[HumanaeVitae]

No, what you are arguing is that homosexuality should be accepted in society, for some unstated reason. I hope you'll state it.

My argument is straightforward. Homosexuals cannot survive without the broader heterosexual community around them. Their lifestyle is too destructive to survive on their own. Therefore, they are socializing the costs of their behavior on the heterosexual community. Heterosexuals can survive without homosexuals, but not vice-versa. Therefore, we have every reason to limit their "rights" as we see fit.

If you want to have a broader argument...then answer these questions: atheist or theist, and are you, or are you not a force/fraud/coercion-exception libertarian?

[Protagoras]

No, what you are arguing is that homosexuality should be accepted in society, for some unstated reason.

You lie.

[sakic]

Homosexuals cannot survive without the broader heterosexual community around them.

Neither can heterosexuals so I'm not sure what your point is.

[steve-b]

LOL! Now you're saying that the celebate, the diabetic, and the maimed veteran have no rights.

But of course you're being redundant, since your position is that nobody has any right to speak freely, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their property, etc.

[E Rocc]

Homosexuals cannot survive without the broader heterosexual community around them. Their lifestyle is too destructive to survive on their own. Therefore, they are socializing the costs of their behavior on the heterosexual community. Heterosexuals can survive without homosexuals, but not vice-versa. Therefore, we have every reason to limit their "rights" as we see fit.

Celibates cannot survive without the broader non-celibate community around them. Their lifestyle is too destructive to survive on their own. Therefore, they are socializing the costs of their behavior on the non-celibate community. Non-celibates can survive without celibates, but not vice-versa. Therefore, we have every reason to limit their "rights" as we see fit.

-Eric