kind of an exclusive category. You can find it condemned by the Greek's and the Roman's as well. Of course just like today other sin those societies (usually the elite) supported it or at least tolerated it but it tore entire empires apart and was never accepted in general. The closest you might could get to that was in the military organization of either the Spartan's or the unit of Athens's called the sacred band but in general society it was not acceptable. I am a native American and I have never heard anything they ever taught one way or another on the subject. I can't imagine it was ever generally accepted but am not sure. Saying that in general history has condemned homosexuality is perfectly correct. Even homosexuals claim that. I constantly hear even professional scholars suggest we have progressed or evolved morally so that no longer are backwards teachings like homosexuality being immoral are accepted. In fact as you can find in Taylors cycles of civilizations the only place you normally hear of it being openly embraced is in decadent societies that as often as not soon after fell apart. The general template is something like this.

1. Desperation leads to rebellion followed by moral excellence or progress.
(in some societies this comes with a stage of theological progress0
2. Followed by economic progress.
3. Followed by military excellence.
4. Followed by decadence.
5. Followed by complacency.
6. Followed by immorality.
7. Followed by decline.
8. Followed by either decline or destruction.
9. This usually leads to the cycle beginning again at phase 1.

Of course there are exceptions and some steps get reversed at times but this is a good general template for how societies develop.

 

[Midnight Rain]

1. Talk about skewing data. Picking only what those in a homosexual thread as your data set is absurdly biased.
2. The majority of people and societies throughout history by a wide margin have not been accepting of homosexuality.
3. Non of this matters. Whether something is justifiable or not is not a matter of popular opinion. If it was I would have been using the fact that most people through out history have not been accepting of homosexuality but it is not so I have not. Doing so is actually a fallacy.

So you have no objective way to determine this making your point invalid. Good to hear.

Of course I can understand it. You guys only have about 3 defenses and I have heard them stated in a thousand different forms. I am quite well aware by now of what you and others, have said or will say. Neither of these changes anything as I have said till I am blue in the face.

1. Less risk is no less justifiable when no justification exists to counter it.
2. Invitro is not available to everyone or even most. It is expensive and not even done in many places at all.
3. Attacking heterosexuality is the worst possible defense imaginable for homosexuality. Your client is not innocent even if you found something else that was guilty.

Actually we only have one argument.
1) Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. That is it. End all.

Oh lord, the victim card. No the numbers are not biased they are from the CDC and insurance companies who go bankrupt if they get them wrong. Give me a break. There are certain tactics that after decades of debate I see accompany failed arguments for positions who's only justification is the emotional commitment and preference of it's holder. You exhibit just about every single one.

I am not homophobic so none of that is relevant to me. I am however compassionate for the millions dying of aids, those (like me) who must pay the medical bills, those who suffer the effects without participating in the behavior, the adopted children who homosexual parents split up far earlier on average than heterosexual parents, those in Africa dying from Std's faster than they can be buried, the empires that descended into chaos after homosexuality devastated the ruling classes, etc......Where is your compassion for them? Why are you defending the cause and neglecting the real victims?

If its the truth then its the truth. Find me the statistics on homosexuals in good homes that were given proper sexual education and accepted by both their family and their community. Or lets look at the statistics of homosexuals and STD rates in countries that are not as bigoted.

If you want to ignore the real problem and continue forcing your dogmatic opinion on others under the guise of secularism then fine. But just know its a load of crap and no one has been convined by it. Your entire argument has been uprooted, decimated and destroyed and yet you cling to it as if we haven't. You obviously are not interested in an honest debate and I don't care to continue it if all you will do is plug your ears and repeat yourself.

Now I know what your thinking, "no one has disproved anything"
Here it is laid out.

1) There is no inherent damage to homosexuality. The idea that someone can take strait statistical data without including factors such as homophobia, lack of education, lack of healthcare, self hatred caused by homophobia, public shame, desperation, ect is simply ignorant. Its along the same lines of saying that all individuals in low class neighborhoods are dumber than those in high class neighborhoods because they went to a far worse school and had far less opportunities so obviously their "average" will be far less but it doesn't make them innately less in any way.

2) There is risk in everything we do. People will have sex. Sexual needs are classified as "needs" for a reason. It is proven that it is both unhealthy and harmful to abstain from sexual activity. Repressed sexuality (which rounds back to #1) can cause self destructive patterns and tendencies.

3) You are not judge and jury of what is "worth it". You don't get to tel anyone that there is no reward to offset the cost. Your biased data and biased premises are irrelevant to the actual argument.

 

[1robin]

So you have no objective way to determine this making your point invalid. Good to hear.

Of course I don't but neither do you have any objective or sound subjective reason to accept homosexuality. I was making a strictly secular argument and without God no objective moral exists at all. Without God not one single moral thing is actually right, wrong, good, evil, or just, and human rights are an illusion. Without God only a cost benefit analysis can be done and homosexuality using the same criteria used for most systems of secular law is so far beyond the point where it is justifiable that it requires little argumentation. I purposefully tied the theological half of reality behind my back and like so many other things actual morality goes with him. That is why so many who prefer to be immoral feel compelled to deny God. As Dostoevsky said "without God all things are permissible". Without God everything is a matter of opinion and even if there are 6 billion different opinions you lack any objective criteria so determine who is objectively correct. Without God everything is in the shadow land and the immoral prefer the dark.

Actually we only have one argument.
1) Everyone should be treated with respect and dignity. That is it. End all.

It is not even the start because even you do not live by this nor should you. Respect is earned not demanded. I should not respect serial killers and child molesters. It is interesting how people guilty of a thing constantly accuse others of doing it. Thieves think everyone is stealing from them, the intolerant constantly demand tolerance, the racist constant accuse others of racism, etc......

If its the truth then its the truth. Find me the statistics on homosexuals in good homes that were given proper sexual education and accepted by both their family and their community. Or lets look at the statistics of homosexuals and STD rates in countries that are not as bigoted.

No, my argument is about a behavior in general not about some hypothetical sterilized micro category. The 4% of gays who created 60% of new aids cases did not do so because it was someone else fault. Give me a break.

If you want to ignore the real problem and continue forcing your dogmatic opinion on others under the guise of secularism then fine. But just know its a load of crap and no one has been convined by it. Your entire argument has been uprooted, decimated and destroyed and yet you cling to it as if we haven't. You obviously are not interested in an honest debate and I don't care to continue it if all you will do is plug your ears and repeat yourself.

Demanding equal respect for people regardless of whether it is earned or merited is dogmatic. Calling a thing that kills millions and costs billions wrong is not. Trying to justify what can't be because of preference and emotion is dogmatic. Posting the actual stats and facts is not. Defending the cause at the expense of the victims by reversing their true identities is dogmatic.

Now I know what your thinking, "no one has disproved anything"
Here it is laid out.

1) There is no inherent damage to homosexuality. The idea that someone can take strait statistical data without including factors such as homophobia, lack of education, lack of healthcare, self hatred caused by homophobia, public shame, desperation, ect is simply ignorant. Its along the same lines of saying that all individuals in low class neighborhoods are dumber than those in high class neighborhoods because they went to a far worse school and had far less opportunities so obviously their "average" will be far less but it doesn't make them innately less in any way.

Blaming the STD's, sexual violence, divorce rates, rates of adultery, the length of marriage, and the physical damage one gay causes another on someone else is so pathetic that I am no longer going to respond to the claim.

2) There is risk in everything we do. People will have sex. Sexual needs are classified as "needs" for a reason. It is proven that it is both unhealthy and harmful to abstain from sexual activity. Repressed sexuality (which rounds back to #1) can cause self destructive patterns and tendencies.

As I said when my two simplistic points contradict what you say I am simply going to copy them again and no longer explain how you have distorted of dismissed one or the other.

1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in many categories.
2. It contains no gains that can compensate or justify those costs.

3) You are not judge and jury of what is "worth it". You don't get to tel anyone that there is no reward to offset the cost. Your biased data and biased premises are irrelevant to the actual argument.

There is no generalized standard in history that would justify this. Those that do justify it ignore the standards of human history, claim it is someone else's fault, claim everyone who disagrees is biased, distort history, deny the data, try and subcategorize things until debate is impractical, claim the same standards I can't use to condemn an action that causes much higher rates of suffering can be used to justify it, and reverse who is the cause and victim.

 

[Drolefille]

Did we reach the "Rome was destroyed by the gays" stage of things already? Only 11 pages in?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

After re-reading maybe you meant the idea of stigmatizing the behavior is modern.

I am saying they literally did not have a concept or notion of homosexuality. It was nothing more than a man having sex with a man, or a woman having sex with a woman. There was no heterosexual/homosexual divide. Sex was sex.

You can find it condemned by the Greek's and the Roman's as well.

Yup, those man and boy loving Greeks sure condemned the hell out of it.

I am a native American and I have never heard anything they ever taught one way or another on the subject.

Funny. I've been told by several Natives they didn't care. Not only that, Two-Spirits held a very high position in throughout the Native tribes, and it was very often considered good luck to be married to one. Now, to most people this would imply same-sex sex, but Two-Spirits were not considered male or female, but one who was both. This is why the fact that homosexuality is a new concept is so relevant in today's discussions, because we have them, but to use it to discuss past cultures is to project your own cultural expectations and understandings onto that culture. We all do it, but this one is very easy to avoid doing.