Hello - need to make 5 posts

[Truths4yer]

Apparently I need to make 5 posts to share links. Here is 1

 

[Truths4yer]

here is 2

here is 2

here is 2
I understand why the feature is in place, so it is tolerable.

 

[Truths4yer]

Lets not forget a 3rd.

 

[Truths4yer]

number4
I will not be spamming links btw but wish to share some in a debate.

 

[Truths4yer]

One more for luck. Btw, if anybody thinks they have a rational argument against the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, please feel free to challenge me with it (my pet topic).
If anybody has a good reason to believe that any gods exist (should really be expressible within a paragraph or two), feel free to share. I've never encountered one. Things that won't work:
- Bible quotes.
- Anecdotal experiences (if you don't have an explanation for them, the explanation is "I don't know", not "God did it").
- Likewise for "How did the universe form?" etc etc I don't know or care and my inability to answer a question which somebody else pretends to be able to is in no way relevant to me identifying that their belief is unsubstantiated.
- Likewise for "how is morality objective if there is no God" or anything like that. Undesirable consequences of accepting that reality is the way it is in no way alter how reality actually is. I.E. Your approval of reality has no baring upon how reality is. There are certainly aspects of it which I disapprove of, yet they remain.
Anyway, you get the gist.

 

[Dena]

You should try including an actual introduction in your introduction.

 

[Desert Reign]

Welcome to the forum.
There's no such thing as moral legitimacy. You sound like you may be erecting a straw man there in order to justify homosexuality. Homosexuality may or may not be moral and it may or may not be legitimate, depending on which country you are in. But there isn't any authority analogous to a country that dispenses moral legitimacy.

As to legitimacy, I am in favour of laws which prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in terms of employment or the supply of services.

As to morality, I have no objection to homosexuals doing their thing so long as it doesn't interfere with others.

However I do object to allowing homosexuals to legitimately marry one another. Marriage is a union of man and woman. This is not discrimination. It is basically theft - stealing the concept of marriage from those who own it. It is like laws which take discrimination too far: black people are allowed to get on the same buses as white people but black people can't call themselves white. Homosexuality is abnormal behaviour. Recognising it as normal will lead to problems.

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply to welcoming comitte.

Reply to welcoming comitte.

You should try including an actual introduction in your introduction.

Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't want to engage in something so unabashedly unoriginal and I'm not here to partake in social interactions anyway really but thank you for the suggestion.

Perhaps I should say that I appreciate that the presumably theistic creators of this website have chosen to create a forum for debate and discussion. Too often, theists seem unwilling to debate their beliefs and this is a refreshing change so thank you and well done.



MORAL LEGITIMACY:

There's no such thing as moral legitimacy. You sound like you may be erecting a straw man there in order to justify homosexuality.

Thanks for the reply. Moral legitimacy appears to be a definitionally accurate/ useful collocation. Concerning justifying homosexuality, there is no need to justify anything by default (morally). We have to justify condemnations of others, rather than them having to present a justification of innocence against any and all accusations, however absurd they may be. This translates to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Homosexuality may or may not be moral and it may or may not be legitimate, depending on which country you are in. But there isn't any authority analogous to a country that dispenses moral legitimacy.

Sure there is, there is me . Countries don't dictate morality, they attempt to approximate it, sometimes very poorly as they are corrupted by irrational ideals, such as capitulating to the seemingly arbitrary will of an invisible, incorporeal, inaudible supreme being (I.E. a being which is indistinguishable from a non-existent one).

My ethical framework is not modified by the country in which I reside.

As to legitimacy, I am in favour of laws which prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in terms of employment or the supply of services. As to morality, I have no objection to homosexuals doing their thing so long as it doesn't interfere with others.

Great, then you're rationale so far is broadly in keeping with mine and a very decent one, thank you.



SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

However I do object to allowing homosexuals to legitimately marry one another. Marriage is a union of man and woman. This is not discrimination.

Oh dear hehe, just when things were going so well ^^. I should first clarify that there are at least two types of marriage; 1) Religious marriage and 2) Legal/ civil marriage.

Most people who object to SS (legal) marriage do so (it seems) on the basis that it conflict with their idea of what religious marriage is or should be. I.E. they object to one on the basis of the other.



RELIGIOUS MARRIAGE:

Religious marriage is quite a simple issue. The principle of religious freedom/ freedom of expression (please let me know if you don't support this principle, explaining why not) requires that people are allowed to express their religious beliefs in whatever way they wish. That is, to use your own words, "so long as it doesn't interfere with others."

You therefore have no more right to dictate if and how somebody can choose to get religiously married (in accordance with their religion... not in accordance with yours) than they have to dictate if and how you can get religiously married.

Religion is a form of personal expression, which each individual is entitled to, like all other forms of expression, "so long as it doesn't interfere with others." This does not mean that a SS couple can force an unwilling clergyman to give them a religious marriage... because to do so would violate the clergyman's religious freedom. I.E. the principle of religious freedom protects both the clergyman's and the SS couple's freedom to exercise their own religious views. Sorry to have laboured that but I wanted to be clear.



LEGAL MARRIAGE:

Legal marriage on the other hand is simply a matter for each jurisdiction. The legal definition of marriage varies across the world and changes all the time. Polygamy is legal in almost 50 nations, so clearly the definition isn't 1 women and 1 man, nor is it universal or immutable. Any unequal treatment of citizens by the state without sound justification is definitionally, an arbitrary, invidious discrimination.



STEALING THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE:

It is basically theft - stealing the concept of marriage from those who own it.

The law isn't really owned by anybody (pretty sure it is an abstract concept). The concept of marriage and mode of its expression for most seems to be as the ultimate expression of commitment, love and companionship. These attributes are just as much present in many homosexual unions as heterosexual ones and unfortunately absent from some hetero ones, such that we would likely agree that they ideally should not marry.

SS marriage is actually an issue of equality, with marriage incidentally involved.



HOMOSEXUALITY AN ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR?

It is like laws which take discrimination too far: black people are allowed to get on the same buses as white people but black people can't call themselves white. Homosexuality is abnormal behaviour. Recognising it as normal will lead to problems.

Black people can call themselves white... but would simply be inaccurate in doing so. I can call myself purple with yellow blotches for instance ^^. If I missed the point there at all (as I'm not sure what you were getting at), please clarify.

Sexual orientations (SOs), such as homosexuality, are characterised by persistent romantic and/or sexual attractions to members of one or more of the two biological sexes. They are not behaviours. How do I know?

We would still classify a young individual who had not yet had the opportunity to act upon their attractions, or a celibate, as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. We would still classify a man who was raped by or who prostituted themselves to another man as heterosexual if they were exclusively attracted to women. Involuntary attractions are therefore necessary and sufficient to assign SO, while actions are neither. If you disagree, please explain how so.

I don't see the relevance of abnormality concerning homosexuality, any more than I do concerning the abnormally intelligent, kind or healthy.

 

[john w]

"Undesirable consequences of accepting that reality is the way it is in no way alter how reality actually is."you

Translated: It is, what it is....Happy Hour is early...

Fascinating, Jim.


Thanks for unpacking that for all of us.

 

[Jabin]

Apparently I need to make 5 posts to share links. Here is 1

I understand no ill intent in spamming posts, but you should respect the spirit of the rules.

 

[Jabin]

Concerning justifying homosexuality, there is no need to justify anything by default (morally). We have to justify condemnations of others, rather than them having to present a justification of innocence against any and all accusations, however absurd they may be. This translates to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

Homosexuality offers no benefits to society, but is full of risks. By any objective standard, is it immoral. But, I don't think you're here to reason.

As for "innocent until proven guilty", I'm sure you don' really live by that standard. I don't think you're willing to extend that principle to people who disapprove of homosexuality. But, rather you're completely in favor prohibiting them from following their beliefs.

Most people who object to SS (legal) marriage do so (it seems) on the basis that it conflict with their idea of what religious marriage is or should be. I.E. they object to one on the basis of the other.

The government has no interest in promoting homosexual behavior, so therefor it shouldn't recognize same-sex marriage.

You therefore have no more right to dictate if and how somebody can choose to get religiously married (in accordance with their religion... not in accordance with yours) than they have to dictate if and how you can get religiously married.

And, yet you want a cake baker to go to jail for not producing a homosexual wedding cake. You want a wedding photographer to go to jail for not taking pictures of homosexuals kissing. So, you don't really believe your statement about "more more right to dictate...." The only reason you support government same-sex marriage is to force your beliefs on others.

Black people can call themselves white...

Homosexuals can deny that they're perverts...

Sexual orientations (SOs), such as homosexuality, are characterised by persistent romantic and/or sexual attractions to members of one or more of the two biological sexes. They are not behaviours. How do I know?

Don't forget, pedophilia is also a sexual orientation. Have you raped any children lately?

 

[Truths4yer]

Reply to Jabin

Reply to Jabin

Thanks for the reply.

I understand no ill intent in spamming posts, but you should respect the spirit of the rules.

I appreciate the point but I already had a long post typed out with links when I discovered the rule, which is why I was keen to achieve the 5 posts quickly. 5 spam posts in an obsolete thread also seems better than 5 (secret) spam posts cluttering up other serious debates.

Homosexuality offers no benefits to society, but is full of risks. By any objective standard, is it immoral. But, I don't think you're here to reason.

I'm here to debate. Homosexuality has no inherent, direct risks. Homosexuality offers the benefits of the potential for love, companionship and all-round happiness, just as heterosexuality does. If these are not beneficial to society then it is hard to imagine what could be and heterosexuality appears just as much without benefit as homosexuality. Oh and do respond to this particular point as expected btw. I am ready and waiting for it (insert evil grin smiley here).

Secondly, stamp collecting offers no benefits to society. Is this therefore immoral "by any objective standard"?

To clarify, we are not obligated to benefit society by any action, nor does our failure to do so equate to immorality. Immorality would more aptly be characterised by specific, intentional (or grossly irresponsible) actions which are significantly detrimental to other conscious entities (which, more generally, includes society).

As for "innocent until proven guilty", I'm sure you don' really live by that standard. I don't think you're willing to extend that principle to people who disapprove of homosexuality. But, rather you're completely in favor prohibiting them from following their beliefs.

That would depend entirely on what their beliefs entailed and would be based upon general principles, which are external to the specific scenario of "anti-gay beliefs". I certainly don't oppose freedom of thought or expression but do oppose intellectual dishonesty, particularly when it involves condemning others while refusing to even attempt the generation of a sound rationale for doing so. Another way to put it might be that I oppose wilful prejudice (against LGBT people or anybody else).

The government has no interest in promoting homosexual behavior, so therefor it shouldn't recognize same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage doesn't promote homosexual behaviour. It abolishes the historical inequity/ arbitrary and prejudicially motivated discrimination. It is simply an issue of equality. Is it not an objective of the state to treat its citizens equally unless good reason can be presented that they shouldn't be (I.E. fairly)?

And, yet you want a cake baker to go to jail for not producing a homosexual wedding cake. You want a wedding photographer to go to jail for not taking pictures of homosexuals kissing.

Those are actually quite complex issues, depending upon a range of factors. A Muslim cannot expect to be employed as a wine taster if they refuse to drink or sip alcoholic drinks, wouldn't you agree? Conscientious objector wanting to join the army etc. Likewise for a Hindu who wanted to work in an abattoir that slaughtered cattle. The Muslim likely cannot work in a butchers if they refuse to touch pork. Is this unreasonable? Not a rhetorical question, please answer.

Issues involved here include that a person should not pursue careers in which the possibility of their fulfilment of an integral component of the job is precluded by their religious beliefs. Obviously attempts should be made to accommodate employees personal wishes as much as possible for activities which aren't integral to the job, in the same way any decent company/ manager would normally attempt to accommodate employees to some extent (no special treatment of the religious however).

Another issue would be that as people partaking in a society (and therefore benefiting from it) we arguably have an obligation to provide our services to society (all of it). One way to perhaps make this clearer is to consider the scenario where Christians are a small minority in a society and all vendors refused to sell to Christians for their own religious reasons. Would this be a just, fully functional society?

Yet another possibly relevant factor would be whether or not a person is self-employed or employed by others. This may be irrelevant, given the previous paragraph however.

The only reason you support government same-sex marriage is to force your beliefs on others.

Actual reasons:
- Promotion of equality.
- Dissolution of an arbitrarily discriminatory practise which provides illusory psychological legitimacy to heterosexists, therefore reinforcing or encouraging their prejudice.
- Some same-sex couples want it and there is no good reason to oppose it.

Homosexuals can deny that they're perverts...

I bet you I can find you some that do ^^. It is however irrelevant as the word "pervert" is a classical example of a virtually meaningless word with an entirely unjustified negative connotation.
To juxtapose the words "homosexuals are perverts" no more makes a rational, coherent argument against homosexuals than "heterosexuals are perverts" does against heterosexuals. There is no argument there. It is simply the assertion of nondescript negativity.

Don't forget, pedophilia is also a sexual orientation. Have you raped any children lately?

Incorrect. I'm sorry to see you became so childish towards the end of your post as you were quite civilised earlier. Anyhow, paedophilia is a chronophilia I.E. part of the chronophilic spectrum. A SO is based around the inter-relationship of the biological sex of people from group A and people from group B who they are attracted to.

Heterosexuality is an SO. Have you raped any children lately? See how childish it is.

"Sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to men, women, or both sexes."

Thanks for reading.

 

[Jabin]

I'm here to debate. Homosexuality has no inherent, direct risks. Homosexuality offers the benefits of the potential for love, companionship and all-round happiness, just as heterosexuality does.

Homosexuality among men has been a huge factor in the spread of STDs, just as one example. The government spends billions of dollars every year in costs related to STDs, like HIV. I don't understand why a homosexual can't find love from someone of the opposite sex? I also see no reason for the government to be involved, per se, in anyone's all-around happiness. And, on the contrary, homosexuals seem relatively miserable (e.g. consider their suicide rate). So, the government isn't promoting all-round happiness by sexually confusing children.

Secondly, stamp collecting offers no benefits to society. Is this therefore immoral "by any objective standard"?

Have thousands of people died from the consequences of stamp collecting behavor? Is anyone forced to support stamp collecting. Really, that's the best analogy you could find?

Same-sex marriage doesn't promote homosexual behaviour. It abolishes the historical inequity/ arbitrary and prejudicially motivated discrimination. It is simply an issue of equality. Is it not an objective of the state to treat its citizens equally unless good reason can be presented that they shouldn't be (I.E. fairly)?

For someone who claims to oppose intellectual dishonesty, you sure practice it a lot. What you call "prejudicialy motivated discrimination" is freedom. Why don't you be honest and say you oppose the freedom of others to choose not to support the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Issues involved here include that a person should not pursue careers in which the possibility of their fulfilment of an integral component of the job is precluded by their religious beliefs.

First, in the current cases, these people were already in these careers before they were required to service perverts. Second, let's just shoot all the homos. They shouldn't have chosen a lifestyle that is precluded by an integral component of society's standards (if we lived in a society that stoned sexual perverts) -- sorry to sink to your pathetic level of defense of oppression.

Actual reasons:
- Promotion of equality.
- Dissolution of an arbitrarily discriminatory practise which provides illusory psychological legitimacy to heterosexists, therefore reinforcing or encouraging their prejudice.
- Some same-sex couples want it and there is no good reason to oppose it.

Homos are perverts, but historically they were equal under the law. No law ever prohibited a homosexual man from marring a woman. having the same rights as others. You want "separate but equal" laws. Anyway, what makes "equality" for homos important for society? And, why is it the government's job to force people to treat perverts, criminals, or whatever and equals?

I bet you I can find you some that do ^^. It is however irrelevant as the word "pervert" is a classical example of a virtually meaningless word with an entirely unjustified negative connotation.

Homosexuals are perverts. But, you complain that the term pervert is irrelevant while you use the absolutely meaningless term "gay"? A word hijacked for an euphemism.

Homosexuals are perverts. They're not normal. They don't deserve to be treated as normal. And, no amount of government can make them normal.

Incorrect. I'm sorry to see you became so childish towards the end of your post as you were quite civilised earlier. Anyhow, paedophilia is a chronophilia I.E. part of the chronophilic spectrum. A SO is based around the inter-relationship of the biological sex of people from group A and people from group B who they are attracted to.

Pedophilia, chronophilia, is every bit a "sexual orientation" as homosexuality is. What did you say "group A and from group B who they are attracted to" - an orientation of A toward B. Pedophiles claim the same innate sexual feelings as homosexuals do.

 

[Spitfire]

number4
I will not be spamming links btw but wish to share some in a debate.

Why don't you go ahead and start a debate in one of the main forums, then? Maybe you can't actually post a link (yet) but you could still discuss the content of those links: why you think that information is important, what hitherto outstanding questions it answers, how it changed the way you think and why it should do the same for others, etc.

That always makes for far better debate than simply posting links or copying and pasting from them without any commentary of your own anyway.

 

[PureX]

number4
I will not be spamming links btw but wish to share some in a debate.

You are clearly very intelligent and articulate. I wouldn't anticipate that you'd need to post many links to make yourself understood. Keep in mind that we're more interested in your ideas and how you express them than in the ideas of those who are not here for us to interact with, that you found posted elsewhere.

I already appreciate your contention that it's the moral objection to a moral choice that bears the burden of proof, not an individual moral choice, because it's the objection that interlopes. I hadn't thought of it that way, before, but there is sound reasoning behind that assertion.

 

[jamie]

If anybody has a good reason to believe that any gods exist...

Let's say for the sake of discussion that TOL is a theology forum. A forum for discussions of God, gods, and religious stuff. If so, then why do you feel homosexuality is related to theology?

Are you trying to promote sexual preference and orientation as a religion?

 

[GuySmiley]

- Likewise for "how is morality objective if there is no God" or anything like that. Undesirable consequences of accepting that reality is the way it is in no way alter how reality actually is. I.E. Your approval of reality has no baring upon how reality is. There are certainly aspects of it which I disapprove of, yet they remain.
Anyway, you get the gist.

So do you reject that morality is objective? What's the point of debating the legitimacy of homosexuality?

 

[Truths4yer]

Replies to Many

Replies to Many

This post contains responses to Spitfire, PureX, Jamie and GuySmiley. Each of you are quoted only once and your names are in red at the start of my response to you. Thank you for the replies.

GuySmiley

So do you reject that morality is objective? What's the point of debating the legitimacy of homosexuality?

In a sense, I regard all objectivity to be indemonstrable, whether or not we can have beliefs which just so happen to be objectively true.

Anyhow, regarding morality, it only seems useful as a system/ideology for facilitating harmonious (and ideally happy) coexistence between conscious entities (us). With this in mind, the most effective means of achieving this can be rationally derived and inferior approaches can therefore be rationally rejected.

To give a slightly more specific explanation/example, a system of morality that is concerned with treating everybody equally (by default) and promoting mutual well-being for everybody is a system that is beneficial to everybody and therefore a good system for harmonious coexistence.

The moment we agree that the core objective of morality should centre around promoting our mutual well-being, we develop a quasi-objective morality, whereby every further judgement is "objectively" correct or incorrect with regards to that principle. I.E. we agree on the foundational principle so it is not necessary to debate as long as we are only interacting with like-minded individuals.

A further means of analysing the efficacy of a system of morality is to identify any inconsistencies in its application. Any good moral ideology should incorporate consistently applicable principles and therefore exclude any arbitrary condemnations. Consistency is key to rationality. If it turns out that we cannot have a consistently applicable system of morality for whatever reason, then we may even have to resign ourselves to favouring the least inconsistent.

To give a simplified example of consistency: Murder, theft and rape are wrong as they involve deliberately harming other conscious entities (bad for harmonious coexistence). Homosexuality is not because it does not (it is victimless, ergo irrelevant to harmonious coexistence). I see immorality as being very much harm/victim based anyhow as any system opposed to victimisation (of anybody) protects everybody (including you/me). Doesn't that sound like a system you'd like to promote?

I don't claim to know that morality isn't (truly) objective btw but currently see no reason to believe that it is and so naturally, will not believe it to be until such a reason manifests. Subjective and objective moralists share the same first two claims but the objective moralist adds a third and therefore has the burden of proof for it.

1) People have a sense of morality.
2) This sense of morality varies from person to person.
3) One moral view is (objectively) correct, while all others therefore aren't.



Jamie

Let's say for the sake of discussion that TOL is a theology forum. A forum for discussions of God, gods, and religious stuff. If so, then why do you feel homosexuality is related to theology?

From my experience of debating heterosexism/ homosexuality over the years, the Abrahamic religions are at the root of virtually all condemnation of homosexuality. Those few condemnations which aren't to any apparent extent religiously motivated likely also draw illusory/ legitimacy credibility from the historical backdrop of religious heterosexism (I.E. they are psychologically bolstered by it).

More systematically acquired (less anecdotal) empirical evidence appears to support my perception:

"Americans who oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage, 46% of the adult population, are most likely to explain their position on the basis of religious beliefs".
http://www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx

"The French public is more likely than any other population polled to view homosexuality (78%) as morally acceptable. As points of comparison, 68% of Germans and 58% of Britons believe homosexuality is morally acceptable. Among European Muslim populations surveyed, the acceptability of homosexuality is highest among French Muslims (35%) and lowest among British Muslims (0%)."
http://www.adyanonline.net/pluginfi...content/1/The Gallup Coexist Index 2009_1.pdf

The forum also includes a politics section, with a subheading of "homosexuality", so for all of these reasons, I regard it as a good medium to debate the topic.



The following is a simultaneous reply to both
Spitfire
and
PureX because you both made similar points.

Keep in mind that we're more interested in your ideas and how you express them than in the ideas of those who are not here for us to interact with, that you found posted elsewhere.

I already appreciate your contention that it's the moral objection to a moral choice that bears the burden of proof, not an individual moral choice, because it's the objection that interlopes. I hadn't thought of it that way, before, but there is sound reasoning behind that assertion.

Why don't you go ahead and start a debate in one of the main forums, then? Maybe you can't actually post a link (yet) but you could still discuss the content of those links: why you think that information is important, what hitherto outstanding questions it answers, how it changed the way you think and why it should do the same for others, etc.
That always makes for far better debate than simply posting links or copying and pasting from them without any commentary of your own anyway.

In general I would agree, though I do think that there are some important exceptions. I agree that people should make their own arguments and I disapprove of people sharing vast essays/ articles which they didn't even take the time to write themselves. Linking to or quoting external sources can however be pertinent for a few things, such as;

1) Verifying an empirical claim: No words I share, however eloquently formed, can evidence an empirical claim, independently of any data. I would however concede that a citation, rather than a link is sufficient for this.

2) Demonstrating that your viewpoint is shared by experts on a given topic: A verbatim quotation demonstrates this far more unequivocally than paraphrasing what I think somebody else has said (I.E. giving my "interpretation"). Again however, I would agree that a citation may be sufficient and this could perhaps even be considered part of point 1.

3) "A picture (or in this case, video) is worth a thousand words": I don't know if I can embed videos in my first 5 posts but I was under the impression that I could not. Assuming that I could not, this third reason is why it was particularly necessary for me to include a link in my first post (which I had already typed out).

As far as I remember, the video I wished to use was the perfect analogy to demonstrate the fallaciousness of those who overgeneralise from people on gay pride to draw negative conclusions about all LGBT people's sexual provocativeness etc.

It is a video of the general population (heteros) at Mardi Gras. I'll link it below but please be aware that it contains partial nudity. Imo, nothing I say could convey my point as forcefully/ vivaciously as the experience of seeing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQcJOGZ3sZ4

I could of course have delayed my post until I had made 5 other contributions anyhow but as my intention wasn't to undermine the spirit of the restriction (by spamming links), this slight impatience is hopefully forgiveable.

Thanks for reading and for the warm welcomes.

 

[Truths4yer]

Thanks for the reply. This response is purely to Jabin (as opposed to other previous posters in this thread).

Homosexuality among men has been a huge factor in the spread of STDs, just as one example. The government spends billions of dollars every year in costs related to STDs, like HIV.

Homosexuality as an independent entity is incapable of spreading STIs. A celibate homosexual cannot spread STIs for example, despite being homosexual. I think I'll let you flesh this out a little more before I give a full counter as your point isn't very specific. I urge you to avoid listing STIs or many different sexual practises all in one post as each one will potentially elicit a lengthy response from me (leading to an exponential increase in response lengths). I.E. please consider picking one at a time to go through.

If we take HIV as your example, black people have a significant HIV prevalence disparity compared to whites (all empirical claims are evidenced below). Does your rationale therefore support racism?
Lesbians are actually at infinitely lower risk of HIV transmission than heteros, which seems to automatically disprove any direct link between homosexuality and HIV prevalence.
HIV also doesn't seem to affect homosexuals especially disproportionately on a global scale I.E. when considering a holistic view.

"To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database."

"In 2009, blacks/African Americans made up approximately 13% of the population of the 40 states (surveyed) but accounted for 52% of diagnoses of HIV infection."

"Heterosexual (male-female) intercourse accounts for more than 70% of all adult HIV infections to date and homosexual (male-male) intercourse for a further 5-10%."

I'll just close/ clarify this response by saying that you haven't yet distilled a link between homosexuality itself and STI disparities.

I don't understand why a homosexual can't find love from someone of the opposite sex?

For the same reason that you both cannot and cannot be reasonably expected to with members of the same-sex. They aren't naturally inclined that way, just as you aren't to members of the same sex.

Love is arguably one of the best emotions which we have and I would therefore struggle to see how anything which diversifies it would be likely to be a bad thing, provided of course that the (romantic) love had the potential of being reciprocated by somebody (yes that excludes the paedophile/ zoophile counters hehe).

I also see no reason for the government to be involved, per se, in anyone's all-around happiness.

The government is an establishment by the people, for the people, is it not? Would you be happier in a world without roads, firemen, the rile of law and organisations employed to deter the spread of diseases, such as the CDC?

While the government shouldn't be showing favouritism to any particular citizens (and therefore elevating their happiness above that of others), its role is surely to promote the quality of life of all citizens, which effectively equates to happiness. What other reason do you think we have government for?

And, on the contrary, homosexuals seem relatively miserable (e.g. consider their suicide rate). So, the government isn't promoting all-round happiness by sexually confusing children.

Please evidence your suggestion that same-sex marriage causes children sexual confusion and that this detracts from their happiness. All the evidence indicates that the suicidality disparity for LGBT people results from heterosexism/ minority stress, rather than homosexuality. Legally enshrined discrimination (marriage inequality) therefore exacerbates, rather than diminishes this.

"There was a significant association between experiencing a high level of sexuality-related bullying and depressive symptomatology (p=0.03), having attempted suicide (p=0.03), and reporting parental abuse (p=0.05)."

"Among homosexual men, perceived discrimination was associated with suicidality."

Have thousands of people died from the consequences of stamp collecting behavor? Is anyone forced to support stamp collecting. Really, that's the best analogy you could find?

If you consider STI-related deaths to be the consequence of homosexual behaviour (I'll still wait for you to expand on that above before a further full response), then the same would be true of heterosexual behaviour.

Nobody is forced to support homosexual behaviour. My stamp-collecting analogy was perfectly adequate for the context in which I used it. It unsurprisingly isn't now that you've changed the context but the above one is.

For someone who claims to oppose intellectual dishonesty, you sure practice it a lot. What you call "prejudicialy motivated discrimination" is freedom. Why don't you be honest and say you oppose the freedom of others to choose not to support the lifestyle of homosexuals.

Homosexuality isn't and doesn't have a lifestyle, just as there is no "heterosexual lifestyle". Both populations are heterogeneous. I oppose the "freedom" of others to engage in intellectual dishonesty by forming unjustified, prejudice beliefs about others, while maintaining the pretence that they are well justified. I do not oppose the freedom of others to think whatever they want but will obviously seek to correct any delusions which they may cultivate. Doing so could even be considered a charitable act ^^.

There is a difference between a lack of condemnation and support. That difference is characterised by "tolerance".

First, in the current cases, these people were already in these careers before they were required to service perverts.

I've already demonstrated the relative meaninglessness of the term "pervert". Please address that or try to avoid dirtying your sentences with such words.

A historical injustice does not justify its perpetuation.

Second, let's just shoot all the homos. They shouldn't have chosen a lifestyle that is precluded by an integral component of society's standards (if we lived in a society that stoned sexual perverts) -- sorry to sink to your pathetic level of defense of oppression.

Not sure what you're referring to. Please quote the relevant part of my post if you're making a specific response. You haven't sunken anything anyhow as society's "standards" are only as relevant as they are justified. This is similar to how somebody's opinion on ethical issues is generally relevant only to the same extent as they are an ethical person, operating according to consistently applicable (rational), ethical principles.

Homos are perverts, but historically they were equal under the law. No law ever prohibited a homosexual man from marring a woman. having the same rights as others.

Nope, that is no more equal than it would be for you if only same-sex couples could marry. Here is a great 1.5 min video which demonstrates the principle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuuPIEQXKeU

You want "separate but equal" laws.

Nope, that would be what proponents of civil unions want. Equality would involve everybody being free to marry the mutually consenting person that they love.

Anyway, what makes "equality" for homos important for society? And, why is it the government's job to force people to treat perverts, criminals, or whatever and equals?

Homos are part of society. The government has a role in opposing any prejudicially motivated discrimination.
Do you support people's right to refuse to provide services to racial or religious minorities btw?
How about if they're employed by the government?

Homosexuals are perverts. But, you complain that the term pervert is irrelevant while you use the absolutely meaningless term "gay"?

Gay = somebody who is exclusively attracted to members of the same biological sex as themselves. Please explain how the term "pervert" is relevant.

Homosexuals are perverts. They're not normal. They don't deserve to be treated as normal. And, no amount of government can make them normal.

They're as abnormal as the abnormally intelligent or kind or considerate. How is abnormality relevant?

Pedophilia, chronophilia, is every bit a "sexual orientation" as homosexuality is.... Pedophiles claim the same innate sexual feelings as homosexuals do.

You are factually incorrect to term paedophilia a sexual orientation, though it isn't really relevant. Did you miss the bit where I pointed out that heterosexuality is a sexual orientation too?

Pedophiles claim the same innate feelings as heterosexuals and I'd be surprised if some didn't have them (there are multiple types of paedophile however according to the research on them). How are pedophiles relevant here anyhow?

 

[PureX]

3) "A picture (or in this case, video) is worth a thousand words"

I agree.



Steve Earle and I are the same age.