[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

I don't even know where to begin. Let's start from an economic perspective.

Economics? Didn't see that coming. Now I'm curious where you're going with this.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

I often hear the argument that homosex is good for the economy bc fags don't have children, so they have larger disposable income. I agree with this argument in the short run. In the long run, the effects are immeasurable. With economic growth tied so closely to human capital, the very same trait of homos that promotes short run economic health most likely impacts our stock of human capital, which in turn hurts economic growth and technological advancement. Of course, you can't measure this impact.

So are barren women and impotent men immoral? If they, along with homosexuals, didn't decide to have what they have, how is there a difference? Also, since homosexuals can't have children naturally they often adopt children out of state run institutions, which in theory would lower taxes and turn otherwise drains on society into productive members. Just something to think about. And integrating them into society rather than ostracizing them would lead to broader participation in civics and economics. Either way, things can get a little dicey when you start talking morality and economics. You run into questions like, is economic growth a means to an end, or the end itself? Is economic liberty and incentive more important than welfare and equality? I'm not looking for an answer. I think the fact that we have checks and balances in this country, with the pendulum constantly swinging back and forth, shows that we continue to struggle with this question. There are no easy answers.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

Now let's move on to a public health perspective. Homosexuals are disease vectors. They are hotbeds for sexually transmitted diseases. This is why aids is so rampant in the gay "community". Many homos are bisexual, so they spread disease to straight populations.

I think the higher percentage of HIV tends to be from the inherent risks of anal sex (which is just as present for straight couples) and the fact that it is easier for a man to give it to a woman. So of course two men are more likely to contract the disease than one man and one woman. Lastly, why did you put community in quotation marks? That is a genuine question.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

This leads purrfectly into the next reason: homosexuals are sexual perverts. Most homos are extremely promiscuous and have many sexual partners. Why should this bother me? Well it doesn't by itself. But again, homos are disease vectors. Furthermore sodomy is disgusting.

Why are they perverts? You keep saying that but other than you thinking sodomy is disgusting (which again, can be practice with straight couples) I don't see a lot of reasoning. Whose standard of morality are they going against that has the moral authority to condemn them? In terms of promiscuity, I think we need to ask ourselves why homosexuals are more promiscuous to begin with (which I think is an unfairly broad statement). I would argue that it is partly to do with the repression they experienced for so long. Imagine if society was constantly cock-blocking you. It would influence your behavior. Deprive people of something and they usually push back even harder. This also feels like a really unfair double-standard. Isn't the entire male existence in high school and college to sleep with as many women as they can? Don't guys brag about scoring and make a game out of it? How is this different? They spread sexually transmitted diseases too.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

If you don't think a bunch of dudes shitting, pissing, and cuming on each other is disgusting and perverted, then you are totally fucked. But again, why should I care? Well I don't, if they are kept in the closet like they should. But when the media is shoving homosexuality down our throats, not only does it feel like an agenda, but it also affects me bc I don't want my children exposed to the disgusting perversion that is faggotry.

Do you think it's more disgusting than men and women doing it to each other? If so, why? Do you have similarly strong opinions on other forms of sexuality that people practice? In short, should any kind of sex/lifestyle choice you find unacceptable be removed from public? If so, that sounds fascist.

As for the media shoving it down our throats...I think this is partly a reflection of changing public opinion and demographics in this country. The media is like a mirror. FOX is a mirror for conservatives and MSNBC is a mirror for liberals. Both feel besieged by the other. Both consider the other "mainstream", like that somehow discredits their competitor. The fact is both mirror the legitimate feelings of their constituents. By refusing to acknowledge this they empower the other side and give each other persecution complexes.

Take yourself. You are a straight white male. You belong to a group that dominates this country. Yet there is a small group (homosexuals) whose agenda you feel threatened by. Simply by existing you feel like they are attacking your views and beliefs. And every bit of acceptance they get you feel chips away at your power. At least, that's what it seems like. But we live in a pluralistic country that is rapidly becoming more diverse. That isn't going to change any time soon.

You say you don't want your hypothetical children to be exposed to homosexuals. Okay. But why aren't you as vocal about poverty? Or alcoholism? Of domestic violence or racism? Aren't these just as bad, if not worse? Why are you so laser-focused on this one issue, when child labor and the sex trade is thriving? What about murder? Can you understand how choosing to focus solely on this single issue, that I think I can argue objectively is less harmful to society than the above examples, makes you come off as strangely obsessed?

I'm trying to take your view seriously, because I think being dismissive of people's genuine beliefs only make those beliefs more entrenched.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

As I also said, deviancy leads to more deviancy. I'd wager 90% of pedos are also homos. And I'm not even touching on the mentally ill fags who are trying to get/give aids.

90% of pedophiles are also homosexuals? What is that based on? You "wagering" doesn't sound very scientific. This is a correlation straight out of the 1950s. Do all homosexuals practice necrophilia and bestiality too? If a straight man deviates from traditional sex with his wife into kinky sub-cultures, like BDSM, is he too a pervert? Also, what gay people are trying to get aids? In my opinion this statement crosses over into fanaticism.

Originally Posted by Johnny Richter

Finally, homosexuality represents the degradation of the nuclear family, which, in my opinion, is the ultimate goal of the media.

A strong nuclear family is the backbone of society, of the economy, and of the morality of our culture. It's certainly no wonder that divorce rates are at all time highs and single parents are extremely common. Make no mistake, there is a war against American families today.

I often hear this from right-wing people. Why do you think the media is trying to undermine the family, especially if it is the backbone of the economy? Once the family breaks down what will the media do then? What is their agenda? This seems to imply the media is working together. Do you think there is a larger conspiracy at work?