It's always good to have open discussion, as long as we are able to contain our emotions and refrain from personal attacks and use of emotive words, it will be meaningful.
1. This point is still surrounding the reproduction issue. Heterosexual couples are generally able to reproduce by themselves without any technology tools. Whereas for homosexual couples, the reproduction would be impossible without technology aided tools. So without the wider adoption of technology tools, the human population will face greater decline if the percentage of homosexual couples is relatively high. Currently, such adoption of technology tools are still quite limited to much less than 1% of world's population. But if the effects for concerns for human population and increasing number of homosexual couples (whether it is more countries legalising gay marriage or more children being influenced by nurture environment to become gay) are added together, such adoption may increase to 5%-10% or even higher. Then it will gradually accepted that IVF and other technology aided tools should be allowed for all. Then it will only take another step for cloning, stem cell research, mass production of human-like robots to be socially acceptable. Some people may think that decline of human population may be good but in order to ensure continual economic growth, human population should be maintained at certain level. With baby boomer generation going soon in the next few decades, we are already going to face steep population decline. In order to make up for the population decline in the fastest possible method, substituting human manpower with robots may become more acceptable if other artificial method of reproduction becomes more acceptable. By the way, legalising gay marriage is not just allowing two men/women getting married, the percentage of people being affected is quite high. Controversial scientific methods in the past have been accepted when their influence on human population is becoming significant. Genetic engineering is another controversial topic but through the justification you made for it to cure cancer, it is likely that this move will sychronise with the wider adoption of artificial reproduction technology to push for greater technology freedom.
2-3. If the wording is just rephrased, then it is circular argument. But when the scope has been changed, it is a different debate altogether. From protecting the rights of minority, it has now turned into acceptable alternative way of living for everyone. It is just like arguing about war in war times and peace times. The topic of war is the same but in war times, war crimes are mainly debated instead of justification of war in peace times. If widespread homosexual acts is justified just because homosexual acts is not a bad thing, then it will likely strengthen the first point of reproduction issues. It is good that you have brought up the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. The key argument here is about gay marriage so it is primarily surrounding homosexual acts. The natural tendency of being attracted to same sex does not necessarily mean that it will develop into homosexual acts, much less than the need for gay marriage.
4. The two reasons for higher STD in gay population than heterosexual population is higher number of sex partners and the method of sexual intercourse. The higher number of sex partners is primarily the result of less responsibility associated with engaging in homosexual acts. There is no pregnancy or its related effects to talk about. Marriage may not be able to solve the issue, just like how heterosexual couples still faced this problem even with marriage in place. In fact, with the legalisation of gay marriage, the issue would intensify. Previously, instead of trying to find the appropriate homosexual partner, some homosexuals may still be torn between engaging in homosexual acts, abstaining from homosexual acts or turning to straight. So in the pursuit of finding more appropriate homosexual partner to be married, they may be likely to engage in more homosexual acts before the marriage. The method of sexual intercourse is also one that is prone to infection and higher risk of STD for gays. STD is not merely just transmitting from one person to another, the source of most STD is bacteria infection. Between gays, the insertion of penis to anus can cause infection unlike less likelihood of infection happening when penis is inserted to vaginal. Between lesbians, there is also usually use of insertives into vaginal so these external objects are also source of cause for infection.
Actually, animals showing homosexual behaviour is one that confused many. But by putting the flowchart right below the homosexual behaviour in animal, the argument is self-defeated. Precisely because we want a civilized society, we should not be adopting uncivilised animal behaviours. In the animal world, cannibalism, predator-prey relationship, unrestricted breeding and mating are common. But if we were to adopt these behaviours as well, we would be legalising murdering, abuse of power to achieve anything you want, polygamy should be favoured over monogamy.
As for the flowchart contents, I will explain together with the quote below.
This is a prime example of how Bible can be manipulated to suit a personal agenda by taking verses out of its context.
Firstly, the Bible is a compilations of literature with different genres, be it poems, narratives, prophecy, letters, etc. Each genre should be intepreted in different ways. Some genres can be taken literally and are more descriptive than presciptive, like narratives. But others like prophecy or poems uses a lot of metaphors so if you take it literally, the meaning is distorted.
Secondly, the Bible verses should not be taken out of its background and time and space it is associated with. This is especially the case for the use of Old Testament which has a lot of historical narratives. In all the arguments brought forth in the article, they just take out 1 verse from Old Testament and start interpret them without cross-referencing with other parts of the Bible, much less even looking at the entire passage that the verse is taken from.
For instance, in the first other example in the article about Eating A Ham Sandwich. The entire Leviticus 11 is talking about clean and unclean animals, which forms the tradition for Jews and subsequently may have also influenced Halal food. But is this something to be applied across to everyone and is timeless? The New Testament gives some explanation: Peter was told to eat unclean food in a vision (Acts 10: 9-15). The conclusion was "What God has made clean, do not call unclean". Although this was initially just a vision to ask Peter to spread the gospel to non-Jewish people, there is also more New Testaments reference: Romans 14:1-23, Mark 7:14-23. It ultimately suggested that choice of food is not that important but it is more important that you give thanks to God and ensure that the choice of food you had do not stumble another person. So in this scenario, the topic of food is actually closely related to traditions of Jews, just like the Jews festivals, tabernacles and holy temple. All these are not strictly observed by Christians but the essence of tabernacles and holy temple and synagogue is still extended to churches until today because there is a continuity in the emphasis of congregation of believers throughout Old and New Testament.
Therefore, the key to interpretation of bible is that you need to understand the background and why it was written that way, sometimes it also requires you to understand the greek or hebrew lanaguage that the Bible was originally written in as some meanings are not captured as accurately as the original language in the translation. With that, then you can derive universal principles that are consistent across the Old and New Testament. For instance, Sabbath was a concept that is applicable to all. But the way it has been displayed has changed over time but its essence remains. For Jews, Sabbath is usually Sat but for Christians Sabbath is Sun. Then for what can be done and what cannot be done during Sabbath, Jews observes strictly that nothing related to work should be done. But in many instances, Jesus healed or helped people during Sabbath which is considered unacceptable to Jews so for Jesus, honouring God is the an important aspect of Sabbath, in addition to resting after 6 days of work.
Back to the topic of homosexual acts and gay marriage, the only old testament verse brought up by article is insufficient to support the opposition. But when we look through the entire bible, homosexual acts are continually being condemned by God. Other than the Leviticitus verses, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a significant event recorded in the Bible. In this event, the only cause of this heavenly punishment that was recorded is the same-sex union. The men living in the city came to Lot’s house and wanted to take away the two men that just arrived in the city to have sex with them. In a bid to prevent the two men from being taken away, Lot even offered his two virgin daughters to satisfy their sexual desires. Yet those people rejected that offer and wanted to break into his house to take away the two men. This suggests that the destruction was mainly targeted at the sexual immorality in terms of homosexuality, not other forms of heterosexual immoralities. Therefore, this incident serves as valuable precedent to conclude that same-sex union is such a heinous sin that calls for God to initiate complete obliteration of the people in the two cities. In the New Testament, Romans 1:26-27, it is stated that homosexual acts are considered shameless and the people who engage in such acts will be punished. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 further states that those who practise homosexuality will not inherit God’s kingdom.
No, you silly doodlehead! 
The animal kingdom example was to show you homosexual behaviours are very common through out all types of species. In fact, dolphins are considered intellectually superior to us, and could easily overtake us if they had better cognitive skills I do believe. It's not the robots you should be worried about, it's dolphins. Furthermore, while the rest of us have provided examples and data to support our claims, you just provided the same wikipedia page over and over again. In addition, the current pope believes that if a practicing catholic happens to be part of the LGBT community, then why should we discriminate? http://www.huffingto...ref=mostpopular
Your move now
Oh! I feel as if we should have some LGBT terms and defintions, so we don't use the wrong terms on accident.
(Taken from http://international...fe/definitions)
LGBT, LGBTQ, LGBTQA, TBLG: These acronyms refer to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Ally. Although all of the different identities within “LGBT” are often lumped together (and share sexism as a common root of oppression), there are specific needs and concerns related to each individual identity
Ally: An ally is a person who is a member of the dominant group who works to end oppression in his or her own personal and professional life by supporting and advocating with the oppressed population.
Bisexual: A person who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted to more than one gender. Also called “bi”.
Cisgender: A person whose gender identity and expression matches the gender typically associated with their biological sex. For example: a female who identifies as a woman.
Coming Out: To declare and affirm both to oneself and to others one’s identity as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, etc. It is not a single event but instead a life-long process.
Gay: A homosexual person, usually used to describe men but may be used to describe women as well.
Gender expression: Refers to the ways in which people externally communicate their gender identity to others through behavior, clothing, hairstyle, voice and emphasizing, de-emphasizing or changing their body’s characteristics. Gender expression is not necessarily an indication of sexual orientation.
Gender identity: The sense of “being” male or “being” female. For some people, gender identity is in accord with physical anatomy. For transgender people, gender identity may differ from physical anatomy or expected social roles. It is important to note that gender identity, biological sex, and sexual orientation are not necessarily linked.
Genderqueer: A term which refers to individuals or groups who “queer” or problematize the hegemonic notions of sex, gender and desire in a given society. Genderqueer people possess identities which fall outside of the widely accepted sexual binary. Genderqueer may also refer to people who identify as both transgendered AND queer, i.e. individuals who challenge both gender and sexuality regimes and see gender identity and sexual orientation as overlapping and interconnected.
Heterosexual: A person who is emotionally, physically, and/or sexually attracted and committed to the members or a gender or sex that is seen to be the “opposite” or other than the one with which they identify or are identified. Also called “straight”.
Homophobia: Thoughts, feelings, or actions based on far, dislike, judgment, or hatred of lesbians, gays and bisexuals. Homophobia has roots in sexism and can include prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence.
Homosexual: A person who is primarily and/or exclusively attracted to members of what they identify as their own sex or gender. A clinical term that originated in the late 1800s. Some avoid the word because it contains the base word “sex.” The terms “lesbian, bi and gay” are preferred by many in the LGBT community.
In the closet: To be in the closet means to hide one’s LGBT identity in order to avoid negative social repercussions, such as losing a job, housing, friends or family. Many LGBT individuals are “out” in some situations and “closeted” in others, based on their perceived level of safety.
Lesbian: A homosexual woman.
Queer: Used as an umbrella identity term encompassing lesbian, questioning people, gay men, bisexuals, non-labeling people, transgender folks, and anyone else who does not strictly identify as heterosexual. “Queer” originated as a derogatory word. Currently, it is being reclaimed by some people and used as a statement of empowerment. Some people identify as “queer” to distance themselves from the rigid categorization of “straight” and “gay”. Some transgender, lesbian, gay, questioning, non-labeling, and bisexual people, however, reject the use of this term due to its connotations of deviance and its tendency to gloss over and sometimes deny the differences between these groups.
Sexual orientation: A person’s emotional, physical and sexual attraction and the expression of that attraction with other individuals. Some of the better-known labels or categories include “bisexual” (or “multisexual”, “pansexual”, “omnisexual”), “lesbian”, “gay” (“homosexual” is more clinical), or “heterosexual”.
Transgender: This term has many definitions. It is frequently used as an umbrella term to refer to all people who deviate from their assigned gender at birth or the binary gender system. This includes transsexuals, cross-dressers, genderqueers, drag kings, drag queens, two-spirit people, and others. Some transgender people feel they exist not within one of the two standard gender categories, but rather somewhere between, beyond or outside of those two genders.
Transphobia: The fear or hatred of transgender people or gender non-conforming behavior. Like biphobia, transphobia can also exist among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as well as among heterosexual people.
Transsexual: A person who, through experiencing an intense, long-term discomfort resulting from feeling the inappropriateness of their assigned gender at birth and discomfort of their body, adapts their gender role and body to reflect and be congruent with their gender identity.
This should help us a bit more.
Edited by MishaZheleza, 30 July 2013 - 11:09 AM.
