I was just attempting to point out and make clear that there is a distinction between a state of being and the activities one chooses to or even claims they have no choice to but engage in.
As I am sure you are aware -the leftists that promote homosexual sex normalcy do so under the false premise that there are homosexual beings and as such what these being engage in can not be legitimately discriminated against. This absurd argument is one and the same used by those who want those who engage in homosexual sex to be able to donate blood and organs.
Anyway, ANYONE can engage in self destructive activities that pose a danger to themselves and or society. No one should get a free pass to wreak havoc EVEN if they claim they were born that way...
In summary, I think the only way to legitimately oppose this absurd leftist onslaught e.g. hate the sin but love the sinner, is by being deliberate on maintaining the distinction between human beings always to be respected and the activities of human beings which can rightly be discriminated against. As such, the term 'gay' which was concocted to confound legitimate opposition to the normalization of certain activities is best a term to be avoided because accepting its false premise defeats any legitimate arguments from the get go.
DBeers, I am pleased that you are not seeking my banning. As with Grizzly Bear, I am at a loss to understand why you find my arguments offensive or wrongheaded, based upon what I have written, except perhaps that I have used the word “gay” when you would have preferred that I stick to “homosexual.” I was unaware of the connotations you ascribe to the word “gay,” and for the sake of moving beyond that concern of yours (and presumably others), I have not used it again.
I have argued in favor of discrimination against homosexuals, insofar as it is truly necessary to secure a safe supply of donated organs. I am puzzled as to how you could have gotten any other impression.
This is a life and death issue for millions of people. There are not enough donated organs to meet demand. People are dying. Kidney transplantation, for example, has a far lower cost than dialysis and much better outcomes. Shouldn’t we be doing all that we can to maximize the number of safe organs being donated? That is all I am advocating for. This should be the sole objective, and homosexuality per se should play a role only insofar as it is absolutely necessary, and no more, as described above.
So I will ask you, as well, why the vitriol against me?