This is debate for another time, but I applaud your efforts for attempting a secular argument at least.
Well either you must embrace the supernatural or I must tie one half of reality behind my back. It is interesting which one of us was willing to adapt to the other. For a long time I thought homosexuality was wrong but had only theological reasons and intuition. I never argued it because I thought it was impossible. I was surprised to find it is one of he easiest and most obvious claims to make I know of. Took me a bit to arrive at what my two primary claims are but they appear to be bullet proof.
I have a foundation: basic human empathy, knowledge, rationality and inquiry.
Then that standard should have shown perfectly clear that no one has the right to harm or kill another nor take a bunch of stranger money to pay for a behavior they do not have and which has insufficient justification for its practice. You would have been better off denying moral truth all together.
As a side bar I have a question. Who's version or opinion about basic human empathy, knowledge, rationality and inquiry will be the standard? Yours, mine, Hitler's, Stalin's, Mother Theresa's? Or maybe the planet should be 6 billion tiny nations with different laws.
You haven't responded to my argument whatsoever, just re-stated your false dichotomy that "homosexuality = death and misery". I point you back towards my driving analogy above. You wouldn't doubt that driving most certainly has lead to death and misery - so does the "convenience" of driving justify that? Should we abandon the act of driving, or attempt to make driving safer?
Driving is a necessity to survive in this time for most people in an American society. It has justifications even if it was relevant. Homosexuality directly produces misery death, and costs billions. No inaccurate analogy can change that. When 4% of people who's only common denominator is homosexuality produce 60% of aids no argument that homosexuality is inert can possibly be made.
And yet humans use both for a variety of similar functions.
The issue is that some functions being misapplications on even a physics level produce misery and that alone is justification or the foundation for claiming it is a missuses. If I used an ice cube to cook my dinner no human of earth would say I was using the proper thing for my purpose and it did not hurt anyone. The sexual organs are perfectly designed for one primary function. Is the argument that you can physically use them for others which kill people a rational or empathetic justification for doing so. Is right anything that is possible? Then let all the criminals out of prison because they all did things that were possible. You have yet to present a single meaningful argument or foundation for anything valid.
And one of the purposes of the male and female reproductive organ is to give the individual pleasure. This is clear and evident. Can you demonstrate that this is not an "intended" purpose or function?
This is treading in theological waters which you do not wish to be in. I have had many non-theistic experts in biology claim that pleasure was only part of the equation to induce humanity to perform he function which would perpetuate the species. I disagree but those are you folks arguing in your realm of reality. Pleasure is also not a justification for doing anything that harms others alone. The most pleasurable things in history have been considered wrong in almost all societies. Drugs are pure pleasure and usually only harm the one doing them yet it is not considered right. The justification of it feels good is juvenile and on every list of the worst justifications in history.
Do you have any idea how many diseases and health conditions are caused by heterosexual sex?
I am sure many are. However heterosexuality is necessary for humans to exist at all. I have sufficient justification, you do not.
Other than pleasure, kinship, procreation and exercise.
Every single one of those can be gained by methods that do not kill millions.
That's not a double-standard, that's pointing out that I believe you are wrong and I am right.
Your belief used a double standard as it's justification. It is invalid.
I didn't say it was. I clearly admitted that homosexuality comes with higher risks.
Then you must have sufficient justification to practice it. You do not. Higher risks mandate more substantial justification. You have none.
When you realize why these analogies are in no way accurate, and that the possible negative consequences of a physical activity between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home is not comparable to the willful disregard of other human beings or intentional destruction of lives, you will have shown some maturity on this subject. Until then, I await a response to my argument rather than just re-statements of your emotional, ill-informed rhetoric.
What does what building an act is committed in have to do with anything. Consent based on ignorance or even willful suppression of truth is no justification for anything. Most of those people do not know what the actual risk level is or who will be impacted by what they do not know. There are even groups of homosexuals who intentionally suppress or disregard the information about risk from their partners awareness, so any consent is based on false foundations. I also never consented to pay for the damage that their consent causes yet they demand I do. Again you are using double standards. I have no right to not consent but they have every to do so or not. Failure. I will realize anything you actually prove.
Posturing won't help you. Respond to my arguments, please.
I saw few actual arguments at all but responded to what passes as arguments you gave many times. This was a side note about those arguments in general.
So, to you, the only benefit of sex is the reproduction of children? Well, here's an interesting idea:
I will grant every possible benefit there is plus any you can invent and it would not help your argumentation at all. Unless it creates life it can not justify taking them and even if it did other arguments come into play at that point.
Sex carries a higher risk of disease than artificial insemination.
Sex is free. Medical procedures are not. They are not even available to a meaningful portion of the population at any price.
Artificial insemination is also a demonstrably more successful way of reproducing.
Millions of heterosexual and homosexual couples who cannot reproduce naturally utilize artificial insemination.
Dealt with above.
Taking into account all of the arguments you have made against gay sex and its harmful effects - when compared with the alternatives - I propose to you that your argument is only reasonable if you actually extend it to include all of heterosexual sex as well. We already have a better, safer way of having children than sex, so surely straight sex is a needless, harmful practice that benefits no one.
That is utterly destitute of any fact I have ever stated.
Since you have no understanding whatsoever of secular morality, you're not qualified to make that assessment.
I have just as much access and experience in secular morality as anyone else. What are you talking about? All my statements about secular morality are true even if I had no experience with it anyway. Most are claims made by secular moralists from your side. In fact most professional debaters from the secular side readily admit the unavoidable fact that morality is an illusion or a contrivance devoid of actual truth without God. I have only seen one who said moral truths exist without God and Craig got him so cornered he admitted he assumed it.
Prove any act is actual moral or immoral with God: If I killed all life we know of can you prove I did something actually wrong?
Yes I did, and you haven't refuted them.
I honestly and sincerely have no idea where this occurred. Not one thing you have said here has the slightest impact on my two primary claims.
When you can't argue, just claim that you've won, act smug, then pretend nobody can argue with you.
When you present an argument I will not say anything that can be tortured into what you claim what I said meant here.
Maybe you have forgotten what I claimed.
1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering and death and cost even to those who do not do it.
How can anyone who uses empathy support killing and hurting others for no justifiable reason?
2. It has exactly zero justification that would compensate for the loss.
You have not touched either and I have to doubt if you even believe you have. You are to intelligent to believe you have.
One cannot budge the other it is clear.