The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[Monk Of Reason]

My entire position comes from statistics from the CDC and
equally competent authorities. I don't know what you specifically said but my sources (the CDC being the primary one) HAVE been constantly dismissed. They have as of yet to give a single reason to dismiss them. They just say that bias exists in the world so any inconvenient statistics are ignored. In fact he statistic I post by far the most is a CDC statistic and all that I need to justify my position.

1. In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of new aids cases.

And I don't dispute that. But what does this "mean"? If 1 out of every 10 black men were arrested and only 1 in every 100 white men were arrested what does that mean? You don't know till you get more information. Perhaps the police had racial tendicnes. Perhaps the black men lived in a poorer neighborhood. Perhaps this was based off of a small sample? Ect.

The underlying CAUSE of the statistics which you have assumed is not backed up by the CDC.

I know what produced it (using monkey blood serum in polio vaccines, it contained HIV but monkeys are immune) but that was not the point. Homosexuality spread the disease at a much higher rate than heterosexuality and does not contain any justification for that cost. It is human suffering and monetary costs I was using in my argument not how diseases came into existence. In this case perhaps it was overzealous evolutionists who thought monkey blood serum should be the same as Human.

Actually we use animal based serums all the time. We still do. Its pretty convenient. But beside the point.

You still have not brought the meat of the argument which links homosexuality alone to the cause rather than any of the other factors.

Of course skin pigmentation does not cause theft and color is not a behavior to begin with. Homosexuality of course is involved in fluid exchange in ways that result in HIV remission much greatest then heterosexuality and this is a behavior. So there is no equality here what so ever. The African American culture is the most affluent African culture group in history. This is not the subject and your the one who linked crime with color but I will give you a few things in my opinion that are contributing to this.

1. Welfare has been linked to the breakup of the family. The loss of family units and especially male authority figures lead to lawlessness.
2. Even when they have a father figure it is many times a bad one. A father with 4 different kids by 2 or 3 women and who hangs out at the club all night.
3. Poverty is a factor but poverty is also a symptom.
4. Modern society has given the modern African community which does not contain a single slave a sense of being the victim and entitled to things from people who have never owned a single slave.

IOW it is a social issue not a genetic issue. It is a choice but the behavior is all that can change (and I would condemn the behavior just as I do with homosexuality if we were in a thread on theft).

And you would condemn the behavior rather than the condition? Is that what I am hearing? Why not do the same with homosexuality?

You know the worst possible defense of X is the attempt to condemn Y. In legal circles it is a sure sign the defense has no case. I have explained why what you said it not an equality in any sense and so does not make a rational analogy. However even if it were true we can't change skin pigmentation but we can change sexual behavior. Not that I am proposing any solution at all. I do not need to be able to manufacture medicine to know I am sick.

After probably more than a hundred discussion on homosexuality. It is weird how a books worth of defense condenses down to only 3 or 4 points.

1. Homosexuality is good because something is else is bad. Pitiful.
2. Homosexuality in general is ok because some hypothetical sanitized sub group can be imagined where it would be less risky.
3. To counter, water down, slightly change, or just to even challenge alone, any one of the dozens of facts that support my position is enough to defeat them all without bothering to even attempt it.
or
4. Any gain (even if it is a theoretical gain) offsets any cost. Physical pleasure is apparently worth millions of deaths and billions of dollars (many times of those who do not even engage in the behavior.) Or to say love is involved (despite the fact that we can and do love things that are consider immoral, are self destructive, and that are illegal) is apparently worth people dying faster in African nations than they can be buried.


People dress them up in every conceivable outfit but they always use one of those few and ineffective tactics.

I find it funny that you feel like you have debased my argument but have strengthened it. Your rational approach to the racial analogy proves to me that you are capable of thinking about it rationally yet have chosen not to do so with homosexuality. The "behavior" is the sexual misconduct. It is the lack of protection. It is not the homosexual sex itself. Nothing innate about homosexuality spreads AIDS more than heterosexuality. It has been the behaviors fostered by our communities and misunderstandings and bigotry about homosexuality that has shaped and defined the exact causes that spread AIDS.

Yet you refuse to admit that even when you admit it about other things.

To your list of 4.

1) Homosexuality is natural because it exists. I was showing you your double standard .Not that something else is bad so homosexuality is good.

2) Because the fact is that you cannot link anything to homosexual sex except by the unfortunate demographic broad brush stroke that you have painted it with. Which exposes the lack of substance to your argument.

3) Real change has already begun to make things better. In fact it is the only thing that has or can make it better.

4) Human pleasure is the base of all things. Why not live as slaves to a tyrannical government and end all wars so we can live in peace? Because we want freedom to enjoy the ONLY life we get for sure. And to step on anyone's happiness because of bigotry is not to be tolerated. How many people kill themselves because of Christianity? How many wars were fought over Christianity? How much science that could have saved billions of lives by now was stopped in the name of Christianity? That doesn't make Christianity evil. It means that there are mistakes that people make sometimes even for the right reasons. And homosexuality has existed alongside heterosexuality for millions of years and has not been a problem until recently. This "suffering" comes from a disease. Blaming the victims of that disease is just stupid. How dare all those children not wash their hands? Do you know how many kids die of "X" disease each year? Of course not.

 

[Drolefille]

"Retarded kids were treated a lot worse than homosexuals in "modern times." So were Gypsies." is a non prejudicial historically accurate statement. ]


"Mentally disabled kids were treated a lot worse than homosexuals" in "modern times" is both untrue and a non sequitur.
"Mentally handicapped kids" would also be offensive based on your rules. "Disabled" is the word choice of the day.

You've made a lot of assumptions about "my" rules. Using modern, and appropriate, labels does not change the truth of the statement. I'm not speaking on the truth of your statement, because the entire thing is a non sequitur. This is not a competition, there is not a gold medal for oppression. The treatment of the Roma in modern Europe is bad, as is the treatment of Hispanic immigrants in the US, as is the treatment of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans* people. As is the treatment of women, as is the treatment of racial minorities. As is the treatment of the poor. So this is all irrelevant.

You're changing the topic.

Your "n" word example is a very good one. White Americans have removed a word from the public lexicon for fear that black racists will take offense.

This is so incredibly ridiculous.

This idea that language should be abrogated as to not offend someone is a new concept based on the idea that "offending someone" is a worse crime than almost any other, including murder and rape.

No, it's simply rude.

In the not so distant past, people who had good manners refrained from offending others by refraining from using bad language. As this moral internal safeguard is no longer applicable in today's "modern" age of "if it feels good, do it," people want Big Brother to dictate what is acceptable.
Unfortunately, Big Brother is a Pig and the only words that Big Brother finds unacceptable are those that offend him.

No where are these words illegal. Feel free to use the n-word if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect us not to judge you for it.

But see you've tried to twist in circles here - the point you made that the past few decades are nothing compared to the much longer history and the implication that the longer history is more relevant, and should be clung on to, is just as valid an argument if you use it to support slavery.

We learn from history, we don't cling to it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This idea that language should be abrogated as to not offend someone is a new concept based on the idea that "offending someone" is a worse crime than almost any other, including murder and rape.

So a push to not use certain words to describe people, because they do offend and upset people, is a worse crime than just killing them?

In the not so distant past, people who had good manners refrained from offending others by refraining from using bad language.

In the not so distant past, it was proper for a wife to be expected to always be available for her husbands sexual cravings, and she didn't want it it was ok for him to rape her. In the not so distant past, it was proper for someone to put a child with physical deformities or mental handicaps in the closet, the basement, or the attic while company was over. In the not so distant past, it was legal to deny someone entrance into school just because they have black skin.
And, BTW, it's still considered "good manners" to not use cuss words.

 

[SkepticThinker]

W

Really?
So... you are saying that it just as easy to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex as it is to have a relationship with member of the same sex?
That is so odd.
Try to understand that almost EVERY totally heterosexual human being on planet Earth would disagree with you. And, as far as I can tell, most people who favor same sex relationships would also disagree with you.
It is an obvious axiom that it is far easier to have a relationship with a member of the same sex than the opposite sex.
I don't understand why you would even want to try and refute this.
Really.
Why?

Where are you coming up with this???

 

[Moishe3rd]

W

Where are you coming up with this???

Perhaps, if you disagree, you might tell me why and give me some kind of examples how making a relationship with a member of the same sex is equally as difficult or easy as making a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
You set the scenario - a bar; mountain climbing; a supermarket; at work; at church; at home; under the ocean; anywhere.
You set the people and culture and ethnicity, etc.
Give me some kind of example of why this confuses you.

 

[Moishe3rd]

It's more than just the right to engage in homosexual sex, it's having the right to marry. The right to be protected against bullying (often people have turned a blind eye to the practice). The right to adopt. The right to equal employment (discrimination has been quite prevalent in this area). The right to serve in the military. The right to be protected from hate crimes. The right to conjugal visits.

Lovely.
Equal rights are a beautiful thing.
How do you feel about non citizens of any particular country having all of the above rights?
Should non humans such as fish have the above rights?
Let us presume that you think that such equal rights should be limited to humans and, such rights that apply, to legal citizens.
One could say that you discriminate based on your personal values.
However - it would be a far stretch to tell you that you are species phobic or foreigner phobic.
Now, as those who favor same sex unions pretty much have all of the above equal rights that you are desirous of, how does that make those who oppose ONE of them, which is the 10,000 year old definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman - held in ALL cultures, including cultures such as ancient Greece where homosexuality was considered normal and desirous - into homophobes or opposing equal rights for homosexuals?

Now, Skwim, you appear to be a nice person who finds bullying abhorrent. So, how do you feel about your fellow posters here or homosexuals in many places who feel that it is okay to rudely insult someone; calling them "out" in a bizarre attempt at intimidation just because they disagree with your point of view?
Is that a violation of the equal rights of those who disagree with you?
Or, is it okay because the disagreeing person dares to question the righteousness of homosexuality?
Hmmm?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps, if you disagree, you might tell me why and give me some kind of examples how making a relationship with a member of the same sex is equally as difficult or easy as making a relationship with a member of the opposite sex.
You set the scenario - a bar; mountain climbing; a supermarket; at work; at church; at home; under the ocean; anywhere.
You set the people and culture and ethnicity, etc.
Give me some kind of example of why this confuses you.

Examples? What?

I can't see any reason at all why they would be different in the way you're describing.

Hence my question.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Examples? What?

I can't see any reason at all why they would be different in the way you're describing.

Hence my question.

Really?
You give me absolutely no context and you want me to explain the difference?
Sigh....
Okey dokey.
You are a bisexual guy at a bar. You want to "relate" to someone.
There is a lovely lady of your favorite ethnicity on one side.
There is a handsome man of your favorite ethnicity on the other.
Who do you try and "relate" to in an easy and friendly manner - and why?

 

[SkepticThinker]

T

Really?
You give me absolutely no context and you want me to explain the difference?
Sigh....
Okey dokey.
You are a bisexual guy at a bar. You want to "relate" to someone.
There is a lovely lady of your favorite ethnicity on one side.
There is a handsome man of your favorite ethnicity on the other.
Who do you try and "relate" to in an easy and friendly manner - and why?

You're the one making the claim. How about you provide the context and back up that claim with more than just your say-so?

As to your question ... I'm not bisexual so I don't know what I'd do.

 

[Skwim]

Lovely.
Equal rights are a beautiful thing.
How do you feel about non citizens of any particular country having all of the above rights?

Depends on the law. I know that in some countries one has to meet certain non-citizen eligibility requirements in order to be married there.

Should non humans such as fish have the above rights?

If fish can raise their right fin and swear allegiance to the United Oceans of the World, then I don't see why not.

Let us presume that you think that such equal rights should be limited to humans and, such rights that apply, to legal citizens.
One could say that you discriminate based on your personal values.

Possibly, but what "personal" values are you referring to? And, just to be clear here, I discriminate all the time, particularly when making choices.

However - it would be a far stretch to tell you that you are species phobic or foreigner phobic.

Okay.

Now, as those who favor same sex unions pretty much have all of the above equal rights that you are desirous of, how does that make those who oppose ONE of them, which is the 10,000 year old definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman - held in ALL cultures, including cultures such as ancient Greece where homosexuality was considered normal and desirous - into homophobes or opposing equal rights for homosexuals?

Your question here is very oddly phrased, but making the best of it as I can, I'll say that under the definition of homophobia I previously gave, those who oppose same sex marriage would be homophobes because they're prejudiced against homosexuals because of who they are, not for what they've done.

Now, Skwim, you appear to be a nice person who finds bullying abhorrent. So, how do you feel about your fellow posters here or homosexuals in many places who feel that it is okay to rudely insult someone; calling them "out" in a bizarre attempt at intimidation just because they disagree with your point of view?

Intimidation is rarely nice, however, insult only takes on the power given it by the insulted. If one is insulted by a remark they are in effect saying "I care what you think." If you actually care what person X thinks of you and then she insults you, this is most unfortunate, and it may call for a reevaluation of your relationship. If it happened to me I might very well decide I no longer cared enough about this person to care what she says, or thinks.

Is that a violation of the equal rights of those who disagree with you?

Not that I can figure out--if I'm following you.

Or, is it okay because the disagreeing person dares to question the righteousness of homosexuality?
Hmmm?

I don't see homosexuality being a "righteous" sexual orientation, at least no more so than bisexuality, or heterosexuality. Your run-on questions here are a bit daunting, but if I understand you correctly; any one can question anyone or anything else. And, they can disagree with anyone or anything else. What I don't see them being allowed to do is interfere with anyone's basic human rights.

 

[Dyvim Tvar]

It's so "weird" that the abrahamics (jew, christian, muslim) totally ignore the fact that their books are way more against straight adultery than homosex. Adultery is even one of the famous ten things their god hates above all else. Yet whenever "family value" male abrahamics are caught having sex outside their marriage, they're never treated worse than gays like their religion demands of them.

I guess it's because if they did treat adulterers like their books say to, they'd lose at least half of their audience and most of their paid "shepherds".

 

[Ingledsva]

My two bits:
...

And, same sex relationships are on the increase because it's easy.
A hell of lot easier than dealing with the opposite sex.
And, by the way - "Gay" people - you know this. Stop lying about it. It is so so so much easier to have sex with your sex than it is to have to deal with the opposite sex. Oh? Did I say "sex with your sex?" That's right, I did.
Self sex is the easiest.
Same sex sex is the next easiest.
And opposite sex sex is full of pain and total incomprehensibility over what the hell he/ she wants or is thinking.

...

OMG!!! Are you kidding? "same sex relationships are on the increase because it's easy." WHAT???

So as a heterosexual male - YOU are going to run next door and sc**w a male, and forgo women, because it is "easier" to have "same sex?" For all intents and purposes, YOU are going to become homosexual, because it is easier then dealing with a heterosexual woman??? LOL!!!

Absolute BULL!

*

 

[1robin]

Ummm, I'm not so sure that hypothesis has really panned out. I think the current leading hypothesis is the "hunter theory" where hunters contracted the virus from butchering and ingesting the meat of infected chimpanzees. I'm not so sure what "overzealous evolutionists" have to do with it.

If it was the idea that since humans and Chimpanzees are so closely related then we can interchange blood serum between the two then I would think overzealous evolutionists would be worthy of mention. However I do not care, and am only suggesting the last thing I heard. It is really irrelevant how the virus got started in this context.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Lovely.
Equal rights are a beautiful thing.
How do you feel about non citizens of any particular country having all of the above rights?
Should non humans such as fish have the above rights?
Let us presume that you think that such equal rights should be limited to humans and, such rights that apply, to legal citizens.
One could say that you discriminate based on your personal values.
However - it would be a far stretch to tell you that you are species phobic or foreigner phobic.
Now, as those who favor same sex unions pretty much have all of the above equal rights that you are desirous of, how does that make those who oppose ONE of them, which is the 10,000 year old definition of "marriage" as being between a man and a woman - held in ALL cultures, including cultures such as ancient Greece where homosexuality was considered normal and desirous - into homophobes or opposing equal rights for homosexuals?

Now, Skwim, you appear to be a nice person who finds bullying abhorrent. So, how do you feel about your fellow posters here or homosexuals in many places who feel that it is okay to rudely insult someone; calling them "out" in a bizarre attempt at intimidation just because they disagree with your point of view?
Is that a violation of the equal rights of those who disagree with you?
Or, is it okay because the disagreeing person dares to question the righteousness of homosexuality?
Hmmm?

I have seen homosexuality being compared to pedophilia, rape, and incest. Now LGBT rights are being compared to giving animals equal rights to humans.

The disgusting ignorance has reached yet another low point.

 

[1robin]

We aren't lawyers, and we're not a in court room. We are in a debate setting where backing up assertions is kind of the point. People are trying to debate certain aspects of the facts you have presented and instead of addressing them you just keep saying "well the CDC said so" as though there's nothing up for discussion.

Are you suggesting what the criteria are in legal settings have no application in debate? Debates take place on common grounds. If reason is dismissed then common criteria like legal standards must be appealed to. people are not addressing what I said. They are denying what I said. It is insisted that since bias exists then I must prove the CDC is correct in all it's claims. That is not debate it is distraction and I do not have time to prove competent sources are competent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you suggesting what the criteria are in legal settings have no application in debate? Debates take place on common grounds. If reason is dismissed then common criteria like legal standards must be appealed to. people are not addressing what I said. They are denying what I said. It is insisted that since bias exists then I must prove the CDC is correct in all it's claims. That is not debate it is distraction and I do not have time to prove competent sources are competent.

We've been trying to explain to you why the CDC statistic doesn't mean anything, except they found 4% of homosexual men apparently caused 60% of new cases, but it doesn't tell us how the disease was spread. It's very possible a handful of these men somehow came into contact with infected blood. They may have shared an infected needle. This statistic may show a correlation, but correlation does not mean causation. Also, when you are looking at only 4% of a group that forms a small percentage of the population at large, we are looking at an extremely small number.

 

[LuisDantas]

Really?
You give me absolutely no context and you want me to explain the difference?
Sigh....
Okey dokey.
You are a bisexual guy at a bar. You want to "relate" to someone.
There is a lovely lady of your favorite ethnicity on one side.
There is a handsome man of your favorite ethnicity on the other.
Who do you try and "relate" to in an easy and friendly manner - and why?

What a strange question. People are far more complex than just gender and ethnicity.

One would probably have to actually be there and at the very least see the specific people in order to have the means to answer.

 

[LuisDantas]

And, same sex relationships are on the increase because it's easy.
A hell of lot easier than dealing with the opposite sex.
And, by the way - "Gay" people - you know this. Stop lying about it. It is so so so much easier to have sex with your sex than it is to have to deal with the opposite sex. Oh? Did I say "sex with your sex?" That's right, I did.
Self sex is the easiest.
Same sex sex is the next easiest.
And opposite sex sex is full of pain and total incomprehensibility over what the hell he/ she wants or is thinking.

It is actually very difficult for a hetero to have a same sex relationship, or for a "pure" homosexual to have a relationship with the opposite sex.

Did you want to imply that homosexuality is a choice and therefore should be avoided out of duty to someone? I fear that is a very misguided, misinformed opinion.

 

[1robin]

Sure you did. I posted a list of a bunch of places and you just so happened to choose the only two places on the entire list where the numbers are higher for homosexuals while not addressing any others. I’m guessing you would have done it because you probably think it reinforces your arguments.

No, I did not. I picked them as they came. When quoted I had no idea whether they were even mentioned by you, in fact I did not pay too much attention to which country they even were for. You have no access to why chose what I did, so please do not act as if you did.

Right, and I pointed that out as well. So I’m still wondering how you think we can make definitive conclusions from incomplete data.

I didn't. My claim stands regardless of whether that pillar or even if two or more additional ones fall or stand.

So again, I’m still wondering how you’re making definitive conclusions based on incomplete data.

My conclusion is primarily based on health issues. The other points were not necessary nor crucial so I did not spend as much time vetting them. My conclusion is still true regardless of that one stat.

What health-related issues are you talking about? If that is now the main contention of your argument, let’s delve into that. All of your facts that I keep looking into are apparently not the ones you want to discuss. So tell me exactly where you want to go with this.

What do you mean what health issues? You can't possibly be unaware of all the STD's and physical damages that homosexuality causes. Let's start with the increased rate at white aids is spread.

How about you do take some time to investigate the claims you’re making?

You can't ask what you did above and this question at the same time.

Remember in that last post where I was telling you that when someone addresses one of the points of your arguments that you usually claim that it’s merely one of your “secondary” arguments and doesn’t really address your main points? Then you asked for an example of where you’ve done this. See this paragraph for that.

No I do not. I don't remember ever having done so except with you. I in fact asked you to quote any post in my last 10,000 where I used the words secondary pillar beyond with you. You didn't.

Now you point out some mysterious paragraph which wherever it happens to be will be in a post to you (and you are the one place where I said I have done this). So I have no idea what you refer to but whatever it is it is not what I requested.

 

[LuisDantas]

Raising health issues when discussing homosexuality is much like raising RSI when discussing work.

Which is to say, it is a legitimate concern. But if one expects to use it as a justification to discourage or disapprove of the activity, I fear there is some serious misunderstanding happening.