T Nation

Homosexual Propaganda Exposed

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And murder, suicide, alcoholism, necrophilia, cannibalism…so where does that leave us?

[/quote]

It leaves us where I intended for it to leave us: With your criteria dismantled.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

What is self-evident? That homosexuality is immoral?

[/quote]

No. What is self evident is that right and wrong must be universal and not subjective.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And murder, suicide, alcoholism, necrophilia, cannibalism…so where does that leave us?

[/quote]

It leaves us where I intended for it to leave us: With your criteria dismantled.[/quote]

WTF? Homosexuality is not immoral because it exists? Is that what you’re saying?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

What is self-evident? That homosexuality is immoral?

[/quote]

No. What is self evident is that right and wrong must be universal and not subjective.
[/quote]

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam.

It’s also an evasion. You are claiming that homosexuality is immoral on biological grounds. Yes?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

And murder, suicide, alcoholism, necrophilia, cannibalism…so where does that leave us?

[/quote]

It leaves us where I intended for it to leave us: With your criteria dismantled.[/quote]

WTF? Homosexuality is not immoral because it exists? Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]

No. I’m sure you can look back over the progression and figure out what I’m saying.

Let’s make this more lucid. Why, in the simplest and most precise terms available to you, is homosexuality immoral?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Keep reading your far right websites and stop wasting our time pretending you aren’t a homophobe.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam.

[/quote]

No it’s not. It’s a theory of meta ethics known as moral universalism.

[quote]
It’s also an evasion. You are claiming that homosexuality is immoral on biological grounds. Yes?[/quote]

And you’re claiming it’s not so the burden of proof lies equally with you. I have defended my argument by invoking natural law and describing the biological and social harms of homosexuality. Let’s see you defend your position that homosexuality is not immoral.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Keep reading your far right websites and stop wasting our time pretending you aren’t a homophobe.

[/quote]

Okay so I used a derogatory term once. Don’t you have anything better to do than search my old posts? How about contributing to the discussion?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Keep reading your far right websites and stop wasting our time pretending you aren’t a homophobe.

[/quote]

Okay so I used a derogatory term once. Don’t you have anything better to do than search my old posts? How about contributing to the discussion?
[/quote]

I could remember that off the top of my head it wasn’t that long ago.

Don’t YOU have anything better to do than post articles from far right websites on topics you have no idea of actually changing your thoughts on?

How is showing that you flat lie about things not contributing to the discussion?

You don’t actually want me to go through your old posts because it hasn’t been once and you probably know it. I’ll save you the embarrassment though as long as you don’t pretend your history is different.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam.

[/quote]

No it’s not. It’s a theory of meta ethics known as moral universalism.

[quote]
It’s also an evasion. You are claiming that homosexuality is immoral on biological grounds. Yes?[/quote]

And you’re claiming it’s not so the burden of proof lies equally with you. I have defended my argument by invoking natural law and describing the biological and social harms of homosexuality. Let’s see you defend your position that homosexuality is not immoral.[/quote]

You have defended nothing, and, again, you are the positive claim-maker, so the burden of proof remains with you.

I don’t think you really know what you’re arguing here. You have some terms to throw around, and some enormous, unproved assumptions to try to stand on, but you haven’t even arranged them in the form of a logical contention.

I ask again: Why–in the most lucid, precise, and complete terms possible–is homosexuality immoral? Note that any assumptive maxim that you offer me will be challenged, and will need to be proved, immediately.

Serious question:

Why when talking about “homosexual propaganda” do you quote a far right confirmation bias that IS propaganda to the right wing ideals which you want to believe. What about your own propaganda you’re reading? A website with a link on the main page to an article about what same sex marriage has done to Mass. isn’t propaganda?

Or is bias only a problem when you can blame it on the left wing? Is propaganda only bad when it’s different from what you want to believe?

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
News flash: homosexuals want to gain acceptance as human beings in our society and are using “tactics” to do so; film at 11. [/quote]

I do accept homosexuals as human beings. I just don’t accept their behaviour and lifestyles.[/quote]

So from this small sample it seems like tactics 1 and 2 are working for them somewhat but they need to work harder on tactic number 3. [/quote]

Not really. The only people I bear hatred towards are evil people such as murderers. And as I’ve said before I don’t believe that gays are any more evil than the rest of the population. What I do believe is that they are suffering from an illness. And I have sympathy for people who are sick.
[/quote]

Like being born deaf or blind? On some levels, I agree with you. On other levels, I suspect society labeling them as “defective” contributes to the suicide and drug statistics you cited.

[/quote]

If that were the case we should expect to see a significant decline in those numbers over the last 20 years owing to the increasing acceptance and normalisation of homosexuality in society.
[/quote]

Causation on things like that are tough to assess. I also think that the significant increase in acceptance and normalization are much more recent, as there still isn’t even one openly gay NFL player. In any event, I haven’t seen any evidence that treating homosexuality as a defect helps improve the suicide rate or drug-use rate either, so what is the point of demonizing it?

As a personal analogy, I’m left handed. Being left handed used to be viewed as a defect and the powers that be tried to “fix” lefties, even in my lifetime, by making us “learn” how to be right handed. Of course I could pretend to be right handed and learn how to do things right handed out of necessity, but on my best day I still threw the ball like a proverbial girl when I was forced to wear a right-handed baseball glove. At some point I got fed up and simply refused to participate in any activities if I couldn’t do it as a lefty and I made a point never to capitulate on this issue for fear that I would underperform on basic tasks for the rest of my life if I didn’t demand to be recognized as a lefty. As far as I was concerned you could shove that snowflake art project and those useless right-handed scissors where the sun don’t shine if I wasn’t allowed to use left handed scissors.

The point being–at the risk of trivializing the issue, and recognizing the analogy isn’t perfect–given my stance on left-handedness and my personal experience, I’m pretty sure if I were gay I’d be militant about it not being considered a defect as well, and I mean in-your-fucking-face militant about it, and I can understand why homosexuals employ “tactics” to gain acceptance and to try and normalize their “illness,” “condition,” or “defect.”

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Let’s make this more lucid. Why, in the simplest and most precise terms available to you, is homosexuality immoral?[/quote]

  1. The biological and social function of sex is procreation. Homosexuality subverts this function.

  2. Natural law shows that men and women are biologically and psychologically different and that they are complimentary to each other. Homosexuality is neither biologically nor psychologically complimentary.

  3. Natural law shows that a child is best reared by a mother and father. Homosexual adoption deprives children of either a mother or father.

  4. Homosexual relationships subvert the existing mores and norms of society and devalue traditional marriage.

  5. Homosexual unions preclude the possibility of procreation.

  6. Homosexual unions are of no benefit to society. They harm society by subverting norms and mores, preventing procreation, devaluing traditional marriage and causing public health problems.

  7. Homosexuality imposes acceptance and normalisation thus encouraging homosexual behaviour in others.

  8. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

This is a fallacy called argumentum ad consequentiam.

[/quote]

No it’s not. It’s a theory of meta ethics known as moral universalism.

[/quote]

Yes–a theory.

Anyway, you missed my point. Verity does not follow from desirability.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. The biological and social function of sex is procreation. Homosexuality subverts this function.
    [/quote]

Well, that is one hell of a collection of assumption and fallacy. Let’s start at beginning.

“The biological and social function of sex is procreation.” According to whom? Do you mean that sex is intended for procreation? Intended by whom?

Or are you simply making the rather banal observation that certain kinds of sex lead to procreation? It does not follow from this that other kinds are immoral.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]

This is really the big one, the one that’s driving your position, isn’t it?

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]

This is really the big one, the one that’s driving your position, isn’t it? [/quote]

It’s the one that all the rest will reduce to, in the end. I will challenge assumption after assumption after assumption, and, finally, the entire argument will be exposed as an outgrowth of this glaringly unproved assumption.

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I don’t use derogatory terms for gays. Also race, nationality and religion are morally neutral concepts. Sexual behaviour is not morally neutral. To compare the two is to compare apples and oranges.[/quote]

Keep reading your far right websites and stop wasting our time pretending you aren’t a homophobe.

[/quote]

Okay so I used a derogatory term once. Don’t you have anything better to do than search my old posts? How about contributing to the discussion?
[/quote]

I could remember that off the top of my head it wasn’t that long ago.

Don’t YOU have anything better to do than post articles from far right websites on topics you have no idea of actually changing your thoughts on?

How is showing that you flat lie about things not contributing to the discussion?

You don’t actually want me to go through your old posts because it hasn’t been once and you probably know it. I’ll save you the embarrassment though as long as you don’t pretend your history is different. [/quote]

It’s a term I almost never use and shouldn’t have used. However I don’t think anyone has been harmed by the fact that I said ‘faggotry’ once.

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

  1. Homosexuality is repugnant to G-d.[/quote]

This is really the big one, the one that’s driving your position, isn’t it? [/quote]

We have a winner here.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Eh, there are some theories as to why homosexuality occurs, and why it’s attached to the x chromosome. One explanation, with more male children it’s already known that the likelihood for women to have gay children is increased exponentially.

How would this benefit a social species like humans? I don’t know, maybe having a young man in your clan, who wont run off and marry, and actually stay home would be a boon for a mothers survivability? This is an anthropological explanation as to why it could be a relatively normal thing to happen.

[/quote]

But not a very good one as a gay man would be just as likely to run off with another man. And in biological terms a young man is more valuable to the species than a menopausal woman.

It doesn’t increase survivability. Quite the contrary. And overpopulation is dealt with by famine, plague and war.

It seems to me that you’re grasping at straws.
[/quote]

The thing about gay men running off together. Generally what happens with men and women is they have children, the man has to do his share in providing for that woman.

Such a thing doesn’t happen with gay men and offspring, so that aspect of resource, protection, and provisions can stay with a family or clan unit. It seems to make sense when you simply think out the mechanics of social animals.