An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

[Trippy]

I do condemn irresponsible and promiscuous behavior of any orientation, and HIV risk is not the entirety of my reasoning.

It's the entirety of the reasoning you have offered so far, in spite of repeated requests to elaborate further, requests which, so far, you continue to ignore.

 

[Bells]

I do not need to "ensure" anything of the sort. Like I told Balerion, if you really want my reasons in a timely fashion, quit wasting my time arguing about not getting them. I have a life, and demands on my time, outside of this forum.

So you had no real intention to answer the question or to qualify your views about homosexuality and you were just hoping to divert attention away from it in that thread. Repeatedly hiding behind the "I have a life" argument to avoid answering a simple question about your words and your views is a bit of a sad tactic. Had you simply advised why you think "homosexuality is wrong", instead of these many many responses which do nothing but divert attention away from the actual issue of this thread, you wouldn't have had to waste your time giving so many responses.

So now opinions that differ from yours are "obscene", huh?

No. When people make statements such as "homosexuality is wrong" is what I deem obscene.

Yes, backhanded ad hominem duly noted.

I tend to view people with unreasonably bigoted views to be lacking in education.

I suppose it does not if you insist that condemning a behavior necessarily requires demonizing the person/group. I do not. That is your personal problem.

You have yet to explain what it is about homosexual behaviour that needs condemning.

And as you have been reminded, it is a straw man (lie) that I ever said homosexuality causes HIV.

And as you have been constantly reminded, misrepresenting studies is not going to win you any favours.

Again, do excuses condone harmful behavior? I suppose for a group that is so adamant about having "no choice" perhaps their ability to exercise their choice of safe sex in the face of condemnation is out of the question?

One has to ask, what is your excuse at this point.

Whatever comforts you.

I have to ask, are you and Wynn comparing notes before you post?

Well, you might want to split all the off-topic troll talk first.

You suggested he start this thread so you could discuss it in this thread. It has been what? A week now and instead of providing answers, you have baited and hidden and misrepresented studies while declaring you simply do not have the time to answer the questions you asked him to start this thread about in the first place. If you are too afraid to explain why you think homosexual is wrong, it might behoove you to keep such obscene statements to yourself.

You have no entitlement to my time. Get over it.

Then perhaps you should stop baiting and trolling members by requesting he start this thread so you could address it in a timely fashion, as you are now trying to hide behind and refusing to address anything at all except hide behind bigoted statements. If you persist in misrepresenting reports and studies, then you will certainly have no entitlement to anyone's time or respect.

 

[Syne]

No, you framed the discussion in those terms when you used the risks associated with anal sex to justify your morality in regards to homosexuality, and now that you have been, once again, shown to be misrepresenting the science for the - what is this, the second time now? Or is it the third?

I have not misrepresented the science. In the US MSM clearly account for the most transmissions and that demographic is proportionally at greater risk. Which of these do you suppose are a misrepresentation?

So which is it? Are you morally opposed to homosexuallity? Or are you morally opposed to Anal sex?

Homosexuality, but I where have I said that HIV risk was my only reason for condemning homosexual behavior? Anal sex is not, itself, a moral issue to me.

But this thread is about homosexuality, so why should I be talking about anal sex in general?

Because it is specifically anal sex that puts them at the most risk (role versatility exacerbates this further).

See above. It is actually unprotected anal sex that puts them as higher risk.

Really? So if a homosexual really wants to use a condom someone's moral judgment will somehow prevent that?

Now you're just being outright dishonest (well, even more so). Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I originally said, but yes, when laws are framed around peoples moral judgements it does prevent that.

Really? Please explain how. What specific laws keep a homosexual from obtaining and using a condom?

Nice unsupported accusation as well.

And access to treatment may be problematic:

Many white and interracial couples believed that if the HIV positive partner has a low viral load and is taking HIV medication, the risk of HIV transmission is lower. The findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that some gay couples are abandoning condom use in response to beliefs about advances in HIV treatment and testing. - http://news.sfsu.edu/gay-couples-condom-decision-making-and-condom-use-varies-race​

Maybe you should go back and reread my previous posts, or take some time perusing some of the original papers rather than (once again) relying on someone elses interpretation of it for you.

I was not aware that quote had anything to with any paper you referenced. May be you could post a link.

How so? Is simply having an opinion that is not shared by the majority of moderators somehow inherently wrong?

Once again, you're being dishonest and twisting my words to suite your own ends and construct a strawman hypothesis.

Then maybe you could take that as an invitation to explain yourself further. Seems if that is not what you meant you could elaborate a bit. You know, something perhaps more useful than accusations.

And other moderators have also already had plenty to say about my conduct. Your point?

If you're comfortable being a hypocrite that's fine, I guess, but you're giving the rest of us free passes to ignore any criticisms you might offer about moderators trolling chatters or conflicted interest.

Hey, if you have not noticed that I have taken criticism seriously and actually changed my behavior so be it. I speak from actually having learned a few of these lessons.

You have no entitlement to my time. Get over it.

You think you're the only person with carbon world obligations?

Maybe if you can't meet the time requirements it's time to think about stepping down.

Oh I meet my moderator obligations, but they only add to my time constraints.

 

[Balerion]

That headline is not erroneous, as anal sex is a biological susceptibility prevalent among MSM and contributory to the transmission rate among that demographic. But who said that "all by default engage in anal sex, [or] by default do it without protection"? Seems to be a straw man.

Anal sex does not just occur between men, but also between men and women. And, for that matter, women. It isn't biology that puts gay men at risk, it's behavior. In fact, the article states that the risk is just as high for women who receive anal sex from men.

The only thing that article said about the cause was:

There were other differences: black men were less likely to have access to medical care and more likely to have sex with other black men.​

So no idea what article you are talking about.

I assume you can read, so I don't need to repeat what I already wrote, nor do I need to point out to you that what I wrote was taken directly from the article.

So black men who have sex with men or men and women are less likely to use condoms than black men who solely have sex with women. So even though straight black men are generally the most likely to use a condom, this does not hold for other black sexual orientations.

Good to know.

I certainly hope that isn't sarcasm.

I set my own priorities.

No one said you didn't. I suggested you prioritize correctly.

I do condemn irresponsible and promiscuous behavior of any orientation, and HIV risk is not the entirety of my reasoning.

I asked you about lesbian sex. Do you condemn it?

I do not believe it has been conclusively proven so.

That's not what I asked you. Let's try that again.

Drug use, mental illness, etc..

Gay people are more prone to drug use and mental illness? Where does it say that?

Believe what you like. You can always test your hypothesis, and I have already told you how.

Right, by allowing you to have the last word. What a surprise that is.

How about you pen your reply to the topic's question, then return to these other posts? Makes sense, considering that you view these other posts as a waste of your time, whereas this thread was entirely your idea.

Oh, I am sure you have already formed an opinion on that which my reasons will do nothing to change.

Just as no appeals to reason will change yours. Grow up.

 

[Syne]

You have yet to explain what it is about homosexual behaviour that needs condemning.

I never said nor implied that homosexual behavior "needs condemning", only that I do. In my first post to this thread I explained that my normative ethical stance was utilitarianism, where I do not require any ought not of anyone.

And as you have been reminded, it is a straw man (lie) that I ever said homosexuality causes HIV.

And as you have been constantly reminded, misrepresenting studies is not going to win you any favours.

Is that suppose to deflect from your obvious straw man?

Then perhaps you should stop baiting and trolling members by requesting he start this thread so you could address it in a timely fashion, as you are now trying to hide behind and refusing to address anything at all except hide behind bigoted statements. If you persist in misrepresenting reports and studies, then you will certainly have no entitlement to anyone's time or respect.

I do not presume to have any entitlement of anything from others. And I see you persist in wanting to make this thread about trolling. And I requested this thread be started to keep another one from being overwhelmed with what would have been off-topic there.

 

[Trippy]

I have not misrepresented the science. In the US MSM clearly account for the most transmissions and that demographic is proportionally at greater risk. Which of these do you suppose are a misrepresentation?

Asked and answered.

Homosexuality, but I where have I said that HIV risk was my only reason for condemning homosexual behavior? Anal sex is not, itself, a moral issue to me.

Asked and answered.

See above. It is actually unprotected anal sex that puts them as higher risk.

Something which I have previously explicitly stated, which you would know had you actually read anything I had to say, or any of the material I have linked to.

Really? Please explain how. What specific laws keep a homosexual from obtaining and using a condom?

Nice unsupported accusation as well.

Asked and answered. Really. RTFM. Go back and re-read the stuff I quoted, better yet, go back and re-read the papers I linked to.

I was not aware that quote had anything to with any paper you referenced. May be you could post a link.

Strawman hypothesis - that's not why I was telling you to go back and re-read some of my prior posts.

Then maybe you could take that as an invitation to explain yourself further. Seems if that is not what you meant you could elaborate a bit. You know, something perhaps more useful than accusations.

Really? I thought it was perfectly obvious why it was a blatant misrepresentation of my words.

Hey, if you have not noticed that I have taken criticism seriously and actually changed my behavior so be it. I speak from actually having learned a few of these lessons.

No, I haven't noticed. When I observe your behaviour, I still see the same patterns.

Oh I meet my moderator obligations, but they only add to my time constraints.

More excuses.

 

[Syne]

I think it's clear now that Syne has no intention on answer the central question of this thread. A regular member would likely face moderation for such a stunt. But, thanks to the impeccable decision-making of the administration, Syne is no longer subject to the rules of the forum.

I'm done chasing cowards. Close it if you like.

I did not have to wait long for that lie to exposed. And for you to continue to try to prove Tiassa right about making this a thread about targeting staff (myself excluded, as I asked for it).

Anal sex does not just occur between men, but also between men and women. And, for that matter, women. It isn't biology that puts gay men at risk, it's behavior. In fact, the article states that the risk is just as high for women who receive anal sex from men.

And? It is biology that makes anal sex risky, for any gender or orientation, and contributory to high rate for a demographic more prone to it. Where did I supposedly say "anal sex just occurs between men"? Just more straw men distractions.

The only thing that article said about the cause was:

There were other differences: black men were less likely to have access to medical care and more likely to have sex with other black men.​

So no idea what article you are talking about.

I assume you can read, so I don't need to repeat what I already wrote, nor do I need to point out to you that what I wrote was taken directly from the article.

IOW, you have no idea and are simply arm-waving.

So black men who have sex with men or men and women are less likely to use condoms than black men who solely have sex with women. So even though straight black men are generally the most likely to use a condom, this does not hold for other black sexual orientations.

Good to know.

I certainly hope that isn't sarcasm.

Not at all. I had not come across that info.

I do condemn irresponsible and promiscuous behavior of any orientation, and HIV risk is not the entirety of my reasoning.

I asked you about lesbian sex. Do you condemn it?

No, as obviously HIV is rarely transmitted through lesbian sex, but I do condemn lesbian homosexuality for other reasons.

So you don't believe it's innate, then?

I do not believe it has been conclusively proven so.

That's not what I asked you. Let's try that again.

Really? You cannot manage to parse that simple answer?

Provisionally, no.

Gay people are more prone to drug use and mental illness? Where does it say that?

I assumed this was generally known.

Rates of depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobia, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence were significantly higher in homosexual respondents. - http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems-for-homosexuals/0006527​

Makes sense, considering that you view these other posts as a waste of your time, whereas this thread was entirely your idea.

I did not say I considered these other posts a waste of time, only that you should considering you repeated requests.

 

[Bells]

No, as obviously HIV is rarely transmitted through lesbian sex, but I do condemn lesbian homosexuality for other reasons.

What reasons?

 

[Syne]

Okay, since no one wants anything more than a list of reasons, without any real rationale, here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Higher rates of mental illness
• Higher rates of substance abuse
• Higher HIV risk/transmission
• High rates of promiscuity

 

[Bells]

Okay, since no one wants anything more than a list of reasons, without any real rationale, here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Mental illness
• Substance abuse
• High HIV risk/transmission
• Promiscuity

So you condemn people with mental illness as well.. Wow.. You're a peach, aren't you.

All you listed affects heterosexuals as well. Why do you single out the LGBT community with your condemnation?

 

[Syne]

So you condemn people with mental illness as well.. Wow.. You're a peach, aren't you.

All you listed affects heterosexuals as well. Why do you single out the LGBT community with your condemnation?

See edited post.

 

[Trippy]

Okay, since no one wants anything more than a list of reasons, without any real rationale, here is a non-exhaustive list:

• Higher rates of mental illness
• Higher rates of substance abuse
• Higher HIV risk/transmission
• High rates of promiscuity

Because none of these could possibly be related to the internalisation of societal stigma (eg societal homophobia, gender non-comformity and gender stereotyping) related to homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself, right?

 

[Balerion]

I did not have to wait long for that lie to exposed. And for you to continue to try to prove Tiassa right about making this a thread about targeting staff (myself excluded, as I asked for it).

:shrug:

No idea what you're talking about.

And? It is biology that makes anal sex risky, for any gender or orientation, and contributory to high rate for a demographic more prone to it. Where did I supposedly say "anal sex just occurs between men"? Just more straw men distractions.

You used it as a means to condemn homosexuality, when homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with it.

IOW, you have no idea and are simply arm-waving.

Re-read the article, Syne. And re-read my posts. The information you're asking for is in those two places.

No, as obviously HIV is rarely transmitted through lesbian sex, but I do condemn lesbian homosexuality for other reasons.

So you don't condemn lesbian sex, you just condemn lesbian sex.

....?

Really? You cannot manage to parse that simple answer?

I'm trying to get you to say what you mean, instead of talking around the issue.

Provisionally, no.

Based on what?

I assumed this was generally known.

I did not know this. I guess I'm not surprised, given the attitude towards homosexuality in this country.

But I don't think I understand your point here. Do you think this has to do with homosexual behavior?

Okay, since no one wants anything more than a list of reasons, without any real rationale, here is a non-exhaustive list:

Strawmanning an excuse to not explain yourself. What a shock!

Higher rates of mental illness
Higher rates of substance abuse
Higher HIV risk/transmission
High rates of promiscuity

And you think homosexual behavior causes these items how, exactly?

 

[Balerion]

Because none of these could possibly be related to the internalisation of societal stigma (eg societal homophobia, gender non-comformity and gender stereotyping) related to homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself, right?

Grossness of this list aside, Syne has stated repeatedly that he condemns homosexual behavior, not orientation. Meaning, he believes these things are caused by gay sex. Which needs explaining.

 

[Trippy]

And you think homosexual behavior causes these items how, exactly?

It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Higher rates of these things occur among homo-sexuals, but it's caused by a hidden variable - the attiudes of people making moral judgements about homosexuality and acting according to them, or simply not thinking the consequences of their actions through.

Once again, his own source says this:

Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.​

The paper I've been looking at is, of course, more recent, and based on a large metastudy.

 

[Syne]

Because none of these could possibly be related to the internalisation of societal stigma (eg societal homophobia, gender non-comformity and gender stereotyping) related to homosexuality, rather than homosexuality itself, right?

Again, does a good excuse pardon harmful behavior?

It's a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Higher rates of these things occur among homo-sexuals, but it's caused by a hidden variable - the attiudes of people making moral judgements about homosexuality and acting according to them, or simply not thinking the consequences of their actions through.

Once again, his own source says this:

Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.​

The paper I've been looking at is, of course, more recent, and based on a large metastudy.

Is everyone here completely oblivious to any and all qualified statements? "May contribute" is not conclusive.

 

[Balerion]

Again, does a good excuse pardon harmful behavior?

Of course not. But that harmful behavior also doesn't justify a condemnation of homosexual behavior as a whole. The reasonable reaction to that information is, "Gay men should start wrapping it up," not "Homosexual behavior is morally wrong."

Is everyone here completely oblivious to any and all qualified statements? "May contribute" is not conclusive.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse us of, except to a greater degree. You seem to think that the default position of any qualified statement is the negative (see your position on homosexuality being innate). The difference is that there's at least evidence to support our conclusion. Yours has none, and seems to be based in either delusion or hatred, or both.

 

[Syne]

Again, does a good excuse pardon harmful behavior?

Of course not. But that harmful behavior also doesn't justify a condemnation of homosexual behavior as a whole.

There you have it. You can justify how the harm is somehow excusable all you like.

Is everyone here completely oblivious to any and all qualified statements? "May contribute" is not conclusive.

You're guilty of the same thing you accuse us of, except to a greater degree. You seem to think that the default position of any qualified statement is the negative (see your position on homosexuality being innate). The difference is that there's at least evidence to support our conclusion. Yours has none, and seems to be based in either delusion or hatred, or both.

No, the default position of science is that there is no special relationship until empirically established. Qualifying statements are clear indications that the relationship (homosexuality and lack of choice) is not incontrovertibly established.

 

[Trippy]

Again, does a good excuse pardon harmful behavior?

It's not the behaviour that's the problem, it's the attitude of others towards the behaviour. If society accepted homosexuality these harmful behaviours would not occur.

Is everyone here completely oblivious to any and all qualified statements? "May contribute" is not conclusive.

You're in a poor position to criticise the scientific literacy of others.

 

[Balerion]

There you have it. You can justify how the harm is somehow excusable all you like.

More dishonesty. Where did I excuse the behavior? Please, point that out to me. In the meantime, try addressing what I actually said.

No, the default position of science is that there is no special relationship until empirically established.

There are many empirical studies that have demonstrated differences in physical and mental attributes between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Orientation isn't the only thing we don't have in common.

Qualifying statements are clear indications that the relationship (homosexuality and lack of choice) is not incontrovertibly established.

So? The fact that there is a qualifying statement at all, especially in the affirmative, suggests that there is enough evidence to take a provisional stance in the affirmative. So how do you arrive at "no?"