Hacker News Reader

Yes, you will possibly be downvoted, but not because your opinion dissents with the majority. There are plenty of dissenting opinions on HN who get upvoted to the top, as long as they're well argued and informed.

You will be downvoted because your comment has no substance to it. The only claim you make is "we know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society", and it isn't backed up by any meaningful conversation or argument. The rest of your writing is just fluff around this statement.

Sadly, you can't back up such a statement with any meaningful prose, just the same way you can't back up "we know that blue eyed people are a destructive force to society" or "we know that people over 6ft are a destructive force to society".

If you hold equality and respect for your fellow human being as first principles, which many people on HN do, you can't logically derive "homosexual people are a destructive force to society" in any meaningful way.

That is way your comment will probably be downvoted.

Precisely. And the inability to sustain this argument is why gay marriage bans are failing in court. The legal conclusion is that there isn't even a "rational basis" for the bans.

LOL you people really need to learn to read. or you are all a bunch of homophobes.

Where do i mention the destructive force or ANYTHING negative about gay people? Oh wait i didn't. .. fools

Male-male homosexual intercourse significantly increases your chances of contracting HIV/AIDS. Is that destructive?

Sure, but the degree to which homosexuals are persecuted (and the manner in which this happens) do not match the actual risks resulting from HIV/AIDS.

Male-female intercourse significantly increases your chance of dying in childbirth. Is that destructive?

To be fair, that is a false equivalency. 15,000+ Americans die a year from AIDS. 700 die from childbirth. AIDS is 20x the bigger killer than childbirth.

The attack on homosexuality was not based on the degree of harm.

Regardless, at one time, 4% of all women died in childbirth - a direct consequence of heterosexual sex. That is far more than people who die from homosexual sex, yet no one sought to prove that marital procreative sex was immoral because of this.

Quoting the comment guidelines:

The test for substance is a lot like it is for links. Does your comment teach us anything? There are two ways to do that: by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned, and by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience. Whereas comments like "LOL!" or worse still, "That's retarded!" teach us nothing.

I do believe simply offering a different perspective falls under the guidelines of a good comment, without the need for elaborating prematurely. That would be like pre-mature optimization; I might guess incorrectly what to elaborate on. Feedback gives me greater direction in what to answer.

1) "by pointing out some consideration that hadn't previously been mentioned"

The only thing we're led to consider is that you have a dissenting opinion. That doesn't contribute much to the discussion. If you talk a bit about your reasons for having your opinion, it might fit this guideline more clearly.

2) "by giving more information about the topic, perhaps from personal experience"

Again, you haven't given us any more information about the topic. The only new information we have is that you are part of a group that knows "that homosexuality is a destructive force in society." That assertion alone isn't going to convince anyone that you're onto something.

Something else to consider, which should be obvious, is that this issue is an extremely charged subject. Because of that, it's especially important to talk about your reasons for having your opinion. Otherwise, people are going to immediately dismiss it.

The self-evident fact that homosexuality is contrary to nature should be sufficient substance.

There's nothing self-evident about that at all. All species of animals have a homosexual population; this has been observed in the wild as well as with domestic species (dogs, etc.). To be sure, it is a minority behavior, but "contrary to nature" is stretching it.

Interesting. Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

Then I suppose you consider medical advancements to be unnatural and thus bad too as compared to the natural course of letting the diseases just kill you and similarly modern form of communications bad as well over the traditional flapping of mouth flesh.

A casual examination of nature would demonstrate your statement to be false. Your statements are both extreme and unfounded, which is a curious state to start from when you have very little objective information about a topic.

natural ˈnatʃ(ə)r(ə)l/Submit adjective 1. existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.

2. in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

---

The existence of millions of homosexual humans in nature invalidates your point.

Who's this "we" and what's this known destructive force you speak of, kemosabe? It is one thing to have a divergent opinion and to express it reasonably (and kudos for not being inflammatory), but it is another entirely to make assertions about what's "known", without conceding the possibility of doubt, when one is confronted with reasonable people having opposite opinions.

If you changed "know" above to "believe", then I think that would raise the level of discourse and be more respectful.

> We know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society.

> It's yet another small victory for the evil one

For your own good, please, please, please, please try to reconcile your religion with reality. There's a whole load of stuff in the Bible that isn't meant to be taken literally. The current Pope has been very forward-thinking (in Catholic church scales) in 'relaxing' views about contraception, homosexuality, etc.

But even if that weren't so, how can you call yourself an intelligent Human Being and believe that homosexuality is destructive and evil?

Do you believe it is a choice? Do you accept that it isn't a choice, but still think it is a sin? I'm genuinely curious.

> But it's my duty to speak the truth even when it's uncomfortable or inconvenient. At the end of my life, at least I'll be able to say that I acted with integrity.

If only Integrity were a Singleton. You may think you're acting nobly according to your instanceof Integrity, but you certainly aren't by mine.

> The current Pope has been very forward-thinking (in Catholic church scales) in 'relaxing' views about contraception, homosexuality, etc.

He's been very good at mood music. He's been completely useless at actual substantive change on those issues. He gets very good press for saying nice things, which is as good as the Catholic Church is going to get.

Meanwhile, he's meeting and blessing Museveni, the leader of Uganda. http://uganda.news24.com/National-News/President-Museveni-me...

And then there's the anti-gay Spanish cardinal he appointed. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-...

With change like this...

Who is "we"? How do you know? If you get downvoted, it won't be because of your opinion but rather your statement of something that is not backed up. Especially the part about "normal" sexuality -- how are you defining "normal", and why does it even matter? HN is all about "don't get a normal job, instead be a startup founder"... so why should everyone be "normal" (whatever that is) with their sexuality as well?

And about this "the evil one"... how do you know what his/her/its desires are?

I find it interesting that your HN Profile says this:

> Computer engineer and programming language pragmatist (as opposed to fanatic or over-principled).

...I wonder if you could apply those same principles to life in general?

Who is "we"?

Faithful members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

And about this "the evil one"... how do you know what his/her/its desires are?

Our Church teaches us so.

Ah, got it -- that clears everything up. Thanks!

Spoler alert : most people's downvotes will come from this single sentence :

> "We know that homosexuality is a destructive force in > society."

Followed by an appeal to proof, then, followed by a long and aimless debates ("define 'We'", "define 'destructive'", "define 'society'", show some proofs, "#define DEBUG", etc...)

Followed by people giving up, making a sandwich, and going on with their mortal lives.

Deleted comment

Who are you to say what a "wrong" idea of sexuality is?

The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church teaches so.

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” –- Pope Francis

Taking words out of context is not very new. See Matthew 4:1-11.

This is not informed dissent. It's delusion. "The evil one"? GTFO

"We know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society" - NOPE.

The other side can argue that Africa has been ravaged by HIV/AIDS caused in large part due to unsafe sexual intercourse (male-male sex is leading cause)

Male/male sexual intercourse is not the primary means by which HIV is spread in Africa, but rather unprotected heterosexual intercourse.

How exactly is someone being gay a "destructive force in society"?

We know that homosexuality is a destructive force in society.

Who is "we"?