The Bright Side of Homosexuality!

Turtlette, don't you think that if your heterosexuality was condemned as evil you would want to march in parades?

Thinkfactory i guess i glanced over it cause i would have said something earlier anyways you said and i quote:
"This is IF you accept the argument that homosexuality is a sin. I love the hetero's that lived thier life just like they wanted - nailed whomever they wanted in college - cheat on thier wives - beat thier spouses - download porn at an alarming rate - and all thier transgressions are covered. But the frickin homo's - look what they are DOING to our society. I say we kill them. I say I can stand in judgement! Yeah! BURN THEM! "

Obviously you have had an incident that has made you stereotype all christians and im sorry for whatever or whoever picked on you but christianity teaches that are humans are sinful. And we should not hate people for being sinful and consider ourselves to be perfect. Christianity teaches how to avoid sinful behavior not hate the sinner. Forgiveness is a underlying theme in the bible. Homosexuality is damaging to one's self and i have not seen anything good that can come out of it so i don't see why people feel so emotionally attached to the issue. Why don't you scream as loud on topics such as smoking pot. If you feel it is someones individual choice to cause harm to themselves(in the case of homosexuality) then why don't you argue that all people should be allowed to hurt themselves? I don't have an answer maybe you can give me your reason for believing so firmly in homosexuality and why it is so important to you.

This is a rediculous statement.

Lets apply it to some other behavioral issues

If your right to kill someone was condemmed as evil you would want to march in parades

If your right to rape children was condemned as evil you would want to march in parades

If your right to use drugs was condemned as evil you would want to march in parades

There is a reason why things are condemned as evil and if you think it should be someones right to harm society i don't see where you draw the line

Using sympathy as an argument against a depressing lifestlye to me is rediculous. Shouldn't we mention the negatives of homosexulaity or is it funnier to give them the ok on their lifestyle so they die earlier and are 100 times more susseceptable to aids and other stds. To me real love is not blind love. I would never allow my kid to do things that are harmful to his health. If i really loved him id prevent him from hurting himself because i cared for him i would not want to let anything slide and allow him to engage in harmful behavior.

Discreet, you beg the question. Comparing homosexuality to murder, rape and drug addiction is problematical. It is the point of contention. I, for example, would make the following comparisons, which reflect my contention.
If your right to make abstract art was condemmed as evil you would want to march in parades

If your right to vote was condemned as evil you would want to march in parades

If your right to commit suicide was condemned as evil you would want to march in parades

Discreet,

If your right to post your opinions (which some might consider bigoted and mean-spirited) was condemned, would you march in a parade supporting Freedom of Speech?

If someone's right to post their pro-gay stance was condemned, would you march in a parade supporting Freedom of Speech?

well if you want to argue based on human feelings instead of logical evidence then i guess i have no argument for revoking homosexuality. They should have the freedom to harmthemselves for that is true love towards fellow man

Discreet, I do think that your thinking on this topic is a bit twisted. I will not engage you on this any further.

True, nobody else does seem to use references and evidence to argue their position.

However, I suspect its more they can't be bothered to argue against something that should obviously be ignored as paranoid rantings. Certainly, arguing with you has eaten into much of my freetime, which I could spend doing other things.

Paul Cameron's studies weren't disputed by anyone except by Brown et al, because frankly, the other researchers knew to ignore his work as completely rubbish and distorted garbage.

You yourself have not proved that homosexuality is a threat to society in general, only a threat to those who practice unsafe sex. I suspect the low AIDS infection can be explained by comparing the West to Africa.

Primarily, it is the fault of horny men that don't know when to stop and can't be bothered to put on a simple condom. It is not a symptom of homosexuality in general, because I think you'll find that lesbians don't suffer as much as gay men.

Also, by comparing homosexuality to crimes such as rape, murder and drug use, you are merely comparing apples to oranges and merely shows nothing but ignorance.

If you think that homosexuals are equal to these people, then I am greatly offended, because you are hence comparing me to a murderer, to a paedophile to a drug user and I am none of those things.

If I'm hurting myself by being a homosexual, I'd love you to point out exactly what I'm currently doing during my life to hurt myself or society. I'm sure that most of your arguments will not apply to me, in fact, none of them ever have.

I am always impressed by the "christian love" which leads so many fanatics to come here and rant about homosexuality . . .


Love thy neighbor as thyself . . . unless, of course, if thy neighbor is gay . . .

Ah, the redolance of rotting hypocricy . . .

Wolf, I think it's more that several of us start out using references and evidence, which are utterly ignored, we figure out it's a waste of time, and we stop.

Kudos to you for continuing anyway.

Nah, I'm going to stop using them myself now. There's no point continuing, really. This argument is beyond redundant, especially seeing as its become exactly like the old homosexuality thread.

Sadly, i think you are correct about that. One of the first discussion board threads in which i engaged, many years ago, was not very much different than this one. The principle difference was that the antagonist there was much less articulate than Discreet--but what is truly sad is, given that difference, the arguments were identical.

The trouble with the topic is that it is rarely raised with constructive motives. People rarely seek to UNDERSTAND the lives of homosexuals; they only want to condemn them. People who initiate the topic usually have a psychological axe to grind. It would be like the never-occurring event of homosexuals initiating threads to condemn heterosexuality. That would be no less absurd than Discreet's project.

I just havn't seen any evidence disproving the fact that

Centers for Disease Control, reporterd 65% of all reported AIDS cases among U.S. males since 1981 have been men engaged in homosexual behavior. (CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, May 1998) this number has gone up since then.
The CDC (1996) also shows Federal money spent per death for Cancer was $3,776.00, for heart disease it was $1,056.00, and for AIDS/HIV it was $39,172.00.

And i agree safe sex would lower these numbers

But my points are that in all studies i have read homosexuality lowers a lifespan of a human being(show me otherwise)
In which case if they are dying younger they are not being productive and hurting our economy by not paying taxes, etc
Also the fact that in all studies it shows homosexuals tend to have a great deal more partners then heterosexuals and often engage in much more sexual activity leading to the spread of many stds isn't to great for society either. If 40 we ll say is about the average lifespan since the age ranges from 34 to 49 from different studies i have reviewed lets say a homosexual married couple wants to adopt at age 24 if they die in 15 years on average you are going to have a great tax on other humans to raise those kids. But im sure this agument will end will all my facts are unvalid studies such as cdc, journal of american medical association, and The American Journal of Psychology because all we need is wolfe to tell us what is true and what data is biased and everyone immediately agrees because that makes them feel comfortable and many people are unwilling to accept facts that go against their beliefs. Instead of saying i am a waste of time to argue with show me your best reason for why you beleive so firmly that we should allow homosexuality





p.s. im sick of this christian stereotype im given considering im an agnostic. As soon as i go against homosexuality im labeled as a religious activist....classic
love thy neighbor as thyself . . . unless, of course, if thy neighbor is gay . . .

If your neighbor was a rapist im not sure your supposed to love him your supposed to help him wiht his bad behavior which would be true love for that person not loving him even if he is doing something wrong

Quite apart from your incoherence, you demonstrate once again your hateful attitude--rapist/homosexual is a vile and invidious comparison, and says exactly about your character what one needs to know to judge the value of your statements.

JL
I have my own parade and drummer, but I don't parade it down main street for other peoples benefit. My parade does not pertain to sexuality.

If I was gay, I can't picture me screaming it from the roof tops and making a public spectacle of myself.

A classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Homosexuality and shorter life spans seem to go together, so, Discreet reasons, homosexuality must cause those shorter life spans. And because homosexuality is the cause for shorter life spans, it must be something that we should discourage, if not forbid. Or, in Discreet's words:



The fallacy here is obvious. Men, for instance, have average life spans that are shorter than women. Using Discreet's reasoning, we would be justified in arguing that maleness should be banned. Likewise, blacks have, on average, shorter life expectancies than whites. So Discreet should also be asking why we should allow blackness. Clearly, that's absurd, but no more absurd than hanging an argument about "permitting" homosexuality on life span data.

For a similar critique, see this article.


Fear not: the universe of all bigots is large enough to accomodate both you and religious zealots.

Ah, that last line was priceless . . .

hey joe im merely pointing out that this lifestlye damages one's health. Just like drugs and other illegal substances or lifestyles. And the only reason i see that people are embracing it is because they say it doesn't hurt anybody