An Aside Regarding Homosexuality

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Balerion, Mar 2, 2014.

  1. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    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.

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

    I tend to view people with unreasonably bigoted views to be lacking in education.
    You have yet to explain what it is about homosexual behaviour that needs condemning.

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

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

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

    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.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    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?

    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.

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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

    Nice unsupported accusation as well.

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

    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.

    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.

    Oh I meet my moderator obligations, but they only add to my time constraints.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    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.

    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.

    I certainly hope that isn't sarcasm.

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

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

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

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

    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.

    Just as no appeals to reason will change yours. Grow up.
  8. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    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.

    Is that suppose to deflect from your obvious straw man?

    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.
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Asked and answered.

    Asked and answered.

    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.

    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.

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

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

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

    More excuses.
  10. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    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).

    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.

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

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

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

    Really? You cannot manage to parse that simple answer?

    Provisionally, no.

    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. -

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

    What reasons?
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    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
  13. Bells Staff Member

    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?
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    See edited post.
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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?
  16. Balerion Banned Banned


    No idea what you're talking about.

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

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

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


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

    Based on what?

    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?

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

    And you think homosexual behavior causes these items how, exactly?
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    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.
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.
  19. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Again, does a good excuse pardon harmful behavior?

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

    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."

    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.
  21. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

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

    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.
  22. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    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.

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


Share This Page