Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
145

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
It does not logically follow that sex not capable of causing pregnancy is immoral.

Your argument is invalid because the conclusion is not entailed by the premises.

It is true that anal sex, for example, does not lead to pregnancy.

And yet that premise does not entail the conclusion that anal sex is immoral. You assume that sex not capable of leading to pregnancy is immoral.

As I predicted, you are wandering in circles, from assumed or asserted maxim to assumed or asserted maxim.

And the thing about assumed and asserted maxims is that they can be negated as simply as they are propounded: With an assumed and asserted refutation.[/quote]

I’ve already listed in point form why it’s immoral. I can only refer you back to those points. If you want to dispute my reasoning then quote the point and attempt to counter my argument. [/quote]

That’s exactly what I’m doing in the above post, which you quoted without addressing.

I am saying that your conclusion is not entailed by your premises, for the reasons outlined above. You are assuming your conclusion as a premise (also called begging the question): “Homosexual sex is immoral because it is sex that does not lead to procreation (i.e., it is homosexual sex) and that is immoral.” This is a fallacious argument.[/quote]

Firstly that was one reason amongst eight I provided.[/quote]

And, as I said, I’ll start at the beginning. Do you think this thread would benefit from eight simultaneous smh-sexmachine arguments?

[quote]
Secondly, homosexuality precludes heterosexual sex and child rearing. I’m contending that child rearing is a responsibility for adults and that to shun that responsibility in exchange for an unnatural, unhealthy sterile union is immoral.[/quote]

(Aside: Then heterosexual couples who choose not to have children have made an equally immoral choice, yes?)

Here again, we have maxims that are simply assumed and asserted. “It is a personal, imperative responsibility of adult humans to create and raise children, and any sex that does not lead to that end is immoral.”

And again, assumed and asserted maxims are refuted as easily as they are propounded: “It is not a personal, imperative responsibility of adult humans to create and raise children, and any sex that does not lead to that end is not immoral.” Or I can put it even better: “It is a far greater evil, an infinitely greater evil, for government or society to compel or shame individuals into sexual relationships that they don’t want to be a part of–or to compel or shame individuals into abstinence from consensual sexual relationships that they do want to be a part of–than it is for government or society to suffer a relatively small percentage of the population the freedom to choose childlessness.”

That’s really all I need to do–you asserted X, I asserted its refutation. But say I want to go a little further:

  1. “Homosexual sex precludes heterosexual sex.”

To preclude is “to prevent from happening, to make impossible.” Homosexual sex makes heterosexual sex impossible? What? Do you mean in that exact moment, as in “Johnny can’t impregnate Sarah while he’s having sex with Joe?” I don’t think so, because the same can be said of literally every other activity that isn’t vaginal intercourse. Let’s try it out: “Johnny can’t impregnate Sarah while he’s washing his car.” Because this is manifestly absurd, I conclude that you mean “preclude” in a blanket philosophical sense, as in, “a vasectomy precludes progenitive intercourse.” But this isn’t true of homosexual sex: There is exactly no logical connection between homosexual sex on Monday and progenitive sex on Friday. So, something about your initial premise–homosexual sex precludes heterosexual sex–needs to change, because it is plainly false as is.

  1. “Child rearing is a responsibility for adults.”

First, see point [1] above: Nothing has been mutually excluded.

[u]More importantly, By whose decree?[/u]

  1. “To shun that responsibility in exchange for an unnatural, unhealthy sterile union is immoral.”

On what authority is this “immoral”? Is it more or less immoral for society to shame or force individuals into assuming this alleged responsibility? Is the existence of this alleged responsibility a matter of your opinion and nothing more? Is this the lowest reach of the root–that is, can you not support these glaring assumptions and assertions with logical argument?

We can continue to go back and forth, but it will be the same. You have a moral opinion that you cannot justify with logical argument outside of reassumption and reassertion–that is, without availing yourself of fallacies like question-begging and ad consequentiam, which is among the many problems that strangle the birth-rate argument. You have an alleged iniquity with no victim and, despite assertions to the contrary, you have not come within a hundred miles of proving an injury to any individual or collection of individuals.

And, of course, you haven’t even begun to deal with the counterclaim: That it’s none of your damn business when two consenting adults have sex in private. If I’m wrong, then perhaps it’s time for the Two Minutes Hate, which, though invented by a casual homophobe, can be smelled all over threads like this one.

146

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Why?

[/quote]

Because I believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

So then, give me a list of absolute right’s and absolute wrong’s.
[/quote]

Absolute right: Obeying G-d.

Absolute wrong: Disobeying G-d.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s what I thought you’d say, which is nothing but a religious cop out. This is the answer of a zealot who’s willingly placed on themselves the binders of relion. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Forgive me if I disregard the moral teachings of a book that espouses rape, murder, genocide, and other undesirable acts of evil.

Want to know why I’m morally superior to your god? It’s because of this: If I could prevent a child’s death or rape, I would. Think about that,

147

[quote]pushharder wrote:
gays cannot have biological children[/quote]

You’re kidding. Right? Gays cannot have biological children? What are you talking about? Gays, Muslims, blacks, lesbians, Wiccans, WASPS, Jews, Zoroastrians, tattoo artists, Disney mascots, and never-nudes may have little in common, but every one of them who is biologically healthy can have children.

Whatever you’re getting at here, you’re going to lose. I know gay guys with biological children.

148

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?
[/quote]

This!

BTW. Looks like we got a good old fashioned liberal circle-jerk for once. Fitting With the topic actually ;)[/quote]

Was thinking of mentioning this but you beat me to it.

Carry on.[/quote]

A group of people are bound to gather and agree when a guy who thinks sodomy should be illegal starts a thread about homosexual “tactics,” which then evolves into an (entirely and plainly failed) attempt to characterize anal sex as “immoral.”

149

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

(Aside: Then heterosexual couples who choose not to have children have made an equally immoral choice, yes?)

[/quote]

Not as immoral. But I’d certainly say they’re not fulfilling their duty. What else can one say in a society with well below replacement fertility levels? Obviously the fall of the Roman Empire was due to many reasons but one of them was certainly their declining birth rate.

I was talking about the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle precludes traditional marriage and child rearing.

In order to feel shame in that regard one must be possessed of a sense of civic virtue. I think most homosexuals are free from that burden. Anyway I was suggesting the state support, encourage and protect the institution of traditional marriage. I wasn’t suggesting they shame people.

See above.

Who in their right mind would assert that it’s not the duty of adults to rear children? Who would produce and rear children if not adults?

Well I know how much it pains you to hear it but on G-d’s authority. As Machiavelli said, ‘there is no surer sign of the decay of a country than when the rites of religion are held in contempt.’ Or let me give another example that might be more palatable to an theophobe: the authority of our forefathers - what Edmund Burke called the wisdom of the ages. But you’re far wiser than anyone who has lived before aren’t you? You have all kinds of plans for the radical transformation of civil society. You’re a mastermind.

See above. You seem to have a habit of asking a question, assuming the answer then building a straw man from the assumed response.

Certainly not. See above.

My arguments are perfectly logical: a well below replacement level birth rate and undermining traditional marriage. Surely you can put two and two together? No? Well they equal a big fat zero my friend.

Let’s not.

According to who? On whose authority? Can you prove it?

I beg to differ.

Like a father and his adult daughter right? You cool with that too?

[quote]

If I’m wrong, then perhaps it’s time for the Two Minutes Hate, which, though invented by a casual homophobe, can be smelled all over threads like this one.[/quote]

It’s the theophobes who have an unhealthy interest in encouraging sodomy who more closely resemble the populace in 1984.

150

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Why?

[/quote]

Because I believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

So then, give me a list of absolute right’s and absolute wrong’s.
[/quote]

Absolute right: Obeying G-d.

Absolute wrong: Disobeying G-d.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s what I thought you’d say, which is nothing but a religious cop out. This is the answer of a zealot who’s willingly placed on themselves the binders of relion. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Forgive me if I disregard the moral teachings of a book that espouses rape, murder, genocide, and other undesirable acts of evil.

Want to know why I’m morally superior to your god? It’s because of this: If I could prevent a child’s death or rape, I would. Think about that,
[/quote]

Deuteronomy mandates death for man who rapes a betrothed woman and mandates that the woman go free. For raping a virgin it mandates the man pay a heavy fine. This at a time when Europeans and Africans were Stone Age savages massacring each other. And I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of the Ten Commandments. But you’re morally superior to the creator? Maybe everyone should worship you as the fountain of knowledge and ethics that you clearly are. Should we prostrate ourselves in your presence o great one?

151

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Who in their right mind would assert that it’s not the duty of adults to rear children? Who would produce and rear children if not adults?[/quote]

Here is more fuzzy argumentation, more logical fallacy. I am not one of those debaters who suffers shifting goalposts and devolving standards and squirming definitions. Your claim, and my objection to it, had to do with a compulsory responsibility, individual in scale and universal in scope, to raise children–a responsibility which is not met by homosexual sex and which thus condemns homosexual sex to the status of “iniquity.” But look at what you’ve done here: You’ve moved the chess-pieces around the board when you thought I wasn’t looking, opting–instead of addressing the compulsory and individual-universal “responsibility” to procreate that you were obliged to address–to respond to me on the entirely unrelated subject of “shouldn’t adults be the ones who raise kids???”

In other words, surely you detect the difference between something that should only be done by adults and something that must by done by every adult, which is the difference between:

A] a voluntarily-assumed responsibility for which only adults are fit,

and

B] an imperative, individual responsibility forced (by who-knows-whom) upon every adult without exception and without regard for their personal desire or lack thereof to start and raise a family. You’re averring the latter, without foundation and without justification.

This ^ is what I mean when I say that your argument in this thread will wander forever. I have essentially spent every post pointing out one or another kind of intentional or unintentional fallacy, dodge, or assumption.

Yeah, prove this to me and I’ll donate my life’s savings to an anti-gay advocacy group.

In other words, this is where you’ve been headed for some time–by necessity–and it’s also where you hit the proverbial wall. From here I’ll challenge you to prove to me that god exists, and to further prove to me that he has an opinion of sodomy, and to further prove to me that you know that opinion, and to further prove to me what that opinion is. I suppose you’ll shoot for the god of Judaism or Judeo-Christianity, in which case I’ll challenge you to convince me that the book whereby you “know” his relevant opinions is what it alleges itself to be. At which point the discussion will end, in the same place that every such discussion ends.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not begrudging you the personal belief that homosexuality is immoral, or that god thinks homosexuality is immoral, or whatever it is. You can think that for the rest of your life. What you can’t do is support that contention in rational debate.

152

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Whats the use of procreation if we are going to overpopulate? Have you ever wondered if homosexuality might be some sort of natural normalizer for that in explaining survivability traits and genetic expressions of such?
[/quote]

This!

BTW. Looks like we got a good old fashioned liberal circle-jerk for once. Fitting With the topic actually ;)[/quote]

You don’t have to be liberal to support equal rights. In fact this is a position most of the country is moving towards including many Libertarians and Republicans.

It’s actually the small government position, but like many “conservatives” in this thread they are for intrusive government when it is protecting people from what they don’t like or what conservatives think is what people should do.

You could call this a rational circle jerk?

153

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

STD’s are prevalent among heterosexuals. Do you oppose the normalization of heterosexuality?

154

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Here is more fuzzy argumentation, more logical fallacy. I am not one of those debaters who suffers shifting goalposts and devolving standards and squirming definitions. Your claim, and my objection to it, had to do with a compulsory responsibility, individual in scale and universal in scope, to raise children–a responsibility which is not met by homosexual sex and which thus condemns homosexual sex to the status of “iniquity.” But look at what you’ve done here: You’ve moved the chess-pieces around the board when you thought I wasn’t looking, opting–instead of addressing the compulsory and individual-universal “responsibility” to procreate that you were obliged to address–to respond to me on the entirely unrelated subject of “shouldn’t adults be the ones who raise kids???”

[/quote]

I haven’t shifted the goalposts. I maintain that child rearing is an individual responsibility. I also said the state shouldn’t force people into marriage/child rearing. I said the state should encourage, reward and protect the institution of marriage. You seem to be intent on twisting my words so you can build your straw men.

See above. It’s perfectly simple and I’m not going to repeat it ad nauseum.

We’ve been through this already. Morality is not something that is based on proofs but rather on observation, history, experience, reason etc. I’ve made my case but you have not attempted to make yours. You have made assertions by refutation of mine. You are asserting that the homosexual lifestyle is not immoral. If a burden of proof lies with me then it lies equally with you.

[quote]

In other words, this is where you’ve been headed for some time–by necessity–and it’s also where you hit the proverbial wall. From here I’ll challenge you to prove to me that god exists, and to further prove to me that he has an opinion of sodomy, and to further prove to me that you know that opinion, and to further prove to me what that opinion is. I suppose you’ll shoot for the god of Judaism or Judeo-Christianity, in which case I’ll challenge you to convince me that the book whereby you “know” his relevant opinions is what it alleges itself to be. At which point the discussion will end, in the same place that every such discussion ends.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not begrudging you the personal belief that homosexuality is immoral, or that god thinks homosexuality is immoral, or whatever it is. You can think that for the rest of your life. What you can’t do is support that contention in rational debate.[/quote]

I gave two responses one of which you deleted. The wisdom that you have obtained in your short existence is not comparable to the wisdom of the ages. And however dulled it may be I’d be willing to bet that you still possess enough instinct to realise, deep inside, that homosexuality is not healthy or normal. That’s why you get that sick feeling inside when you see two men kissing. Not because they like brussel sprouts and you prefer broccoli. It’s a primal response to something your physiology is telling you to avoid. Even the authors of the book in the OP stated this.

155

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

STD’s are prevalent among heterosexuals. Do you oppose the normalization of heterosexuality? [/quote]

No where near as prevalent. Sodomy is the most risky form of sexual activity there is.

156

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

STD’s are prevalent among heterosexuals. Do you oppose the normalization of heterosexuality? [/quote]

No where near as prevalent. Sodomy is the most risky form of sexual activity there is.[/quote]

So it’s up to you to run around making sure everyone has the type of sex you think is best for them? Many heterosexual couples will have anal sex. What should we do with them?

In what other areas should the government (or you since you’re all knowing) tell people what they can and cannot do in a free society? Why would we stop at sex? We should ban all sorts of risky behavior? Fast food. Smoking. Driving over the speed limit (throw them in jail!). Anything you deem as not safe why not come down on? You’ve already made yourself judge.

157

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Why?

[/quote]

Because I believe in the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

So then, give me a list of absolute right’s and absolute wrong’s.
[/quote]

Absolute right: Obeying G-d.

Absolute wrong: Disobeying G-d.
[/quote]

Yea, that’s what I thought you’d say, which is nothing but a religious cop out. This is the answer of a zealot who’s willingly placed on themselves the binders of relion. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Forgive me if I disregard the moral teachings of a book that espouses rape, murder, genocide, and other undesirable acts of evil.

Want to know why I’m morally superior to your god? It’s because of this: If I could prevent a child’s death or rape, I would. Think about that,
[/quote]

Deuteronomy mandates death for man who rapes a betrothed woman and mandates that the woman go free. For raping a virgin it mandates the man pay a heavy fine. This at a time when Europeans and Africans were Stone Age savages massacring each other.[/quote]

Funny that you’d bring up deuteronomy in a discussion of morals/ethics; deuteronomy is a trip, to say the least. It lays out the many rules your god has for proper killing, with regards to who/how/where. It lets you know that a rape victim is only worth 50 shekels, and must marry her rapist. It lets you know that you’re not allowed to atend church if your testicles are damaged. It lts you know that a bastard cannot attend church, even to his tenth generation. It lays out rules for those who have two wives. It commands intolerance of other religions, and to destroy their alters/images. It lets you know how to dispose of a hated wife. To be sure, this is only a partial list.

LOL…deuteronomy is fun, as long as you’re into rape and killing that is.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of the Ten Commandments. But you’re morally superior to the creator? Maybe everyone should worship you as the fountain of knowledge and ethics that you clearly are. Should we prostrate ourselves in your presence o great one?[/quote]

You’re not understanding the lesson, SM. I’m not special in my moral superiority to your god; even the average asshole on the street is morally superior. Keep thinking about it, maybe you’ll get it. Good luck.

158

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You’re not understanding the lesson, SM. I’m not special in my moral superiority to your god; even the average asshole on the street is morally superior. Keep thinking about it, maybe you’ll get it. Good luck.
[/quote]

SM like many other believers picks and chooses what he wants to believe out of the Bible anyways. You’re wasting your time. They only take some of the stuff in the Bible seriously, and brush off the stuff they don’t really agree with. They can’t (no one can) even begin to come to grips with the hypocrisies in the book so they won’t even try.

159

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.[/quote]

Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.

So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]

You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]

STD’s are prevalent among heterosexuals. Do you oppose the normalization of heterosexuality? [/quote]

No where near as prevalent. Sodomy is the most risky form of sexual activity there is.[/quote]

It’s unfortunate that christians and the catholic church especially thinks that the having of HIV/AIDS is not nearly as bad as condoms are bad.

160

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
You’re not understanding the lesson, SM. I’m not special in my moral superiority to your god; even the average asshole on the street is morally superior. Keep thinking about it, maybe you’ll get it. Good luck.
[/quote]

SM like many other believers picks and chooses what he wants to believe out of the Bible anyways. You’re wasting your time. They only take some of the stuff in the Bible seriously, and brush off the stuff they don’t really agree with. They can’t (no one can) even begin to come to grips with the hypocrisies in the book so they won’t even try. [/quote]

It really is mind blowing, that christians claim the bible as “the good book”. Looking for proper moral teacings in the bible, is like picking through shit for corn. If more people actually read the bible with critical thought, we’d have a helluva lot more agnostics and atheists.