News Was the US Supreme Court Right on Homosexual Sex?

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Of course if human's all stopped having sex hahah, and you speak of OUR weak arguments? Gays will never be able to have kids, this is not good. Although I said potential, I didn't say it would destroy evolution definately.

I agree the current rate of marriage and divorce is also destroying family values; I don't see how gays will strengthen the family unit, seeing as how they will never have a family of their own. I'm sure you will bring up couples that cannot have babies, this is as legitimate as couples with genophobia, they are few and far between, and their numbers are without comparison to gays [when considering their ability to have children].

Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Adoption? Artificial insemination? Surrogate mothers? Why are thos options only valid for straight couples, and rich single people? Try again.

Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Adoption isn't your own child, and I said your own family. As far as I am concerned I am talking of to homosexual men. Artificial insemination is the only legitimate argument for lesbians though, as a surrogate mother is the same concept as adoption.

So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure a lot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
So adopted children have no real family...I'm sure a lot of folks would be interested in finding that out from some kid on a message board.

Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.

I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Some kid on a message board, looking down on me because I am only eigtheen years old? I wouldn't consider myself a child.

I am reminded of russ_watters, I would be interested to see where I said adopted children have no real family. What I UNMISTAKABLY (beyond any doubt except for manipulation and changing of my words) was they don't have a family of their own, MEANING, as I have said in almost every post relating to this topic, a family they bore themselves.

There is a distinction between those two things under the law? Do adoptive parents have different rights than natural parents?

 

[Hurkyl]

Until I did the surfing the past couple days, I had believed the hype about sexual orientation being locked in at birth.

http://couragerc.net/PIPPsychTreatmentStudy.html might be more convincing. One of NARTH's position statements:

Social science evidence supports the traditional model of man-woman marriage as the ideal family form for fostering a child's healthy development.

Anyways, simply to drop some facts on the table, it seems that homosexuality is not genetically determined at birth, and therapy has plenty of success with changing the sexual orientation of a homosexual.

 

[Zero]

Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?

 

[Zero]

And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices. This isn't the Soviet Union or Iraq, remember?

 

[Hurkyl]

*snicker* From the NARTH website under "our purpose" at the bottom:

gay advocates ... intimidated dissenters by casting them as personally bigoted and hateful

In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.

Wow, anti-gay websites, how convincing. And I do mean 'hating the homosexual lifestyle' when I say anti-gay. Try again?

I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91

And, hey...I don't care if homosexuality is a choice, we are free to make choices.

It came up sometime earlier in the thread, I'm pretty sure.


In any case, I've made an effort to present some topics for discussion. Care to come out of your ivory tower and do the same?

 

[Zero]

I never made the claim about genetics...so don't expect me to defend it. As far as the rest, treating homosexuality as a disease flies in the face of actual homosexuals, who are generally happy, except for the bigoted harassment they face, and the idiotic feelings that are forced on them by intolerant society.

Again, for teh last time, I ask: where is the harm in homosexual sex, versus heterosexual sex. Why is anal sex worse if it is two men? And why should the majority be allowed to assert their bigotry on a minority?

 

[Zero]

*Sitting here, trying to figure out how the sex lives of my neighbors affects me*

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Bad in what sense? It has the potential to destroy things such as family values, evolution, and sexual clearity.

How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.

Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

In any case, your response is yet another ad hominem attack; you're attacking the source and not the arguments. And the NARTH website seemed quite level-headed to me. Go look at the "Is Homosexuality Genetic" page.

There is great importance in evaluating what your source is. I thought that this was common knowledge. A source that is biased will often actively use whatever it can to promote its viewpoint, often twisting the facts, or at least conveniently omitting ones that detriment their argument. The credibility of the source is paramount. It is paramount when they are giving you the data upon which you are basing your argument. The attack on the source is an attack upon the statistics which you base your argument on, which in turn can invalid your argument.

There are two aspects to the argument which one can attack:
1) the premises
2) the reasoning which leads form the premises to the conclusion

The criticizing of the the source is a criticizing of the premises. It if was trying to criticize the reasoning, then he would have to directly address the reasoning. But Zero did not put any stock in the "data" supplied by this website.

Now, if someone said, "Nuh-uh, because you're a right-wing poopyhead!", then that would be an ad hominem attack.

I'm up one to nothing in attempts to present facts. Try once? I'm about to jump into a two to nothing lead!

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/papers/twin_studies/studies.html#b&p91

[/quote]

This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

To a lesser extent, I think the "Oh, I don't see a reason for rule X, so it's okay to break/change it" to be a gravely misguided philosophy. All other things being equal, it's pretty likely that the way something is now is better than the alternative; it's stood the test of time, and that should count for something. I think I tend to argue this a little too vigorously, though.

I definitely do not agree. They way things are is often much worse than the way the could be if the majority took up the effort to change things. There have been many widely-accepted things that "stood the test of time" that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.

And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad. The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

Anyway, two people of the same sex having sex with each other does not lead to violence. It does not lead to vagrancy. It does not lead to sloth. There is no link between any of those and homosexuality...not just empirically, but logically.
Think about it:
"Man A sticks his willy in Man B. Therefore, people will kill each other." How much sense does that make? The same goes for the other "conclusions."
It really does not make a difference if the person whom a person has sex with has a penis and testicles or a vagina, ovaries, and breasts. Which of these bodily characteristics the person whom you decided to have sex with has will not affect your virtues. It's not like male anuses give off anti-guy vibes, that, when met with the anti-guy vibes of a penis, turn into a ball of hatred.

In the event of a gay couple raising a child, the child will probably grow up to be more questioning (not necessarily opposing, but questioning) of the norms, and that is hardly a bad thing. The same is true of any parent(s) who have an atypical lifestyle or who teach their children the value of not following the herd, homo or hetero.

BTW, one of the "greatest" societies of all time was rather infiltrated by homosexuality. This society was that of Greece. Nobody had a problem with it. Alexander the Great was gay. So, the idea that homosexuality destroys family or society or whatever is shown false by example.

 

[Zero]

Specifically, that site is idiotic(ad hominem enough for you) because it confuses and blends separate issues that have nothing to do with each other. Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion', pedophilia, or a mental illness. NARTH's website posts articles that fly in the face of the establishment, in their search to promote their anti-homosexuality agenda.

Funny, homosexuals don't have an agenda for others...that falls to their bigoted enemies.

 

[Hurkyl]

This seems to indicate that there is a genetic relation to homosexuality.

But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.


This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.

that were very bad things that eventually were done away with--serfdom, slavery, sexually-discriminatory polygamy, monarchy, theocracy, ethnocentrism and xenophobia, etc.

And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?

Not only is there no evidence for homosexuality being bad, but there is no logical link.

By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?

And, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim: that homosexuality is bad.[/qutoe]

Which is why I've refrained from asserting that claim.

Incidentally, the burden of proof is also upon someone making the claim that homosexuality is not bad.

The default position would be not assuming that there is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.

(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

Homosexuality is NOT 'gender confusion'

What evidence is there that homosexuality is not decided during a time of sexual confusion? It's clear that the environment is a stronger influence than genetics...

NARTH's anti-homosexuality agenda.

NARTH is providing an option for those who wish to convert from homosexuality to heterosexuality; what are they supposed to do, tell everyone they were born homosexual and should live with it?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
How does it destroy "family values"? And what are so good about the "family values" that you claim are being destoyed. Evolution? Most people aren't gay and will continue to not be gay. Are you you saying that you want gay people to breed, even though it appears that you find what they are doing to be bad? Sexual clarity? Like Zero said, how would a little kid know what the parents do in the bedroom. And kids would also see the tons of heterosexual couples out there. It's not like they will be locked in a box because their parents are gay. What is wrong with the kids seeing that there are alternatives beside the traditional heterosexual relationship.

Before you make any claims about homosexual parenting being bad (being married doesn't necessarily have anything to do with raising, in this case, adoptiong, children, anyway, does it?), you should look up studies on the matter to see if your claims have any basis in reality.

Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?

POTENTIAL

Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.

Family values, bah, use your head.

By 5th grade I knew my parents had sex, I imagine kids know a lot younger than this now; example, a 7th grader just got pregnant in my town. I would say a fifth grader is still sexually pliable.

Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?

Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong? I'm sure somewhere there is a minority that sees what you say is wrong as right, shouldn't the child be exposed to that opinion also?

What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
But it also indicates that it's far from being genetically locked in at birth; there are more pairs of identical twins with one homo one hetero than both homosexual, clearly indicating the environment is stronger influence than genetics. Also, some studies have shown that the adopted siblings of homosexual children have a greater than random chance of becoming homosexual.


This is in strong contrast to the propaganda going about the last couple decades that homosexuality is something that is decided at birth.

I never said that it is locked at birth. I am not foolish enough to say anyone thing is due completely to genetics. Look at muscles for a second. Tendencies to become muscular run in families, but a muscular dad does not always have a muscular son(or uncle-nephew, etc.). A wussy dad does not always have a wussy son. But a lot of wussy dads have wussy sons. Are you going to tell me that it is a wussy kid's choice to not be as strong as his elementary-school peers?

Anyway, I really think that the choice thing is irrelevant. It's a person's choice to do it missionary position, doggy style, or whatever. I would NOT justify outlawing doggy style because it's a choice.

And how many of those were done away with at a time when nobody could provide an argument against them?

Ummm, none of them. But that's a red herring because that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

By "logical link" do you mean "solid proof" or "potential rationale"?

I mean that A logically leads to B through cause and effect. No empirical evidence, just pure logic.

(a) A default position is something you are justified in believing when faced with no evidence against it. A default position is NOT a substitute for proof when you are trying to convence others of something.

(b) I disagree that it is the default position since it is common wisdom that homosexuality is a problem with someone's lifestyle.

No, a default position, not in terms of human psychology, but in terms of philosophy and logic, would be to not believe anything about it. For example, a default position concerning deities would be not to believe in them--not to affirm that they don't exist, just to not have a positive belief in them. Really, a person does not even know of the idea of a god until (a)He imagines it or (b)Someone else tells him the idea. I am not trying to turn the debate to a god topic, just trying to describe what a default position is.

If the default position is what you are describing, there would be infinite default positions, which is self-contradictory.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.

If everybody became homosexual, it would not "destroy evolution." It would mean the end of the human race if no one breeded with the opposite sex, and we did not use artificial insemination or similar means. However, we do have artificial insemination, and it will continue to be used.

But it is absurd to talk about the hypothesis of everybody turning gay. Why don't you outlaw abstinence while you're at it?

And another major, if the the most important factor, is the individual rights aspect. What you are talking about is no less than forced breeding. How can you justify forcing someone to mate with the opposite sex because you want to see the species continue?

Family values, bah, use your head.

I guess that my head doesn't work sometimes. Please enlighten me.

Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?

The burden of proof is on your opinion. To make the claim that homosexuality is bad, there must be proof to support that claim. We cannot just assume that it is, because ASS-U-ME-ing makes an ass out of you and me. (Sorry, I just had to.)

Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong?

Where is the link between your statements? One is about a certain thing being bad or good, and someone you extrapolate that to the basic question of the existence of right and wrong.

What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?

There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.

 

[Hurkyl]

I never said that it is locked at birth.

Many do, and use that presumtion in their rationale for whatever their stance on homosexuality is. I was bringing it up for GP, not as a specific rationale for any specific point.

Ummm, none of them. But that's a red herring because that has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

Your point sounded an awful lot like "People used to make mistakes, so we shouldn't believe anything people used to believe".

My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.

I mean that A logically leads to B through cause and effect. No empirical evidence, just pure logic.

Well, pure logic can prove nothing but statements about pure logic.

No, a default position, not in terms of human psychology, but in terms of philosophy and logic, would be to not believe anything about it.

Which is why I rarely assert statements in these types of threads. Unfortunately, most people (such as Zero) invoke "default position" to mean a position that everyone must accept as true unless they can prove otherwise... I was presuming you were using the common usage.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Come now, Dissident Dan, must I repeat what you quoted?



Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution? To those that will say "everybody won't turn gay" I raised this for the sake of argument, you look at things in a much larger sense and you see the smaller effects of its current state.

Family values, bah, use your head.

By 5th grade I knew my parents had sex, I imagine kids know a lot younger than this now; example, a 7th grader just got pregnant in my town. I would say a fifth grader is still sexually pliable.

Give me the studies, I have got my opinion and I'm not going to go out of my way to prove myself wrong I certainly don't see you accepting arguments going the other way, so why would you expect me to believe your opinions?

Why is it bad for kids to learn sodomy is good? By the same token, why even teach a child what is right and wrong? I'm sure somewhere there is a minority that sees what you say is wrong as right, shouldn't the child be exposed to that opinion also?

What if a group of people start a movement for suicide at a certain age? There are no victims outside of the consentees, our children should learn that it is perfectly normal and good to commit suicide, as long as it doesn't involve others. It's none of my business right?

Your opinion on sodomy is that it is wrong. That is fine, continue to have that opinion. Just, please, try to see that your opinion should not be made into law, just because it is your opinion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Until I did the surfing the past couple days, I had believed the hype about sexual orientation being locked in at birth.

http://couragerc.net/PIPPsychTreatmentStudy.html might be more convincing. One of NARTH's position statements:

If it is a non-religious site, why are so many of the sourses Christian? Check where the authors got their degrees, or what groups they are affiliated with.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
Can you deny if everybody was gay and lesbian it would destroy evolution?

If everyone voted republican, it would be the end of democracy. Therefore, no one must vote republican.

A more unbiased observer would note that (a) homosexuality has always been woith us, (b) it is (if genetic) a natural effect of random variation or (if chosen) an effect of the society we live in. I prefer to have a varied society. I prefer to preserve the element of choice in our lives.

There is no difference between a black and a white person, are you also saying there is no difference between a man and a woman? This is what your example would indicate. If we are attempting to expose the child to all different lifestyles, why not bring them up in a serial killers care, eh?

I think there is very clearly a difference between a black man, and a white man - clearer in most cases than between a man and a woman. What I am saying is that in this context, it has not been shown that this difference is in any way significant. After all, it is obvious that heterosexuality of parents has never prevented people from being homosexual.
In times past, people have tried to make very convincing cases for "racial confusion" by whites and blacks living together. How easily do you say now that their is no difference! Is was never "proven" that there is no difference, no harm, but rather assumed that all men are equal. It took a civil war to recognise this. It shouldn't take one to recognise the liberty of homosexuals.

Family values, bah, use your head.

WHAT family values? Look back over history, and you will see how "family values" have always been changing. If you lived fifty years ago, family values meant giving the wife a permanent place in the house, and as occassional sex object. If you looked back 300 years ago, family values included private homosexuality.

My claim is that if a piece of wisdom has survived a hundred years, then it's more likely that it's a good piece of wisdom than a bad piece of wisdom. Of course there will be some mistakes, but there will be less than other alternatives.

Except it hasn't. At some point, it must have been introduced, as historians have found much evidence of homosexuality in the past. And nothing that follows the guideline of "hate X because he is different, for a reason that is not given" can really be considered wisdom. There is no requirement to drive normally law-abiding, private and harmless individuals underground.
The statement is something else altogether. We shouldn't believe something because they used to believe it, but because we agree with their arguments.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You mean people investigated the why the law exists, and argued that the reasons weren't valid?

Isn't that what I'm asking you and Zero to do? To investigate why such a law would exist and argue that the reasons are unfounded?

The trouble is that there is no apparent reason for such a law in the first place. The law presents an unfalsifiable hypothesis - an act of faith that homosexuality is bad. This is not a valid basis for the infringement of people's rights.

Traditionally, A is considered true.
Nobody has shown me why A is true.
Therefore A is false.

To be blunt, almost yes. More precisely, it is not a matter of definitely saying that A is false, but that of saying that A is not clearly true. And that the matter here is not of whether anyone has shown me, but that of the lack of arguable, reasonable reasons at all.
The attempts made mostly tie into the collusion of church and state, or the misuse of statistical facts. (Consider that social science statement - parental abuse is far more likely in heterosexual families. Incest victims classically occur in isolated, traditionalist communities. Homosexuals are found to be usually more socially capable.) In a matter that has effects on individual liberties, prior belief means nothing. Especially when this belief runs contrary to other principles such as liberty.

Let's take a few examples. The principle of atheism is that although it has been traditionally thought that God exists, latter examination reveals no (as far as the atheist is concerned) reason for God's existence. Hence, while you cannot be expected to disprove god, the atheist chooses not to believe in God's existence, and so not to act as though God exists. Another example - racial discrimination. Though traditionally blacks were considered subhuman slaves, examination shows no evidence why their skin colour is relevant. While it is impossible to prove that blacks are not inferior (as in the moral case of homosexuality, you cannot really give an absolute answer on the vague idea of good or not, superior or not), the laws which rest on the idea of this inferiority are judged to have no valid basis, and hence are abolished.


(Damn... I'm doing a lot of edits recently...)

 

[Zero]

To expand on a point FZ+ made, homosexuality has been a constant throughout history. It has generally been made illegal for religious reasons. Some would say that it is on moral grounds, as though a specific religion gets to set the morals for a society. This is specifically NOT the case in America, which is founded partially on a foundation of religious freedom. The fact that religious groups now you corrupted research to 'prove' that homosexuality is bad, doesn't change the fact that their basic reasoning is based on their cult's doctrine. On those grounds alone, I would say that it is un-American to make homosexuality illegal.

A more personal level, I say that those anti-American forces who would ban consentual sexual activity would not stop at homosexual sex, if they had their way. They would ban ALL sexual activity that does not fit their cult's 'moral' views. They would legislate every aspect of culture to fit theoir narrow interpretation of their particular book of fables. Such an idea is repugnant to me, and should be to anyone who loves America. Further, the idea that allowing minority groups to have rights takes away from the majority, is a foolish fear-mongering idea. When one group is more free, we are ALL more free. That is a facet of freedom that some people hate, maybe most people hate.

 

[kyle_soule]

http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.

There are multiple errors here. First of all, we know that suicide is harmful to someone. There has been presented no evidence, only conjecture, that there is harm in homosexuality. Secondly, it will affect the families of the suicidal person. Thirdly, in some rare cases, suicide actually is the better option. That's one reason why we have euthanasia for pets.

An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.

 

[FZ+]

One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learned to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.

But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption.

All the more reason that gay marriages should be legally recognised.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.

An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable.

Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.

Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual.

They also have a chance of being affected by him announcing himself to be an atheist, if not more so. The fact is, they get over it. The sort of domineering control that would create a situation where they don't get over it, that they refuse to support an individual's choice should not be supported by law - that, by evidence is far more harmful to the child's adult life that allowance of homosexuality.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html

http://www.dbbm.fiocruz.br/www-mem/956/3982.pdf

Links to diseases in homosexual men.

This, along with what Hurkyl linked, are two facts based reasons for our positions.

Someone thought I implied homosexuality should be outlawed, I don't remember who. But from the beginning of this post my stance has been clear, no marriage - no adoption. I really don't care if they want to have sex or not.

As for the suicide, Dissident Dan, if I had a homosexual son I would be affected, as for the other side, some families aren't affected by suicide.

The burden of proof is not on my opinions, it is on me to provide you with proof if I was trying to convince you of what I believed, I'm just discussing what I believe.

The link between the two statements was not apparent when you split them from the next sentence.



An increased risk of disease is harmful. It's like saying smoking isn't harmful because you aren't guaranteed to get a disease, idle tar and such in your lungs isn't necessarily harmful, unless you live an active lifestyle, even then it doesn't hurt you if you can't breath as well, it is just uncomfortable. Affecting families was discussed before, a straight family has a good chance of being affected by a son that pops out and announces he is homosexual. Suicide is a better option? I can't believe this, burden of proof lies on you and we aren't talking about pets being homosexual here, even if their was a valid point in putting a pet down.

Warriors For Christian Radio website? There's a good sourse for medical information! Do they do your taxes too? *rolls eyes*

And, oif course, you comparison to smoking is wrong...like most of teh rest of your comparisons. Try again? Or give up while you are only WAY behind?

 

[jb]

my only argument against adoption is that the kid(s) will probably get harrassed. 5 years ago, back when i was in grade school, kids got harassed because someone would say they were gay. i think most kids would be tolerant, especially as they got older and it was more accepted by society, but i think you'd still hear a lot of "haha, mikey has two dads!" on the playgrounds. i know that that isn't a good reason for same-sex partners not to have kids, but it's something to consider. also i doubt this is very likely, but if those kids got pulled out of school because of the harassment, that could start up a new form of segregation, and god knows we've had enough of that bs to last a lifetime.

as for suicide, i don't think i'd really be affected all that differently, depending on if my son "pops out and announces he is homosexual." i imagine the risk for suicide would be higher, but it's still there. and would you have a reason to kill yourself if society accepted you for who you were?

 

[Zero]

Heh heh...watch me be evil.

 

[Zero]

Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.

 

[Hurkyl]

I won't disagree with that!

 

[FZ+]

Life inevitably leads to death. Avoid it at all costs!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zero
Heterosexuality leads to divorce, rape, child abuse, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, children who are a drain on out resources, stalking, sexual harrassment in the workplace, Lifetime movies, and a general lack of morality in our society.

That settles it. Ban all sexuality! Its ruining lives and it's killing people.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by FZ+
One might note something that is hidden in those sources - there are far far more diseases associated with heterosexuality, most because of the greater prevalence of it's practice. And that parts of the documents are complete lies. Eg. "AIDS - 5000 times" seems behind on the fact that Aids is now a disease primarily of heterosexuals, as gay men have learned to be more careful in their relations. It utterly ignores the major point - that these diseases are connected not to specific sexuality, but sexual ignorance and being exempted from the advice of the health system. Is it any surprise that a group forced underground should make mistakes. This is analogous to saying that alcohol must be continue to be banned due to the actions of smugglers and gangster during the prohibition. The right approach is not to hide, but to advance.

I never thought of this. I suppose you are correct, I just threw those out, I didn't check their stats because, frankly, I didn't care what their stats were, the idea of diseases in gays was all I wanted to throw out.

Would you be happier then if he commited suicide because you refused to accept him for his beliefs? Recognise that the choice lies in the individual, please, and that the comparison with suicide is entirely vacuous. Homosexuality does not prevent you from making friends, from having a good career, from living a life.

Irrelevant to the idea of my post.

Then your belief is wrong the moment you try to enforce it on others. In the same way the homosexuals would be wrong if they tried to discriminate against non-homosexuals etc etc.

Again, I'm only discussing, I'm not trying to force my beliefs on anybody. Just raising questions, and discussing, hearing others views (except for Zero because he is nothing but insulting, what a great Mentor, ay?).

Are we banning smoking then? Notice how smoking will probably always be allowed in private surroundings - it is not anyone's business except for passive smoking which inherently is harmful to others. And homosexuality is in no way comparable, because the diseases are not inherent in this case.

Well, see, this was based on the idea that there is (as I still believe there is) a case in diseases in homosexuality.

Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I won't disagree with that!

So cut off your penis, and butt out of our lives, buddy!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule


Zero, I did not check the sources, although I must ask you, why must a Christian source always be wrong? Are Christians unable to do research correctly? You mentioned NOTHING of the information, you simply insulted me (which was entirely uncalled for, even more so in light of the ABSENSE of ANY contribution to the topic) and insulted the source because it was Christian.

This guy is a MENTOR, too! You insult people more than any other person (currently) at PF!

LOL...and, well...LOL again! All of your comparisons HAVE been wrong, unless you can show that consentual sex is inherently harmful. Until you do, comparing it to murder or alcoholism is not adding much to the discussion.

As far as your links. Christians can obviously do good research. Fundamentalists who begin their research with the specific goal of confirming what they have already decide to be a 'fact' cannot do proper research. The point is, a scientist has to be a scientist FIRST and ONLY when considering research. People doing 'research' to support a religious agenda cannot be impartial.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

Do you think that ____sexuality is morally wrong, or is it just a big waste of time and money to mess with people doing private stuff in their private places? I tend to concur with the latter, because as an American, I like to feel that I can represent myself conservatively.