The rules of this thread are: you must use at least one smily in every post. There is no topic beyond the effective use of the smily. You may say anything and everything you want within forum rules. You may now begin. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I was like  and she was like  and they were like  for no good reason at all and then the movie was like   and I was like  because I like didn't expect it! And then the guy I bet against, because I bet that the Vader smily couldn't possibly be the Luke smily's daddy, he was like  and I had to humiliate myself by being like  and handing over my favorite toy horse  . So I like challenged him to a duel and lost  and then I challenged him to a boxing match and got my bum kicked   and then I started getting really mad   so I like pulled out these little guns  but he pulled out his like wicked-butt flamethrower  and, dude, I was like TOTALLY SCHOOLED  . So I got even madder  and he said, dude, you, like, need a chill pill   , so I like totally cussed the guy into the farthest reaches of oblivion  and the forum admins saw it   and, like, got really PO'd for some reason and I was like  . So that's the story of how I lost my posting priviledges on Defend and Debate, dude.
_________________________________________________ _
Chevrolet  shocks and struts
Chevrolet quick strut
Shock absorber

Days or rainy days the sun
Crowded coffee shop
Think you can find a comfortable corner
Look at Valentine's shoulder by shoulder
Open my eyes slowly turn yeh yeh ~ ~
A girl I miss it
My heart has flown to the other side of the city
Want to see your face I love
The feelings of the heart have to say to you
That road every day in Cyprus
And every person every day in the patient
Life without you is very black and white
This is the original love
I want you by my side
All share in life
Every day, every day I want to say that
Every day to say to you how much I love you
_________________________________________________ _
Chevrolet  shocks and struts
Chevrolet quick strut
Shock absorber

Ok, how about if you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent you cut and paste my actual comments, because it will then be a lot less labour-intensive for me to demonstrate that you're full of it.  i have said very clearly that "natural" is an almost meaningless category on account of it's vagueness and broadness, but that it is nonsensical to say that homosexuality is excluded from it.  That is not inconsistent, no matter how desperately you apparently wish that it were.

With you being the only one who knows where that boarder between meaningful and meaningless is located oh all-knowing one. You really don't disprove my statement seeing how you have also explicitly said "being natural is not always a good thing". In which case you asserting it as natural IS meaningless.

Where in that paragraph did i say that homosexuality is a good thing?  Your relentless conflation of "natural" and "good" may have fooled you into thinking that i did, but as i have pointed out before, many things which we would both agree are bad fit the definition of natural perfectly.  i even make that explicit in the above paragraph, but your apparent inability to see what i am actually saying through the filter of what you think i might be saying blinds you to everything but your expectations.  i'd be grateful for more cut-and-paste opportunities to show up your basic comprehension skills in this way.

If you want to get snippety about what is actually written why don't you take a look at what I actually wrote - The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent Do I say you are promoting it as "a good thing" in that line or that you are just 'promoting'? Which you have been doing - promoting it as "natural". Sheesh

Frankly as "broad" as you claim the term "natural" to be, you really can no longer claim it as "natural" anyway seeing how you yourself have invoked that something being "natural" for animals ISN'T "natural" for human beings. And as that seems to be the only evidence to support your claim, you've basicly got nothing. So no, homosexuality is indeed an unnatural act that perverts the self-evident purpose and design of sexual intercourse (perversions being understood as "bad" no matter what Humes thinks). Animal behaviour having no baring on human behaviour as animals have many behaviours that would be abhorrent for human beings to perform, homosexuality amoung them.

i think even a cursory reading of the Bible would show that a great deal of moral progress has been made since those books were written.  i am certainly grateful that most people in the Western world dont feel compelled to kill disobedient children, or to stone a young woman to death on her father's doorstep if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.  These are things explicitly mandated by the book which you (laughably) claim to derive your morality from.

And which would happen again if the exact same circumstances that such acts were performed under were the same today. And likely still happen in one form or another today in some parts of the world. Nope, people ultimately haven't changed.

Something you have failed to do in the case of homosexuality and STDs.  What you have pointed out is a correlation, and i have responded that exactly the same correlation exists in other social groups.

And I have responded that the correlation means the exact same thing for all social groups under my world view - everyone is guilty of sin. While amusingly being called a bigot though I explictly include all races of people.

Occasionally ranting is warranted.

So is thinking.

Your interpretations on this issue are entirely ideologically driven and insulting to committed monogamous homosexuals who you might otherwise learn a great deal from.  Your correlation is no more meaningful than the correlation between African-Americans, promiscuity and STDs.  There is nothing inherent about either ones sexual orientation or ones race which inevitably leads to promiscuity, despite your weaseling implications.

So you simply assert. I already said YOU are the one constantly bringing up promiscuity, but it ultimately doesn't matter because homosexuality with any amount of partners is simply more receptive to STDs than monogamous heterosexual relations. And although I know for a fact that I've never said homosexuality "inevitably leads" to promiscuity, I don't think the leap between them is as big as it is for any social group like African-Americans. For one thing homosexuality and promiscuity are both catagorically sexual behaviours with largely hedonistic motives, and secondly since homosexuality opperates under the notion that there is no one set context for sexual behaviour it's not surprising to see many homosexuals act like there's no one set context for sexual behaviour.

So again, I've never said "inevitably leads", but it's not that big a jump to see when the ratio can best be described as 'overwhelming' (less than 3% are "monogamous" by some studies).

The correlations in these cases are the result of social and cultural factors which should definitely be addressed from a public health perspective, but which unfortunately also provide cowardly ammunition to those wishing to demonise certain cultures and orientations in the service of their religiously-motivated neuroses about sexuality.

While being addressed with sheer denial by those closed to any amount of facts due to emotional views of a differing ideology. Or are we to ignore that Sexually Transmitted Diseases may in fact have some correlation with the method of sexual transmission?

There is little need to wave it off when it misses the mark so obviously.  STDs are not a consequence of monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, so your statement makes little sense.  STDs are a consequence of unprotected promiscuity.  If you were arguing against unprotected promiscuity in this manner, i would have no quarrel with you, but you are trying to make the facts fit your prejudices.

Uh no, monogamy doesn't guarantee absolute protection for either. For homosexuality the very act itself has a few health risks no matter the amount of times or partners. Depending on methodology of performance there is a load of risk in the anal and rectal areas simply because, again, the body parts were simply not made for sexual intercourse any more than those areas were made to take the function of the mouth for eating (something I'd think even you would term "unnatural"). Then there is intestinal infections, bacterial, and parasitic infections.  And yes, even monogamous heterosexual relationships risk STDs, but this is due to hygene issues rather than the basic sexual act. So STDs are simply a risk for homosexuality in it's entirety and heterosexual promiscuity.

Is heterosexuality a state or a behaviour?  Are you only heterosexual when engaging in sexual behaviour, or are you heterosexual all the time?  i'm honestly curious.

Depends what you mean by "engaging in sexual behaviour", as I doubt few has sex on their mind 24/7. When I find myself attracted to another it's always to the opposite sex when the attraction comes up. And since I didn't have it on my mind before I hit puberty, I can't say I was heterosexual all the time.

Here's an issue for you, if you determine homosexuality as a state by a genetic component like race, how exactly do you differentiate between homosexuals who DON'T have that genetic component, and those who do, but are solely practicing heterosexuality? Is a homosexual always a homosexual even if one's never practiced homosexuality even once? And can you tell the difference between such a person and a heterosexual like you can race and ethnicity?

No, you're noting the consequences of unprotected promiscuity (a subset of promiscuity), making generalisations about the behaviour of promiscuous homosexuals (a subset of homosexuals), and then claiming that those consequences apply to all homosexuals.  In other words you are taking a subset of a subset as being representative of the whole category.  That's like critiquing all fruit by saying you don't like Braeburn Apples, QED.

More like 'main body' than "subset of homosexuality". But like I addressed above homosexuality in any amount has a higher risk of STDs. Just as any promiscuity has a higher risk, which no amount of protection can avoid. Those are simply the facts.

i'm not aware that there is any evidence that homosexuality is materially different to heterosexuality in terms of how it develops, only the orientation differs.  After all, what can you say to disprove my assertion that while you may have been born with a small inclination towards heterosexuality, it isn't a fixed or integral part of you because it was shaped by environmental factors and is simply a behaviour, willfully expressed.  Or would you agree with that?

I would say it's more than a "small inclination", due to the fact that human beings having different genders self-evidently means for the two to go together. That and the fact many homosexuals admit to having some degree of attraction for the opposite gender. But ultimately I would say the orientation isn't so "fixed" as to be absolute. Sexual desire at it's bottom maybe, but the orientation takes some developing.

Uh, well rape is a specific act.  i assume you mean the inclination to rape.  The difference i would suggest there is that being a rapist is more like a fetish, because it is an obsession with a particular sort of sexual experience which is unpalatable to most people. It does not qualify as an orientation towards a particular sort of partner.

So is homosexuality - a particular sort of sexual experience with the same gender. It's orientation being simply not caring about willingness, or caring about unwillingness.

However, pedophilia i can absolutely admit may be a state just like hetero or homosexuality.  Bestiality too, for all i know.  i do not believe that we get to choose who (or what) we are attracted to, and that is what defines our "state" of orientation.  Are you denying that your heterosexuality is a state, an important part of your identity, and not just a behaviour that you express whenever you meet a pretty lady?

I'm denying my heterosexuality was set in stone from the moment I was in the womb.

Again, to anticipate your most obvious responses, this does not mean that i am morally equating bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality.  i would have nothing but respect for a self-confessed pedophile who had taken steps not to put his inclinations into practice because of the harm that he knew could be done to children in the process.  However, since there is no victim in consensual homosexuality (just like with consensual heterosexuality), i see no reason why people should deny their sexual inclinations in this direction as part of the pursuit of happiness.

Obvious responses, because you quite explicitly say it's all the same as the orientation you support. And really, your only objection to pedophilia is asserting it would be harmful to children (and I notice you ignore beastiality all together). Seeing how the basic process of sex doesn't change with age and your stance on rape, it would seem 'consensual pedophilia' would be entirely consistent under your world view. Both would be consenting, pedophilia is a state of being, the 'act' is the same for adults, you really have nothing to seperate your view on one behaviour from the other. Again. Or to go by your earlier rant are you conflating a subset of pedophilia (rape), with all pedophilia? Would that make you a bigot by your own words?

Or you could come to terms with the fact that what is moral isn't based on a hedonistic view of the world with which you base homosexuality on.

"Of all words, there is none more ambiguous and equivocal than 'Nature'" - David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature.

"The 'natural/unnatural' distinction is one of which few practicing scientists can make any sense.  Whatever occurs, whether in a field or a test tube, occurs as the result of natural processes, and can, in principle, be explained in terms of natural science." - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Genetically Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues.

EB,

You have argued vehemently that homosexuality is "natural" in a "meaningful" sense, then turn around and say being "natural" is "meaningless"

Ok, how about if you're going to accuse me of being inconsistent you cut and paste my actual comments, because it will then be a lot less labour-intensive for me to demonstrate that you're full of it.  i have said very clearly that "natural" is an almost meaningless category on account of it's vagueness and broadness, but that it is nonsensical to say that homosexuality is excluded from it.  That is not inconsistent, no matter how desperately you apparently wish that it were.

In the same way, when i asked you to give an example of me "promoting" homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom (as you have confidently accused me of doing), you provided this quote:

i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin, and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural". Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice.

Where in that paragraph did i say that homosexuality is a good thing?  Your relentless conflation of "natural" and "good" may have fooled you into thinking that i did, but as i have pointed out before, many things which we would both agree are bad fit the definition of natural perfectly.  i even make that explicit in the above paragraph, but your apparent inability to see what i am actually saying through the filter of what you think i might be saying blinds you to everything but your expectations.  i'd be grateful for more cut-and-paste opportunities to show up your basic comprehension skills in this way.

There were societies who openly supported homosexuality a thousand years ago, and there were people who opposed it back then too. It's simply evidence that humans haven't changed an iota since recorded history.

i think even a cursory reading of the Bible would show that a great deal of moral progress has been made since those books were written.  i am certainly grateful that most people in the Western world dont feel compelled to kill disobedient children, or to stone a young woman to death on her father's doorstep if she is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night.  These are things explicitly mandated by the book which you (laughably) claim to derive your morality from.

Show a statistic where a mixed race relationship produced cancer or such in both indviduals and a direct link of the relationship being the cause for aquiring the condition and then you'd have something.

Something you have failed to do in the case of homosexuality and STDs.  What you have pointed out is a correlation, and i have responded that exactly the same correlation exists in other social groups.

I'm saying the STDs aquired when engaging in homosexuality and/or promiscuity means something. And please. Try to wipe some of the drool from your mouth after frothing rants.

Occasionally ranting is warranted.  Your interpretations on this issue are entirely ideologically driven and insulting to committed monogamous homosexuals who you might otherwise learn a great deal from.  Your correlation is no more meaningful than the correlation between African-Americans, promiscuity and STDs.  There is nothing inherent about either ones sexual orientation or ones race which inevitably leads to promiscuity, despite your weaseling implications.  The correlations in these cases are the result of social and cultural factors which should definitely be addressed from a public health perspective, but which unfortunately also provide cowardly ammunition to those wishing to demonise certain cultures and orientations in the service of their religiously-motivated neuroses about sexuality.

When it comes to morality of sexual behaviour if it's not a monogamous heterosexual relationship, then it's all the same. Any promiscuity is just as bad as monogamous homosexuality in my world view. And the existance of STDs help give an observable consequence to such behaviours, since if it's not seen in the material world a-theists like you would just wave it off.

There is little need to wave it off when it misses the mark so obviously.  STDs are not a consequence of monogamous relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, so your statement makes little sense.  STDs are a consequence of unprotected promiscuity.  If you were arguing against unprotected promiscuity in this manner, i would have no quarrel with you, but you are trying to make the facts fit your prejudices.

I deny homosexuality is a "state". It's a behaviour just as promiscuity is.

Is heterosexuality a state or a behaviour?  Are you only heterosexual when engaging in sexual behaviour, or are you heterosexual all the time?  i'm honestly curious.

And all I'm really doing is noting an observable physical consequence (STDs) to a particular act/behaviour (homosexuality and/or promniscuity), as evidence for the moral status of the act/behaviour.

No, you're noting the consequences of unprotected promiscuity (a subset of promiscuity), making generalisations about the behaviour of promiscuous homosexuals (a subset of homosexuals), and then claiming that those consequences apply to all homosexuals.  In other words you are taking a subset of a subset as being representative of the whole category.  That's like critiquing all fruit by saying you don't like Braeburn Apples, QED.

"Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?"

No, I conceded that one can possibly be born with a particular inclination towards homosexuality. I don't believe I ever conceded it to be a full unchangible state of being like race is, and quite explicitly stated that environmental influences likely have more to do in developing one towards homosexuality than anything else. You've just been constantly asserting it is a state.

i'm not aware that there is any evidence that homosexuality is materially different to heterosexuality in terms of how it develops, only the orientation differs.  After all, what can you say to disprove my assertion that while you may have been born with a small inclination towards heterosexuality, it isn't a fixed or integral part of you because it was shaped by environmental factors and is simply a behaviour, willfully expressed.  Or would you agree with that?

If you're going to do that, then I don't see why pedophilia or rape isn't as much a "state" as homosexuality.

Uh, well rape is a specific act.  i assume you mean the inclination to rape.  The difference i would suggest there is that being a rapist is more like a fetish, because it is an obsession with a particular sort of sexual experience which is unpalatable to most people.  It does not qualify as an orientation towards a particular sort of partner.  However, pedophilia i can absolutely admit may be a state just like hetero or homosexuality.  Bestiality too, for all i know.  i do not believe that we get to choose who (or what) we are attracted to, and that is what defines our "state" of orientation.  Are you denying that your heterosexuality is a state, an important part of your identity, and not just a behaviour that you express whenever you meet a pretty lady?

Again, to anticipate your most obvious responses, this does not mean that i am morally equating bestiality and pedophilia with homosexuality.  i would have nothing but respect for a self-confessed pedophile who had taken steps not to put his inclinations into practice because of the harm that he knew could be done to children in the process.  However, since there is no victim in consensual homosexuality (just like with consensual heterosexuality), i see no reason why people should deny their sexual inclinations in this direction as part of the pursuit of happiness.

Unless you can give me some better reasons than you have given so far.

And regardless of the context, it is moronic to suggest that being "natural" is always a good thing - i have this argument with devotees of herbal medicine all the time.  Arsenic is natural, so is hemlock (just ask Socrates), and so - in another context - is violence and murder.  As i have said before, "natural" is not a useful category.  The only concrete thing i will say about it is that, broad as it is, it is meaningless to exclude homosexuality from it.

Not so meaningless when one notes your constant obfuscation of the term "natural". Like everything else you argue about you simply go back and forth whenever it suits you. You have argued vehemently that homosexuality is "natural" in a "meaningful" sense, then turn around and say being "natural" is "meaningless", much the same way you go back and forth when humans are like/unlike every other animal, and when it's suddenly appropriate or not to look for general behaviour in the animal kingdom as a standard. But it again all comes down to the fact that the only standard of seperation seems to be your personal whim rather than anything substantial. You can assume all you like about my "warped logic". I've taken this whole matter as evidence on how far your denial is prepared to go based on your wounded pride of having your reasoning seen through and shredded.

i have not promoted homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom.  Really.  Prove me wrong.

i am saying that if animals do it then 1) it is difficult to attribute that to human sin, and 2) it is even more difficult to substantiate arguments that homosexuality is a choice and "not natural". Not all things that are natural are good, incidentally, something which anti-homosexual writers often appear to forget, but homosexuality is natural in every meaningful sense of the word, and does not appear to be a matter of choice.

It was one of the very first posts you wrote that got this discussion going.

And acceptance of homosexuality (in most Western countries) is significantly greater now than it was thirty years ago.  In the UK at least i could name ten or twenty openly gay public figures today (politicians, actors, comedians, etc) which would have been impossible a generation ago.  That changes the attitudes and behaviours of both gay and straight people with reference to homosexual relationships.

Heh. Not really. There were societies who openly supported homosexuality a thousand years ago, and there were people who opposed it back then too. It's simply evidence that humans haven't changed an iota since recorded history. But I do also note that it blows your "majority view always wins" argument in regards to things like rape and such out of the water. Seeing how acceptance of homosexuality being a "good" thing was and still is a minority view social acceptance of homosexuality wouldn't have ever left the ground according to you.

Let's take another example - mixed race relationships.  If i told you that they were immoral and unnatural, and offered as proof some fifty year old statistics (from back when they were illegal in most states) showing a very high rate of relationship breakdown in mixed race couples, would you consider that to be compelling evidence against mixed race relationships today?

Another one of your missleading comparisons of race and acts I see. I don't consider relationships to be in the same catagory as disease. Show a statistic where a mixed race relationship produced cancer or such in both indviduals and a direct link of the relationship being the cause for aquiring the condition and then you'd have something.

Homosexuality does not equal promiscuity, any more than being African-American equals promiscuity.  You are conflating a behaviour with an entire social group, and whether that behaviour is disproportionately found in that group or not, that kind of makes you a bigot.  A homosexual person can choose to have a committed monogamous relationship which makes irrelevant all of your anti-promiscuity rhetoric, but you would apparently still see their solid romantic bond as infinitely inferior to a drunken heterosexual one-night stand, for no reason better than your religious prejudices.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear - I'm saying the STDs aquired when engaging in homosexuality and/or promiscuity means something. And please. Try to wipe some of the drool from your mouth after frothing rants.

You seem to want to have it every which way.  You can't claim that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality in your worldview (well, you can, but it would be out of character).  Yet when challenged to consistently apply your condemnation of those disproportionately-promiscuous homosexuals to all disproportionately-promiscuous social groups, you come out with this "well, we're all sinners" malarkey.  According to your above statement, the issue of promiscuity and STDs is entirely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality, so i remain confused about why you brought it up.

Heh. You parrot me about consistently holding one's view and when I show to do so you complain about it. Rich.

In reality YOU are the one going on and on about the issue of promiscuity. When it comes to morality of sexual behaviour if it's not a monogamous heterosexual relationship, then it's all the same. Any promiscuity is just as bad as monogamous homosexuality in my world view. And the existance of STDs help give an observable consequence to such behaviours, since if it's not seen in the material world a-theists like you would just wave it off.

And as for a misleading comparison between race and behaviour, you are the one who is conflating a state that has a range of behavioural expressions (homosexuality) with a single behaviour - that of promiscuity.  That makes precisely as much sense as invariably conflating any given state with any given behaviour, regardless of how over- or under-represented within that particular group.

Except I deny homosexuality is a "state". It's a behaviour just as promiscuity is. One is not born a homosexual as one is born white or black. One becomes it, just as one becomes a thief after stealling an item. The two do not compare. And all I'm really doing is noting an observable physical consequence (STDs) to a particular act/behaviour (homosexuality and/or promniscuity), as evidence for the moral status of the act/behaviour.

Clear to everyone but you apparently.  We've already been through this.  Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?

No, I conceded that one can possibly be born with a particular inclination towards homosexuality. I don't believe I ever conceded it to be a full unchangible state of being like race is, and quite explicitly stated that environmental influences likely have more to do in developing one towards homosexuality than anything else. You've just been constantly asserting it is a state. If you're going to do that, then I don't see why pedophilia or rape isn't as much a "state" as homosexuality. In which we are seriously close to that 'genetics is destiny' argument again. Your twin study show that there may be a bit of a gentic influence, but influence is all it is and may have as much influence as a cup of water from the ocean influences the sea level.

No, ultimately homosexuality is a behaviour. Given sexual orientation does not develop until puberty or such if it is in any way a "state" then it's a "state" developed through conditioning rather than genetic birth, which is wholely different from race. So the comparison does not fly.

For a moment I thought Wholly was back in action.

"Let's play a little game. 1) Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. 2) Adolf Hitler instituted a genocide.  Now, even though it's going to be really difficult for you, i want you to try and see those two statements as separate and not necessarily causally linked in my mind.  It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two unconnected facts without insisting that i must see them as being part of a chain.  Another good project for you to work on is understanding that i don't think homosexuality is "good" because i also happen to think that it is "not unnatural".  Likewise, there is nothing about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that i think that Hitler instituted a genocide because he was a vegetarian.  Recognise."

Hmmmm. Sounds tough. How about you play a round DB. 1) All-natural foods are promoted as healthy. 2) Healthy foods are understood as good. So even though it may be difficult for you, I want you to try and see those two statements as linked and not necessarily seperate in my mind. It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two connected facts without insisting that I must not see them as being a part of a chain. Another good project for you to work on is understanding that when one promotes homosexuality as "natural" they are promoting it as a positive quality, in which it is understood as a "good" thing. Likewise there is something about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that I think that foods are "good" because they are all-natural. Recognize.

Clever though that undoubtedly is, i'm not sure how your counter-example of an actual logical chain (natural=healthy=good) equates to my distinct categorisations of homosexuality as being both "good" (in certain circumstances) and "not unnatural".  You surely can acknowledge that it is possible to make two statements relating to the same phenomenon without the logical necessity of admitting a causal connection between them?  Your insistence, in the case of my position on homosexuality, that there must be a causal connection in my mind is difficult to explain, since i have not made any such connection.  i can only assume that you are persisting to your last breath with this tedious line of warped logic because it allows you to deploy your preprepared counter-argument, even if that means you have to wholly fantasise my actual arguments in order to do so.

And regardless of the context, it is moronic to suggest that being "natural" is always a good thing - i have this argument with devotees of herbal medicine all the time.  Arsenic is natural, so is hemlock (just ask Socrates), and so - in another context - is violence and murder.  As i have said before, "natural" is not a useful category.  The only concrete thing i will say about it is that, broad as it is, it is meaningless to exclude homosexuality from it.

The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent

i have not promoted homosexuality on the basis that it is found in the animal kingdom.  Really.  Prove me wrong.

Sure, given that you previously argued your very morality is evolutionarily selected, it would seem there is no way to seperate any moral position from an evolutionary point of view.

Well, given that under my view everyone's morality is evolutionarily selected, are you saying that there is no way to separate your morality from an evolutionary point of view?  Forget it, you probably see this as irrefutable evidence for evolution being false.

I would say nothing really has changed in the last 30 years except in identifying the specifics of the diseases. That and the knowledge of how such a "natural" act has negative consequences is more wide spread.

And acceptance of homosexuality (in most Western countries) is significantly greater now than it was thirty years ago.  In the UK at least i could name ten or twenty openly gay public figures today (politicians, actors, comedians, etc) which would have been impossible a generation ago.  That changes the attitudes and behaviours of both gay and straight people with reference to homosexual relationships.

Let's take another example - mixed race relationships.  If i told you that they were immoral and unnatural, and offered as proof some fifty year old statistics (from back when they were illegal in most states) showing a very high rate of relationship breakdown in mixed race couples, would you consider that to be compelling evidence against mixed race relationships today?

"i am not questioning the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous on average than heterosexuals, but i am taking issue with the idea that it means anything."

Suuuure. Drive in the opposite side of the road and see if that means anything.

Homosexuality does not equal promiscuity, any more than being African-American equals promiscuity.  You are conflating a behaviour with an entire social group, and whether that behaviour is disproportionately found in that group or not, that kind of makes you a bigot.  A homosexual person can choose to have a committed monogamous relationship which makes irrelevant all of your anti-promiscuity rhetoric, but you would apparently still see their solid romantic bond as infinitely inferior to a drunken heterosexual one-night stand, for no reason better than your religious prejudices.

I could point out that this is a missleading comparison between race and behaviour, but what's really amusing is that I AM consistent that what higher levels of disease means for the homosexual community means the same for the African-American community. And the Spanish community. And the Oriental community. And the Caucasion community. When I say 'everyone is a sinner' I do mean everyone.

You seem to want to have it every which way.  You can't claim that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of heterosexuality in your worldview (well, you can, but it would be out of character).  Yet when challenged to consistently apply your condemnation of those disproportionately-promiscuous homosexuals to all disproportionately-promiscuous social groups, you come out with this "well, we're all sinners" malarkey.  According to your above statement, the issue of promiscuity and STDs is entirely irrelevant to the morality of homosexuality, so i remain confused about why you brought it up.

And as for a misleading comparison between race and behaviour, you are the one who is conflating a state that has a range of behavioural expressions (homosexuality) with a single behaviour - that of promiscuity.  That makes precisely as much sense as invariably conflating any given state with any given behaviour, regardless of how over- or under-represented within that particular group.

I'll help make the contrast more abvious - Race is what you are. What you are can't be changed. Behaviour is what you do. Doing things means acts. And acts have consequences. Clear?

Clear to everyone but you apparently.  We've already been through this.  Homosexuality is a state.  It's what you are.  What you are can't be changed.  Promiscuity is a behaviour, found in all sexual orientations and cultural groups to some extent, more in some than in others.  To define any social group or sexual orientation as entirely promiscuous is bigotry, because behaviour is not who or what you are.  Got that?

EB,

Let's play a little game. 1) Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian. 2) Adolf Hitler instituted a genocide.  Now, even though it's going to be really difficult for you, i want you to try and see those two statements as separate and not necessarily causally linked in my mind.  It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two unconnected facts without insisting that i must see them as being part of a chain.  Another good project for you to work on is understanding that i don't think homosexuality is "good" because i also happen to think that it is "not unnatural".  Likewise, there is nothing about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that i think that Hitler instituted a genocide because he was a vegetarian.  Recognise.

Hmmmm. Sounds tough. How about you play a round DB. 1) All-natural foods are promoted as healthy. 2) Healthy foods are understood as good. So even though it may be difficult for you, I want you to try and see those two statements as linked and not necessarily seperate in my mind. It'll be a good exercise for you to absorb two connected facts without insisting that I must not see them as being a part of a chain. Another good project for you to work on is understanding that when one promotes homosexuality as "natural" they are promoting it as a positive quality, in which it is understood as a "good" thing. Likewise there is something about (1) and (2) which bindingly commits me to saying that I think that foods are "good" because they are all-natural. Recognize.

This statement assumes that a) my morality is based on evolutionary theory, and b) that i justify homosexuality on the grounds that it appears in the animal kingdom.  Both of these assumptions have been repeatedly refuted.

The statement is actually based on the fact if you are going to promote something based on behaviour found in the animal kingdom you can't nit-pick which ones and be consistent, in addition to the fact that under an evolutionary paradigm there is no significant distinction between humans and all other animals. Facts that all your dodging doesn't address.

If that was true then shouldn't i hate the gays?

Seeing how it doesn't teach to hate anyone, I guess that would be a 'no'. Proving just how much it's influencing you.

i have not made any argument in favour of any moral position from an evolutionary point of view, so your accusation of "picking and choosing" seems to be imaginary.

Heh. Sure, given that you previously argued your very morality is evolutionarily selected, it would seem there is no way to seperate any moral position from an evolutionary point of view.

Misleading comparison.  i doubt you'd accept a study conducted on African Americans in the 1850s as being relevant to the general health and behaviour of that population today.  Likewise with homosexuals, a lot has changed since the early 1980s, so it makes sense to look at more up-to-date figures, wouldn't you say?  By contrast, theories about our origins stand or fall on whether or not later discoveries back them up, and do not go out of date.

Well given your little thought experiment above I guess you'd know all about missleading comparisons. And it would depend on exactly what I'm looking for on whether I'd find studies 100 years or so ago relevant. If say a study showed longer life spans 100 years ago than what is the average life span today it would help determine whether 'progress' or so has been more negative to health or such. I would say nothing really has changed in the last 30 years except in identifying the specifics of the diseases. That and the knowledge of how such a "natural" act has negative consequences is more wide spread.

Why should i bother to engage with that when you're comparing different things?  i might as well say that a promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle carries more risk of STDs than a faithful and monogamous homosexual relationship.  It's true, but what have i proved?

That there is strong evidence that sex for humans was designed to be in the context of a monogamous heterosexual relationship and that stepping away from this designed context is comparable to intentionally driving in the wrong lane of traffic. 

  i am not questioning the statement that homosexuals are more promiscuous on average than heterosexuals - although i did want to see you justify it, partly for my own fun - but i am taking issue with the idea that it means anything.

Suuuure. Drive in the opposite side of the road and see if that means anything.

As i have said, in order to be consistent you must agree that whatever higher levels of promiscuity and STDs mean for the homosexual community, they must also mean the same for the African-American community, which suffers from similar problems.  So, what exactly is it that you want to say about Blacks and Gays?

Well, I could point out that this is a missleading comparison between race and behaviour, but what's really amusing is that I AM consistent that what higher levels of disease means for the homosexual community means the same for the African-American community. And the Spanish community. And the Oriental community. And the Caucasion community. When I say 'everyone is a sinner' I do mean everyone.

So it seems I pass your little challenge. Got anything else, or are you going to pony up? 

That makes no sense whatsoever.  If you are saying that greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs say something about a particular group, then unless you get a little more specific it is logical to conclude that you think that the same epithet applies to any other group with greater-than-average promiscuity and STDs.  If you (wisely, i think) don't wish to make any general statement about the African-American community as a whole based on their significantly higher rates of these social problems, then i wonder how you can justify tarring all gay people with the slut-brush based on very similar demographic indicators.

I'll help make the contrast more abvious - Race is what you are. What you are can't be changed. Behaviour is what you do. Doing things means acts. And acts have consequences. Clear?

Not that it matters given my statement above.

Perhaps you think that there are social reasons why black people in the US get more STDs and are more promiscuous?  Amazing how that has never occurred to you in the case of homosexuality.

Oh I'm sure there are. There is simply none that justifies it any more than all the social reasons to treat black people like farm equippment justified THAT behaviour.

You obviously have no interest in seeing past your prejudices on this subject, so i have no interest in discussing it any further with you.  Any subsequent statements assuming an evolutionarily-based morality on my part will be ignored, since they have already been corrected to no noticeable effect.

More like 'denied' rather than "corrected". But in truth the more you argue the more my previous statement looks to have hit the nail on the head.

Hey Cop-

Looks like this guy didn't know it was a metonymy!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38957020/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/