The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[SomeRandom]

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 didn't say the stats were wrong, just that your interpretation seems odd to me is all. In Australia we have similar stats for Aboriginals. The stats say they are all at a greater risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. No one has yet to say that being born an Aboriginal correlates directly with HIV/AIDS. Because that would be overtly simplistic. There are a myriad of issues surrounding stats like these. Remote communities with a high level of drug abuse and sexual violence for example.
They do use the stats, however, to argue for a change in the cycle of drugs, unsafe sex and lack of quick and (for a lack of a better word) convenient medical care in small remote regions where Aboriginals live. Not because being an Aboriginal is harmful and causes one to have AIDS or whatever, but because there's all sorts of different problems which may cause such stats. Modern Race Relations being among them.

And your stats are merely from America. How about the stats in regions like Africa, where the heterosexual population is far more responsible for the spread of HIV/AIDS?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm getting bored with all these tedious threads about sex. I really don't mind or care what other people get up to in the bedroom, it's a private matter.

Could we talk about seagulls instead?

 

[1robin]

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

No it is not. The CDC is my source and that is a competent source. Competent sources like expert testimony stand until disproven. The assumption of law are that a person competent and fluent in the matter under discussion is presumed truthful until demonstrated otherwise. It is the burden of the other side to show that competent authorities are not competent and if your side was right that should be a simplistic matter and not one that requires this much jockeying.

 

[Midnight Rain]

No it is not. The CDC is my source and that is a competent source. Competent sources like expert testimony stand until disproven. The assumption of law are that a person competent and fluent in the matter under discussion is presumed truthful until demonstrated otherwise. It is the burden of the other side to show that competent authorities are not competent and if your side was right that should be a simplistic matter and not one that requires this much jockeying.

If we took a statistic of all of the people wearing diffrent colored shirts and found that people wearing blue colored shirts ran far slower than the average in the mile run then we can all assume that this is a significant factor.
Red- 8 minutes on average
Blue- 40 minutes on average
Green- 10 minutes on average
white- 9 minutes on average
ect ect ect.

So that tells us that for some reason people wearing blue shirts are slower than the others. But it doesn't tell us why. Then we go look at the test and only people wearing blue shirts were forced to run the mile with backpacks full of rocks that weighed 80lbs and had to stop to do pushups every quarter mile and were not allowed to hydrate properly. Now we can see that wearing a blue shirt is not the cause of their poor running time but the discrimination against those in the blue shirts that cause their poor running time.

You have simply concluded that blue shirts are incapable of being fast by the statistics and no matter how much people point out that they were made to wear heavy backpacks and stopped four times during the race do you wane in your opinion.

 

[1robin]

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.

It was certainly a focus. You mentioned it as supporting material. How is it beyond the reach of scrutiny. I had never heard of it, so I looked it up and found it to quite different from what you described. In general people through out history have approached the subject the same way and I have never noticed any eastern versus western dichotomy to it. People have always viewed it with suspicion and to be a distinct behavior and modern science has proven that suspicion to be well founded.

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 a label not a concept. The activity that term implies has been distinguished as far back in history as recorded history goes.

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.

Where is the link to that? I am just not going to consider bias for every statistic that you find inconvenient. That is what those who have a emotional preference and not a case based in logic and reason are quick to claim in virtually every case. Not that even if bias exists in those places does it explain the magnitude of statistical lopsidedness nor is the CDC my only source (not that you have shown that they have gotten anything wrong yet).

 

[gsa]

No it is not. The CDC is my source and that is a competent source. Competent sources like expert testimony stand until disproven. The assumption of law are that a person competent and fluent in the matter under discussion is presumed truthful until demonstrated otherwise. It is the burden of the other side to show that competent authorities are not competent and if your side was right that should be a simplistic matter and not one that requires this much jockeying.

A) There is no legal presumption applied to expert testimony that is being introduced in support of an argument. A plaintiff who introduced expert evidence in favor of an argument could still lose his case, even if there was no evidence at all presented by the other side. Moreover, we are not in court.

B) You are citing CDC data for propositions that the CDC is not claiming, such as "homosexuality causes 60% of new AIDS cases" or "the costs of homosexuality outweigh any benefits from homosexuality." The CDC is sometimes careless with the language, but in general the epidemiological literature uses the term "men who have sex with men," or MSMs, and the almost exclusive route of transmission for HIV in that group is unprotected anal sex. Elsewhere I've explained how you cannot plausibly include all MSMs into the gay and bisexual male category, and also how, even if you did, the total number of MSMs with HIV is a small minority of all gay and bisexual males. You refuse to acknowledge this, which just demonstrates that your argument rests on prejudice and politics, and that your "argument" is just cherry picking data sets and distorting the same to support anti-gay beliefs.

 

[1robin]

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.

Good night nurse this is one long post. Must have dedicated the whole weekend to it.

I have not listed any specific sexual acts I think "are so terrible".
I am not in favor of heterosexual risky behavior either. BUT THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL THREAD.

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

This is ridiculous.

1. In the US heterosexual marriages reach the ten year mark 70.7% of the time and the 20 year mark 50.7% of the time. Male on male marriages reach the ten year mark 14% of the time and the 20 year mark 5%.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

2. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.
The Gay Divorcees | National Review Online

3. After controlling for age, region, country of birth, education, and duration of the partnership, male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and lesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. Whether the couples had children made little difference in the relative rates.
Why Gay Couples Divorce More Than Straight Couples

4. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
5. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
6. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

I can't spend much time on any one issue because this post is so long so I will leave it there for now. Your stats also seem to be off at places. No groups divorce rate is 1% unless your talking about yearly rates. So I think your getting things confused.

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?

I would if that was the only statistic that has an impact here. I have heard of this claim before. I always ignored it because it sounds like propaganda (even if true I have no idea what it means).

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.

Since I am pressed for time and this post so long let me say that for the time being I will reserve judgment of the divorce rate issue. I have seen the data that supports my view but I do not have enough time currently to dig it up. I have learned quite a bit about why the data set is far to low to have any good homosexual marriage statistics at this time. One being that same sex couples will go to a state that allows the marriage to be married but many move back and will not return to get divorced, another being that most divorce administrations do not record what type of marriage it was that dissolved (so they actually get recorded as heterosexual divorces in statistics), another explaining that the trends in females instigate divorce accounts for the disparity between the rates. Some make your numbers no good, some make mine no good, some that make others misleading. I need to investigate this further.

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 made no argument about banning any marriage.

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.

I said compensating gains, I must have distinguished between claims to a gain and gains that offset costs a hundred times and it still is not understood. I even said it in what you responded to.

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.

For pity's sake. What you responded to was statement that said that nothing I have said is exclusive to homosexuality but seemingly aggravated by it. You show you do not understand my simplistic claims in the arguments you make to show you do understand them.

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 will repeat them until they are understood or I get sick of doing it. So far you've demonstrated you either will not or cannot understand what I stated. You did manage to challenge one of the many aspects that support one of my claims but that alone will never invalidate the claim it's self. You will need to tear down the primary supports for that claim (mainly the health issues) to do any serious damage. So in my book we are at a temporary stale mate on one of the secondary pillars of one of my points and the rest are still intact. That is the best you have done and the closest anyone has gotten to countering even a small portion of my argument. So don't ruin the small gain you made in dentin the fender of the freight train by claiming you knocked it off the tracks.

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.

That statement is an explanation of what I was doing and has nothing to do with my argument and would have never been mentioned if my faith was not used as an excuse to dismiss my position.

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.

Yes, some of those sexual acts but mainly the destructive consequences of them do disgust me and they should do so from either a secular view or a theological one. In the military you are shown the most graphic pictures of STD and physical damage (both homosexual and heterosexual) that are so disgusting you will almost commit to celibacy then and there. There is nothing unnatural or illogical about that.

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.

Nope, I wish you had. I came here to see if it could be done. You have done so (temporarily) for open secondary issue among many that support one of my claims. The fact I admit this despite not having enough time to properly investigate it is proof of my willingness to do so. So far its' been like a child fighting Muhammad Ali. Ali has dominated every aspect of the fight but the child landed a grazing punch to Ali's shin and is now running around the ring claiming he won and Ali can't fight.

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.

When what I have posted about the destruction is effectively challenged it will be effectively defended, and when I claim 100% of the negativity is exclusively homosexual I will defend that.

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. [/.quote] We have already been through that. Statistics that extreme are not reversed based on geography in this context. This is a human problem not a geography problem.

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.

That is like saying you sympathize with those children born addicted to crack but at the same time arguing for crack use.

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

I don't care if you have them, I care whether it is emotion or facts that drive your argumentation. You can't argue against emotion, it does not care.

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

Nothing but the section on divorce rates above has had any impact of either point.

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.

I am not for smoking, I am not for asbestos. We have warning labels on one and laws against use of the other but your arguing for the subject of your analogy.

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?

I do not need to have the remedy to know there is a disease. I expect them to do what we expect drug addicts to do, and what I have done for my own problems. Admit the problem to themselves and seek a solution.

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

There are less than 4% of us that engage in homosexual behavior.

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

My computer gets bogged down on posts this large and today is not good for research.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Where is the link to that? I am just not going to consider bias for every statistic that you find inconvenient. That is what those who have a emotional preference and not a case based in logic and reason are quick to claim in virtually every case. Not that even if bias exists in those places does it explain the magnitude of statistical lopsidedness nor is the CDC my only source (not that you have shown that they have gotten anything wrong yet).

It's not emotional. The government, as a source, says marijuana is just as bad as crack, can't give us a consistent story about what happened in Roswell in 47, got the intel wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and put together a "zombie preparedness" guide. Lying is a part of the government's job. Why should they be considered credible?
And trying to focus on American homosexuals with HIV ignores many things, including how viruses are transmitted and that heterosexuals transmit it more frequently in other places.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It's not emotional. The government, as a source, says marijuana is just as bad as crack, can't give us a consistent story about what happened in Roswell in 47, got the intel wrong about WMDs in Iraq, and put together a "zombie preparedness" guide. Lying is a part of the government's job. Why should they be considered credible?
And trying to focus on American homosexuals with HIV ignores many things, including how viruses are transmitted and that heterosexuals transmit it more frequently in other places.

Now now, SW. Let's not pollute the thread with facts that don't support the argument of how queers are demons who are destroying the planet and civilization as we know it. What's most important is showing costs and gains that are arguments from a procreative baby-making perspective.

Because we all know that there is no suffering from pregnancy and childbirth. Or at least that isn't offset by the fact that babies arrive in multitudes.

Because life. Because population. Because numbers. Or something like that. It has nothing to do with love. Amirite?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No it is not. The CDC is my source and that is a competent source. Competent sources like expert testimony stand until disproven. The assumption of law are that a person competent and fluent in the matter under discussion is presumed truthful until demonstrated otherwise. It is the burden of the other side to show that competent authorities are not competent and if your side was right that should be a simplistic matter and not one that requires this much jockeying.

Oh okay, that's news to me. It's not up to the person presenting the data to prove the case he was trying to make by presenting the data in the first place? I didn't realize we were now in Bizarro World. Please excuse me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It was certainly a focus. You mentioned it as supporting material. How is it beyond the reach of scrutiny. I had never heard of it, so I looked it up and found it to quite different from what you described. In general people through out history have approached the subject the same way and I have never noticed any eastern versus western dichotomy to it. People have always viewed it with suspicion and to be a distinct behavior and modern science has proven that suspicion to be well founded.

That is a label not a concept. The activity that term implies has been distinguished as far back in history as recorded history goes.

Where is the link to that? I am just not going to consider bias for every statistic that you find inconvenient. That is what those who have a emotional preference and not a case based in logic and reason are quick to claim in virtually every case. Not that even if bias exists in those places does it explain the magnitude of statistical lopsidedness nor is the CDC my only source (not that you have shown that they have gotten anything wrong yet).

Yeah, about as much as modern science has proven that the suspicions about left-handed people were well founded.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yeah, about as much as modern science has proven that the suspicions about left-handed people were well founded.

I'm right-handed and left-footed, so highly suspect I guess.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good night nurse this is one long post. Must have dedicated the whole weekend to it.

I have not listed any specific sexual acts I think "are so terrible".
I am not in favor of heterosexual risky behavior either. BUT THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL THREAD.

This is ridiculous.

1. In the US heterosexual marriages reach the ten year mark 70.7% of the time and the 20 year mark 50.7% of the time. Male on male marriages reach the ten year mark 14% of the time and the 20 year mark 5%.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)

2. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.
The Gay Divorcees | National Review Online

3. After controlling for age, region, country of birth, education, and duration of the partnership, male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and lesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. Whether the couples had children made little difference in the relative rates.
Why Gay Couples Divorce More Than Straight Couples

4. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
5. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
6. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.

I can't spend much time on any one issue because this post is so long so I will leave it there for now. Your stats also seem to be off at places. No groups divorce rate is 1% unless your talking about yearly rates. So I think your getting things confused.

I'll just address this one quickly while I have a minute and will get to the rest of it later ...

How about instead of cherry-picking the data you think supports your arguments (e.g. Like focusing in only on Norway and Sweden and ignoring the rest), why don't you address the entirety of it?

I'm also wondering how you think you have so much data on gay marriage in the US when it's a fairly new concept there. Like I said, it seems rather incomplete to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm right-handed and left-footed, so highly suspect I guess.

What?! And I've been talking to you this whole time as though you were normal! For shame!!!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What?! And I've been talking to you this whole time as though you were normal! For shame!!!

I was just, well, so embarassed about coming out of the closet on this. I had to avoid playing football at school too...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was just, well, so embarassed about coming out of the closet on this. I had to avoid playing football at school too...

Well surprise, surprise ... I'm a weirdo too .. I always had a hard time finding a left-handed field hockey stick (which didn't really bother me much because I hate field hockey).

 

[SkepticThinker]

Good night nurse this is one long post. Must have dedicated the whole weekend to it.
I have not listed any specific sexual acts I think "are so terrible".
I am not in favor of heterosexual risky behavior either. BUT THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL THREAD.

You’ve alluded to the sexual acts that you find abhorrent many times in the past. Your main problem seems to lie with sexual acts involving two men.

And yes I know, it is a homosexuall thread. I’ve noticed. What I’m telling you is that it seems obvious to me, that given your arguments and general point of view, that you don’t actually have a problem with homosexuality. In actuality, your problem lies with any kind of risky and/or promiscuous sex. You energies would be better served making cost-benefit analyses around that issue rather than using them to pick on gay people as a whole, who are not the only sexual orientation that engage in those behaviors. You say gay people engage in them at higher rates than heterosexuals do and so we cannot justify allowing gay people to be who they are or whatever or wherever it is you think gay people disappear to when we pretend they don’t exist. Well men, on average, seem to engage in risky and/or promiscuous sexual behaviors more than women do, in general. Maybe it’s a man problem. But wait, women do it a lot too. In fact, stats show that its women who are more likely to end marriages and/or long-term relationships than men are, regardless of their sexual orientation. Maybe it’s immoral to be a woman!. Or maybe, like I said, it’s a problem with human behavior, in general.

This is ridiculous.
1. In the US heterosexual marriages reach the ten year mark 70.7% of the time and the 20 year mark 50.7% of the time. Male on male marriages reach the ten year mark 14% of the time and the 20 year mark 5%.
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2001)
Source: Current Population Reports: U.S. Census Bureau (2002)
2. In Norway, male same-sex marriages are 50 percent more likely to end in divorce than heterosexual marriages, and female same-sex marriages are an astonishing 167 percent more likely to be dissolved.
The Gay Divorcees | National Review Online
3. After controlling for age, region, country of birth, education, and duration of the partnership, male couples in Sweden were 35 percent more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples, and lesbian partners were over 200 percent more likely to divorce. Whether the couples had children made little difference in the relative rates.
Why Gay Couples Divorce More Than Straight Couples
4. A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.
5. In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."
6. In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.
I can't spend much time on any one issue because this post is so long so I will leave it there for now. Your stats also seem to be off at places. No groups divorce rate is 1% unless your talking about yearly rates. So I think your getting things confused.

I addressed this earlier, and yes, it is ridiculous.
I did acknowledge that the numbers are incomplete, given that gay marriage is a relatively new thing in some parts of the western world. The track record just isn’t long enough. I pointed that out in my last post. Gay marriage has only been legal in the UK since around March I think, so obviously that accounts for such a small number.

I would if that was the only statistic that has an impact here. I have heard of this claim before. I always ignored it because it sounds like propaganda (even if true I have no idea what it means).

It means that people who don’t support divorce and the breakup of the family unit should support gay marriage because it boosts the marriage rate.

Since I am pressed for time and this post so long let me say that for the time being I will reserve judgment of the divorce rate issue. I have seen the data that supports my view but I do not have enough time currently to dig it up. I have learned quite a bit about why the data set is far to low to have any good homosexual marriage statistics at this time. One being that same sex couples will go to a state that allows the marriage to be married but many move back and will not return to get divorced, another being that most divorce administrations do not record what type of marriage it was that dissolved (so they actually get recorded as heterosexual divorces in statistics), another explaining that the trends in females instigate divorce accounts for the disparity between the rates. Some make your numbers no good, some make mine no good, some that make others misleading. I need to investigate this further.

Oh, so now it’s all of a sudden a very complicated matter that isn’t so simplistic after all.
I’m happy to see you finally acknowledge that, given it’s been what many people have been telling you throughout the course of the discussion.

I made no argument about banning any marriage.

Oh, so you support gay marriage?

I said compensating gains, I must have distinguished between claims to a gain and gains that offset costs a hundred times and it still is not understood. I even said it in what you responded to.

I think you’re just playing with words here.

For pity's sake. What you responded to was statement that said that nothing I have said is exclusive to homosexuality but seemingly aggravated by it. You show you do not understand my simplistic claims in the arguments you make to show you do understand them.

So start railing against promiscuity in general, and leave gay people alone.

I will repeat them until they are understood or I get sick of doing it. So far you've demonstrated you either will not or cannot understand what I stated. You did manage to challenge one of the many aspects that support one of my claims but that alone will never invalidate the claim it's self. You will need to tear down the primary supports for that claim (mainly the health issues) to do any serious damage. So in my book we are at a temporary stale mate on one of the secondary pillars of one of my points and the rest are still intact. That is the best you have done and the closest anyone has gotten to countering even a small portion of my argument. So don't ruin the small gain you made in dentin the fender of the freight train by claiming you knocked it off the tracks.

You always jump to this “you’re arguing against secondary pillars of my main argument” stuff when someone makes a dent in any of your assertions. And that’s after you’ve repeated that nobody has managed to make a dent in any of your assertions. Divorce rates were one of the items on the list in your cost-benefit analysis. Sorry for addressing it, I guess. Maybe I should just assume that you were only off on just the one stat and take your word for it that the rest are spot on.
So know you want to focus on the health issues. Okay, which ones? We’ve already discussed HIV/AIDS and that didn’t really lean in your favour of your assertions either. What else?

That statement is an explanation of what I was doing and has nothing to do with my argument and would have never been mentioned if my faith was not used as an excuse to dismiss my position.

Your faith wasn’t being used as an excuse to dismiss your position. Your flimsy arguments were.

Yes, some of those sexual acts but mainly the destructive consequences of them do disgust me and they should do so from either a secular view or a theological one. In the military you are shown the most graphic pictures of STD and physical damage (both homosexual and heterosexual) that are so disgusting you will almost commit to celibacy then and there. There is nothing unnatural or illogical about that.

Yes I remember you talking about the military and some doctor who was disclosing his patient’s medical information to apparently anyone who would listen.

Nope, I wish you had. I came here to see if it could be done. You have done so (temporarily) for open secondary issue among many that support one of my claims. The fact I admit this despite not having enough time to properly investigate it is proof of my willingness to do so. So far its' been like a child fighting Muhammad Ali. Ali has dominated every aspect of the fight but the child landed a grazing punch to Ali's shin and is now running around the ring claiming he won and Ali can't fight.

Are you supposed to be Ali?

When what I have posted about the destruction is effectively challenged it will be effectively defended, and when I claim 100% of the negativity is exclusively homosexual I will defend that.

Several components of your arguments have been effectively challenged but when that happens you just end up claiming that they are only secondary to your main points and therefore doesn’t really mean anything.

 

[Jumi]

I'm getting bored with all these tedious threads about sex. I really don't mind or care what other people get up to in the bedroom, it's a private matter.

True, I can't imagine a being more wise and powerful than humans being interested in what kind of sex is mandated or forbidden. Let alone a god. I think to put one's god on that level would be a form of disrespect. From an atheists perspective it makes it all more likely these gods have no existence outside the homophobic mind.

 

[Nietzsche]

True, I can't imagine a being more wise and powerful than humans being interested in what kind of sex is mandated or forbidden. Let alone a god. I think to put one's god on that level would be a form of disrespect. From an atheists perspective it makes it all more likely these gods have no existence outside the homophobic mind.

Most pagan gods do not give a single solitary damn who or what you happen to be ****ing. Make of that what you will.

 

[Jumi]

Most pagan gods do not give a single solitary damn who or what you happen to be ****ing. Make of that what you will.

That puts these pagan gods on a higher level than homophobic people's gods.