Homosexuality serves no useful purpose

Gilbert Williams’ outrageous lies about homosexuality among dumb animals is simply shameful. Homosexuality comprises a barren act that serves no useful purpose in nature, therefore no collection of living creatures whether man or animal, can sustain themselves from generation to generation exclusively through this practice – it brings death. Furthermore, since when do we look to animals for guidance on sexual morality: animals routinely practice incestuous relationships, polygamy and spousal abuse. Does Gilbert Williams, suggest we do the same?

Additionally, if homosexual acts were also practiced among animals, then such acts would be readily observed by all and sundry and there is no need to learn of such accounts in books.

Besides, if homosexual unions were historically so acceptable, natural and as commonplace as Mr. Williams claims then, how and why did it come to pass that homosexuality is universally outlawed, until recently, in all countries and condemned by all major religions?

Now consider this Ken Scott: a 1978 American study found that 43 per cent of male homosexuals estimated they had sex with more than 500 partners and 28 per cent had more than 1 000 partners (clearly a neurosis); the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (including hepatitis) was seven times higher among homosexuals and in some categories it was as high as 20 times; the life expectancy from all causes of homosexual males was 43, and with the advent of AIDS, it is now 39. A BBC report of June 26, 2003 mentioned that the incidence of AIDS among homosexuals was ten times higher than that in the general population; and 52 per cent of the AIDS cases in the US are among homosexuals. In summary, homosexuality is unhealthy and condemns our young men to an early grave. Given these glaring statistics, opposing the homosexual cause is neither stupid nor ignorant.

The laws of Barbados permit marriage between one man and one woman, which is as much a prescription against homosexuality as it is against bigamy. It applies equally to every man and woman. There is no discrimination; it protects every one equally. The law must not be changed because you do not feel good obeying it.

The book “Religious Apartheid” quoted statistics which revealed that 75 per cent of all paedophiles in the US are homosexual. Mr. Scott’s assertion that most homosexuals abhor child abuse rings hollow since I am yet to hear organisations such as Lambada, GLAD or ACT-up publicly denounce NAMBLA for its public policy of molesting little eight-year-old boys. What you do not say also condemns you.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children; the trauma and shame visited on children raised by two “mummies” or two “daddies” should not be a burden society imposes on children. Children are not pet puppies who need only to be fed and housed; they also need moral and spiritual guidance. Children should not be recruited into a social experiment to further the political agenda of militant homosexuals. If homosexuals truly wished to have and to care for children they would forgo their homosexual lifestyles and enter stable heterosexual relationships since American surveys indicate that less than one per cent of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual, which means that they can and do perform sexually with someone of the opposite sex.

We do not need the psuedo-science of sociologists, psychiatrists or psychologists to tell us that homosexuality is wrong; they masquerade ideology as science. The “Bible” condemns homosexuality in the strongest terms and that is enough for us.

Ken Scott, God did not make you a homosexual. Your homosexuality is the result of a deprivation neurosis and in trying to deal with that neurosis you have developed an inordinate sexual attachment or attraction to other men just as other people in dealing with a neurosis they develop an inordinate attachment to people, objects or substances. For the homosexual is insecure in his gender identity and in his confusion he attempts to attach himself to someone of the same sex in an effort to attain an identity. It is a disordered love. However, you have chosen to believe the lies of psychologists.

People are not born with a disposition that is impossible to change – even dumb animals are trained to conduct themselves in ways that run counter to their natures. If homosexuality is accepted because of sexual orientation, then there is no sensible reason to reject paedophilia or bestiality since these too can be regarded as sexual orientation.

Ken Scott, thank you for not coming to Barbados and please discourage others of your homosexual persuasion not to visit. Rejecting immorality is discrimination.

humans are a social species. A population has far more ability to create children than it has ability to raise children. Accordingly, there is no great need for each person to produce, so long as the population produces.

People who do not produce children are free from the burden of raising children. They can perform other productive acts. For example, designing ties.

In particular, a population can still produce children at the same rate if a significant number of men do not get tied down by raising and supporting children. Flexible social structures such as bigamy, polygamy, or the current one popular in the US, serial monogamy, permit even more people to be free from the cares of fatherhood, while others act as fathers for larger than average broods.

Consider the recent past. In ancient Thebes, there was an homosexual regiment called the Sacred Band. They were a military organization that fought Phillip, the father of Alexander the Great, to the death. They fought because noone would skulk from battle when their lover could see them. Phillip said (according to Plutarch) words to the effect that "such brave men can not have been immoral".

Setting men aside from reproduction is a strength for a society. In like manner, wise women were often also set aside, and were able to provide advice, help in child bearing, and provide some limited medical knowledge, because they did not have to devote their time to the care and raising of infants. Again, this is a strenth for a society, given that there is plenty of reproductive overcapacity.

I, personally, accept the Bible in its entirety and its message as the inerrant Word of God.

I'm very glad to hear that and that probably explains why you have said this much to me on this forum without ever resorting to name calling. That's a rarity FRiend.

Let me respond to each of your statements and ask you to consider my arguments dispassionately and logically with an aim to being convinced if the facts are indisputable and the logic is irrefutable and you cannot offer an equally well supported and logical counter argument.

Sure but this statement is basically implying that I have not thought this out very well and that you are going to share some earth shattering new revelation that will actually convince me of your position. I suspect that you spend a lot of time trying to cinvince people of things by the language that you use. I do that too.

There is an entire discipline known as Christian apologetics taught in every major seminary of every denomination.

Uh, yes thanks.

“You seem to be overly well versed in the terminology of debate.”

Answer: I freely confess to being a student of Christian apologetics.

Cool!

Furthermore, I have been a debate coach and college professor in my past. Therefore, by virtue of training and experience, I am “well versed in the terminology of debate.”

{grin} that explains a lot. However such training and attention to formal debate lends to what I consider cheating. On the FR people who consider themselves good debaters often get nasty and start questioning the other debaters qualifications. Also I have quite an issue with the vocabulary of debate. I've been to quite a few CR vs E threads and the Evolutionists believe that vocabulary trumps reason. I find that to be a foolish way to think. The bible, written by God, has only about 7000 different words in it. If God can proclaim Himself and His word without overt vocabulary I feel sympathy for mere humans that think learning lots of swell vocabulary words makes them clever. Have you ever noticed this?

Allow me to cite a passage for your consideration concerning this topic: Acts 18:27-28 27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. 28 For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. NIV Consider that hearts and minds can be, and are, changed through skilled and vigorous debate.

Thanks. I picked my SN because I read through the bible 3+ times a year and have done so for 17ish years. I consider that one of my best spiritual gifts from the Lord.

“Logic and reason will not prove the bible to you.”

Answer: You are correct in that logic and reason will not “prove” that the Bible is God’s Word.

I know.

However, you are incorrect that logic and reason cannot be applied to the Bible.

I didn't say that.

“My perspective is as one who believes the bible and this is not based on logic nor can it be proven though reason”

Answer: I also believe the Bible.

I'm still glad of this. I'd like to suggest that you get a New King James and get rid of the Noticably Inferior Version. But that's a whole different debate. ;-)

All that you posted after were discussion of the discussion, but not of the topic. OK let me hand the ball to you and receive a serve. Please give me one, and only one, good natural reason that homosexuality is bad and I will play the devils/flaming homo's advocate it and try to knock it out of the court. However, having also been a person that has been in many many debates I hold no particular hope of convincing you of anything. However I have learned that I misjudged you as a normal Freeper which I am glad to see you are not. I also have been a little overly terse in my responses based on that erroneous judgement.

PS: I read about the 7000 thing as a horny teen virgin so imagine my excitement. I immediately set out to be above average. If only my wife were as enthusiastic about exceeding that number as I.

Please allow me to summarize and consolidate what I perceive to be your proffered support, apparently in favor of homosexual behavior. If I have mischaracterized your presentations or intentions, please accept my apologies and make whatever corrections you feel necessary. For ease of reference, I have labeled my consolidations of your support points.

A. You have posited several implied points of support for the “libertarian” argument that the state should not interfere with private homosexual behavior between consenting adults. As an extension of this point, you also offered what appears to be support for the libertarian argument that society unnecessarily restricts individual sexual activity in general, e.g., first cousin marriages, and, by implication, restrictions are unnecessary for homosexual behavior.

B. Additionally, it seems that you have attempted to advance very limited support for the argument that homosexual behavior has some benefits for society (or potentially could). To this further goal you cite an ancient Theban military unit. Moreover, you imply through a libertarian reference to drug legalization and its potentially deadly impacts on addicts (“thinning the herd” and thus apparently benefiting society) that the diseases resulting from homosexual behavior would serve a similarly beneficial purpose.

C. Furthermore, it appears that you are attempting support a point that homosexual behavior does not necessarily damage society. Specifically, I deduce that you are positing that limited numbers of both males and females can be removed from the reproductive responsibility to society with no long-term ill effect thus permitting them to engage harmlessly in homosexual behavior.

Before I offer any counters to your support points and arguments, let’s establish some common terminology to avoid confusion.

Libertarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy which advocates individual rights and a limited government. Libertarians believe individuals should be free to do anything they want, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. They further believe that the only legitimate use of force, whether public or private, is to protect those rights. For libertarians, there are no 'positive rights' (such as to food or shelter or health care), only 'negative rights' (such as to not be assaulted, abused, robbed, censored, etc.).

(This definition will ensure that my usage of the word, “libertarian,” will not be confused with members of a political party that has co-opted that name or European definitions that use the name to obscure references to what are truly anarchists.)

Using the above definition, it is obvious even the most ardent libertarian subscribes to what is called a “balance” of rights, e.g., your right to be unrestricted in swinging your arm ends where my nose begins. Exactly what rights infringe on the rights of others is often difficult to determine, e.g., does your right to enjoy loud music on your own property trump my right to enjoy peace and quiet on my property adjoining yours? I think you can see, even ardent libertarians could, and do, disagree on what rights trump others and where a balance is between competing rights.

With this prolog as a springboard, let me address your posits.

A. Philosophically, I do not disagree that society should not interfere with private, consensual behavior that harms no one. Such behavior is between the participants, their consciences and whatever moral code to which they subscribe. However, the philosophical argument fails on the questions of what are the rights of all involved or affected, what harms exist, where and to whom do they occur and what is the proper balance. Please refer to Post 131. While we may wish for an ideal, libertarian world where individual rights are perfectly balanced, it does not exist. Advocates of homosexual behavior are currently “inventing” rights and “demanding” that these “rights” be observed by all, without regard to balance against what the rights of others may be. This activity, alone, should make true libertarians be willing to take up arms against this affront to individual liberty. However, let me get directly to the counters to you argument:
Enough (a great many) practitioners of homosexual behavior do not let their behavior remain private and consensual. Consequently, they have brought the discussion of the balance of rights into the public/societal domain. Therefore, the discussion can no longer be restricted to a libertarian discussion about the balance of “individual” rights. Rather, the discussion must, now, at these advocates’ own behest, be a balance of “group” rights, i.e., theirs against all other groups in society. As their behavior contributes no useful input to society that is not available from other sources at potentially much lower societal costs and with much greater side benefits, society is quite correct to discourage, restrict or prohibit their behavior as it chooses in balancing all other perceived rights of any, and all other, groups.

B. There are no benefits to society from homosexual behavior that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits. Consider your example of the homosexual Theban military unit (the Sacred Band) that fought against Philip of Macedonia. They were slaughtered to the last man and had no positive, material impact on the overall military performance of their army, i.e., they lost, big time. Their net benefit to Theban society was exactly zero. On your other point, the consideration that homosexual behavior “thins the herd,” contemplate that Hitler used the same philosophy (thinning the herd) with, arguably, much greater efficiency and without having to pay for any research into HIV/AIDS or expensive medical care. Nor, in the process, did the Nazi’s particularly worry about any special affirmative action rights, celebrations, or hiring practices for those “members of the herd being thinned.”

C. Homosexual behavior that is not kept private and consensual damages society. Refer to Post 131 and many others for the litany. I will concede your point that taking a limited number of males and females from their reproductive duties to society is not a huge detriment. Many are already removed by accident, disease, war, and other calamities as well as individual choice. However, as this point is not, and never was, the sole argument against homosexuality, the point does not negate the assertion that “homosexuality serves no useful purpose.”

Interesting information in your last post. Before I “serve the ball,” let me offer a few somewhat irrelevant tidbits, myself.

Your Biblical reading schedule is impressive. I am certainly not that fast, nor as nearly as diligent. As to your comments on translations, I actually use six different English translations of which the New King James is one. I also consult the literal translations of the Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic texts along with four “word studies” of the literal translations as well as six different commentaries. These comparisons are extremely helpful in getting the full and original meaning from a text. It also brings to light many of the fallacies expounded by a number of our fellow Christians who are willing to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” It never ceases to amaze me how many Christians will quarrel over relatively insignificant (to the overall message) differences and ignore the very clear meaning of the “big picture.” However, as you said earlier, “that is a different debate.”

The (non-Biblical) serve: Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits and homosexual behavior is detrimental in a number of ways to society as well as individual practitioners.

As I do not wish to be guilty of making a “gratuitous assertion,” I will cite support: Posts 13 and 131 in their entirety. Specifically, I will pick two detriments from these posts for your special consideration.

1. Determent to Society: Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline (especially to the majority of its practitioners) in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.

2. Determent to Individuals: Dramatically increases the risk of completely avoidable, deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates as well as dramatically increases the risk other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).

Remember your challenge was only that I establish that homosexuality was ”bad” using non-Biblical support for the argument. (The sources for the above detriments are general knowledge. However, specific cites are available if you wish to challenge.) As a reminder, your challenge was not exclusive, i.e., that other things are not also “bad” or that homosexual behavior is worse than other “bad” things.

The (non-Biblical) serve: Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits and homosexual behavior is detrimental in a number of ways to society as well as individual practitioners.
As I do not wish to be guilty of making a “gratuitous assertion,” I will cite support: Posts 13 and 131 in their entirety. Specifically, I will pick two detriments from these posts for your special consideration.
1. Determent to Society: Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline (especially to the majority of its practitioners) in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.
2. Determent to Individuals: Dramatically increases the risk of completely avoidable, deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates as well as dramatically increases the risk other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).
Remember your challenge was only that I establish that homosexuality was ”bad” using non-Biblical support for the argument. (The sources for the above detriments are general knowledge. However, specific cites are available if you wish to challenge.) As a reminder, your challenge was not exclusive, i.e., that other things are not also “bad” or that homosexual behavior is worse than other “bad” things.

OK so you start with the idea of "useful purpose". Obviously that in itself is not enough so you go on to try and define what you mean. I notice you are into definitions and that is good being a bible schoolar. The bible shows us that we don't really know the meaning of a lot of words we think we know.

One comment: "gratuitous assertion" must be formal debate speak. :-)

I notice you are angling toward "the benefit of society". Put another way this means the same thing as "the good of the state". When we use terminology like this or think like this we are going to find that we're backed into a corner on just about anything that isn't producing a product. Recreation is not good for the state but consumption certainly is. The more we consume the more we employ and the greater the financial condition of the state. This argument taken to it's extreme either requires us to always only do things that are good for the state and are productive or we must start to quantify emotional benefits of certain units of recreation and, dare I say it, fun.

Driving a motorcycle to work is certainly overly dangerous and falls under this same category. If we were to use the argument that you are using than it can be argued that motorcycle driving is bad as is homosexuality because they run the risk of reducing the producitvity of the state.

OK this argument works if you are willing to accept that world view AND if you reject monogomous homosexuality.

We can't reject that because it certainly exists as to hetero promiscuity which is also bad in this natural sense. Remove person to person promiscuity from both heterosexuality and sodomy(easier to type and more insulting) and they are a wash.

Do I need to sum up. Probably because I'm not a polished debater. Given the idea of what is good for the state, you have only pointed out that promiscuity between many partners spreads disease but have in no way show homo vs hetero promiscuity to be intrinsically different. Emphesis on promiscuity.

I have a friend who has had the same "partner"(yuk) for 20 years.

"OK so you start with the idea of "useful purpose". Obviously that in itself is not enough so you go on to try and define what you mean. I notice you are into definitions and that is good being a bible scholar. The bible shows us that we don't really know the meaning of a lot of words we think we know.

One comment: "gratuitous assertion" must be formal debate speak. :-) "

A gratuitous assertion is a statement in a logical argument that is not self evidently true or supported by previously established conclusions or facts… It is the equivalent of an opinion “plucked out of thin air” and presented as fact.

“I notice you are angling toward "the benefit of society". Put another way this means the same thing as "the good of the state". When we use terminology like this or think like this we are going to find that we're backed into a corner on just about anything that isn't producing a product.”

My reference to “society” has nothing directly to do with the “state.” For the sake of understanding, below is the definition I was using.

so·ci·e·ty n. pl. so·ci·e·ties
1.
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
3.
a. The rich, privileged, and fashionable social class.
b. The socially dominant members of a community.
4. Companionship; company: enjoys the society of friends and family members.
5. Biology. A colony or community of organisms, usually of the same species: an insect society.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

“Recreation is not good for the state but consumption certainly is. The more we consume the more we employ and the greater the financial condition of the state. This argument taken to it's extreme either requires us to always only do things that are good for the state and are productive or we must start to quantify emotional benefits of certain units of recreation and, dare I say it, fun.”

Your analysis is flawed as you have assumed a definition for “society” that was not appropriate in the assertion I made. Ignoring this mistake for the moment and addressing the issue of homosexual behavior as recreation, consider the following: The statement I put forward was “Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits…” Recreations of all varieties are available to the homosexual practitioners that do not involve disease or any of the other detriments previously cited.

“Driving a motorcycle to work is certainly overly dangerous and falls under this same category. If we were to use the argument that you are using than it can be argued that motorcycle driving is bad as is homosexuality because they run the risk of reducing the productivity of the state”.

Driving a motorcycle may involve a somewhat increased risk but is not “overly dangerous” to a properly trained and cautious rider. Additionally, this activity does serve the “useful purpose” to both to society, and the individual, of economical transportation and therefore cannot be in the “same category” as increased risk of deadly disease assumed by homosexuals whose activity in acquiring the disease serves no purpose beyond hedonism. Again, your use of the term “state” is not germane to the discussion.

"OK this argument works if you are willing to accept that world view AND if you reject monogamous homosexuality. "

I am unsure of what “worldview” you are requiring to be accepted for the argument to be valid. I maintain that the argument is valid regardless of “worldview” in that homosexual behavior produces nothing that is “good” and many things that are “bad” both for the practitioners and “society” (the group of people these practitioners live, work, eat and participate in non-sexual activities among).

(As an aside, “monogamous homosexuality” applies only to lesbians. For male homosexuals the term would be “monandrous homosexuality.”) Actually, according to medical statistics, single partner homosexuality still inordinately exposes the participants to disease, although, admittedly, the risk of HIV/AIDS is probably much less of a factor. Nonetheless, it is not I that rejects single partner homosexuality, but, according to the statistics, it is the vast majority of the homosexual practitioners who reject it. Sadly, the generalization is still valid for the overwhelming portion of this population.

"We can't reject that because it certainly exists as to hetero promiscuity which is also bad in this natural sense. Remove person to person promiscuity from both heterosexuality and sodomy(easier to type and more insulting) and they are a wash."

You are correct that we cannot reject the generalized assumption of promiscuity applied to homosexuals, as the vast majority of homosexuals (according to published statistics) engage in rampant “promiscuity.”

"Do I need to sum up. Probably because I'm not a polished debater. Given the idea of what is good for the state, you have only pointed out that promiscuity between many partners spreads disease but have in no way show homo vs hetero promiscuity to be intrinsically different. Emphesis on promiscuity. "

The fact that heterosexuals may engage in promiscuity has no bearing on the validity of this argument in establishing that homosexuality is “bad.” Remember that your challenge to show that homosexuality was bad using non-Biblical support for the argument does not mean establishing that other things such as heterosexual promiscuity are not also bad. As an aside, statistics exist that prove the average homosexual is devastatingly promiscuous, the same set of statistics does not exist for heterosexuals.

"I have a friend who has had the same "partner"(yuk) for 20 years."

This person is bound for hell unless he or she repents and accepts Christ.

You failed to address the “detriment” I put forward concerning hedonism as support for my argument. In a debate, this means that you concede the point which wins the argument for me. Do you wish to take a crack at this one?

Homosexuality serves no purpose. Then life serves no purpose. The purpose of human life is not to fit into your box, or to receive your assent. People do what they do, illogically, irrationally, but based on their own reasons. I drive slowly in part to avoid the attention of the police, but also in part to increase my safety. On the other hand, I often speed, trading increased productivity against safety. In both cases I justify what ever I do, to myself, even though I arrive at different conclusions on where my needle ought to be on the dial.

The point is I life my life for my purposes, not for yours, not for anyone else. That simple fact could not be accepted by either of my previous wifes, when they claimed that I had not listened. I listened. I just disagreed. They could not handle it.

In my limited experience, every female homosexual I have ever known has been molested or raped. 20 out of 20. Consider that. Homosexuality may be a coping mechanism so people with horrendous experiences can continue. If so, there may be a great pay back. If not, it is their issue, not yours. Not mine.

Male homosexuals, I have a smaller sample size. I don't have any male homosexuals with whom I am close. Nor do I feel anger at any.

As for the Sacred Band, Phillip did not think their efforts worthless. Rather he appreciated their high efficiency, compared to other elements of the army that he fought. Rather like an british general saying of the Afgans "the buggers die with their boots on." The potential efficiency of a fighting force even when it loses leads to better terms, to get them to end resistance, so the actions of the Sacred Band were not without consequence.

Again, I reject the collectivist notion that anyones life choices, or situations are subject to your review on the grounds of Morality.

Murder can be moral. Consider the July 20th plot to kill Hitler. Our brothers in the south have celebrated the glory of their defeat in the Great Rebellion for years, and morned the loss of their rights in human property.

I am too old to be all that sure about my life, much less someone elses. You bore me.

It is regrettable that you apparently choose to disengage from intelligent discussion and debate. Your comments indicate that you lean toward a libertarian philosophy. However, from what seems to be overly emotional comments based on your personal experience and lack of fully reasoned support in your positions, you ostensibly have not put enough research and critical thought into this philosophy to be able to defend it rationally.

I summarized your positions from a previous post and then offered unemotional counters to your points. The fact that you offered no corrections to any errors I might have made indicates that you must have accepted my characterizations. However, you have, with exception of your comments on the “Sacred Band,” refused to factually and logically, directly address the counter arguments I put forward. Instead you rather emotionally challenge what you perceive as my unauthorized usurpation of moral authority with characterizations ending in ”Again, I reject the collectivist notion that anyones life choices, or situations are subject to your review on the grounds of Morality.“

Unless you characterize the “rule of law” as a “collectivist notion,” then everyone’s “life choices” are subject to review on the grounds of morality. All laws are based upon morality and all “life choices” which involve and sort of actions are subject to potential legal sanction.

mo·ral·i·ty n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
“ Morality is a complex of concepts and beliefs by which an individual sets a standard of right and wrong for his or her actions. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are created by a culture or group to develop a regulation of individual behaviors.”

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

There is public morality consisting of actions governed by law and, to some limited degree, tradition. Beyond public morality, there is private morality which is governed by an individual’s personal standards of right and wrong. While I am enough of a libertarian, myself, to agree that one individual’s private morality should not be used to inhibit or sanction another individual’s private behavior, the debate in this forum is, and has been, in the final analysis, about public morality (laws and public traditions).

Specifically, the debate in this forum ultimately centers around what should be the public standard of “right and wrong” (laws and public traditions/actions) concerning homosexual behavior. For behavior that is private with impacts that neither affect nor harm anyone other than the participants, you could (but have not fully done so, as yet) make a reasoned, libertarian argument that there should be no “public standard.” However, for this argument to be valid, you would have to address the public impacts and harms that this behavior obviously has (something you have refused to do).

Reference: Your comments that, in your experience, homosexual behavior results from molestation or abuse. Unless you are advocating that homosexual behavior is a psychosis resulting from this molestation or abuse and should be treated rather than regulated by public morality (laws and public traditions/actions), this observation has no bearing on the debate.

Reference: Your comment that “…it is their [homosexual practitioners] issue, not yours. Not mine.” This is a libertarian argument for which you have provided no support whatsoever. Perhaps you would care to come up with some logic that validly supports how it is “their issue,” and not mine, concerning public lawsuits against the Boy Scouts, public demands that society change the definition of marriage, public demands that my tax money support research for HIV/AIDS, ludicrously lewd, public celebrations at a family oriented place like Disney World in front of families with small children and assertions that if any one is be offended they are “homophobes” and “hate mongers,” etc., parades through public streets in states of dress (or lack thereof) and actions that are indecent in anyone’s definition, support for an organization such as NAMBLA which is dedicated to pedophilia, etc.

Reference: Your characterization of the “July 20th plot to kill Hitler” as “moral” murder. It is not “murder” for a policeman to kill (when other means will not suffice) a felon to prevent that felon from “murdering” another innocent individual. This plot to kill Hitler could be debated along these same lines. However, I believe your point was intended to be that you perceive morality as relative and not absolute. This point seems to me to be extraneous to the discussion about what should be the “public morality” (laws and public traditions/actions) concerning homosexual behavior. Perhaps you would be willing to provide some logic to create a position for which your posit concerning moral relativity could be valid support.

Reference: Your comments that the efforts of the “Sacred Band” were not without consequence in that Phillip recognized these efforts as noteworthy. While your observation may be true, it is not related to my point concerning this group. According to my reading, Thebes received no materially better treatment than any other Greek city-state that Phillip conquered. As a result of this fact, my assertion that this group’s homosexuality (regardless of its purported impact on their fighting spirit) provided no net benefit to Thebes stands unchallenged, i.e., they lost and Phillip conquered Thebes… Thebes faired no better under Phillip than Athens, etc… therefore, the “Sacred Band’s” homosexuality provided no benefits to Thebes in this situation. Perhaps my research is incomplete. Can you offer a factual or logical counter to these assertions?

As a final note, because you and I have never met, it is difficult to understand how “I” could “bore you.” Without wishing to appear contentious, let me suggest that, perhaps, it is facts, logic and vigorous debate that run counter to your personal prejudices and incompletely examined life philosophy to which you refer as “boring.”

b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
“This is the state. You are the one in error but I suspected you would try and reject my use of the word state”
You are correct in that I reject your characterization of my use of the word, “society” as synonymous with the word or concept of “state.” Would you call any of the following a “state:” the Society of Friends (Quakers), the Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Soaring Society of America (glider buffs), etc.?
The term “state” applied to a group of people, and not a “condition,” is a political entity, a government. My comments concerning the contribution of value (or lack thereof) of homosexual behavior to “society” has nothing, whatsoever, to do with a political entity or a government, i.e., the “state.” As a matter of fact, I inserted a parenthetical expression in one case after my use of the word “society” to make my meaning clear. It is repeated below:
“… “society” (the group of people these practitioners live, work, eat and participate in non-sexual activities among).”
I do not know how I can make what I mean by the word, “society,” any more clear. I cited a dictionary definition and included a clarification in parentheses after my use of the word. Perhaps you would care to offer a suggestion. However, I think your comments on your next post probably makes your doing that difficult.

A gratuitous assertion is a statement in a logical argument that is not self evidently true or supported by previously established conclusions or facts… It is the equivalent of an opinion “plucked out of thin air” and presented as fact.
“This can easily cause every sentence to require a dictionary definition for each word. Remember Clinton and "It depends on your definition of the word alone". Jesus and Paul didn't discuss things in this way but they let the truth stand on it's own. I can see that I would never make it in a debate team because the techniques used are what I consider to be dishonest and legalistic. You have to learn the tricks of debate rather than the subject.”
First, I come from the say-what-you-mean-and-mean-what-you-say school of thought. Consequently, I try to choose my words to be as close to the message I intend to convey as I possibly can.
Second, you made a comment on a previous post: “One comment: "gratuitous assertion" must be formal debate speak. :-)”. I took this comment to be an honest query for information. The response you cited in this post was my reply giving you the information I thought you had been requesting.
Third, consider your previous post in which attempted to make the definition of “society” mean “state.” You insisted on this characterization in the face of a dictionary definition and my explanations to the contrary.
Fourth, Jesus and Paul spoke with Divine Authority. Unless you or I are quoting them, we cannot speak with that same authority. Indeed, as you say, the truth does stand on its own. However, consider how many different Christian denominations are splintered today because they do not understand or agree on the meaning of “that truth that stands on its own.”
Fifth, there are honest debates and debate contests. Debate contests (and our political and legal systems daily sponsors these in legislatures and court rooms) involve what you call “tricks” and “legalisms” or what others might call “strategy” to “win” the contest. An honest debate is conducted to present opposing views or arguments as completely, straight forwardly and vigorously as possible in order for participants and observers to arrive at a value judgment on which view or argument is the correct, or better one, to accept. (This is what our court system is supposed to be doing instead of debate contests.)
Sixth, honest debates do not have “tricks” but they do have rules. The rules of logic apply at all times. This is to say you must understand that “premises” (starting points) for all arguments must be based in fact and/or agreed upon by both sides in the debate. Unsupported opinions of a participant (gratuitous assertions) are not valid premises unless agreed upon by the opposition. It also means that you must know what a fallacious argument or false conclusion is. Any properly supported, relevant assertion or argument that is put forward by an opponent that you do not deny or counter is one that you are agreeing is true or are accepting. When you know you are wrong or know your argument has been defeated, admit it.

Seventh, honest debates must have accepted or agreed upon terms to avoid confusion and unnecessary contention about things other than the topic under debate. To insist on using a non-standard term or using a term in a way not specified in a dictionary or one that may not be in a dictionary that your opposition has not agreed upon is a form of “debate trickery.”

Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits… Recreations of all varieties are available to the homosexual practitioners that do not involve disease or any of the other detriments previously cited.
“I've already answered this via the fact that monogomous sodomy doesn't spread desease and that this argument puts homosexuality on the same level as motorcycling. It is just slightly worse on the deaths per million hours chart than certain but not all other sexual practices. What is it called in formal debate when you ignore what I say or pretend that it didn't address the question? If this is how you debate or how formal debate works then we may as well quit.”

As they say in a popular card game: “let’s review the bidding.”
Below is your challenge:
“Please give me one, and only one, good natural reason that homosexuality is bad and I will play the devils/flaming homo's advocate it and try to knock it out of the court…”

Here was my answer:

Homosexual behavior provides no benefits to, nor serves any useful purposes to, society that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits and homosexual behavior is detrimental in a number of ways to society as well as individual practitioners.

In support of this assertion I cited two previous posts in their entirety but I also pulled two specific items from these posts. Here they are:

1. Determent to Society: Homosexual behavior (by the overwhelming majority of its practitioners) focuses on individual pleasure/self-indulgence to the exclusion of any regard for negative impacts on others (hedonism) and causes a resultant decline (especially to the majority of its practitioners) in antithetical (to hedonism) virtues beneficial to society such as service to others, self-sacrifice, self-discipline, devotion to duty, etc.

2. Determent to Individuals: Dramatically increases the risk of completely avoidable, deadly disease (HIV/AIDS) among its practitioners with attendant increases in premature death rates as well as dramatically increases the risk other, completely avoidable, potentially less deadly diseases (STD’s) among its practitioners and potentially others (unavoidably).

Below is your conditional concession:

“OK this argument works if you are willing to accept that world view AND if you reject monogomous homosexuality…”

“…you have only pointed out that promiscuity between many partners spreads disease but have in no way show homo vs hetero promiscuity to be intrinsically different.”

Below is a summary of my points to remove your conditions:

No particular worldview is required… you seemed to have based this condition on a definition of “society” that was not contained in the dictionary and to which I did not agree as term of debate. Insisting on defining your own terms over the objection of your opponent as well as contrary to dictionary sources is a violation of the rules of “honest debate.” Therefore, this condition is not valid as an objection.

I do not have to address “monogamous homosexuality” because my proffered reason to you specifically cited useful purposes and benefits “…that are not available through other sources at lower societal costs and greater side benefits…” You have cited no benefits available through “monogamous homosexuality” that are not available through normal heterosexual marriage. Marriage has the side benefit to society of continuity through producing children (and one could argue lower societal costs although this argument is not necessary to sustain the point).

I do not have to prove that promiscuity among many partners is any worse in homosexual behavior than in heterosexual behavior, only that it is “bad” in homosexual behavior in a “natural sense.” The issue that promiscuity among many partners is bad for both heterosexual and homosexual practitioners does not negate this point. However for the record, the facts are that, generally speaking, promiscuity is far worse among homosexuals and the resultant disease impacts are disproportionately far worse.

Do you wish to remove the conditions from you earlier concession?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.