You're not going to change anybody's mind on this point by coming at it from any kind of top-down argument. In other words, pointing out that homosexuality is bad for the nation simply isn't as compelling as the "two consenting adults" argument, and might make you look like a prig in the bargain.
By the way, I hope you noticed that I answered you without calling anyone names.
Oberon: “...you reward yourself with whatever you like to do with your body as long as you are willing to accept the risks.”
As a matter of individual choice, you’re right. I think people should generally have the right to do whatever they want to themselves. However, we live in communities. We aren’t just individuals making individual choices purely for ourselves.
Oberon: “If you start from the assumption that your body is a collection of highly fortunate chemical reactions, then why shouldn’t you do whatever feels good?”
Just because something feels good doesn’t mean it’s healthy or natural. Antifreeze, I’m told, is nice and sweet. I bet it would taste really good over ice on a hot day. I even remember when wine makers illegally added it to their products to improve taste. Doing what feels good in this case would likely result in death, but hey...
I noticed you tried to pretend that damage from anal sex is merely a “risk”.
Sort of like dehydration is merely a risk if one quits drinking water.
You are personally dishonest.
That is not name calling.
That is merely straightforward analysis of your posting.
You threw out a loopy assertion that homosexuality can only be opposed on religious grounds. No matter how much you try to twist things that was both a stupid assertion and a dishonest one.