Replies

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?