I don't think so. I think when reasonable debate is cut off by hand waving that civilization can not stand. Of course, that much truly is just an opinion, but one that I think holds water.
Care to address my arguments? or will you just "wave them aside?"
Well, let's see what we have.
I find it odd how people like him insists on focussing upon inconsequential matters. Like the Kirk & Madsen book, for example... I don't know ANYBODY who has read it. I wonder if it's still available; and I wonder how pertinent it would be considering that it's 13 years out-of-date. I've never even SEEN a copy of that book. Yet Stevie's clear inference is that it's some kind of bible or play-book. Quite frankly, I think that's a ridiculous assertion.
OK, there's not really an argument there, just your attempt to distract us from Steve's point. You don't know anybody who has read it? Do you know everybody? Do you know people who are trying to make homosexuality acceptable? As for being 13 years out-of-date, that's specious. It's 13-years-old, but obviously very much in date. The Bible is 2000 years old but there are still a lot of people who do what it says. So, this isn't an argument. 1 down.
And then, of course, is the obligatory "NAMBLA-mention." Like I said in a recent Letter to the Editor: "Raising the specter of the North American Man-Boy Love Association is always a good reactionary trick when one wishes to appeal to ignorance. Not only has NAMBLA never represented the mores of the gay community, but they appear to have imploded more than two years ago and haven't been seen or heard from since."
The connection is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are perversions. If you can justify one perversion you are within a hairs breadth of justifying them all. In fact, homosexual behavior isn't the starting point of this particular slide down the slippery slope.
I'm sorry if you can't see the validity of the slippery slope, but it has certainly been proven. And given the fact that non-NAMBLA "psychologists" have started to float the "positive values" of adult-child sexuality, I'd say the argument is right on the money. Again, not an argument but a distraction. 2 down.
Obviously, NOBODY is "being encouraged to be promiscuous and try the joys of homosexual sex;" but that's not my point. Notice how Stevie goes from the GLOBAL AIDS epidemic ("millions") to "AIDS in America." If you weren't paying attention, you might think that there are "millions" of AIDS-infected homosexuals in America. In fact, about three-quarters of a million AIDS cases had been reported (and less than half a million deaths) in America. Oh... and Stevie's "almost 70%" figure is an obvious exaggeration... "just more than 50%" would be more accurate.
Whenever anyone starts an argument with "obviously" it is usually followed by something that is mere opinion. This is doubly true when the someone is a liberal. But others have addressed this point well so I will let their work stand. As to the shift, you have a minor point. However, the global AIDS epidemic could lead to millions of AIDS infected people in America if we are not careful. The best solution would be to stop politicizing the disease and do what we can to stop its spread. And I've already reacted to the "obvious" so I won't waste space again. Still no argument here. 3 down.
Well, it doesn't look like you actually presented any arguments after all.
For emphasis: What Steve said about nobody being born gay is the truth?
There's a little problem with that. You see, it's impossible to prove a universal negative, IE: "Nobody is born gay." If you THINK that you can prove that, I certainly would like to see you try. 'Til then, however, it is unrealistic to call an unverifiable theory "the truth." It remains - you guessed it - an opinion.
Don't confuse paradigms. Scientifically it is impossible to prove a negative, but not logically. If you have two mutually exclusive conditions you can prove the negative like this. For all (a) and (b) such that (a) = not (b) if you prove (a) you have proven not (b) "a negative". The two mutually exclusive positions are that homosexuality is a congenital trait and homosexuality is not a congenital trait. To prove the latter, we need to define a congenital trait as one that is passed from parent to child via the genetic mechanism. One simple experiment would be to examine all sets of maternal twins in which at least one is homosexual. Since maternal twins contain exactly the same genetic material if homosexuality were congenital then there would be no instances of maternal twins where only one is homosexual. Since (IIRC) in around 50% of cases where there is at least one homosexual twin there is only one homosexual twin, homosexuality is not congenital. Therefore, nobody is born gay.
QED
Shalom.