1
   

The Bright Side of Homosexuality!

 
 
Discreet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 11:56 am
also look at all the studies done that show how same sex marriage increases man/womans lifespan
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 12:07 pm
Joe, I always say that logic ALONE does not lead us to the sane and wise life, but you demonstrate so well that it helps to avoid the unsane and stupid life.
0 Replies
 
Marquis de Carabas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 05:12 pm
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
True, nobody else does seem to use references and evidence to argue their position.


If you want me to I can. I'd rather not waste the effort though as things currently stand.

Quote:
However, I suspect its more they can't be bothered to argue against something that should obviously be ignored as paranoid rantings.


It's like you know me. Magic!

Quote:
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.


Exactly. It's like me pointing to data saying that a family history of lung cancer is a stupid choice because smokers who have it seem to die earlier than other smokers. It's getting things entirely backwards.

Unsafe sex is less safe if said sex is homosexual. In the previous example I would tell a smoker that if they have a family history of lung cancer they should be more careful of smoking because it's more dangerous for them.

Likewise I would tell a gay man that he should have safe sex because unsafe sex is particularly dangerous for them

Quote:
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.


Unless my memory fails me they suffer said diseases less than straight women, it's an anatomical thing.

Quote:
If you think that homosexuals are equal to these people, then I am greatly offended,


And you care about his opinion why?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 May, 2005 10:56 am
joefromchicago wrote:
The fallacy here is obvious. Men, for instance, have average life spans that are shorter than women.


I'd completely forgotten about that. Dang! That should have been one of my arguments.

Quote:
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.


Not only that, but somewhere in this thread, Discreet stated that married couples tend to have longer life spans than homosexuals. If that is true, then perhaps homosexuals should be allowed to marry, then they too would have longer lifespans.

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 .


If you truly are an agnostic, you are thus claiming to not know for sure whether there is a God and whether He takes the form Christians think He does. Agnostics are generally against persecution and rather wary of moral condemnation.

I say this, because from the way you posted, I clearly had no idea you had the same belief as I do.

Well, I guess as with other things in this world, there are varying degrees of agnosticism.

The only reason that nobody else has not conducted experiments to show that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan, because it is at the moment, impossible to do so or at least, if someone has attempted to do so, they haven't finished their findings (because it requires observing a homosexual from the day they were born to the day they die and a large number of them at that).

Also, what is the point of doing experiments to show that the lifespan of a homosexual is different from that of a heterosexual? What possible reason could there be?

(I also find it strange how some people are trying to find out the cause of homosexuality, looking into genetics and environment. Are they just curious? Do they want to find out how to prevent homosexuality from occurring? Or do they want to proof that homosexuality isn't a life span and that we cannot condemn homosexuals for being who they are?).

Maruis de Carabas wrote:
Unless my memory fails me they suffer said diseases less than straight women, it's an anatomical thing.


You mean, STDs? Yeah, I would have thought so too.

Let's face it. Males are the weakest link. They're the ones affected by STDs the most. They're the ones passing STDs around and they're the ones that are causing noise pollution outside my window, not to mention spewing out carbon dioxide unnecessarily from the exhaust pipes of their cars.

I feel so bad for our gender, right about now.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:22 am
Discreet wrote:
hey joe im merely pointing out that this lifestlye damages one's health.

No, you're assuming that there is a causal connection between homosexuality and life span. That's the problem.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:24 am
All human beings breathe.

All human beings die.

Breathing is fatally dangerous.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:52 am
Setanta wrote:
All human beings breathe.

All human beings die.

Breathing is fatally dangerous.


So true, Setanta, so true....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 04:53:14