Bless you! I’m just not in the right frame of mind to argue effectively..but tomorrow is another day, and truth will win out. I’ll do my best to respectively and rationally contribute to this soon.

I’ll be fair and admit that I may have been a little too emotional and confrontational with my glib parts of the post. It was a bad time to post…
Medicine Man, we may disagree diametrically, but you give me the respect of responding with your viewpoint without being insulting or dismissive. I will do my best to debate in good taste and try to be very cogent in my replies. Just give me a day or two. Peace.

“It seems you are just going to reject any study that disagrees with you as “biased”. I have given data, I have given citations. You have simply dismissed them because you don’t like their conclusions. As I said to Jordan, it’s absolutely irrational to ignore data only because it isn’t what you want to hear. Every time you say, “Your data is biased, show me un-biased data”, what you really mean is, “your data doesn’t say what I want it to say, show me data that does.” I’m not going to do your homework for you.”

You gave links to 4 studies.
1 wasn’t a study.
1 had a sample size of only 312 for 5 years. Too small and short. In addition, it didn’t have comparable stats for straight people.
1 was a write in survey- useless.
1 included bisexuals and provided no data what so ever.

Yeah- studies need to actually be valid to be counted. None were.

“ut I am definitely saying that just because certain people have certain urges does not mean that those urges must be treated as healthy, moral, or normal.”

Unless the government has a compeling interest, it is none of its business. You can be attracted to furries or vore and the government doesn’t care. But when you are attracted to another dude, even though it is healthier… that is when people’s pants get in a bunch.

“I can say that rape is wrong because of the detrimental societal effects (as I would with homosexuality), or the inherent immorality of it (and again). ”

Okay, I will rant on totalitarianism here. You find rape wrong… because it hurts society or you hold rape wrong. Which means you are using arbitrary or totalitarian morality. Most people judge it wrong because it hurts someone.

You didn’t get my point, but it is simple. There are limits to what the government can and cannot do. People have rights and obligations as part of the social contract, things the government can ask for and must respect. Society does NOT exist indpendant of people and saying it is for “the good of society” is meaningless unless you have a darn good reason why individual goods should be over turned.

“Cannibalism, infanticide, filicide, and rape are all demonstrated in animals other than man, so they are not aberrations.”

Cannibalism is okay if you are running out of food. And it was a rebuttal to the “unnatural argument”- stop shifting goal posts.

“I am very certainly saying that some sexual acts are immoral whether they result in bad consequences or not.”

Yeah- people enjoying themselves is wrong because… tehya ren’t giving their all for the state?

“Your argument is as silly as saying, “gunshot wounds are totally incidental to the act of playing with loaded firearms”.”

Chocking is incidental to the act of eating. You see? You need to show your metahor is valid.

“What stops me from saying that those studies are just “biased”, and challenging you to “show me an unbiased study that says that”!”

Because we can look at the data and they use random sampling, large sample sizes and double blind testing?

“prejudicial intolerance of any opinions different from your own”

You are doing that too. Apparently everyone is bigoted! Please- let us use words in ways that doesn’t make them meaningless.

“Slippery Slopes are not invalid when your opponent is whooshing down one. You still have not given a valid reason to defend homosexuality that does not also defend some or all of these other aberrant behaviors.”

I don’t have to. Burden of proof is on you. We have shown that for the other behaviors you mentioned.

“Yes, actually. Many of the laws that the SSM lobby is trying to push through would force churches to participate in events and actions that they do not wish to.”Yes folks- we get NO examples.

“A truly “tolerant” society says, “do what you like, but don’t expect me to agree with it, approve of it, or support it.” The SSM lobby wants to force all of those on others.”

Yeah- legal equaliy is so oppresive.

“The fact that we have “civil” marriage is proof that there is a difference between “rites” and “rights”. When two atheists wed, they are wed civilly, not ceremonially. You’re just being slippery with the term “marriage”. I won’t deny that their civil marriage is valid – that’s up to the state. I will certainly deny that their spiritual marriage is valid – that’s up to God.”

…
Marriage lisences are granted BY THE STATE. We don’t care about your “spiritual marriage”- just the real, legal one.

“May I ask in kind, how do you “know” that marriage doesn’t predate every government? Can you name one government on earth right now that existed 1,000 years ago? Were people getting married before that? Then I guess marriage predates every current government.”

Well, it didn’t exist in its current form. They didn’t have divorce or requirements for monogamy. Or an insistance on romatic love.

It used to be just a business agreement.

“Heterosexual unions are the fundamental social construct in human beings. ”

No, that would be the tribe. You can exist without a family, but with no tribe, you are nothing. We just extended it for modern times- your country or your group is many people’s tribe now.

“Perhaps you’ll be more succinct later, but I’d rather you be more careful. You’re trying to substitute raw emotion for reason, and you’re not making a lot of headway.”

MM, please stop the “I am more emotionless than you are”. Despite what Star Trek may have shown, reason and emotion are NOT opposites.

“The problem at hand is bringing in a non-marriage idea and calling it “marriage”. ”

Except you are the one saying that. And your justification is… you are saying that. Circular reasoning.

“It makes no sense for a society to grant the benefits and protections and celebrations of a healthy behavior to an unhealthy behavior, at the expense of those benefits themselves.”

How on Earth will letting gays marry hurt straights.

“# 1 is supported by every conceivable form of study, statistic, and research. ”

So is the fact that blacks have lower IQs. Most people blame that on the fact most blacks live in poor countries.

“The US discourages all of those (alcoholism, and such), though we do not ban them, and we certainly don’t make laws that force people to treat them as acceptable.”

To the best of my knowledge, alcoholics don’t lose civil rights.

“Real love is telling a person what they may not want to hear for their benefit – not enabling their every urge in the name of a warped form of tolerance.”

Citizens aren’t your children- they are adults.

“If you totally ignore the hardships that homosexuals face as a result of their behavior, then you have no right to talk about doing what’s best for anyone at all.”

It is called freedom. It is what makes America great. That and our ability to integrate foreigners. And our sexy women. And our all encompasing culture. And our tech lead.

But freedom is the biggest one. And you seem to think it is valueless.

“Final thought: Jesus was never given the chance to answer the question, “what is truth?” to the man who asked it. Pilate walked away from Him without waiting for an answer, then sentenced Him to death. I think you need to read the Bible more carefully.

I read the ENTIRE Bible years ago and while I will not profess to a perfect memory in regards to the scripture I’m still quite familiar with it in the main. You are stating something that is NOT a fact.

Here is an extensive list of many translation of John 18:38:

International Standard Version (©2008)
Pilate asked him, “What is ‘truth’?” After he said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

Young’s Literal Translation
Pilate saith to him, ‘What is truth?’ and this having said, again he went forth unto the Jews, and saith to them, ‘I do find no fault in him;

Do you see anything in those phrases that actually state that he IMMEDIATELY went out without waiting for an answer?

Even other Christian based websites I will reference here show they have a very different interpretation that matches exactly what I said:

http://slatts.blogspot.com/2004/02/pilate-asks-jesus-what-is-truth.html

When Pilate asks, “Quid est veritas?” (What is truth?), Jesus does not answer him.

By rearranging the letters of the words in the question, one can find the answer to it:
“Est vir qui adest.”
(IT IS THE MAN WHO IS BEFORE YOU)

http://www.duregger.net/what-is-truth/

Pilate: So you are a King?

The story does not report any further dialogue between Pilate and Jesus, just that Pilate announced that he found no guilt in Jesus, at which point the Jews ask for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be crucified. This silence made me curious, so I looked at the other Gospels account of this event… and they were silent as well. In fact the other accounts just recorded a small portion of this discussion… mostly that Pilate asked if Jesus was King, and Jesus either responding, “You have said so.” or being silent.

So considering the compelling evidence shown above, or more appropriately the LACK of evidence indicating Pilate leaving Jesus before he gave him a chance to answer, you are either being dishonest or misinformed as to your certainty regarding the timeline of events.

“A comment like yours suggests that you haven’t checked out what scripture has to say with enough care to have an informed opinion on it.

I think you should be careful about calling the kettle black. You certainly didn’t provide any information regarding your point of view. You just stated it as fact. A little bit more humility would be proper instead of arrogantly judging my ability to provide an informed opinion on scripture.

Do you see society at large trying to barge in the doors of a church and start dictating how mass will be conducted?

Yes, actually. Many of the laws that the SSM lobby is trying to push through would force churches to participate in events and actions that they do not wish to. Besides that, this is totally the opposite of the actual situation at hand. Society’s disapproval of a lifestyle is not the same as telling them what to do or how to do it. A truly “tolerant” society says, “do what you like, but don’t expect me to agree with it, approve of it, or support it.” The SSM lobby wants to force all of those on others.

The fact that we have “civil” marriage is proof that there is a difference between “rites” and “rights”. When two atheists wed, they are wed civilly, not ceremonially. You’re just being slippery with the term “marriage”. I won’t deny that their civil marriage is valid – that’s up to the state. I will certainly deny that their spiritual marriage is valid – that’s up to God.

May I ask in kind, how do you “know” that marriage doesn’t predate every government? Can you name one government on earth right now that existed 1,000 years ago? Were people getting married before that? Then I guess marriage predates every current government.

Let me put it more directly: the earliest civilizations we know of had well-structured and uniform practices for matrimony. People groups that were not even loosely organized did as well. Heterosexual unions are the fundamental social construct in human beings. I could just use your own argument against you, anyway: many animals mate for life. If man evolved, then it’s almost certain that this trait evolved long before we invented politics, governments, or civilizations.

Perhaps you’ll be more succinct later, but I’d rather you be more careful. You’re trying to substitute raw emotion for reason, and you’re not making a lot of headway.

I think you need to take a few deep breaths, and calm down. You’re obviously very emotional about this subject, but the way you’re presenting your arguments isn’t complimenting your grasp of the issues. As I said, your “rebuttals” were not rebuttals – they were agreements that there are statistically significant increases in certain problems in homosexuals. You just added the “and that’s because…” part. You gave no citations, no data, no references that show that these studies are invalid, nor any criticism other than that they are “biased”. Am I to take that purely on your authority?

It seems you are just going to reject any study that disagrees with you as “biased”. I have given data, I have given citations. You have simply dismissed them because you don’t like their conclusions. As I said to Jordan, it’s absolutely irrational to ignore data only because it isn’t what you want to hear. Every time you say, “Your data is biased, show me un-biased data”, what you really mean is, “your data doesn’t say what I want it to say, show me data that does.” I’m not going to do your homework for you.

You’re right that almost none of the mental, physical, or social health problems are 100.00% exclusive to the homosexual community. That’s not the point. They are significantly more prevalent in the homosexual community, because both the biological and behavior factors cause them to be so. I can make a very good case, based on what you’ve said here, that every argument you’re making is just propaganda conveniently aimed at protecting a demographic you like.

I would assume that Christians living the US don’t “picket against” sex in Africa because it would have no impact on a society thousands of miles away. However, Christians in the US do have say in what happens in their own country. No one is calling for the jailing or persecution of homosexuals – but I am definitely saying that just because certain people have certain urges does not mean that those urges must be treated as healthy, moral, or normal.

The problems in Africa certainly are real; and you’re not slow, you’re just emotionally invested to the point that you aren’t thinking straight. “Rape” is not a question of homosexuality or heterosexuality. After all, homosexuals can rape and be raped as well. Depending on how you want to argue it, I can say that rape is wrong because of the detrimental societal effects (as I would with homosexuality), or the inherent immorality of it (and again). Please think more clearly, and remember that I am not implying that homosexuality results in suffering, and is therefore wrong. I’m arguing that it’s wrong, and therefore results in suffering.

Unless you’re willing to analyze the studies I cited in detail, you have nothing but your opinion to counter the fact that societal acceptance of homosexuality does not bring the associated problems into the same statistical levels as heterosexuals. Gays in nations friendly to homosexuality are still living with major psychological and medical problems.

I won’t respond to your challenge to “cite” anything more than I already have – for the reasons I gave above. You’re simply defining “unbiased” as “agrees with K. Partington”. You certainly haven’t given me reasons to believe that every single citation I gave was based in hatred, rather than data. Some of what’s up there was collected, analyzed, and published by homosexuals, in fact.

Cannibalism, infanticide, filicide, and rape are all demonstrated in animals other than man, so they are not aberrations. Should we continue with your view of this argument, and say that science has shown opposition to these acts as being bigoted, with no basis in fact? I don’t think you want to start down the road that says, “lots of animals do it, so it’s not really bad.”

Part of the problem with using pronouncements from the APA and other groups is that psychological issues are entirely questions of definition. Announcing that “homosexuality isn’t a mental illness” is just saying that that organization no longer defines it as sufficiently abnormal to be considered one, in their opinion. It’s no different than other social taboos being altered by the public at large. They can choose to say that alcoholism, obesity, and depression are not “mental health problems” tomorrow if they wish, but that’s just a matter of how you define “mental illness”. The meaning of those terms will not have changed, and the suffering of those people will not have been reduced because some people chose to move them from category A to category B in a textbook.

I am not insinuating that catching an STD is immoral. I am very certainly saying that some sexual acts are immoral whether they result in bad consequences or not. You need to be more careful in your analysis of my statements. That being said, I think you’re being awfully shallow, and very glib, to say that STDs are “completely incidental to the act of sex.” What do the letters “S.T.D.” stand for, anyway? Your argument is as silly as saying, “gunshot wounds are totally incidental to the act of playing with loaded firearms”.

Unfortunately, statistics indicate that homosexuality is very much associated with very risky behaviors. It is not inescapably linked to promiscuity or such, but you cannot in any rational way argue that such behaviors are not monumentally more common in the homosexual community that they are in the heterosexual community.

Wait, now. You’re citing studies showing that pedophilia causes harm, and giving me some arguments about how it’s not a good fit for the bodies or minds of some people. That’s fine, and I agree. What stops me from saying that those studies are just “biased”, and challenging you to “show me an unbiased study that says that”! And yet, you go so far as to say that “there are no studies demonstrating any problem whatsoever with homosexuality in the same vein.” So, you’re not just rejecting studies that disagree with you, you’re convincing yourself that they don’t even exist.

With all due respect, that’s not just irrational, but it fits a behavioral pattern that you brought up before: prejudicial intolerance of any opinions different from your own…see here: (link: http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=bigot&ia=wn). That is probably not your intention, but it’s the way you’re coming across.

Slippery Slopes are not invalid when your opponent is whooshing down one. You still have not given a valid reason to defend homosexuality that does not also defend some or all of these other aberrant behaviors.

Again, you just dismiss contradictory evidence as “not reputable.” What’s to stop me from just saying that every one of your studies (if you have even looked at any) is just not “reputable”, a priori, as you do?

And unlike your assumption of belief, someone doesn’t contract STD’s because they are doing something dangerous, unhealthy and immoral. STD’s are completely INCIDENTAL to the act of sex. If two human beings have no STD’S, they can have sex a million times over and not contract a thing. Does this reflect the morality of the act itself? Of course not! Yet you insinuate this.

Whether or not you agree with consequentalism as a philosophy in it’s entirety, it’s perfectly reasonable to measure actions based on their outcome. Cause and effect are rational methods of evaluation after all.

“That “many” people can engage in a risky lifestyle and escape the natural results does not make the actions safe, wise, or worthy of social acceptance. Many teens huff aerosols without dying of suffocation or hemorrhaging, by “being careful”. Does that mean we should stop hassling them about huffing, and just “let them be who they want to be”? Why not? If some people can do it and not be hurt, why make a big deal out of it?”

A risky lifestyle has nothing to do with existing as a person with a homosexual orientation. A lifestyle is a pattern of behaviour. Being homosexual is nothing more then being born with an innate attraction to the same sex. It has nothing whatsoever to do with actions like sniffing glue. You again insinuate that homosexuality is indelibly linked with pernicious behaviour. This is not supported by any credible research out there and I again challenge you to provide any. Note the word ‘credible’. Fringe science groups and biased, unscientific studies don’t qualify.

“It would seem, according to your argument, that the onus is on you to prove that things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia are “bad”, using a criteria that would allow for homosexuality without being inconsistent. If some things are just human constructs, then who cares? Be careful – so far, every argument that opens the door wide enough to permit homosexuality winds up letting these other things in as well. ”

Bullshit. Pedophilia has very CLEARLY been shown to be bad. Studies show very definite harm that affects people’s mental and emotional health later on in life. Also it’s a biological fact that children are not fully developed in both body AND mind, and even teenagers have been shown to lack a fully developed brain in regards to decision making. All of this supports the very many arguments against pedophilia and the average person doesn’t dispute this. There are no studies demonstrating any problem whatsoever with homosexuality in the same vein. They form relationships that are essentially identical to straight relationships in all comparable pair bond measurements.
Bestiality is ridiculous because first of all it’s NOT natural to be born with an innate attraction to another species. Have you ever seen studies proving that certain individuals were born with an innate attraction to a tiger? Are they incapable of having typical sexual relations with their own species? This is where these stupid arguments fall apart. Homosexuality and it’s natural prevelance is statistically significant right across the board. It occurs in the same basic frequency in all cultures and regions worldwide and is clearly evident at a very young age as well.

You are committing another logical fallacy here called the Slippery Slope fallacy. The inclusion of homosexuality as a natural minority among the spectrum of human sexuality does not lead to every other deviant behaviour you can pull out of your ass. They can stand or fall based on their own merits of argument and it’s insulting in the extreme to make any link to other types of sexuality that are considered wrong.

“There are tangible benefits to promoting heterosexual unions, and tangible drawbacks to promoting homosexual unions. Those are arguments can stand independently from the Bible. Evaluated morally, pragmatically, or consequentially, homosexual relationships are not good for society in general, or homosexuals in particular. ”

This is completely false and unsupported by any credible research on homosexuals and their unions. It’s also a statement of conclusion, not an argument. If you think you can actually lay OUT those arguments, then be my guest. I’ll be happy to shred them.

“Are you not pushing a belief on society? What else is the SSM lobby, if not that? This is part of my general complaint about SSM apologists – they complain about cramming beliefs down some people’s throats while their lawyers work to cram a belief down everyone’s throat. If the legal rights of a civil union are identical to a marriage, who’s pushing their beliefs on who by demanding that they be forcibly referred to using the same word?”

No I’m not pushing a ‘belief’. Homosexuals exist. They are proven by reputable scientists to be intrinsically wired that way. They have been shown to be no different in overall criteria of health and capacity for happiness and longevity from heterosexuals if they live the same pattern of behaviour. You can point fingers all you want but a subset of a population does not reflect on the majority. I can point at heterosexual promiscuous people too, but that isn’t indicative of heterosexuality in and of ITSELF.

You act like homosexuals came forward with their own scientific agenda readily packaged to ram down people’s throats. Wrong! If it wasn’t for science at large, they’d still be in the closets and being vilified. They are simply standing up for themselves now and have enough objective proof that there is nothing wrong with them.

It’s religion that keeps sticking their nose into matters that don’t concern them. The people with their beliefs based on nothing more then ancient stories keep insisting THEY have the only truth that matters.

Do you see society at large trying to barge in the doors of a church and start dictating how mass will be conducted? Whether or not this stained glass window is allowed over that one? How many pews you can set up and whether or not people are allowed to kneel? No? Well that’s exactly what religious people are doing when they are going out to society and try to force a definition into a religious based belief no matter what it might actually entail.

Moving on, you say “Marriage is not a secular institution.” Wrong. The very fact that we have CIVIL marriage is proof of that. Religion has absolutely NOTHING to do with marriage when 2 atheists wed. Yet I don’t hear people saying these marriages are invalid. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction.

Just because marriage has been adopted within religion and it’s practices, it does not make it an exclusive domain. You can’t say something like “Marriage predates every government on earth.” How the hell do you know? Have you been around and seen every government on earth? Do you have the slightest clue what the customs of humans back a million years ago were? Of course not. On the other hand you might be one of those who think we only go back a few thousand years, so the question might be moot…

I’m going to have to pick this up later. I actually shouldn’t have even been arguing this today. I woke up with a headache and I’m not focusing as well as usual. I’m usually more succint in my comments and somehow I’m rambling too wordy. Until later.

Bull. Do you even know what logic means? Reason is the ESSENCE of logic. The very fact I addressed anything even generally with reasons means I was giving logical rebuttals. No I did not laboriously go through this extremely long thread and refute many specific things although I very easily could. I just couldn’t be bothered. Now I think I will be arsed.

Fair and accurate information is easily found, but it’s very clear someone who goes out of their way to read statements from NARTH and Catholic-biased sources of studies instead of mainstream credible organizations is not looking for truth. Let’s see you cite even ONE study that is actually from a mainstream organization with no Christian based “values” mentioned on their ABOUT US page. Lets see if you have anything unbiased to start with shall we?

“Well, then we agree that those problems are real problems.”

Uh no. Many things you consider “problems”, I don’t. Victimless crimes don’t bother me. There are no problems 100% exclusive to homosexuality. You are suggesting that the ratio of prevelance has some bearing on morality. Bullshit. That’s nothing more then religious propaganda conveniently aimed at a demographic you dislike. I don’t see fundamental Christians picketing against straight sex in Africa even though that’s the main group spreading AIDS there. What about the ones raping young children thinking they can cure themselves that way? These are real ‘problems’ as well. Is this a definitive reflection on the morality of straight sex? No? Oh, why not? Explain the hypocritical difference to me please…apparently I’m a little slow…*chuckle*

“In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental, and health problems. Whether men are naturally promiscuous or not doesn’t change the harmful effects of that promiscuity.”

In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental and health problems DUE TO THE SOCIETAL BIGOTRY THEY ARE FORCED TO ENDURE. You forgot to finish the line there. Oh but you’re apparently talking about sex again. Sure, it’s all the fault of sex. Homo sex is evil…it’s nastier then straight sex and spreads more disease…just like trichomonas…oops…oh…that’s only caught from a female..my bad.

You know, I changed my mind. If you’re going to pull things out of your ass, I’m challenging you on it. I’m not going back and cherry picking old posts. This is our conversation. Cite a specific, unbiased study regarding the harmful effects of promiscuity to start and then a study that concludes homosexuality is responsible for and completely inseparable from promiscuity. That’s a good start if we’re going to argue your ‘facts’

“If you think that the only real judge of right or wrong is “results” in some way, then reality doesn’t give you any rational way to put homosexuality in the “right” column.”

You love using words like ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ even though you seem to lack a full understanding of what the words means. It’s perfectly RATIONAL to put homosexuality in the right column because number 1) it’s demonstrated to be present in many animals besides man, so is not an aberration or a behavior specific to mankind. 2) Homosexuals were vilified for many centuries as undesirable and only the nature of science vindicated this view as being intrinsically bigoted with no basis in fact.

From a REAL organization with credibility:

Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?

For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.

and from the American Medical Association. Observe again the REASONS why some of your statistics that you think reflect morality exist in the first place:

3.2 Mental health problems are statistically over-represented in this population throughout life due to exposure to discriminatory behaviour.7,8 One of the main groups affected by homophobia is same-sex attracted young people, particularly those living in rural areas where there is greater social isolation from GLBTI peers and role models. A consequence of this discrimination for GLBTI young people is that they have increased rates of homelessness, risk-taking behaviour, depression, suicide and episodes of self-harm compared to their heterosexual cohorts.9

3.4 Patterns of drug and alcohol use within the GLBTI community are greater that that of the general population. The increased incidence of smoking and alcohol intake is also of concern in relation to cardiovascular risk factors. There is support for the theory linking individual patterns of drug and alcohol misuse with experiences of discrimination.12

To keep this from being a ridiculously long post I will start with this and continue through your responses on another one.

Nothing that you said in response to the evidence at hand is a logical rebuttal of it. You’re giving reasons WHY those behaviors result in some of those problems, but you’re not able to say that they don’t occur. Your arguments basically say, “yes, that’s true because…”, not “no, that’s not true”. Well, then we agree that those problems are real problems.

In short, factual evidence says that homosexuals bear a heavy burden of social, mental, and health problems. Whether men are naturally promiscuous or not doesn’t change the harmful effects of that promiscuity.

I have mentioned the concept of consequentialism only because that was the line of argumentation someone else tried to use. In fact, consequentialist arguments fail to support homosexuality. If you think that the only real judge of right or wrong is “results” in some way, then reality doesn’t give you any rational way to put homosexuality in the “right” column.

I don’t support consequentialism, but I think you misunderstand it anyway. An elderly person doesn’t contract the flu because they’re willingly doing something dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. Consequentialism considers actions immoral when they result in “bad things”, it does not consider “bad things” immoral. There is a difference.

That “many” people can engage in a risky lifestyle and escape the natural results does not make the actions safe, wise, or worthy of social acceptance. Many teens huff aerosols without dying of suffocation or hemorrhaging, by “being careful”. Does that mean we should stop hassling them about huffing, and just “let them be who they want to be”? Why not? If some people can do it and not be hurt, why make a big deal out of it?

I think you’re being more than flippant. I think you’re being a little careless in your argumentation. As you said, it seems like the same things get brought up over and over and over, and your lines are more of the same. For example: you’re jumping on the ‘bigot’ bandwagon. That’s a cheap and easy way to make excuses for ignoring arguments, but it’s not a substitute for really considering the questions at hand.

It would seem, according to your argument, that the onus is on you to prove that things like polygamy, incest, bestiality, or pedophilia are “bad”, using a criteria that would allow for homosexuality without being inconsistent. If some things are just human constructs, then who cares? Be careful – so far, every argument that opens the door wide enough to permit homosexuality winds up letting these other things in as well.

You’re talking about logic and evaluation – it’s already been shown. There are tangible benefits to promoting heterosexual unions, and tangible drawbacks to promoting homosexual unions. Those are arguments can stand independently from the Bible. Evaluated morally, pragmatically, or consequentially, homosexual relationships are not good for society in general, or homosexuals in particular.

Are you not pushing a belief on society? What else is the SSM lobby, if not that? This is part of my general complaint about SSM apologists – they complain about cramming beliefs down some people’s throats while their lawyers work to cram a belief down everyone’s throat. If the legal rights of a civil union are identical to a marriage, who’s pushing their beliefs on who by demanding that they be forcibly referred to using the same word?

Marriage is not a secular institution. Secular governments recognize and support it because of the benefits it provides society. Churches do not have to “legitimize” anything through the state. Two people can be married in the eyes of God without the approval of the government. There is a difference between “marriage” and “legal marriage”. If you think that the church is waiting for the state to give its approval because the state is the primary authority in matrimony, then you need to think again. Marriage predates every government on earth.

The SSM movement has never been about the freedom to walk into a church and say vows, or to live and love another person. The fact that obtaining identical legal rights is ‘not enough’ is proof of that. It’s about forcing society to give a thumbs-up to a certain lifestyle.

You’re brushing off the authority of God pretty glibly – aren’t you just taking on the moral authority that you claim God does not have? What authority are you appealing to, yours? If not, then who, and what makes that any more rational than appealing to God?

Final thought: Jesus was never given the chance to answer the question, “what is truth?” to the man who asked it. Pilate walked away from Him without waiting for an answer, then sentenced Him to death. I think you need to read the Bible more carefully. In fact, the statement Jesus made that prompted Pilate to say that was, “everyone on the side of truth listens to me”. And Pilate didn’t. To those who wanted to hear an answer, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

A comment like yours suggests that you haven’t checked out what scripture has to say with enough care to have an informed opinion on it.

The more you look at real data, real evidence, and real life, the more you see that what God says about morality really is the best way to live.

Can you prove the things you have stated – particularly the moral statements? If not, and it’s ‘just belief’, then what does that mean to you?

The TRUTH is that while some of the claims have a degree of truth to them in regards to some (male) homosexuals and their lifestyle of promiscuous sex, this is simply a matter of biology. It wasn’t even particularly true before HIV came onto the scene and only the fact that certain types of sexual behaviour involving males make it easier to catch, does this have any credence at all.

But so what? It’s not being homosexuality that is responsible for such a problem, it’s BEHAVIOUR. First of all HIV wouldn’t have even have spread off the continent of Africa if heterosexuals weren’t massively involved or do I need to bring up very common statistics showing it as a predominantly heterosexual vector in Africa? And lets be honest here….men are naturally sexually promiscuous. It’s been confirmed by biology, history and many other verifiable sources. The only reason heterosexual men are in PRACTICE less promiscuous is the influence of women. Obviously gay men are not involved with their input, so naturally promiscuity is going to be higher. But promiscuity in and of ITSELF is not a proven negative. There are many people who have perfectly safe sex, sleep with many people and pass no diseases. Bring no children in the world and consequently don’t abuse them, aren’t wife beaters and live fairly placid lives overall. What does this matter? Oh right…it’s morally wrong automatically because after they DIE they’ll find out what was so wrong about it.

So as just one example mentioned in previous posts.. suddenly morality is determined by consequences of disease transmission? Geez, I guess we better start picketing those senior homes. How immoral that they catch influenza easier then other humans and dare to be infectious to others. Have they no shame?

I’m being a little flippant, but I’m trying to make a point that I hope will sink in..

There are some bottom lines here. First of all, it’s not the onus of a homosexual to prove they are ok to exist and be themselves. It’s the onus of the person being the bigot to actually prove that’s it’s morally bad. Everything is morally NEUTRAL until you apply arguments of logic and evaluation to them. Pointing to the Bible is just a big old Appeal to Authority fallacy. In other words, it isn’t worth anything as an argument because it isn’t making one. It’s making a proclomation of truth with no factual basis behind it. Believe what you want, but pushing those beliefs on others in society to conform to them? Ridiculous.

It doesn’t matter what marriage is now, was then or even what it started out to be. It’s nothing more then a human construct of recognizing relationships. The key issue here is that religion does NOT own marriage. It is first and foremost a secular institution. Even the churches have to legitamize a marriage through the secular channels. Their ‘divine’ authority doesn’t hold up alone.

So any argument professing the ’sacredness’ of marriage has already lost because that’s a religious concept with no bearing in the secular world. You can’t prove ’sacred’. Hell, you can’t even prove your version of God exists! Your rights end where mine begin. People forget this give and take far too often when they are dealing with religious beliefs. Even Jesus didn’t answer a very pertinent question. “What is truth”?

Don’t presume to know truth. If you can’t prove it, it’s just belief.

they already have absolutely every single right that is accorded to married heterosexuals.

My understanding is that a homosexual can be forced to testify in a court of law against his or her partner, unlike a married person.

I mean that it is not banned outright. But, it’s reasonable for society to say, “your right to smoke doesn’t give you the right to harm others with your smoking”. So, we place sensible limits on where people can smoke. Is that restrictive? Yes – and far more restrictive than allowing all the legal protections of marriage, while using a different name. Smoking restrictions are reasonable and necessary – we don’t let tolerance and permissiveness cause more harm than good.

The reason I don’t rebut absurd claims from irrational people is the same reason I don’t wrestle in the mud with pigs: it brings me down to their level and the pigs like it. I don’t feel the need to overtly explain why I’m not a totalitarian in response to your ranting any more I need to explain why I’m not a martian to the man in the tinfoil hat. You’re simply not applying reason, thought, or care to your approach to this issue, and it’s making you look foolish. No one is calling you anything: but your arguments are irrational and our prior interactions suggest that you’re not interested in considering anything you disagree with. I’m simply showing you where and how your arguments fall flat, and if that’s hurtful to your sensibilities, then perhaps you need to change your approach or stay silent.

That being said, you’re making a monumental mistake by conflating “let’s not endorse or celebrate” and “let’s ban”. No one here is talking about making homosexuality illegal. What we are talking about is society drawing a line between that which it promotes and celebrates, and that which it tolerates. I’m all for tolerance of homosexuality, but not facilitation or celebration of it.

That’s the real battle cry from the SSM lobby. In the case at hand, they already have absolutely every single right that is accorded to married heterosexuals. Marriages are not bathrooms or water fountains – an identical set of legal rights with different names cannot be crammed under the banner of “separate IS inequal”. A person cannot sue a restaurant because the sign says “Men’s bathroom”, and they want to use a “restroom”. SSM is about forcing society to say, “we agree with you”, plain and simple.

If you think only “totalitarian” societies have chosen not to consider homosexual unions as “marriages”, then perhaps your definition of “totalitarian” is as deficient as your grasp of history. You insult every person who has suffered and died, or fought to oppose, actual totalitarianism when you conflate these issues in that way. Calling me a “brown shirt”, or a “totalitarian” because of my stance on this issue is not only immature and counterproductive, but indicative of a very poor grasp of the issue itself.

The sources I gave you, looked at together, say exactly what I told you they say. Negative effects such as mental health problems, STDs, and rampant promiscuity are far more prevalent in homosexuals than in heterosexuals. Not every gay person is a raging pervert, of course, and no one said anything like that. But the facts are the facts: persons involved in homosexual behaviors are less happy, less healthy, and more of a drain on society than heterosexuals, regardless of whether or not the culture around them supports their lifestyle.

If you want to pick one single country, and ignore others who have “accepted” homosexuality, then who are you to criticize some of these studies for small sample sizes? Aren’t you just doing exactly what I suggested that Jordan might be? That is, ignoring all data that contradicts you, then speaking as though there was “no reason” for people to disagree with you?

No, the same does not apply to heterosexuality. People who don’t smoke get cancer, does that mean that there is absolutely no reason to say smoking is unhealthy? Of course not, because smokers get cancer much, much, much more frequently than non-smokers. There is no way to dispute the fact that smoking causes health problems, just as homosexuality causes mental and physical health problems. The line of argument you are trying to use is simply ridiculous. Your comment about alcoholism demonstrates this: you either don’t get it, or you’re ignoring it. Alcoholics are going to get cirrhosis and brain damage, and disrupt their families, whether society pats them on the back for it, or discourages it. Nations that are more permissive of drinking have more alcoholics, not less. Health and social problems are not caused by stigmas, they are caused by behavior.

Let me ask you a question: is it ever acceptable for a society to place limits on what people may or may not do? Answer carefully. You’re calling me a totalitarian just for suggesting that some behaviors merit society’s disapproval. If you think (as I do) that a person ought not be allowed to beat a homosexual senseless and leave them in a ditch, then aren’t you a totalitarian? Who are you to decide what actions are or are not to be allowed? You’re just arrogating a right to yourself (judging right and wrong) that you’re not willing to grant to me – why?

Also, if you think your toenail is human, and human-ness isn’t special, then how do you argue with a person who believes in killing certain types of people? What does it matter, in your view, if it’s not really different that clipping a toenail? You think that killing animals that are going to die anyway is fine – people will die anyway. If research shows that homosexuals are “major resource drains”, are you okay with clipping those nails?

Part of my argument here is that even utilitarian, consequentialist, and pragmatist arguments still say that accepting SSM is “not a good thing”. There is a tangible reduction of “joy” and “happiness” when those lifestyles are promoted and/or encouraged. A permissive society should say, “do it if you want, but do it without our approval”.

I’m quite comfortable with higher mathematics, including statistics. As a former engineering grad student, I’ve taken more hours of higher math than some college students have taken courses in their own major. I’m familiar enough with calculus, differential equations, statistical analysis and so forth to know what works and what doesn’t. No study is perfect, but the better the studies are, the more they confirm the same thing – homosexuality is not good for anyone.

So, to answer your shorter post:

2a is not really what I’m saying. This is not an “offensive” issue, it’s a “defensive” one. The problem at hand is bringing in a non-marriage idea and calling it “marriage”. And whether or not fewer people will “be gay” is entirely beside the point. It makes no sense for a society to grant the benefits and protections and celebrations of a healthy behavior to an unhealthy behavior, at the expense of those benefits themselves.

# 1 is supported by every conceivable form of study, statistic, and research. After all – why would people like you be saying, “well, the REAL problem is society, so if we change society…” if statistics didn’t prove that there are drawbacks to homosexuality? What problems are you saying are caused by stigma, then? Either there are detrimental effects, or their aren’t, and apparently you think there are. As I said, the prevalence of those negative factors is present in significantly higher proportions in homosexuals than in heterosexuals.

In #2 there is a difference between “discouraging”, “not endorsing”, and “banning”. The US does not “ban” alcoholism, or smoking, or teen pregnancy. Doing that in any effective way would certainly border on, if not jump right into, the kind of totalitarianism you seem so worried about. But just because we can’t or shouldn’t force someone not to to “bad thing” A, B, or C does not mean we are obligated to facilitate and celebrate their participation in A, B, or C.

The US discourages all of those (alcoholism, and such), though we do not ban them, and we certainly don’t make laws that force people to treat them as acceptable. This is a difference that you need to consider more carefully. Real love is telling a person what they may not want to hear for their benefit – not enabling their every urge in the name of a warped form of tolerance. If you totally ignore the hardships that homosexuals face as a result of their behavior, then you have no right to talk about doing what’s best for anyone at all.

Here is your argument.

1) Homosexuality is bad for the individual and society.
2) The government should discourage things that are bad for individuals and society.
2a) Homosexuality can be affected by incentives.
3) The government should discourage homosexuality by refusing to recognize gay marriage.

The problem is that 2a is false- many activities are inelatic. Human sexulaity is one of them.

1 is also false because homosexuality isn’t harmful compared to the alternative- heterosexuality. Straight people have STDs, infidelity, domestic violence, etc.

The only group that would be free is asexuals. I know- where will we get kids? Well, artifical wombs of course!

2 is also false. The government does not have unlimited power to ban things just because it feels like it (referance- amendment 9 of the US constituion).

Rebuttal?

.Jordan and Samuel,
Q: Did you know that in California my partner (aka my wife) and I can’t enter into a domestic partnership because we are heterosexual – but a homosexual couple CAN. This is Prop 8 in reverse. Is this a violation of equal rights?
A: No, because the law allows me to get the same thing through a marriage. In other words, as far as legal rights go both domestic partnership and marriage are interchangeable. If you don’t believe me, read the Family Law Code yourself. You both really need to rethink this.

Brown v Board of Education

Samuel, the blockquote code here is not quite what you used. There are formatting hints you might want to take a look at here.

Thank you.
1.

2. I’m not going to get very deep with you on this, because you’ve set historical precedents saying it’s not worthwhile. Briefly, then:

Would you like to respond to the precedents or are you fine with the fact the only countries that have implemented your ideal are totalitarian police states?

If you’re not familiar with the well-documented health/mental effects that abortion has on women, and/or you’re somehow arguing that death is better than life, then I have to suggest you do some research. Or ask why you choose to live when non-life is less problematic. ??

Please stop doing this. You assume your opponents are idiots. Repeatedly. Than you play the victim card when they are offended.
Anyway, the consequences for abortion are less than those of pregnancy, as has been repeatedly shown.
1.

And, there’s our obligatory Nazi reference. Thanks for making my point about poisoning the well that much clearer.

You know some people would rebut how they are different from the Third Reich and the CCCP- you seem not to care that you are carrying on in the tradition of totalitarianism. Are you going to bother to respond to this or just sweep it under the carpet?

I know that you absolutely never check for data on anything, but here are some resources showing how homosexual behaviors are not good for anyone, least of all the homosexual:

That is the second time you have assumed your opponents are morons. As for the studies, I could only use the linked ones. The others I wasn’t willing to judge until I say the representative sample.
http://www.glcensus.org.
Which is an internet survey. Automatically invalid due to the confirmation effect.

http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/berman.html
Has too small a sample size (312), too short (5 years) and lacks any comparison to straight people.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=2920801063
Is not a study.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/healthrisksSSA.pdf
They included bisexuals, their sample size was so small it only had whites and they count sadism and feces obsession as gay problems… even though they occur in the same rates as with heterosexual people. They also think anal sex is extremely dangerous… even though ANYONE who has been through sex ed knows that if you use lube this isn’t a problem.

You noted Europe as a place where homosexuality is “accepted” – please note that the Maria Xiridou reference includes information indicating that social acceptance of homosexuality does not make it any healthier. And the social situations in European countries are hardly enviable, in large part because of the dissolution of stable marriages.

First, I said Amsterdam. Poland is famously anti-gay, and much of the rest of Europe isn’t much better. And the Netherlands has recently gone down the tubes so I can’t use them anymore  Also, what do you mean by dissolution of marriages?
1.

You may want to take a moment to consider that I neither support nor accept things like bestiality or pedophilia, but I bring them up because Jordan’s core approach to justifying homosexuality takes away his ability to criticize those. At least, he hasn’t shown any way that he can do so consistently. He certainly can’t without doing what he criticizes others for doing.

He keeps on using informed consent.

Appeal to “change for its own sake” (ie bucking tradition) is not only fallacious, but dangerous.
Appeal to emotion is a fallacy (we need to be “tolerant”, “loving”, and such, no matter what).
Appeal to persecution is coming from somewhere in left field. What?

I have never appeal to change.
I am AGAINST TOLERANCE. Let me be clear- I hate the word and what it stands for. Let there be two states- acceptance and rejecting. Tolerate is what we do with the stench of garbage.
As for persecution…

“Civil unions” are not marriages. Marriages are not homosexual by definition. That’s what shows the true colors of the SSM lobby. It has nothing to do with rights – it has everything to do with forcing people to embrace and celebrate their lifestyle.

Homosexual culture has everything to do with it

Define that. Because as it stands, it looks like you are conflating all homosexuals with the ones that are players.

As I noted to Samuel, social, mental, and health issues are just as much a problem in places friendly to homosexuality as they are in places hostile to it. The problem is not caused by stigma – it’s intrinsic to the behavior itself.

The same applies to heterosexuality. Asexuality is the best state. However, humans are not hive insects.

Consider alcoholism again – living in a nation that’s more tolerant of drunkenness doesn’t make the health concerns of alcoholics, or its effect on their families and friends, magically disappear.

Or you could live in a place where people drink and don’t become alcoholics due to the culture and the way they deal with drink.

You keep mentioning “progress”, but you don’t want to deal with the idea that homosexuality has documented detriments, both to homosexuals and society at large. That’s not “progress” you want, it’s just “change”. Then again, you do have a response…

…which admits that there are problems, but you’re willing to make a special exemption for them. These problems need to be fixed by changing society, while the problems of other sexual behaviors do not.

The “exemption” is to stop beating up on them.

First of all, don’t say that and then claim not to be a pure consequentialist. Maybe you’re not, but statements like that seem to say you are. How would you respond to claims in the same vein about bestiality or pedophilia or rape or incest? “We need to support them, so that society changes and those things are no longer harmful”. “Consent” is not a valid litmus test for morality, in part because no action is ever without consequences for the society at large. Whether or not my neighbor chooses to become a crack addict does not change that fact that such actions harm me, and everyone connected to him, as well as himself.

So, you are a totalitarian?

The promotion of joy is central to Christianity (John 8:36; John 10:10; Romans 12:10) – but there is a difference between absolute permissiveness and reasonable freedom. You don’t necessarily make someone happy just by letting them do anything, or some particular thing, that they want to. In fact, sometimes you have to deny certain urges or desires to protect happiness and well-being. Anyone with children knows this is true.

That is the third time you have been condescending and assumed we are all idiots. For the record, gays are not children. They are adults who can think for themselves.
As for reasonable freedom… let me guess- you get to decide? Please explain how this is NOT totalitarian.

Cocaine might make people happy for a while – but overall, it does the opposite, for them and their neighbors. Just because someone has an urge does not mean that that urge is moral, beneficial, or acceptable. Expressing it might make them happy, but that doesn’t make it legitimate.

So we should ban all harmful activites? Hunting, gun ownership, sky diving, owning a car, etc?

…then why do you refuse to admit that there might be reasons beyond homophobia to oppose SSM? If the lifestyle is bad for those who practice it, and bad for those around them, isn’t it an act of knowing immorality to promote it? If you think the entire problem there is social stigma, why not work to remove it for the other aberrant sexual practices we talked about?

Because the other practices are morally wrong?
1.

And I think the “directly” is a bit evasive – indirect consequences of actions can be worse than the direct ones. My neighbor wouldn’t be causing me direct suffering by selling drugs to willing buyers in the next town, but he’s still hurting me, and the families of those he sells to.

You keep on making these totalitarian statements. Is there a limit to state power or can it do anything that achieves the greater good?

You’re speaking, arguing, and rebutting as a relativist. Consequentialism is a form of utilitarianism, which is a relativistic sense of morality. You’re arguing for ‘progress’ for its own sake, also relativistic. You’re also trying to suggest that the real problem with certain actions is society, not the act – again, a relativistic view.

Yes, caring about how actions will affect people is wrong… wait, what? I can’t believe that is your defense.
Progress is an absolute value and hence NOT relativistic. Meaningless? Yes. Relativistic? No.
And the problem with certain actions IS society. See Loving v. Virginia

Have you read any utilitarians? Have you read any responses to them? What you propose here is utilitarianism in an extremely simplistic form. In a word, there are significant problems with it, even in its sophisticated formulations. Very significant. (For good statements of utilitarianism, I suggest you start with Bentham and Mill, and from there look for responses others have written.)
No. Not unless you’re a utilitarian or consequentialist. See above for the former, see further above, in MM’s comment, for the latter.

Given that all the ethical arguments I have ever seen have defended themselves based on the idea that they lead to the greatest happiness, I am going to have to go with utilitarianism. It has its weaknesses, but it beats “human happiness is irrelevant”

Are you a vegetarian? If not, why not?

Because if we stopped eating animals we would kill them because they are resource wastes. They are dead pigs walking anyway, why not?

In the case of racial rights, the water fountains were not in scare quotes. They were real. There are real differences between racial rights and gay “rights.”

Vigilantes didn’t generally sodomize blacks? Blacks didn’t have to deal with high instances of PTSD? I’m going to get this one eventually…

I think, Jordan, it might be an interesting exercise for you to ask yourself, “what counts for me as evidence, or at least what kind of thing could count as evidence, that homosexual practice has negative social effects?” Further, “what kinds of evidence am I discounting—evidence that MM has put forward—and why do I think it so irrelevant?”

Well, homosexuality DOES have negative effects. It creates bonding among men which interferes with macho values and gays don’t have kids. It is a disadvantage when fighting war. Which is why totalitarian states banned it. Of course, in the US we aren’t property of the US government.
As for why I am discounting the evidence MM has put forward, read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Guide-Statistics-Larry-Gonick/dp/0062731025
You will need calculus to get the full effect, but it gives you a basic understanding of stats. After that you can read books on how to cook survey. It is eye opening- the easiest way would be to look at the report effectiveness and actual effectiveness of drugs submitted to the FDA.
1.

Every abortion leads to the death of a human. You don’t have much of a case here.

2. Except humanness isn’t special. My toe nail is human.

That is so far in error that I sit here dumbfounded. I’m sorry we have done such a poor job of explaining what we’re about. I refer you to one of my favorite contemporary authors, John Piper, on the subject. Christianity is, among other things, about enjoying life more, not less; and I have 30+ years of experience to back that up.

So, only true Scotsman then?
You know what? Too blocky. I’ll make a shot blunt post to cover the meat.

Tom Gilson wrote: This is how discussions here degenerated badly a few weeks ago.

You’re right. I was letting my anger get the better of me when I accused MM of dishonesty, and when I said joy is a foreign concept to Christians. That’s the thing about these hot button issues; emotions tend to run high (mine do, anyway), which makes constructive dialogue almost impossible. (Although, I have to say, I’m impressed by you & MM’s calm demeanor).

Anyways, I’m going back into lurk-mode.

Samuel,

…

Dawkins’s statement about “gentle pedophilia” may be found here. I request you rescind your charge of slander.

Jordan, you wrote,

Please stop being dishonest.

This is how discussions here degenerated badly a few weeks ago. Charges of slander and dishonesty, taking the worst possible interpretation, not giving the slightest grace. The “slander” (see above) was not slander, and it’s entirely possible that MM had reasons other than dishonesty to read what you wrote the way he read it. He might have misinterpreted, he might have been careless, or he might have been summarizing something that you intended in a more precise sense.

Stop accusing the person. Feel free to attack the argument, but accusations against persons are not welcome here.