remind me again why i wasnt allowed to callout Duck Knight in firebot?
anyway the only reason for statistically higher rates of 'unhealthy behavior' is that people are forced into it by heteronormative society.
Po-Mo bullshit standard: It's society's fault.
Cause homosexuals don't have free will or anything like that.
Brain said:
At least for the arguments you presented in this post, solid counter-arguments could be found in the posts before yours. Technically there is hardly any need to ever respond to you because that would imply always repeating what was said before. I mean, look. Just look at the drivel we have to bear with, Deck Knight.
Whenever I post I get a steady stream of insults by a large number of bandwagoning trolls. I really don't think the side of this argument supported by political correctness has room to talk about the drivel they put up with.
You argue that homosexuality is unhealthy based on examples of male homosexuality, ignoring this post pointing out that it is unprotected sex that is dangerous and also that female homosexuality bears less risks than heterosexuality.
Unprotected sex and gay sex are heavily connected to each other. Pleasure is often the ultimate goal and condoms can numb some of the feeling, and since they know they won't have an 18-20 year penalty, why bother, they ask themselves? Normalizing homosexuality would lead to an increase in this behavior. On a broad scale protection is not used, thus the massively higher rate of STD's and AIDS in gay and bisexual men in Canada.
The answer is already there. Right there. On page one. As far as I can see, you have not even made the slightest effort to address it. Why do we even bother talking to you when you blatantly ignore the best points against your arguments, forcing us to repeat ad infinitum the same shit that you happily discard when you respond? And then there's that other point where you give a nice tirade comparing homosexuality to the consumption of junk food to complain that you can't condemn them as if they were the same. Nevermind that the original point mentioned sports, an activity which is not seen in a negative light yet bears very real risks. That was the point. But like you always do, you ignored the point.
Sports does bear risks, but it encompasses a variety of physical activities each with different risks. Rugby is infinitely more risky than Tennis, for example. Homosexuality only encompasses sexual acts, at least if it is expected to be acted on instead of thought about. If you're a fan of Rugby you aren't really engaged in Rugby and its hazards, are you?
To be honest, Lesbianism bores me far too much and I haven't really bothered to google the associated negative effects of it and get a concrete study. No one who supports it will do any of the lifting, so it's basically a one man show here. I have to be every little schoolboy's personal researcher because they can't be assed to check into anything. Even if they question and then bring up their findings, they will be insulted and intimidated. There is no quarter for anyone who wants to oppose homosexuality and doesn't want ad hominem attacks in return.
Of course you are a bigot, Deck Knight. Only bigots can lack reading comprehension to such a spectacular extent.
Big Bad Brain needs to of course, continue to insult me. Nice ad hominem - champ. Reading comprehension and bigotry are not even remotely correlated, except of course when the topic is Homosexuality. There poor reading comprehension is causal to bigotry, of course. What drivel.
Ultimately I realize I'm flailing in the wind here. Society is going towards a death spiral where all things that bring prosperity and morality to a society will be "deconstructed" by postmodernists with an axe to grind. Health risk is hardly a good moral argument at all, but no longer can we oppose anything just because it is immoral at its foundation. Instead we have to justify why something is immoral based on its effects, and defend traditional morality despite its track record of historical success.
Obama just passed an executive order giving benefits to federal employees in same sex relationships. Why exactly, do two gay men with no dependents need to get spousal benefits from the federal government that were previously awarded only to married couples that either already have or could reasonably expect to have dependents? It treats two entirely different things as the same based on the lowest common denominator: a consenting adult relationship. It continually lowers the standard until hardly any standard exists at all. It's insidious to it's core and yet people seem to think it is an advancement for society. Treating categorically different things the same is ludicrous.
Unfortunately arguing on these grounds always leads back to a discussion of rights, and the definition of rights amongst today's youth (Smogon's fanbase) lacks entirely the fact they come with responsibilities and exist for the specific purpose of prohibiting encroachments on liberty, not establishing a reward structure for political interest groups.
The path of destruction caused by homonormative thought has great depth and great breadth, ranging from fractured families, a poorer understanding of the function and purpose of rights, perverts infiltrating schools and indoctrinating schoolchildren to believe life is a cornucopia of equally valid sexual choices, justification for impregnating any woman who wants a child or enabling any unspecified two people from adopting, and in general coarsening the public discourse with an entirely invented new "fear" and accusations of bigotry.
And to what end? So that people no longer view the nuclear family, the most successful model in history, as the most practical, viable choice for raising a family. The gold standard which should be aspired to. All of this stems back from the same ideological roots, and I'd much rather have that discussion that the myopic one of "yes Virginia, homosexuality has health risks."