Holy crap a post increases in size exponentially when you reply.
I try to respond individually to every argument or claim made in my replies. I'll try to reign it in in the future, particularly as a lot of posters appear to be addressing you right now and you are making a sincere effort to respond to all of them.
You claimed something concerning rights in your defense of Homosexuality. Where does it get them? I made no claims about rights. I have no obligation concerning them.
Human rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have said that you are disgusted by gay parades and activities, and I am saying that this is not an argument of any kind since homosexuals have a right to parade just as much as anyone else does regardless of your personal reaction to it.
I did not claim it as necessarily representative but the disgusting behavior that the large city gay parades have resulted in is common knowledge. I am still trying to determine if you are in denial or have a context or amount disagreement. Once I determine that the common ground of reality is not on which a debate can take place I usually determine the debate should not take place. I am going to consolidate this down at the bottom for this purpose.
You need to understand that what you consider "disgusting behavior" is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Until you explain to me exactly what these behaviors were that you consider disgusting, I cannot find any common ground with you on the issue. I live in a city that has regular gay pride parades, events and a gay village, and in all my years of living here and attending these events and places I have seen nothing any more "disgusting" to me than I see regularly at any other festival, parade or party.
If you claim to have them then you should support them. I didn't yet will do it for you. Even the non-Christian Jefferson said that only our creator granted rights. On what basis do you find rights outside this? Who has them to dispense? Whatever they are, outside of God they are subjective, ever changing, and opinion based and so are no part of any justification. You would have saved time supplying he source instead of deflecting.
I'm not going to get into another argument with you about whether morals or rights have any purpose outside of God's existence. This is not a debate about God, it is a debate about gay rights and the specific claims you have made about homosexuals. Whether or not you admit it, human rights is an entirely secular concept, and for you to dismiss them on this basis is ludicrous.
For the sake of time I will grant this but my point was one of prevalence, not equivalence.
Prevalence? In what way is NAMBLA prevalent to gay rights?
Rights again. Where do you get them from? Hitler, Jefferson, Adams, Stalin, me, you? I resent a concept defended at such a cost being trivialized by anyone who wishes to defend their personal desires. Please stop claiming to have them or defend them.
If you don't understand human rights, you are not qualified to have this debate on any level. Human rights are a secular concept, and are applied universally as a matter of basic human equality. If you have difficulty seeing how killing or imprisoning homosexuals is a gross infringement of human rights that is entirely separate of your supposed religious doctrine telling you what to think, then your moral compass is dangerously flawed.
I have given maybe 50 studies from at least 30 sources including the CDC and even homosexual sources. Is your entire position a denial of anything that is inconvenient.
I've not denied a single fact you've presented, just the reliability of their representation and sources.
I keep looking for any common ground to debate the issue and you deny all of them and no basis whatever. Rights that do not exist, common knowledge of parade behavior, and now studies from every source conceivable are out. What is left besides flame's opinion?
You presented me with four sources (and Mystic presented two), none of which are in any way compelling or indicative of your claims about homosexual relationships being demonstrably more harmful to society than heterosexual relationships. If you want to find common ground, you can start by accepting that rights DO exist, and your sources are largely biased.
What difference does it make if you deny on convenience.
Deny what? The article simply states that young gay men are more promiscuous than young straight men. This is not remotely surprising when you consider that men, in general, are more promiscuous than women. The article doesn't seem to hold your contention that this is a bad thing as long as responsible sexual practices are maintained within consenting relationships. This is not a killing blow for your "homosexuality is destructive to society" argument.
What does caught out mean?
Caught red-handed.
If reality is no longer a field where issues can be settled I see no point in debating opinions.
What reality? You've presented nothing but total trash. Your facts don't demonstrate the truth of your claims.
You have contested nothing. You have claimed and refused to even attempt support, you have rejected based on bias you did not even attempt to demonstrate, and you have contested common knowledge with opinion and then objected to opinion that weren't opinions and yelled straw man every few responses for good measure.
You have claimed facts and supported nothing. You have claimed common knowledge and then presented opinion. And now you are getting indignant because I refuse to take your extremely meagre sources as having any validity? I never denied their facts, just their reliability and the notion that they support your sweeping claims. So far, your argument is unconvincing to say the least. The only airtight facts you have presented are "certain diseases are more prevalent in gay relationships" (which is as asinine as pointing out that certain diseases are more prevalent in any particular group as a-posed to any other), and "young gay men are more promiscuous". Hardly compelling facts that justify your argument. These are not indicative of anything that you have claimed thus far.
The rest is in the same unsupported vein so I will again post my two contentions and hope you contest them with more than "rights you will not source", "bias not substantiated by anything", and the obligatory "straw man" accusation sprinkled throughout.
Or, you could respond to my arguments instead of deflecting them.
1. Homosexuality increases human suffering in significant amounts. As so far no one has even attempted to deny this and I am still shocked that you might be.
Lots of people have, and you have yet to sufficiently support it.
2. That the behavior has no corresponding benefit that justifies the harm it causes to even those who do not practice it.
I'm still waiting on this list of benefits that exist in heterosexual relationships that do not exist in homosexual relationships. Will you be providing that any time soon?
Yelling bias, straw man, and rights not clearly shown to exist will cause me to conclude that denial prevents the issue from being concluded and give it up. Good luck.
The only person in denial is the person who denies the existence of human rights. As soon as you acknowledge that they do, and provide me with a list of benefits exclusive to heterosexual relationships, we can talk about who is in denial about what. I gave specific reasons why I rejected your sources and why I consider your facts to be entirely irrelevant to your claims, and your only response is to accuse me of being in denial, and yet you have accused
me of deflecting.
Youve got me there! 
