Discreet wrote:But my points are that in all studies i have read homosexuality lowers a lifespan of a human being(show me otherwise)
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:
Discreet wrote: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
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.
Discreet wrote: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 .
Fear not: the universe of all bigots is large enough to accomodate both you and religious zealots.