[Emu]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

It is true that because they are sexual deviants, no one wants to associate with them; they have an inclination towards gross sexual acts and a general sense of sexual deviance.

Do you mean gross in terms of "icky" or gross in terms of a large number of sexual acts? Because neither of those are true. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is no more true of homosexuals than heterosexuals. Homosexual men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual (but no less, mind you).

What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

You could argue and be 100% right that men are more inclined to alcoholism. I'll gladly support that argument.

Why?

Because it is factual.

and instead of facts, you stick your head into the sand as an ostrich and pretend that correlations do not exist.

And then you call objective sources as bias because they are on activist websites.

That's foolish.

That argument is not factual. It is not that men are "more inclined" to alcoholism. It's not some kind of flaw on the Y chromosome that makes men drink, which you seem to think it is. Because men have a higher occurrance of alcoholism does not mean that they are more inclined to it.

Let's summarize my point with a thought experiment. It is a fact that the number of suicides per year varies positively with the amount of precipitation in British Columbia. Why is that?

When is the precipitation in B.C. highest? During the winter months. It is also a fact that suicides are higher during the winter months due to a number of factors: Holiday depression, Seasonal Affect Disorder, and depression due to said disorder. Does that mean the precipitation caused the suicides? Of course not. CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

I don't pretend that correlations don't exist. I haven't said that once. I've said it at least 10 times in this thread:

CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.