australopithecus
Active Member
I would argue that natural and normal are synonymous.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Gay marriage in minesota
- Thread starter Nemesiah
- Start date
australopithecus
Active Member
Well I'd argue against your face!
australopithecus said:
I see no reason to consider impossible hypotheticals.
australopithecus said:
Austra, what you are doing is arguing that it is normal for a certain percentage of a any population to deviate from the norm. That gets us nowhere.
You yourself nullify the main point you have been trying to make in several of your posts in the next quote, because of your confusion There was never any reason for me to consider your confused arguement.
australopithecus said:
"The context is harm". And in your confusion you promote what the CDC identifies year after year as the most harmful type of sexual behavior?
australopithecus said:
Wrong. If the amount of men who only have with sex women were to decrease percentage wise, then amount of people who have diseases like HIV for instance, will increase. Austra, you are just flat out wrong. You're not even thinking.
You're just repeating lines of a bullshit idealogy thats been programed into your mind by people who you thought cared about you. You've been hoodwinked. And I'm trying to help you. I have presented the empirical evidence we have that shows what you are saying is wrong. Because I believe that somewhere locked deep inside your mind, there is a part of you which is still capable of rational thought!
australopithecus said:
You mean monogamous? I am against any change in society which would promote homosexuality. Nothing magical happens when someone gets married. If every gay guy in the world was married tomorrow, they would still all be engaging in an unhealthy form of sexual behavior. There are physiological reasons for this.
I left out your posts about equal rights. I see no reason to support "equal rights" to the extent of promoting destructive behavior. We do not tell or children that is ok to shoot-up heroin because people who do so are our equals.
You've long since decided to nearly only respond to Austra (like in other topics too) - so where's the point in you're demandings? Apart from that, the basic question still stands.Metalgod said:
You surley have no idea, but prefer to stick with a sick defamation.Metalgod said:
The health danger of e.g. kissing is independent from the gender of the parties.
australopithecus
Active Member
Metalgod said:
Read: I see no reason to consider something that highlights the absurdity of my argument.
australopithecus said:
No, what I am doing is arguing that it is normal behaviour for our species, and many other species.
Nope, swing and a miss. The behaviour which causes harm, as I already pointed out, is irresponsibility. Homosexual sexual activities don't are not inherently harmful. Engaging in unsafe sex is.
Bullshit assertion. Considering you claimed you have no time to consider hypotheticals, you were quick to pull this one out your arse. Again, irresponsible behaviour is the issue. Not homosexuality.
You mean my parents, who taught me that equality is a good thing? How dare they teach me to accept others! The bastards!
Oh, is that what you're doing? Because from where I'm sitting it looks like you're spouting bigoted nonsense in order to justify your faith-born intolerance.
No, what you did was provide information from the CDC which shows that instances of HIV/AIDS are more prevalent in homosexual males, which you'll find that I'm not disputing, and as I've grown bored of repeating, that is down to irresponsible sex, not homosexual sex in and of itself.
However you've provided no evidence that homosexuality is "not normal", or any reasoned argument that homosexual couples should not be allowed to marry, and all the rights that entails. So still waiting on that.
Yeah. I'm old fashioned like that.
Legalising does not equal promotion. Regardless, you can't "promote" a sexual orientation. Heterosexual people wont suddenly turn gay if the world accepts homosexuals as equals, both legally and socially. You're chatting bubbles, mate.
Yes, because there are no unhealthly forms of heterosexual behaviour. None at all. Again, your entire argument boils down to nothing more than "EWWWWWW I DON'T LIKE IT!!". You can list those physiological reasons whenever you're ready, and when you do I'll laugh at what will inevitably be a hilariously stunted view into what you think gay sex is.
Harm is an alien concept to you, isn't it? We don't tell kids to shoot up heroin because a) it's illegal and b) it's destructively harmful. Homosexuality is none of those things, despite your rabid assertions.
Again, every argument you're making is analogous to arguments made as to what black people should be allowed to marry white people. Intolerance has a short memory, it seems.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
australopithecus
Active Member
If he's playing that game then I'll just quote them, seeing as he is apparently still replying to me.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
As - and when - he answers them, there's plenty more that I and, I'm sure, Noth can post as there's a very large hole in his argument.
Kindest regards,
James
Thanks, Austra.australopithecus said:
As - and when - he answers them, there's plenty more that I and, I'm sure, Noth can post as there's a very large hole in his argument.
Kindest regards,
James
Dragan Glas said:
Dragan Glas,
I though you post on dominant/submissive roles was interesting. But I would say that your line of thought likely has played no part in the decision making process of 99.9% all of the people who support homosexual marriage. I've tried to respond to posts in the order of their commonality in the mindset those who support homosexuality.
Vivre said:
Well, do you disagree with anything Austra has said thus far. Has he neglected a certain point which you wil now like to make?
Metalgod said:
Vivre said:
Do you think that when I boy kisses his grandfather it means hes a homosexual?
he_who_is_nobody
Well-Known Member
Metalgod said:
That is a non sequitur.
Metalgod, I'll try to answer as many of your claims as possible, even though they will have been covered by other people before me. In that case, think of it as repetition for the sake of understanding.
(This is going to be a long one; buckle up)
All right, so let's examine the claims you made in this thread so far:
The first point might have been true in the eighties and early nineties. This is no longer so. While it is true that homosexual men have a higher risk of being infected with HIV, the treatment has improved so enormously that people are able to grow old despite having aids. It is as of yet too early to judge just how long a lifespan a HIV infected person can generally live because the treatment has not been this refined long enough for people to reach senior age after being infected in, for instance, their early twenties.
Generally, the average lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals. Yet this has numerous other reasons, one very sadly being the teen suicide rate amongst young homosexuals. This does not even address the issue of hate crimes against lgbt people.
Other than this I do not know how you came by "horrible diseases"
In the case of abnormal meaning "deviant," though, there is less merit. You see, here "normal" is what some part of the population (they are usually religious, btw) deem to be conforming to some set ideal standard. I challenge your contention that homosexuality (let's for the moment ignore that you try to separate behaviour from being) is not normal. I say it is. What are your secular accounts for homosexuality not being normal?
No matter that you never made the contention that homosexuality was "unnatural," 1) you implied as such through using a rather shaky definition of "normal" (i.e. you did not define it at all except for a remark on a nuclear family model) and 2) you've missed the point of this particular argument.
When you make the claim that something is "not normal" you need to define what that means to you. You'd say a homosexual relationship is not normal; a homosexual couple adopting/ raising a child is not normal; homosexual "activities" (do you mean: sex?) are not normal.
Your justification for this is that they do not fit the mould of what you feel a family model should be like. Since you cannot, as shown above, claim that it is not normal because it goes against the norm - after all, this would be humongously irrelevant, as you're well aware - you must contend it on some other grounds. This other ground, then, boils down to homosexuality being - you've guessed it - unnatural. How else, secularly, would you define "not normal." And you must be able to show this from a secular viewpoint, or you'd show your religious bias which, as I'm sure you'd agree, should not have any impact on the lives of homosexuals (separation of church and state/ government and all that).
Now then, I'll refer you back to mine and other people's posts that dealt with the unnaturalness (a.k.a. your "not normal-ness") of homosexuality/ "homosexual behaviour."
Having established that, let's move on to the next cracker: "promoting homosexuality."
Let's look at a few facts:
- homosexuality is something you are born with, akin to left-handedness.
- you cannot cure people's homosexuality. It is not a disease.
- homosexuality is not something contagious. You cannot "catch the gay" so to say. Either you're gay (or bi, or etc.) or you're not/ you're straight.
- while nurture plays a part in what kind of a person you'll end up being, it is nature that determines your orientation, which leaves you with no actual choice in the matter.
- there are numerous health risks involved with homosexuality that have to do with outside influences, such as trying to lead a heterosexual lifestyle and other issues. It is safe to say, therefore, that not leading a homosexual lifestyle is, as a homosexual person, damaging to you.
In other words, if you are born gay, society may want you to conform and hide your sexuality, but this is detrimental to your mental and physical health. The only viable option then is to lead a lifestyle that is (here she comes again!) normal in respect to your sexual orientation.
Now "promoting" homosexuality according to you will include things like
1) children being taught to accept homosexuality as a normal thing that can occur in people
2) homosexual people/ characters being depicted on e.g. TV without their homosexuality being made an issue of/ with their homosexuality being depicted as something OK
3) organisations for equality asking for said equality in education, employment, etc.
Correct? Of course, you would frame it differently. You would contend that
1) children are "forced to accept" homosexuality ...
2) the media "forces a one-sided view of homosexuality down your throats"
3) equality groups are just a cover to push the "homosexual agenda"
Too generalising? If so, let me assure you that so far your arguments have come across as in line with this frame of reference. If this is not you, then you'll need to reexamine what your position is.
Now as has been pointed out, this "promoting" is nothing more than showing two equal parties require equal representation. Homosexuality exists. To pretend that it does not by effectively banning any propaganda would result in unspeakable attrocities as are going on across the world right now in countries that argue from that same framework.
Or perhaps you feel that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not/ should not be equal?
But of course, I'm forgetting your posistion altogether. You see, should you have kids, you may have to, one day, explain to them why uncle Tom and uncle Mark are living together. That would be uncomfortable for you, would it not? Just like it would be uncomfortable for you to explain to them why her teacher says she loves her wife. [sarcasm]Think of the children![/sarcasm]
You know what will happen if you choose to let them make up their own minds about it? They may grow into respectable citizens that do not discriminate people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You, currently, do.
Of course, you'll come back at me, as you did with others, and say that homosexuals engage in
1) any homosexual behaviour is immoral behaviour. This is a faith-based claim. You believe this to be true. You have no actual empirical evidence that suggests homosexuals are inherently immoral. So let me dispel this for you: other than adhering to a religious code - one, mind you, littered with other bigoted, racist and downright harmful ideas - you have no basis for claiming homosexuality is immoral. You'll understand why, especially here, this claim holds no weight whatsoever.
The second claim is that
2) homosexiality (since we've already established you cannot split being from behaviour in this case) is self destructive. To back this up you've cited a CDC report that shows how men that have sex with men are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS. This is true. Yet, as I've already highlighted earlier in my post, there are reasons for this that are not intrinsic to homosexual behaviour itself. From the same report, here are two citations that are particularly relevant:
Firstly, the report shows that
Secondly,
Of course, the CDC data, while showing a troubling trend, still does not prove that homosexuality is self-destructive or immoral. To prove this, let me pose the following: let's assume that the situation today was that HIV/AIDS had never been brought to the western world - a situation similar to the one before HIV/AIDS got here, but then set in the present day. You would, I assume, agree that homosexual "behaviour" would not be so self-destructive? After all, there would not be some crippling disease attached to the orientation. From that, we can, I gather, agree that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS today has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexuality?
So rather than something inherently amiss with the sexual orientation, it seems to me that there's a combination of harmful bigotry towards homosexuals that has a real negative effect on their health as well as a fear of a disease which has been traditionally perceived as the "gay disease" simply because that is where it is most prevalent. Stifling the lgbt cause would effectively set back the clock to a time where lack of information and anti-gay sentiments forced an entire community into their own kind of seclusion that was ripe for this new disease to come a knockin'.
Increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and showing people that homosexuality is not something intrinsically nasty goes a long way to increasing overal health and wellbeing.
I'm sure I've missed some minor issues, but I guess this post is long enough as it is. Enjoy.
(This is going to be a long one; buckle up)
All right, so let's examine the claims you made in this thread so far:
The first point is largely irrelevant. If you're a sane parent you'll at least love your gay son or daughter equally if they turn out to be gay, no matter your preconceived notions about who they'll share their bed with once they grow up. Your "normalize" comment came up more frequently, so we'll get back to that later.
The first point might have been true in the eighties and early nineties. This is no longer so. While it is true that homosexual men have a higher risk of being infected with HIV, the treatment has improved so enormously that people are able to grow old despite having aids. It is as of yet too early to judge just how long a lifespan a HIV infected person can generally live because the treatment has not been this refined long enough for people to reach senior age after being infected in, for instance, their early twenties.
Generally, the average lifespan of homosexuals is shorter than that of heterosexuals. Yet this has numerous other reasons, one very sadly being the teen suicide rate amongst young homosexuals. This does not even address the issue of hate crimes against lgbt people.
Other than this I do not know how you came by "horrible diseases"
There is a difference, I do not think has been pointed out, between "normal" meaning "the norm" and, conversely, "abnormal" meaning "deviant". In the case of not normal indicating homosexuality is not "the norm," yes, you're absolutely right. Homosexuality is as minor a part of humanity as left-handedness is. This, of course, says nothing of its values or lack thereof.
In the case of abnormal meaning "deviant," though, there is less merit. You see, here "normal" is what some part of the population (they are usually religious, btw) deem to be conforming to some set ideal standard. I challenge your contention that homosexuality (let's for the moment ignore that you try to separate behaviour from being) is not normal. I say it is. What are your secular accounts for homosexuality not being normal?
'cause you see, you should, really, take this point into consideration.
No matter that you never made the contention that homosexuality was "unnatural," 1) you implied as such through using a rather shaky definition of "normal" (i.e. you did not define it at all except for a remark on a nuclear family model) and 2) you've missed the point of this particular argument.
When you make the claim that something is "not normal" you need to define what that means to you. You'd say a homosexual relationship is not normal; a homosexual couple adopting/ raising a child is not normal; homosexual "activities" (do you mean: sex?) are not normal.
Your justification for this is that they do not fit the mould of what you feel a family model should be like. Since you cannot, as shown above, claim that it is not normal because it goes against the norm - after all, this would be humongously irrelevant, as you're well aware - you must contend it on some other grounds. This other ground, then, boils down to homosexuality being - you've guessed it - unnatural. How else, secularly, would you define "not normal." And you must be able to show this from a secular viewpoint, or you'd show your religious bias which, as I'm sure you'd agree, should not have any impact on the lives of homosexuals (separation of church and state/ government and all that).
Now then, I'll refer you back to mine and other people's posts that dealt with the unnaturalness (a.k.a. your "not normal-ness") of homosexuality/ "homosexual behaviour."
Having established that, let's move on to the next cracker: "promoting homosexuality."
Now I've already touched on this particular nugget briefly, but let's expand. I'd ask you what you meant by "promoting," but I am decently skilled at reading between the lines (read: I've heard this argument so many times before I know exactly what people mean by it).
Let's look at a few facts:
- homosexuality is something you are born with, akin to left-handedness.
- you cannot cure people's homosexuality. It is not a disease.
- homosexuality is not something contagious. You cannot "catch the gay" so to say. Either you're gay (or bi, or etc.) or you're not/ you're straight.
- while nurture plays a part in what kind of a person you'll end up being, it is nature that determines your orientation, which leaves you with no actual choice in the matter.
- there are numerous health risks involved with homosexuality that have to do with outside influences, such as trying to lead a heterosexual lifestyle and other issues. It is safe to say, therefore, that not leading a homosexual lifestyle is, as a homosexual person, damaging to you.
In other words, if you are born gay, society may want you to conform and hide your sexuality, but this is detrimental to your mental and physical health. The only viable option then is to lead a lifestyle that is (here she comes again!) normal in respect to your sexual orientation.
Now "promoting" homosexuality according to you will include things like
1) children being taught to accept homosexuality as a normal thing that can occur in people
2) homosexual people/ characters being depicted on e.g. TV without their homosexuality being made an issue of/ with their homosexuality being depicted as something OK
3) organisations for equality asking for said equality in education, employment, etc.
Correct? Of course, you would frame it differently. You would contend that
1) children are "forced to accept" homosexuality ...
2) the media "forces a one-sided view of homosexuality down your throats"
3) equality groups are just a cover to push the "homosexual agenda"
Too generalising? If so, let me assure you that so far your arguments have come across as in line with this frame of reference. If this is not you, then you'll need to reexamine what your position is.
Now as has been pointed out, this "promoting" is nothing more than showing two equal parties require equal representation. Homosexuality exists. To pretend that it does not by effectively banning any propaganda would result in unspeakable attrocities as are going on across the world right now in countries that argue from that same framework.
Or perhaps you feel that heterosexuals and homosexuals are not/ should not be equal?
But of course, I'm forgetting your posistion altogether. You see, should you have kids, you may have to, one day, explain to them why uncle Tom and uncle Mark are living together. That would be uncomfortable for you, would it not? Just like it would be uncomfortable for you to explain to them why her teacher says she loves her wife. [sarcasm]Think of the children![/sarcasm]
You know what will happen if you choose to let them make up their own minds about it? They may grow into respectable citizens that do not discriminate people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You, currently, do.
Of course, you'll come back at me, as you did with others, and say that homosexuals engage in
And this brings us to the crux of your argument. You essentially make two claims here. In reverse order, the first is that
1) any homosexual behaviour is immoral behaviour. This is a faith-based claim. You believe this to be true. You have no actual empirical evidence that suggests homosexuals are inherently immoral. So let me dispel this for you: other than adhering to a religious code - one, mind you, littered with other bigoted, racist and downright harmful ideas - you have no basis for claiming homosexuality is immoral. You'll understand why, especially here, this claim holds no weight whatsoever.
The second claim is that
2) homosexiality (since we've already established you cannot split being from behaviour in this case) is self destructive. To back this up you've cited a CDC report that shows how men that have sex with men are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS. This is true. Yet, as I've already highlighted earlier in my post, there are reasons for this that are not intrinsic to homosexual behaviour itself. From the same report, here are two citations that are particularly relevant:
Firstly, the report shows that
In other words, many of the older MSM may have contracted the disease at an earlier point in history when knowledge about the disease was sparser, awareness in general minimal and medication that may have prevented aids not yet readily available. Converesly, it shows that with time awareness has grown and HIV contractions have decreased. There is a good reason for this, of course. With increased awareness and increased communication about the realities of this disease the instances of infection decrease.CDC said:
Secondly,
So "promoting homosexuality" can and does have positive effects on people's health, young lgbt in particular.CDC said:
Of course, the CDC data, while showing a troubling trend, still does not prove that homosexuality is self-destructive or immoral. To prove this, let me pose the following: let's assume that the situation today was that HIV/AIDS had never been brought to the western world - a situation similar to the one before HIV/AIDS got here, but then set in the present day. You would, I assume, agree that homosexual "behaviour" would not be so self-destructive? After all, there would not be some crippling disease attached to the orientation. From that, we can, I gather, agree that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS today has nothing intrinsically to do with homosexuality?
So rather than something inherently amiss with the sexual orientation, it seems to me that there's a combination of harmful bigotry towards homosexuals that has a real negative effect on their health as well as a fear of a disease which has been traditionally perceived as the "gay disease" simply because that is where it is most prevalent. Stifling the lgbt cause would effectively set back the clock to a time where lack of information and anti-gay sentiments forced an entire community into their own kind of seclusion that was ripe for this new disease to come a knockin'.
Increasing awareness of HIV/AIDS and showing people that homosexuality is not something intrinsically nasty goes a long way to increasing overal health and wellbeing.
I'm sure I've missed some minor issues, but I guess this post is long enough as it is. Enjoy.
source http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/viral-hepatitis.htm
Viral Hepatitis
Gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, B and C, which are contagious liver diseases. Approximately 10 % of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among men who have sex with men. Many men have not been vaccinated against viral hepatitis, despite the availability of safe and effective vaccine. In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men. In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men.
Viral Hepatitis
Gay and bisexual men are at increased risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, B and C, which are contagious liver diseases. Approximately 10 % of new Hepatitis A and 20% of all new Hepatitis B infections in the United States are among men who have sex with men. Many men have not been vaccinated against viral hepatitis, despite the availability of safe and effective vaccine. In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men. In addition, CDC has investigated several outbreaks of Hepatitis C among HIV positive gay men.
australopithecus
Active Member
Metalgod said:
So that means the transmission rate non homosexual sex is approx 90% for Hep A and 80% for Hep B, in the US.
I'm no mathematician, but 90 and 80 is more that 20 and 10.
Dragan Glas
Well-Known Member
Greetings,
To add to Noth's post...
Anal sex is, per se, no more dangerous than vaginal sex. Where it does become so is when one of the partners is infected with an STI.
Anal sex is also practised by heterosexuals. Are you against this also?
Not to mention oral sex - are you against that also?
You might argue that anal sex is more dangerous due to the fact that the anal passage is not designed for sex as is the vagina - although true, a recent study showed that the vagina is just as likely to suffer similar damage during consensual sex as during rape.
Your aversion to "homosexual practices" - read "sodomy" - otherwise known as "anal sex", is based on grounds of it being "immoral": in other words, on religious grounds.
Homosexuality was seen as against the interests of the tribe - hence its proscription in the Bible.
Tribalism is a "numbers game": that's why the Bible urges the Israelites, having defeated other tribes, to kill women "who've known men" and keep virgins for themselves - to protect against STIs and increase their own numbers whilst killing off other tribes. Dan Graeber's [2013] Debt: The First 5,000 Years covers much of the raison d'être behind this.
Kindest regards,
James
And the "99.9%" reason being...!?Metalgod said:
To add to Noth's post...
Anal sex is, per se, no more dangerous than vaginal sex. Where it does become so is when one of the partners is infected with an STI.
Anal sex is also practised by heterosexuals. Are you against this also?
Not to mention oral sex - are you against that also?
You might argue that anal sex is more dangerous due to the fact that the anal passage is not designed for sex as is the vagina - although true, a recent study showed that the vagina is just as likely to suffer similar damage during consensual sex as during rape.
Your aversion to "homosexual practices" - read "sodomy" - otherwise known as "anal sex", is based on grounds of it being "immoral": in other words, on religious grounds.
Homosexuality was seen as against the interests of the tribe - hence its proscription in the Bible.
Tribalism is a "numbers game": that's why the Bible urges the Israelites, having defeated other tribes, to kill women "who've known men" and keep virgins for themselves - to protect against STIs and increase their own numbers whilst killing off other tribes. Dan Graeber's [2013] Debt: The First 5,000 Years covers much of the raison d'être behind this.
Kindest regards,
James