Snippet of email exchange between me an a conservative aquaintance

[TXlib]

Note: Italics are his comments, non-talics are mine.

---

> You've go so much written here that it would literally take me days
>to respond properly. I have researched this issue, both the pros & cons, and
>from legal and medical perspectives. The homosexual lifestyle is a deviant
>lifestyle (i.e. it isn't natural, nor healthy), and the issue isn't whether
>someone would "choose" to be gay; it truly is that people who live by this
>lifestyle are harming themselves and the community around them. I can
>guarantee that any study you do of serial rapists, serial killers,
>pathological liars, schizophrenics, etc. would never choose to be the way
>that they are. However, it does not detract from the fact (again, it's a
>proven FACT) that all of these actions are wrong.

What you've written right here is the fundamental chasm that you and I will likely never bridge.

I will grant you that homosexuality is deviant only in the sense that left-handedness is deviant; it is something that differs from the majority. The AMA de-listed homosexuality as a disorder in (I think) 1973. You mention homosexuality in the same paragraph as you mention serial rapists, serial killers, pathological liars, and schizophrenics; the latter are unarguably harmful both to society (based on obvious quantifiable standards) and to themselves, whereas homosexuals' harmfulness to themselves and society is highly contentious, and often based on unquantifiable standards.

The only argument that homosexuality is harmful that has ever had any weight whatsoever with me is the promiscuity and transmission of disease. This is a issue primarily among gay men, rather than lesbians, and I think it is reasonable to assert that this is a characteristic of men in general, not just gay men. Heterosexual men's promiscuity is limited by the promiscuity of their female partners; when two men are involved, there is much less of a limiting factor!

Since the AIDS epidemic became known in the mid 80s, gay men's sexual habits have changed quite a bit; most gay men I know will not engage in the more risky sexual practices, except with partners of long-stanging in whom they have a great deal of trust; in this respect, they are just as (if not more) abstinate than their heterosexual counterparts.

Most, if not all, other claims of harmfulness in homosexual behaviour are grounded in intangible arguments about morality, which are either unmeasurable, or extremely difficult to measure, and prone to wild manipulation to serve somebody's bias.

I stand firm by my assertion that in deciding whether to criminalise a behaviour, or restrict rights, the burden of proof is on those charging that the behaviour is harmful, and that the standard of proof should be based on something that is quantifiable, and repeatably measurable, using standards upon which both sides agree.

But this is the very crux of politics: political issues are often based on things which are not quantifiable or easily measurable; if they were, they would be settled questions.

> As far as civil rights is concerned, that is pretty offensive to
>many that actually fought for the rights of minorities in this country! Both
>conservative and liberal activists that were involved in the desegregation
>have openly denied this comparison to the rights of homosexuals. Being a
>certain skin color does not come with the benefits of a mental disorder;

Questions about civil rights and minorities don't have to be based only on skin colour or ethnicity; religion is a factor, as well. You might as well claim a life-long Catholic could choose to be a Hindu or Buddhist instead, as you would that a homosexual deny his/her identity and live as a heterosexual. To make that the only avenue for acceptance is to guantantee misery.

> You wrote me awhile ago, stating that it wasn't like the gay
>community was pushing their agenda on society. When I asked a friend in
><deleted city name> (that's where most of my family is from) about this, he said that I
>should invite you out there to the public schools on Gay Day, and see if you
>could still defend this belief.

Allow me to modify what I said earlier: Yes, the gay community is very actively pushing their agenda on society, if that agenda is to educate people to treat them with tolerance and respect.

>Again, the facts (which you don't provide much of) are that you
>are far more willing to depend on what you "feel" and
>based on what your gay friends have told you, than what the evidence shows.

That's because there's a dearth of evidence here that is based on an honest standard, and I'm making the claim that such behaviour is not harmful, and I am making the claim that civil rights should not be denied. I am not required to back this up with proof.

You, as the 'prosecutor' making the claim of harmfulness, are required to show proof of harm, and that proof should be based on quantifiable, reliably measurable indicators of harm. In the absense of such proof, anything else you offer is conjecture and anecdotal evidence. It wouldn't be enough to get a jury to convict, and it's not enough to sway my opinion, either.

[reprehensor]

1. Why cna't they spelll?

Is that deviunt? Consrvtve grammer is prettyy bad to.

[TXlib]

4. He is actually well-educated.

I rarely find fault with his spelling or grammar.

[Love Bug]

2. Well said!

At the end, you and your friend my just have to "agree to disagree" but you're doing a great job of answering his assertions with logic and respect.

[TXlib]

5. Yes, I often tell him that.

[denverbill]

3. Sorry, but this is just wrong.

"conservative and liberal activists that were involved in the desegregation"

There were no conservatives fighting for civil rights and desegregation. If any conservative did, it's only because they were taking the liberal position on civil rights. The conservative position in the 50's and 60's was clearly that blacks and whites should be kept separate.

[TXlib]

6. I have to pick my battles with him

if i don't want a sprawling, rambling argument on so many fronts it goes nowhere on any.