But such risky behavior would be defined as "homosexual," correct? In other words, a heterosexual who is promiscuous, suffering from a mental illness, and using drugs is behaving like a homosexual.
That is ridiculous.
Nonsense. You'd never classify a battered woman who believes she deserves her abuse as "a problem with her beliefs." And it certainly doesn't require acceptance of opionions by the affected to be harmful.
Someone who "believes she deserves her abuse" does have a "problem with her beliefs" to an extent that counseling/therapy is warranted. Such beliefs very much do rely on acceptance of opinion, granted often enforced through violence/coercion.
Lack of Self-esteem: The woman may come to believe that she somehow deserves the abuse to which she has been subjected (she has been told this repeatedly by her partner). - http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org/InfoDomesticViolence.htm#why
Unless you have a compelling argument for black Americans believing they're less deserving of justice for why they are treated differently by the court system of course.
Non sequitur. Who said anything about an opinion causing others to act differently? You also seem to be making a red herring comparison of opinion and action.
No one, as you know, has disputed this. The dispute has been with your claims that the related traits are somehow caused by homosexuality, which seems to be what you're really getting at.
That doesn't follow, because not all groups are descriminated equally. African-American descrimination doesn't look like homosexual or Latino descrimination. It would be absurd to expext the results of descrimination to be the same for all groups.Balerion,
I have not made any claims about causation where things like rates of mental illness relate to homosexuality, but there is clearly a correlation. Discrimination alone does not readily explain the behavior (as all discriminated minorities do not demonstrate similar rates)
Meanwhile, the traits you're insinuating are caused by homosexuality certainly fit what one would expect from the type of descrimination they are subject to.
I just said that I am not claiming causation, only correlation. And I think African-Americans who were told where they could or could not sit, eat, piss, etc. would disagree about homosexual discrimination being worse.
It's an explanation for their actions.
So they have absolutely no choice or responsibility for their own actions?
How could you possibly mean "wrong" outside of the context of morality?
Wrong can be mistaken, whether by irrationality, ignorance, etc., while immoral usually denotes a measure of malicious or knowing intent. Remember, you said "If you judge a behavior as immoral, then you judge the practitioner of that behavior as immoral." See the difference yet? "Wrong" can occur without assuming any significant character defect in the individual, where "immoral" usually implies an intent which could.
It isn't an assumption. You have not made a case for why promiscuity, unsafe sex, or mental illness should be considered "homosexual."
(A claim you should be banned for, by the way)
There is very clear evidence that those behaviors are most strongly correlated with homosexuality. Are you disputing that?
The point, which flew right over your head, is that there are underlying causes for certain behaviors. To ignore them and focus merely on the behavior isn't just unhelpful, it's harmful because it blames the victim and provides no workable solution.
Nonsense. You can address the erroneous beliefs of people without any address directly to the catalyst itself. Otherwise all therapy/counseling would require including an ever-widening sphere of influences (possibly including the victim having to confront the abuser or rapist, adding to the trauma). Nothing about this practical consideration does anything to blame the victim.
Strawman. I never said you called for legal bans on homosexuality. I said that a moral opinion of homosexuality necessarily results in an "ought." Which it does. But again, you would know this if your understanding of ethics went beyond its wikipedia entry.
My utilitarian normative ethics only require that I hold myself to that standard, as it is exemplified by the Golden Rule (which only indicates what I "ought to" do unto others, not what I "ought to" make them do or not).
Again you align yourself with a fringe opinion championed by literally one or two people, and dismiss the mountains of research to support the prevailing opinion. Just like your dismissal of homosexuality as a naturao trait, your view on this seems to be more about supporting prejudices.
What "mountains of research"? I have given you both evidence supporting what I said AND evidence against what you assume. Until you can bother to attempt likewise, you have no substantial argument.
Well, MR proved that you're ignorant to the facts. Your opinions are ugly, and you do not deserve membership at this site.
Really? Inconclusive evidence and a lots of theories?