The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[SomeRandom]

[QUOTE="1robin, post: 4070768, member: 36676"

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.[/QUOTE]

But if you are not taking into account other factors then isn't it just a case of Correlation, rather than outright causation?

 

[Drolefille]

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.

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

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.

With the Romans in particular it was about being the "active" or "passive" participant. The penetrator was the dominant and more masculine role. To be penetrated was the submissive or more feminine role and there were societal expectations about who a citizen could/should penetrate and in what orifice. (Women were not to be penetrated anally, an adolescent could be and an adult slave was supposed to be used orally IIRC) This was so ingrained that they believed that when two women had sex, one of them had to have an enlarged clitoris to penetrate the other woman. Like that's what the public believed. Not everyone followed these rules by any means just as there have always been people into any given taboo kink. So a man wasn't "gay" or "straight" (or BISEXUAL) he was either a penetrator or a penetratee.

Source: Holy Sh*t: A brief history of swearing.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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.

Your view is just too rooted in the Christian philosphy to actually make a secular argument. You still don't understand that you have to defend the premise in which you make the argument. People have given you the reasons why homosexuality should be accepted. I have laid them out several times to you. I have a VERY good subjective reason for accepting it.

Maybe its because the gods and goddesses do not dictate my morality but I at least understand that there can be good and bad in this world without god. If it ends up that both of us are wrong and there is no god or anything like that there is still sound arguments for accepting homosexuality.

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......

All people should be treated with dignity and respect from the get go. Do you walk around treating people like crap till they earn your respect? You won't get far if you do that. People can loose the initial respect and dignity that they should have by doing terrible things such as being a rapist, murderer, bigot ect. But everyone should be treated with a certain respect until they loose this. If you don't understand this then we might as well stop right now.

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.

Keep the gum in your ears then. Your argument is about an overgeneralized "behavior" CAUSED by homophobia. Its well documented and understood about the problems that homosexuals go through that skew their numbers. Its like saying "well I stole from you, killed your wife, got you fired but its your fault that you got angry with me."

Educate yourself. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202114957.htm

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.

I didn't say that everyone should have equal respect from everyone. That is impossible. But there is a baseline of respect you give all others that you do not give to homosexuals. That is literally called bigotry.

And when the "actual stats" that you use are not the whole story or even scratching the surface then it makes you dishonest.

But lets post some actual stats for funzies.

Research Study: Low IQ Correlates With Prejudice and Bigotry | The Bilerico Project

By this logic I should assume you to have a below average IQ with little reading comprehension and an innately dysfunctional critical thinking skills.

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.

Then I choose to ignore your claim that homosexuality is innately wrong when all you do is post statistics of victims of discrimination and abuse.

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.

1) homosexuality doesn't increase human suffering.
2) The gain is that it decreases human suffering of those involved. In fact it also decreases human suffering when those who hate let the hate go.

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.

The greatest amount of suffering would be the homosexuals in this bigoted country and at the hands of ignorant bigots who misunderstand their own religion. In fact I can now take this claim and use it with Christianity. Think of how many people suffer today because of Christianity? People got along fine without it before and my argument is that there is no sufficient gain to counterbalance Christianity's damages. How would you respond to that?

 

[1robin]

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.

That is completely wrong. They specified between the two. That is how we know the Spartan military units accepted it, that Macedonian rulers were killed because of it, that Alexander was despised for it, and that the sacred band was composed of homosexuals.

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

Greece's entire history is full of homosexuality and destruction and judgment because of it. It was not stigmatized in Greece as it is now but it certainly had it's critics. BTW how do you know who loved who if they did not distinguish? Your entire post is built on a premise the first part of it denies.

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.

1. There is no Indian position on anything. There are as many opinions as tribes.
2. These opinions varied widely because Indians did. From the peaceful agricultural types to the horrific horse cultures.
3. No Indian is any more Native that any white born here. That term is not understood.

I am a Cherokee and raised to know my heritage and I have never heard of two-spirits. And it has little to do with homosexuality. It had to do with a human having two spirits. A kind of physical designation and a spiritual orientation. It could be a masculine male, a feminine woman, a masculine woman, or a feminine male but this does not indicate sexuality but disposition. And it was a minority view. The reason you have no idea what the Indians accepted or condemned is because the Spanish destroyed their legal codices.

 

[Nietzsche]

I am a Cherokee and raised to know my heritage and I have never heard of two-spirits. And it has little to do with homosexuality. It had to do with a human having two spirits. A kind of physical designation and a spiritual orientation. It could be a masculine male, a feminine woman, a masculine woman, or a feminine male but this does not indicate sexuality but disposition. And it was a minority view. The reason you have no idea what the Indians accepted or condemned is because the Spanish destroyed their legal codices.

I'd just like to point out that it isn't surprising you've never heard of Two-Spirits. It's a Navajo and such belief, not Cherokee.

 

[1robin]

But if you are not taking into account other factors then isn't it just a case of Correlation, rather than outright causation?

No, it is causal. That is why the CDC is willing to post statements like that homosexuality is responsible for 60% of new aids case sin the US. The only time causal issues come it play are usually when the stats are not very lopsided or another cause also tracts the stats just as closely but that is not the case with homosexuality. The stats are absurdly lopsided for many issues and homosexuality tracks wit the data much better than any other factor. Insurance companies and the CDC do not have the luxury of being wrong. They go bankrupt if they are and or receive official reprimands. It also is the burden of anyone who challenges the data to prove his case.

 

[1robin]

Your view is just too rooted in the Christian philosphy to actually make a secular argument. You still don't understand that you have to defend the premise in which you make the argument. People have given you the reasons why homosexuality should be accepted. I have laid them out several times to you. I have a VERY good subjective reason for accepting it.

What" neither point I made requires God to be true so they are secular. If you want to claim two things that have no divine component are rooted in Christianity you can waste you time of you want. I have defended my two claims in detail. It is not that they are challenged and that I have a problem with the responses. It is that one or the other is usually not included or that on or both are distorted. I can't get anyone to reply to both at al much less in a meaningful way.

Maybe its because the gods and goddesses do not dictate my morality but I at least understand that there can be good and bad in this world without god. If it ends up that both of us are wrong and there is no god or anything like that there is still sound arguments for accepting homosexuality.

Not in any true sense. The only thing you can have without God are acts against or with opinions and preferences. Without God torturing a child is not actually wrong it is just socially unfashionable or not preferable to a certain group. Without God you may not like what Hitler did but you will never ever be able to show what he did was wrong. Without God the entire categories of actual right, actual wrong, actual evil, actual good, and actual justice no longer exist. You can waste your time trying dismiss this inconvenient fact but this has been well known to be true since at least Aristotle.

All people should be treated with dignity and respect from the get go. Do you walk around treating people like crap till they earn your respect? You won't get far if you do that. People can loose the initial respect and dignity that they should have by doing terrible things such as being a rapist, murderer, bigot ect. But everyone should be treated with a certain respect until they loose this. If you don't understand this then we might as well stop right now.

Forget for the moment the fact that is unjust and you do not even come close to doing that lets see if that can be grounded on anything.

If God does not exist then evolution is the only creative player in town and it has never made two equal things in the universes history. All of us are a little smarter or dumber than the others, a little more moral or immoral than others, a little more capable or incapable than others. If you want equality then you need God. Only with a transcendent and objective of equality does equality even potentially exist. That is why no one looks to atheism to justify equality but to God as Jefferson and Martin Luther King did and even Gandhi. If you deny God then equality is simply not an option.

I treat people a little better than they deserve. I treat them as entities made in God's image but that can do horrific things to each other. I have God and so have a basis to consider all life as having actual value. Your the one that has to invent and declare into existence value for life that it does not actually have. You do not act as you say, no one acts as you say, no one should act that way, justice demands no one act that way and you can't justify any aspect of attempting to act partially that way unless God exists.

Keep the gum in your ears then. Your argument is about an overgeneralized "behavior" CAUSED by homophobia. Its well documented and understood about the problems that homosexuals go through that skew their numbers. Its like saying "well I stole from you, killed your wife, got you fired but its your fault that you got angry with me."

Educate yourself. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110202114957.htm

Yeah I know, homosexual's produce 60% of new aids case sin the US but it is heterosexuality's fault, the ones who have compassion for that 60% are the actual immoral group, and all those inconvenient statistics are the result of homophobia. Give me a break.

I didn't say that everyone should have equal respect from everyone. That is impossible. But there is a baseline of respect you give all others that you do not give to homosexuals. That is literally called bigotry.

You have no basis on which to do so that is founded in a Godless reality. Only with God do humans have objective value, only with God does human life have sanctity, only with God is there an equal basis for men, only with God does human life have dignity, only with God do humans have rights,
You can try and smuggle in the thing of God (equality) but without him they have no rational basis.

And when the "actual stats" that you use are not the whole story or even scratching the surface then it makes you dishonest.

I have yet to see a single stat that changes the fact.

But lets post some actual stats for funzies.

Research Study: Low IQ Correlates With Prejudice and Bigotry | The Bilerico Project

How is that a defense of homosexuality or a response to a single relevant stat I have given? Where the rest of the story you keep saying is out there but never include? This is a thread about homosexuality.

By this logic I should assume you to have a below average IQ with little reading comprehension and an innately dysfunctional critical thinking skills.

Then I choose to ignore your claim that homosexuality is innately wrong when all you do is post statistics of victims of discrimination and abuse.

I really do not care about your personal commentaries.

1) homosexuality doesn't increase human suffering.

Yes it does and I m still the only one posting data that pertains to this. Why are you denying the reality the CDC affirms and insurance companies and health organizations around the world agree with? No one yells bigotry more often that a bigot, no one yells ignorance more than the ignorant. If reality is not common ground for an argument then no argument can take place.

2) The gain is that it decreases human suffering of those involved. In fact it also decreases human suffering when those who hate let the hate go.

This is so absurd and patently false that I no longer want to continue this discussion. You obviously deny reality and substitute a fantasy world for what is inconvenient. This is just plain nuts and I do not think reason can have any effect on anyone making claims this appalling.

 

[McBell]

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

You keep repeating this mantra as though it is yourself you are trying to convince.

 

[1robin]

I'd just like to point out that it isn't surprising you've never heard of Two-Spirits. It's a Navajo and such belief, not Cherokee.

It is surprising given that I was told it was an concept throughout Native tribes. Cherokee being one of the largest should at least be well versed in it.

That being said it is not merely a Navajo belief (if it was then saying it went through native tribes is even more inaccurate. Quite a few tribes are quoted as either hating the whole idea, hating the idea being applied to them, or having accepted the concept.

Anyway my response was tailored to the context of the claim as it was made. Not to the existence of the concept it's self. But I appreciate the info.

 

[Nietzsche]

It is surprising given that I was told it was an concept throughout Native tribes. Cherokee being one of the largest should at least be well versed in it.

That being said it is not merely a Navajo belief (if it was then saying it went through native tribes is even more inaccurate. Quite a few tribes are quoted as either hating the whole idea, hating the idea being applied to them, or having accepted the concept.

Anyway my response was tailored to the context of the claim as it was made. Not to the existence of the concept it's self. But I appreciate the info.

Just thought I'd put that out there if you didn't know, and if you did, also for those reading.

 

[1robin]

Just thought I'd put that out there if you didn't know, and if you did, also for those reading.

Very well.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You keep repeating this mantra as though it is yourself you are trying to convince.

That's what mantras are for.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Not in any true sense. The only thing you can have without God are acts against or with opinions and preferences. Without God torturing a child is not actually wrong it is just socially unfashionable or not preferable to a certain group. Without God you may not like what Hitler did but you will never ever be able to show what he did was wrong. Without God the entire categories of actual right, actual wrong, actual evil, actual good, and actual justice no longer exist. You can waste your time trying dismiss this inconvenient fact but this has been well known to be true since at least Aristotle.

Then why are you trying to bring an argument of right or wrong from a godless stance?

ts.

Yeah I know, homosexual's produce 60% of new aids case sin the US but it is heterosexuality's fault, the ones who have compassion for that 60% are the actual immoral group, and all those inconvenient statistics are the result of homophobia. Give me a break.

The truth is the truth. like it or not.

I have yet to see a single stat that changes the fact.

You have been presented it several times but you simply ignore it.

How is that a defense of homosexuality or a response to a single relevant stat I have given? Where the rest of the story you keep saying is out there but never include? This is a thread about homosexuality.

By this logic I should assume you to have a below average IQ with little reading comprehension and an innately dysfunctional critical thinking skills.

It was showing you the fault in your own argument and hopefully opening your eyes as to why it is so fundamentally wrong.

I really do not care about your personal commentaries.

Nor I yours.

Yes it does and I m still the only one posting data that pertains to this. Why are you denying the reality the CDC affirms and insurance companies and health organizations around the world agree with? No one yells bigotry more often that a bigot, no one yells ignorance more than the ignorant. If reality is not common ground for an argument then no argument can take place.
This is so absurd and patently false that I no longer want to continue this discussion. You obviously deny reality and substitute a fantasy world for what is inconvenient. This is just plain nuts and I do not think reason can have any effect on anyone making claims this appalling.

You are the one in denial with reality. You have yet to address any claims that have been brought to you and have done nothing but brush off all of the information and arguments that invalidate your own. We might have well as yelled a piece of paper and expected the contents to change.

 

[1robin]

Then why are you trying to bring an argument of right or wrong from a godless stance?

The truth is the truth. like it or not.

You have been presented it several times but you simply ignore it.

It was showing you the fault in your own argument and hopefully opening your eyes as to why it is so fundamentally wrong.

Nor I yours.

You are the one in denial with reality. You have yet to address any claims that have been brought to you and have done nothing but brush off all of the information and arguments that invalidate your own. We might have well as yelled a piece of paper and expected the contents to change.

This is not worth the effort. I have given all the stats and data so far. You have only denied them all based on some personal view about anyone who claims anything inconvenient for you. Facts are of no use against emotion and preference. This is a hole without a bottom and does not justify further discussion. Have a good one.

 

[McBell]

This is not worth the effort. I have given all the stats and data so far. You have only denied them all based on some personal view about anyone who claims anything inconvenient for you. Facts are of no use against emotion and preference. This is a hole without a bottom and does not justify further discussion. Have a good one.

Careful, your transference is showing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it is causal. That is why the CDC is willing to post statements like that homosexuality is responsible for 60% of new aids case sin the US. The only time causal issues come it play are usually when the stats are not very lopsided or another cause also tracts the stats just as closely but that is not the case with homosexuality. The stats are absurdly lopsided for many issues and homosexuality tracks wit the data much better than any other factor. Insurance companies and the CDC do not have the luxury of being wrong. They go bankrupt if they are and or receive official reprimands. It also is the burden of anyone who challenges the data to prove his case.

I would say it's up to the person presenting the data to prove his case. That would be you.

 

[dgirl1986]

People like to come up with all this so called data in arguement against homosexuality but most of what I have seen have been bias studies and research pieces and therefore could not really be taken seriously by anyone in the medical or scientific field.

You want solid info an stats? Check out the Medical Association and APA websites.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am a Cherokee and raised to know my heritage and I have never heard of two-spirits.

And it has little to do with homosexuality. It had to do with a human having two spirits. A kind of physical designation and a spiritual orientation. It could be a masculine male, a feminine woman, a masculine woman, or a feminine male but this does not indicate sexuality but disposition.

Have you heard of it or not? It seems odd to say you haven't heard of it, then try to explain it. The concept itself wasn't the focus, it was how people approach sexuality and it is was to bring up the most basic question of what is sex? From our Western perspective the definitions tend to be rigid, but these approaches do not work in cultures where there are more than two genders. In these cultures, what we think of a heterosex or homosex does not apply.

That is completely wrong. They specified between the two. That is how we know the Spartan military units accepted it, that Macedonian rulers were killed because of it, that Alexander was despised for it, and that the sacred band was composed of homosexuals.

The earliest recorded use of the word homosexual is 1892. Before that, sex was just sex. People had preferences, but they were preferences and sex was sex.

That is why the CDC is willing to post statements like that homosexuality is responsible for 60% of new aids case sin the US.

The CDC also has a thing on zombie apocalypse preparedness. It's also a government source, which means there is a high risk of information being severely biased.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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

Anyone from any sexual orientation can partake in the sexual behaviors you think are so terrible. And they do. Heterosexuals engage in all kinds of risky sexual behaviors too. We’re not talking about things that ONLY homosexuals can do or will do. I’m sure there are all kinds of sex acts that heterosexuals partake in that you would find equally as disgusting as those you imagine homosexuals are engaging in.

Let’s single out divorce rates from your list of atrocities that homosexuals commit more frequently than heterosexuals. Let’s first recognize that the data for homosexual couples is going to be limited and incomplete, given that it’s a fairly new occurrence in the western world as compared to heterosexual marriage. Here’s a crude list I’ve put together of heterosexual divorce rates in some western countries:

US – 53% (3.6% per 1,000 people)
Belgium – 71% (3.0% per 1,000 people)
Switzerland – 51% (2.8% per 1,000 people)
Denmark – 46% (2.6% per 1,000 people)
Finland – 45% (2.5% per 1,000 people)
Sweden – 47% (2.5% per 1,000 people)
Australia – 43% (2.3% per 1,000 people)
Canada – 48% (2.1% per 1,000 people)
France – 55% (2.1% per 1,000 people)
Norway – 44% (2.1% per 1,000 people)
UK – 47% (1.9% per 1,000 people)

It’s actually quite difficult to find same-sex divorce rates, but here are some that I was able to find:

-Belgium: Lesbian divorce rate = 21%, Gay male divorce rate = 14%
-Denmark: Lesbian divorce rate = 23% (stats also show that this is consistent with heterosexual divorce rates where women apparently initiate most divorces), Gay male divorce rate = 14%
-Netherlands: Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay male divorce rate = 7%
-UK: Stats are very preliminary but show the same-sex divorce rate to be less than 1%
-US: stats are pretty hard to find, but most numbers indicate same-sex divorce rates are lower than heterosexual divorce rates
-Norway and Sweden: these are the only places I could find where same-sex divorce rates are much higher than heterosexual divorces rates

In many places, like Massachusetts, for example, the addition of same-sex marriage has boosted the overall marriage rate in that state. Not only that, but Massachusetts overall has a lower divorce rate than those states which have a ban on same-sex marriage. Same goes apparently for many other states that allow same-sex marriage like Iowa, Rhode Island, and Maine. Shouldn’t you be happy about this?

Now, we may find that rates of same-sex divorce will end up become equivalent to heterosexual divorce rates, which are quite high. Even if they do, your argument that gay marriage results in higher divorce rates than same-sex marriages doesn’t stand up. For now, on average, they certainly are not equal rates. So you can’t make that argument now. But you couldn’t make the argument if they eventually did even out either. Because like I said, what you are describing are human behaviors. Not gay behaviors. Not straight behaviors. HUMAN behaviors.

And interestingly enough, I’ve come across several studies indicating that interracial marriages appear to be twice as likely to end in divorce, in the US. So I ask you, is that a good reason to ban interracial marriage, in your opinion?

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.

Yes, you have said that over and over. When the “gains” are pointed out to you, you just brush them off as irrelevant and insignificant. They are pretty much the same “gains” that result from heterosexual coupling.

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.

I know what you’re simplistic argument is. You have not demonstrated that either are accurate statements or that they apply solely to homosexuals or their actions. That’s what people in this thread are trying to point out to you.

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.

You should probably be making your case in a thread about promiscuity, because that’s the only case you’ve made so far, in my opinion. I mean, most of the things in your cost-benefit analysis are related to promiscuity in some form or another.
If you’re just going to repeat your two assertions over and over then we’re probably done here.

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.

Right. But you keep trying to plug your theological beliefs into it, whether you realize it or not. Like when you point out that you have to ignore half of reality, for instance.

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.

That may very well be true (and I hope it is), but on more than one occasion you have pointed out how icky you think their relations with each other are to you.

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.

I think most of us on this thread and on others have managed to put dents in your flimsy arguments. Moreover, I think your arguments are the ones that have failed here.

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.

When you can demonstrate that is actually the case and that it is confined solely to the existence of homosexual people, you might find more people on your side of the argument.

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.

Maybe you should take note that a whole world exists out there beyond the United States and that when we look at countries where the AIDS epidemic is the worst in the world, we find heterosexuals contracting and spreading it at higher rates than homosexuals.

I neglect no one. I feel compassion for every single person who has contracted and must live with the horrible disease that is HIV/AIDS. I'm not going to sit here and only feel bad for heterosexuals who contracted HIV/AIDS and blame it all on gay people.

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

Um okay, are we pretending that you have no emotional preferences in this argument??

Less than the homosexual divorce rate. Again

It’s HIGHER than the homosexual divorce rate, in most places.

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

Every point I make speaks directly to something you have said in relation to your simplistic points.

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.

Lung cancer could be viewed as a choice. A stroke can occur as a result of poor lifestyle choices. Just about anything can, if you look hard enough and desperately want to view it as such – kind of like how you do with homosexuality.

What is it you want homosexuals to do exactly? Just stop being gay? Pretend they’re straight? What do you think happens to divorce rates and adultery rates when we try that out? Do you honestly think they would decrease?

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.

YES I KNOW. You are picking on a group of people for behaviors that all human beings engage in.

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.

But that is the point! Homosexuality is incidental to increased rates of all these problems you think exist.


Same-sex divorce rate lower than heterosexual couples
Divorce demography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Science on Same-Sex Marriage - Reason.com
Divorce of same-sex couples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Midnight Rain]

This is not worth the effort. I have given all the stats and data so far. You have only denied them all based on some personal view about anyone who claims anything inconvenient for you. Facts are of no use against emotion and preference. This is a hole without a bottom and does not justify further discussion. Have a good one.

I haven't denied the facts. I simply understand them. Good day to you sir.