It's Official - Stand and Shout the Gays are Out (link)

[_subgenius]

Why is a loving relationship suddenly invalid if it involves sexual activity?

Because it perverts that relationship.
An adult and a child can be in a loving relationship, add sexual activity and that loving relationship is perverted.
To propose that sexual activity has no influence on a relationship is either disingenuous on your part or a rather ill-informed proposition that i challenge you to support.

[_Buffalo]

Why is a loving relationship suddenly invalid if it involves sexual activity?

Because it perverts that relationship.
An adult and a child can be in a loving relationship, add sexual activity and that loving relationship is perverted.
To propose that sexual activity has no influence on a relationship is either disingenuous on your part or a rather ill-informed proposition that i challenge you to support.

God, you're damned stupid. I'll let someone else explain why. I don't have the patience.

[_subgenius]

I would like to hear Subgenius' answer to this as well.

answered

Subgenius, I think that you need to simply call a spade a spade. Your argument with any type of gay lifestyle, committed or otherwise, has to do with your religious belief. There is nothing wrong with stating this. I just think that it is disingenuous to try to mount other outside reasons. When examined, they really don't hold much water.

Actually, if you read my posts i have yet to make a religious argument for or against the LGBT. I also know my view on the LGBT to predate my conversion to the LDS church. It would be dishonest of me to state that my position on LGBT is based upon my religious beliefs, they have simply confirmed what the rational and reasonable mind has already shown me to be true.
However, if one wants to argue the moral and religious implications, i would consider that my religious position is a little more tenuous on some aspects of the LGBT. Morality is a little more ambiguous of an argument, because it will ultimately degrade into subjective and objective realities, and eventually leave the non-believer in a very precarious position for trying to support their side.
Nevertheless, i consider the facts, as supported by an unbiased and unsympathetic science and historical precedence, to be more supportive of my position on the LGBT issue(s).

[_subgenius]

God, you're f*****g stupid. I'll let someone else explain why. I don't have the patience.

and you don't have the ability, or the depth of intelligence, or the grit, or the conviction, or the benefit of having facts to support you, or the maturity...and i am guessing, you may just be plain out of sarcastic comments (see also Thomas Carlyle)

[_subgenius]

Think of it this way. Two men care deeply about each other and are sexually attracted to each other. They decide to commit to each other and live together all their lives. So, they move in together, they function like any other couple, sharing responsibilities and finances, and they grow old together. Suppose they don't ever have sex but limit their physicality to hugging, cuddling, and holding hands, and maybe the odd smooch. Is that relationship unhealthy or detrimental to society? In what way is it more or less so than the same relationship that involves sexuality?

1. they may not have had intercourse, but they had a sexual relationship. Your reasoning is like the girl who maintains her virginity but still gives blowjobs.

The sexual relationship exists in your scenario (which is an absurd proposition in this context) and is a perversion.
as in
per·vert   [v. per-vurt; n. pur-vert]
verb (used with object)
1.to affect with perversion.
2.to lead astray morally.
3.to turn away from the right course.
4.to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5.to turn to an improper use; misapply.

LGBT affects society and individuals with perversion (goes against the biological imperative)
LGBT leads away morally (corrupts the virtue of family that is known as best and supported by society at large)
LGBT turns away from the right course (the moral argument)
LGBT leads into mental error or false judgment (psychological retardation, as Freud proposed)
LGBT turns to an improper use; misapplies (obvious)

[_Buffalo]

God, you're f*****g stupid. I'll let someone else explain why. I don't have the patience.

and you don't have the ability, or the depth of intelligence, or the grit, or the conviction, or the benefit of having facts to support you, or the maturity...and i am guessing, you may just be plain out of sarcastic comments (see also Thomas Carlyle)

I don't have the patience. Every time your mouth opens it's like a cavalcade of incredible banality mixed with retarded sexuality and brain-damaged, half-formed notions of reactionary political chain mails.

[_subgenius]

In what way is a committed, loving relationship between two people of the same sex socially unhealthy? Or even not healthy? I'm not trying to debate you, but I'm trying to understand where you're coming from.

then we wont debate the point.
i was simply challenging your claim that it was healthy ,which seems to be assumptive on your part.

your following anecdote has little influence on this issue (revision by me in bold below)

A colleague of mine went to a very conservative Christian college (Abilene Christian University in Texas), where he was heavily involved in his Evangelical religion, right-wing politics, and anti-gay groups and message boards. He dated and had a girlfriend who was as rabidly right-wing and anti-gay as he was.

But he was miserable because, as he knew, he was a rapist. His attempt to suppress and deny that part of him turned him into a hateful person who spread contention and hate wherever he went.

Eventually, a near-fatal accident caused him to re-evaluate his life. He began to rape, and he has been happy for the last ten years.

The pursuit of happiness argument is not one that applies to all human action.

But for folks like you, his current situation has no redeeming social value and is, on some level, depraved.

because it is true and supported by facts. (as posted prior)

I'd say the gay-bashing he did (and that we see echoes of) is far less healthy and socially valuable than his relationship now.

I don't think bashing of any sort is "healthy", either for the individual or society - and i have not proposed such. However, "tolerate everything" is not a viable or reasonable option.

[_subgenius]

I don't have the patience. Every time your mouth opens it's like a cavalcade of incredible banality mixed with r******* sexuality and brain-damaged, half-formed notions of reactionary political chain mails.

hit dog hollers

[_Molok]

So being a homosexual is analogous to rape now. Keep going, Subgenius, I want to hear more. lol. I always love it when religious types compare homosexuality with beastiality, pedophilia, and rape. It makes it SO much easier to dismiss you out of hand.

[_Runtu]

Because it perverts that relationship.

That's a meaningless statement.

An adult and a child can be in a loving relationship, add sexual activity and that loving relationship is perverted.

And that's because kids can't properly consent to a sexual relationship. That's why such behavior is consider predatory and nonconsensual. Not an appropriate analogy at all.

To propose that sexual activity has no influence on a relationship is either disingenuous on your part or a rather ill-informed proposition that i challenge you to support.

Did I say it had no influence? CFR. What I asked is why sexuality invalidates a loving relationship. You responded by talking about nonconsensual relationships (i.e., child rape), which is changing the subject.

So, I'll ask more clearly this time: How does sexuality invalidate a loving relationship between consenting adults?