The morality of homosexuality

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It makes no mention of marriage. It only extends citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the US.

It also says that no state law or local ordinance can trumpt the constitution. The supreme court found that marriage is a natural, constitutional right. Via the logic used in Loving vs. Virginia AND the constitutional principle of equal protection before the law, gay marriage is constitutionally necessary IF we demand that straight marriage is constitutionally necessary.

[Flameswroth]

How is it PC in any way? I'm in favor of gay marriage, and I'm also one of the most blunt motherfuckers out there. None of this logic follows.

I think he's talking about it in terms of the actual belief, not the manner in which it is conveyed. That is to say, being 'pro-gay marriage' is the PC thing right now -- anyone openly against gay marriage is considered a bigot and a fiend who comes home crazier than usual and cuts up Heath Ledger's face.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It's blatantly obvious the Founding Fathers were inspired by the Enlightenment philosophy sweeping Europe (and soon sparking the French Revolution) which saw scientific reason as the rightful basis of any government. Claiming our government was founded on "Christian" principles is fallacious to say the least and invites everything Enlightenment philosophies stood for.

Duh.

The very essence of Christianity is wholly UN-democratic so I do not understand why Christian conservatives continue to use such blatantly ridiculous reasoning behind their arguments to theocratize our government.

Because they need to force Christianity on everyone else by any means necessary and, as we've seen from both creationists and anti-gay activists, distortions, intellectual dishonesty, historical revisionism, and outright lying are not unacceptable tactics to them.

[The Glorious Prince]

In my opinion, homosexuality is like smoking or drinking excessively, not so much a moral issue but a lifestyle issue. Homoseuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, they are more than 60 percent likely to contract aids and many other disease.

[Whole Conviction]

I think he's talking about it in terms of the actual belief, not the manner in which it is conveyed. That is to say, being 'pro-gay marriage' is the PC thing right now -- anyone openly against gay marriage is considered a bigot and a fiend who comes home crazier than usual and cuts up Heath Ledger's face.

Depends which community you're in. In some, it's extremely PC to be anti-gay-marrige, and you get excluded if you aren't. In others, it's the reverse.

Regardless, I think most people on here who are offering opinions are doing so honestly, not simply because they're feeling pressured. Or do you think we're sheep?

[New Kereptica]

In my opinion, homosexuality is like smoking or drinking excessively, not so much a moral issue but a lifestyle issue. Homoseuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, they are more than 60 percent likely to contract aids and many other disease.

Being attracted to people of the same sex makes one more susceptible to diseases?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I think he's talking about it in terms of the actual belief, not the manner in which it is conveyed. That is to say, being 'pro-gay marriage' is the PC thing right now -- anyone openly against gay marriage is considered a bigot and a fiend who comes home crazier than usual and cuts up Heath Ledger's face.

Bigotry is essentially condemnation without rational justification. As we've seen on this thread, even with me giving them an open and honest chance, they still can't manage to form even a single logical reason that homosexuality and homosexual activities are wrong, and yet they still have a problem with gays. This fits my definition of bigotry. If they could rationally justify it, it wouldn't be bigotry. Thus condemnation of serial killers isn't bigotry.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Very rarely is "Political Correctness" anything more than a strawman ad hominem to dismiss your opponents position because you can't refute his actual arguments.

Sometimes it's a valid complaint, but usually it's the former.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Being attracted to people of the same sex makes one more susceptible to diseases?

Yes, in addition to "gaydiation," gays also have a "fagodynamic field" that attracts diseases. (In fact, "gaydiation" is just a radiative solution of the fagodynamic equations.)

The static field is:

F_ag = (Ff/r²) * (-p)

where F_ag is the fagodynamic field, F is Liberace's fabulosity constant, f is the measure of the individual's queerness, and p is a unit vector pointing from their mouth away from the nearest penis. (Hence why the minus sign is necessary.)

AIDS has an f charge, so it is attracted to gays.

[Takaram]

In my opinion, homosexuality is like smoking or drinking excessively, not so much a moral issue but a lifestyle issue. Homoseuality is an unhealthy lifestyle, they are more than 60 percent likely to contract aids and many other disease.

The amount of phail in this post is making my head spin.

[Hallistar]

As long as homosexuals get whatever job they need to get done and get it done well just like everyone else, and don't publicly display homo acts in front of me (lol) im happy as a clam

[Exilia and Colonies]

Being attracted to people of the same sex makes one more susceptible to diseases?

Yes, in addition to "gaydiation," gays also have a "fagodynamic field" that attracts diseases. (In fact, "gaydiation" is just a radiative solution of the fagodynamic equations.)

The static field is:

F_ag = (Ff/r²) * (-p)

where F_ag is the fagodynamic field, F is Liberace's fabulosity constant, f is the measure of the individual's queerness, and p is a unit vector pointing from their mouth away from the nearest penis. (Hence why the minus sign is necessary.)

AIDS has an f charge, so it is attracted to gays.

Brilliant

But what quarks cause f charge?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Brilliant

But what quarks cause f charge?

Top and bottom, duh.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Also, the force coupling constant is exactly 69.

[Takaram]

Being attracted to people of the same sex makes one more susceptible to diseases?

Yes, in addition to "gaydiation," gays also have a "fagodynamic field" that attracts diseases. (In fact, "gaydiation" is just a radiative solution of the fagodynamic equations.)

The static field is:

F_ag = (Ff/r²) * (-p)

where F_ag is the fagodynamic field, F is Liberace's fabulosity constant, f is the measure of the individual's queerness, and p is a unit vector pointing from their mouth away from the nearest penis. (Hence why the minus sign is necessary.)

AIDS has an f charge, so it is attracted to gays.

If this we're so long, I'd sig this... Maybe I will anyway

[Whole Conviction]

Yes, in addition to "gaydiation," gays also have a "fagodynamic field" that attracts diseases. (In fact, "gaydiation" is just a radiative solution of the fagodynamic equations.)

The static field is:

F_ag = (Ff/r²) * (-p)

where F_ag is the fagodynamic field, F is Liberace's fabulosity constant, f is the measure of the individual's queerness, and p is a unit vector pointing from their mouth away from the nearest penis. (Hence why the minus sign is necessary.)

AIDS has an f charge, so it is attracted to gays.

*dies laughing*

You win.

[New Kereptica]

Being attracted to people of the same sex makes one more susceptible to diseases?

Yes, in addition to "gaydiation," gays also have a "fagodynamic field" that attracts diseases. (In fact, "gaydiation" is just a radiative solution of the fagodynamic equations.)

The static field is:

F_ag = (Ff/r²) * (-p)

where F_ag is the fagodynamic field, F is Liberace's fabulosity constant, f is the measure of the individual's queerness, and p is a unit vector pointing from their mouth away from the nearest penis. (Hence why the minus sign is necessary.)

AIDS has an f charge, so it is attracted to gays.

Ah, but that doesn't take into effect the decay that fagodynamic forces exhibit at an extended range (equal to e^-Fd, where d is distance from the emanating fag). This phenomenon is clearly exhibited by the Navy, where non-fags (which they must be, else they'd be off taking up the ass instead of defending our nation and her freedom) exhibit fag-like characteristics enabled by the non-proximity of actual fagotry.

[Exilia and Colonies]

Brilliant

But what quarks cause f charge?

Top and bottom, duh.

I would have thought strange would have been involved... Oh well

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Ah, but that doesn't take into effect the decay that fagodynamic forces exhibit at an extended range (equal to e^-Fd, where d is distance from the emanating fag). This phenomenon is clearly exhibited by the Navy, where non-fags (which they must be, else they'd be off taking up the ass instead of defending our nation and her freedom) exhibit fag-like characteristics caused by the non-proximity of actual fagotry.

What I just showed is just the static field. The dynamic field, which acts a lot like magnetism (and before you ask, no, I'm not just replacing things from electromagnetic theory with references to gays, this is real science), takes care of the problems you've mentioned. Well, that and the gauge fixing.

[New Kereptica]

Ah, but that doesn't take into effect the decay that fagodynamic forces exhibit at an extended range (equal to e^-Fd, where d is distance from the emanating fag). This phenomenon is clearly exhibited by the Navy, where non-fags (which they must be, else they'd be off taking up the ass instead of defending our nation and her freedom) exhibit fag-like characteristics caused by the non-proximity of actual fagotry.

What I just showed is just the static field. The dynamic field, which acts a lot like magnetism (and before you ask, no, I'm not just replacing things from electromagnetic theory with references to gays, this is real science), takes care of the problems you've mentioned. Well, that and the gauge fixing.

Ah, yes. Of course. My mistake.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I would have thought strange would have been involved... Oh well

I'm charmed you'd think so, but the low-down truth is that strange just doesn't mean queer anymore. You need to read up on the latest slang. I suggest you go through urban dictionary, top to bottom.

Yes, I just pulled that pun off, bitch.

[Allbeama]

Make completely logical and secular arguments against one or all of these things.

No sophistry, no ad hominems, no equivocation, no argument from authority.

Even being anti-gay myself, I feel pretty confident in saying that very few, if any, such arguments exist. Very, very seldom is opposition to the practice seated in the part of the brain concerning logic and reasoning. It's a taught objection. It's a 'slippery slope' fallacy objection. It's a 'discomfort through lack of understanding' reaction. It's a 'you're different than me' reaction. None of these are inherently logical.

I think my personal one is predominately 'you're different than me' with a sprinkling of taught objection.

If you know this, and understand the forces involved, and really are as capable of reaching an opinion based on logic as this post indicates, why do you still hold an anti-gay position? Is it out of sheer hard-headedness?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

If you know this, and understand the forces involved, and really are as capable of reaching an opinion based on logic as this post indicates, why do you still hold an anti-gay position? Is it out of sheer hard-headedness?

In previous threads, he's claimed to hold a very large number of disturbing positions that he acknowledges are terrible and irrational. I don't get him at all. I don't get how someone can say "Yes my position makes no sense. What's wrong with that?"

[Allbeama]

DINKs are degenerate.

Nietzsche confessed to his loneliness without God and then went mad. He's not the best one to cite.

Source?

[Allbeama]

I suppose a totally secular case could be built that homosexual behaviour is wrong in the same sense that eating and drinking really unhealthily is wrong.

Go for it.

Be sure to address the fact that homosexual women are far less likely to:

-Contract STDs
-Experience an unwanted pregnancy
-Be abused or killed by an intimate partner

There's also that it's not really something you want to encourage, especially given as it's the male sex drive gone overboard without the moderating influence of women ("cherchez la femme" aside).

Because female homosexuals don't exist?

And if the "male sex drive" is such a negative thing, then why force the 51% of humans who are female to put up with it in the first place? Wouldn't women be much better off without all the health problems caused by sexual relationships with men? Sure this supposed "moderating influence" from women might help make MEN more healthy, but only at the expense of women...if you're arguing for public health, then why would you argue for something that REDUCES the health of the majority of the population?

His argument is just so bad to begin with that of course he didn't see the ramifications of his own point.