The threat of homosexuality

[Death Metal]

I like how this is the only post you answer while ignoring all the perfectly valid points made to you.

Valid points? What valid points? No one has yet to raise one legitimate argument against me. All it is that I am seeing is mindless bashing and flaming against me and no one has really provided any legitimate sources to back their claims against me.

Says the man who has yet to raise a legitimate argument, or provide a legitimate source, and is mindlessly bashing people for being different than him.

[Nation of Fortune]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the words 'threat' and 'homosexuality' together.

Would you stop reading if I said "Homosexuality is not a threat"?

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the words 'threat' and 'homosexuality' together.

I thought he was talking about them taking over the fashion industry and putting good straight designers out of a job.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the words 'threat' and 'homosexuality' together.

Would you stop reading if I said "Homosexuality is not a threat"?

Yes, because rationality is less entertaining.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the words 'threat' and 'homosexuality' together.

Would you stop reading if I said "Homosexuality is not a threat"?

That I would read.

I stopped reading as soon as I saw the words 'threat' and 'homosexuality' together.

I thought he was talking about them taking over the fashion industry and putting good straight designers out of a job.

UN-FABULOUS.

[PapaJacky]

Being gay doesn't mean you have HIV/AIDS, I'm sure someone covered this earlier in the thread.

[Sentinel XV]

Being gay doesn't mean you have HIV/AIDS, I'm sure someone covered this earlier in the thread.

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

[Transhuman Proteus]

I couldn't agree more. Other animals eat poop, guess it makes it ok for humans too.

Silly argument is silly.

Pro-LGBTetc rights supporters do not make arguments of "it's natural, so we are right". Anti-LGBTetc rights group make arguments "it isn't natural, so they shouldn't be treated as natural, they should be treated as wrong"

At which point it is right to point out that, 1. they are factually incorrect, as homosexuality does occur naturally in nature, that 2. whether it is "observable in nature or not" is irrelevant, as we don't base our behavior on animals.

Going from that we can look at the things that occur naturally in nature, that could apply to us, and go from there. "Eating poop" as you put it is not something every animal does, because it is only of use to some animals (Coprophagia) and would be harmful to us.

Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights. I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing. In fact I believe that the evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism are dangerous to society is overwhelming.

This should be good. And you've really set yourself up there with the hyperbole - overwhelmingly dangerous to society? Really? Overwhelmingly - I suggest you check the definition of that word and see whether you really think it applies.

Second - homosexuality has been around for nearly as long as humanity probably. Certainly predates Christianity, Islam, the Roman Empire all of it. Religions have, over history, had clear and major negative impacts on societies. Homosexuality really has not. In fact there is probably a list of 1000 common things that have had more of a negative impact than homosexuality has.

HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community

And they have dropped significantly amongst the LGBT population in recent years, and continue to drop. "Much higher" is an exaggeration as well - it is higher, yes, but most LGBT do not have aids. Besides which - a HIV/AIDS treatment isn't far away, STDs can be treated and neither of them are exclusive to the LGBT population. "Much higher" is irrelevant because even if LGBT people disappeared from the world there would still be heterosexual getting AIDS and STDs

And - that is a personal impact, with maybe so associated health care costs. Care to explain how a gay man with AIDs is a threat to society?

and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous

First - irrelevant, that is a moral judgement on "promiscuity" being bad. Second - care to explain the threat promiscuity poses to society? Third - some stats for LGBT being more promiscuous than straights?

and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples.

Hmmm, a single source? Care to say whether that is common across the homosexual population world over? What about through history?

And the threat it poses to society? So far your dodgy argument, which wouldn't hold up in a high school debate, is about harm to individuals. None of your claims are getting anywhere near society or civilization level, and not a one applies to homosexuals in a majority - a higher % of homosexuals in the US are exposed to domestic violence than heterosexual couples (but not the majority of homosexuals), a higher % of homosexuals in the US are getting AIDS and STDS than heterosexuals (but not the majority of homosexuals) - and all this fails to take into account societies role in causing this.

involved I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal.

Because it is.

As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too?

No, as I said in response to another post.

I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it.

You are an unpleasant individual with that attitude.

If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay.

Homosexuality is well documented as having existed for thousands of years, including in societies that were very accepting of it. Guess what didn't happen? Slippery slopes down to baby dog sex.

Care to look at Sweden, at England, at France etc and bring some proof for your silly claims? Homosexuality has been legal for decades, guess what hasn't happened and what doesn't look like it will happen? Go on, guess.

In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members.

Oh my, performed sexual acts outside a church and even shouted things! How thoroughly barbaric of... no. So was it an actual riot? Sounds like a non-violent protest to me.

Would you like a list of the thousands of cases of violence, cruelty and hateful acts against LGBT? Hmmm? Let me tell you, what you just described has nothing on the disgusting things people who think like you have done to LGBT throughout history.

[Nation of Fortune]

Being gay doesn't mean you have HIV/AIDS, I'm sure someone covered this earlier in the thread.

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

I actually think he was trying to say homosexuals are a threat somehow and just never really demonstrated why. However he thought he did by posting irrelevant studies.

[Sentinel XV]

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

I actually think he was trying to say homosexuals are a threat somehow and just never really demonstrated why. However he thought he did by posting irrelevant studies.

And a simple Wikipedia check proves him wrong:
"... with contacts between people of the opposite sex accounting for more cases than same-sex contacts globally."
Markowitz, edited by William N. Rom ; associate editor, Steven B. (2007). Environmental and occupational medicine (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 745. ISBN 978-0-7817-6299-1.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

I actually think he was trying to say homosexuals are a threat somehow and just never really demonstrated why. However he thought he did by posting irrelevant studies.

Don't forget, he also thinks homosexuality is some kind of disease that requires people to find a cure for. *nod*

My bullshit meter's going off the roof.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I actually think he was trying to say homosexuals are a threat somehow and just never really demonstrated why. However he thought he did by posting irrelevant studies.

Don't forget, he also thinks homosexuality is some kind of disease that requires people to find a cure for. *nod*

My bullshit meter's going off the roof.

My bullshit meter was about to hit the fan, but I redirected it.

[Zanzibarnia]

Being gay doesn't mean you have HIV/AIDS, I'm sure someone covered this earlier in the thread.

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

That WAS the point he was trying to make, until he went completely lost it and decided that as long as he was already caught saying bullshit he might as well go for broke, and said that being gay is a choice, that he knows many gay people who said it was a choice, and that he also knows quite a few ex-gays who chose to be straight despite being in a gay-friendly community.

Jesus. Mitt Romney wishes he could lie as easily.

[Moogs World]

People criticize the term "homophobia" but the thread title, "The threat of homosexuality", seems to suggest that it is at least sometimes a good description.

[PapaJacky]

Being gay doesn't mean you have HIV/AIDS, I'm sure someone covered this earlier in the thread.

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

His OP doesn't state that, more so it states that the rate of HIV/AIDS is higher in the LGBT community.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Don't forget, he also thinks homosexuality is some kind of disease that requires people to find a cure for. *nod*

My bullshit meter's going off the roof.

My bullshit meter was about to hit the fan, but I redirected it.

Give me some rope, please. I must reign mine in. Don't want to wake up the whole neighborhood.

[Sentinel XV]

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

That WAS the point he was trying to make, until he went completely lost it and decided that as long as he was already caught saying bullshit he might as well go for broke, and said that being gay is a choice, that he knows many gay people who said it was a choice, and that he also knows quite a few ex-gays who chose to be straight despite being in a gay-friendly community.

Jesus. Mitt Romney wishes he could lie as easily.

It was more like he said that he knew several bisexual or homosexual individuals has made a choice to "stop being homosexual/bisexual". Not only is that a personal anecdote and therefore unverifiable, many factors other than "is it right or is it wrong" could have went into that supposed "choice", including family and social pressure. By that, I mean they could have seen it as easier to conceal their sexual identity rather than spend their lives in constant conflict with their family. I, for one, would not associate with people who cannot accept me for who I am, but perhaps some are different.

[North California]

Don't want to get AIDS? Then don't fuck someone who has it. No need to limit the freedoms of others.

[Sentinel XV]

That's not the point he was trying to make. The OP was trying to posit that homosexual intercourse has a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than heterosexual intercourse, which is not supported by any reputable research.

His OP doesn't state that, more so it states that the rate of HIV/AIDS is higher in the LGBT community.

...

Which would lead to the inference that their lifestyle choice (i.e. being homosexual) has a direct impact on the transmission of HIV/AIDS, which is (primarily) a sexually-transmitted disease. Ergo, exactly what I said.

[Liriena]

Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights. I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing. In fact I believe that the evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism are dangerous to society is overwhelming. HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples. I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal. As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too? I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it. If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay. In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members. Here are a few of my sources.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msm ... lease.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291357

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474

Yeah....but no.

Cherry picking, hasty generalization from singular, isolated events, and ignoring context and background research makes your point worthless.

[PapaJacky]

His OP doesn't state that, more so it states that the rate of HIV/AIDS is higher in the LGBT community.

...

Which would lead to the inference that their lifestyle choice (i.e. being homosexual) has a direct impact on the transmission of HIV/AIDS, which is (primarily) a sexually-transmitted disease. Ergo, exactly what I said.

Which doesn't. Correlation =/= Causation.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights. I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing. In fact I believe that the evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism are dangerous to society is overwhelming. HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples. I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal. As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too? I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it. If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay. In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members. Here are a few of my sources.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msm ... lease.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291357

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474

OMG, are you like my long lost twin or something? This message is Alaje approved.

You approve of a message with fuck all validity for its conclusion?

You are easy please. Of course it is homosexuals who are a threat to society, not the people whose base prejudice and bigotry leads them to making such stupid statements not supported by reality.

[Nation of Fortune]

Now don't get me wrong I am actually pretty liberal although I just so happen to disagree with most liberals on the issue of LGBT rights. I don't believe that homosexuality is a good thing. In fact I believe that the evidence that homosexuality and lesbianism are dangerous to society is overwhelming. HIV/AIDS rates and other STD rates are much higher among the LGBT community than the straight community and LGBT people are much more likely to sexual promiscuous and domestic violence is much higher among same-sex couples. I just don't understand why we should consider homosexuality okay and normal. As for it happening among animals well rape, theft, and murder have been observed among animals so should be consider those to be okay too? I think it is time for people to stand up for the truth and fight against homosexuality and find a cure for it to help the people struggling with it. If we keep on thinking it is okay then we are on a slippery slope to where we would soon be thinking that zoophilia, pedophilia, and heck even necrophilia are okay. In the early 90's in San Fransisco there was an LGBT riot outside a church were the LGBT people performed sexual acts outside the church and even reportedly shouted "give us your children" to the church members and they harassed the church members. Here are a few of my sources.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msm ... lease.html

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/291357

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... d_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838474

Yeah....but no.

Cherry picking, hasty generalization from singular, isolated events, and ignoring context and background research makes your point worthless.

Just wait till he says your argument didn't address his at all and cries because you are picking apart his logical fallacies.

[Agymnum]

Okay. Here I go:
I personally don't really like homosexuality. Sorry. I am entitled to an opinion though. I am religious, and it is considered wrong in my church, so thats a large reason I don't support it. I follow the views of my church. You are allowed to be homosexual, as long as you don't act on it. However, I don't think you should be stripped of your rights because you are gay. In the end, there needs to be a compromise.

Er... No.

See, modern society has this thing called separation of church and state (Vatican doesn't count as modern society, sorry). What that means is that religious beliefs and morals should not influence government.

Thus, compromise on this issue is wrong. Religious people need to accept that homosexuality is okay outside of the church/synagogue/mosque and in modern society. People are allowed to be homosexual and act on it, because not allowing them to act on it is inherently stripping them of their rights.

If you weren't allowed to act on your religious beliefs, would you not be stripped of your rights? If you were not allowed to act on your beliefs because of your race, would that not strip you of your rights? Why should your sexuality be any different?

[Zanzibarnia]

That WAS the point he was trying to make, until he went completely lost it and decided that as long as he was already caught saying bullshit he might as well go for broke, and said that being gay is a choice, that he knows many gay people who said it was a choice, and that he also knows quite a few ex-gays who chose to be straight despite being in a gay-friendly community.

Jesus. Mitt Romney wishes he could lie as easily.

It was more like he said that he knew several bisexual or homosexual individuals has made a choice to "stop being homosexual/bisexual". Not only is that a personal anecdote and therefore unverifiable, many factors other than "is it right or is it wrong" could have went into that supposed "choice", including family and social pressure. By that, I mean they could have seen it as easier to conceal their sexual identity rather than spend their lives in constant conflict with their family. I, for one, would not associate with people who cannot accept me for who I am, but perhaps some are different.

Not to mention that since OP comes across -- to me, at least -- as someone who would cross the street if he (or she) saw a gay person walking towards them, I hope I can be forgiven for thinking that he/she taking the time to actually get to know all these supposedly many gay people who chose to be gay or ex-gays who chose to be straight is complete and utter bullshit.