Me too!
Me too.
Same here.

ummmm, i can't work this one out.

Since most rational people already consider it no worry at all, that will be a great day indeed.

Here's hoping that day comes sooner rather than later. A lot of us are waiting for you all to catch up, and our patience is not infinite.

I think it's irrational to consider humans born with homosexual tendencies "not abnormal". And while even I'm not "worried" about it, I'd rather it not be paraded out like it's something to be proud of. And just in case you didn't know, "most rational people" think like me. Even in countries where it is "accepted".
This language use is no less striking for that, however: although a large majority of the Dutch population say that they have nothing against homosexuality, very many of them evidently see it as a negative characteristic.

And I agree with them on this.

Me: You: Thank you for admitting you agree with me.
It doesn't happen often, so I thought it worth pointing out.

Now, rather than come back and try to explain how you actually DON'T agree with me, just to continue a pointless argument about nothing, how about we just move on?

No, we agree that it is irrational to "worry" about homosexuality.

But we disagree if you think it isn't a negative characteristic. One which results in a union which should never should be included under the name "marriage".
That argument will never be "pointless".

Exactly. This was the topic of this thread, and we agree on it.
No need to continue arguing.

Separate topic, FX.
Separate argument, separate thread.

I didn't know the topic of this thread was whether it was rational to "worry" about homosexuality. Since I created it.

Okay.

Homosexuality truly is abnormal, simply by virtue of the definition of the word "abnormal." Normal simply mean "common to most." Abnormal simply means "not common to most."

Abnormal does not equal maladaptive. Maladaptive characteristics can be seen as negative characteristics. But homosexuality is not maladaptive. If it was, it is likely that it would still be included as a mental disorder but it's not. We can't make arguments based on whether or not something "should" be thought of as maladaptive. Homosexuality is not maladaptive. If you are a mental health professional with a good amount of experience working face to face with homosexuals, then you can state the opposite and it will be a valid opinion. If not, then you cannot.

Now consider this: Promiscuous sex (gay or straight) is more dangerous and can be more harmful than monogamous sex. Therefore, promiscuity can be thought of as a negative characteristic. If straight married couples have some of the lowest rates of abortions and STDs, and we attribute this to their legal status as married, then if we are using logic, we would want to encourage gay couples to marry as well. That way, their rate of STDs will go down as well and society will be healthier. (Incidentally, I do believe your data is flawed: Gay couples--both male and female-- have the lowest rate of abortions.)

Another question comes when we try to decide which negative characteristics we want to outlaw and which are okay. Should we say that anyone who lives a lifestyle that is more dangerous than others should not receive the resources that would make their lifestyle less dangerous?

Some arguments can be made based on this information:

(1) Legal restrictions to rights in the USA are based almost exclusively on maladaptive behavior.

(2) Homosexuality is abnormal, but in the USA it is not maladaptive.

Therefore, there appears to be no legal base for restricting homosexuals from the right to marry.

AND

Risky sexual behavior has been linked to

(1) Studies have linked marriage status to rate of STDs: Married persons have lower rates than unmarried persons.

(2) Homosexuals in the USA are currently not allowed to marry (mostly).

(3) Homosexuals have higher rates of STDs than heterosexuals.

Therefore, there is a health-related argument that homosexuals be allowed to marry in the USA.

HENCE,

(1) There appears to be no legal base for restricting homosexuals from the right to marry.

(2) There is a health-related argument that homosexuals be allowed to marry in the USA.

Therefore, I believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized in the USA.

Of course, there are several other arguments people use against same-sex marriage, just as there are many other arguments in support of it. So if you respond to this post, please only discuss the rightness or wrongness of the points made herein. The topic I have addressed is "The abnormality of homosexuality as a basis for arguments against same-sex marriage."

And I hate to rub it in, but yes, fxashun, that argument is pointless.

Nice post...Obviously you missed the part where Forester said we should argue "marriage" in a different thread though. And you told ME to read. LOL.

I support "civil unions" but not marriage by the way. But Forest is right, we'll have plenty of occasion to debate actual "marriage" in forums set up for that debate. Save that post, you'll be able to c@p it.