I said why it's not acceptable: because having sex with children harms them. Citation from scientific literature: Early sexual abuse and lifetime psychopathology: a co-twin–control study. I'm on a university campus, so I don't know if it is paywalled or not. From the abstract:

See? No equivalency with homosexuality, just like I said. Gay marriage isn't some first step down a slippery slope toward marrying dogs, sex with children, or whatever else some people imagine.

"Two sides, therefore equally valid" is so, so wrong. Will anyone here actually stand up and argue that homosexuality is wrong? Or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? Even against my points that the prevalence of those views is harmful? Or must I instead argue, over and over and over again, against arguments as nebulous as "people have different opinions which you must respect" (which, as I've said, I reject in this case due to the harm those opinions cause), and "censorship!" (which my opinions just aren't)?

Science organizations and science literature aren't going to use a word like "choice," since it doesn't correspond to anything measurable. Let me ask, though: did you choose your sexual orientation? I didn't, and I can't think of anyone I know who did. I know some bisexuals who have gender preferences in their dating, but that's not the same thing and doesn't discount the very large group of people of don't choose to be either straight or gay. This is consistent with what scientific literature there is.

Also, note that "not a choice" doesn't necessarily mean "genetic," or even "predetermined." I acknowledge that there isn't much consensus at the moment, scientific or otherwise, on mechanism.

In a debate, you're not trying to convince the other guy, you're trying to convince the audience. Most people don't derive their opinion on homosexuality from heartfelt, unshakeable faith; they assemble it over the course of their lives from what they hear from those around them, some of whom sound reasonable, and some of whom they trust. A reasonable opinion spoken with an audience is never wasted.

About that SBC source; I agree that it's just awful. However, many people, including the comment I originally replied to, talk about "disliking homosexuals" as people, without realizing that Christian faith, even in typical evangelical forms, simply doesn't support that. I also disagree that "God loves everyone" is throwaway. It is a central principle in Christianity guiding how to treat others in all situations. Just ask any pastor. (Disclaimer: I'm not Christian.)

I am aware of that, and didn't use that word. I'm not accusing people of wrongheadedness, I'm accusing them of harm.

Agreed. I'm aff at a Catholic university, and I know many gay students who have deep conservative convictions.

If you're going to make me split hairs, having an opinion that you choose to keep to yourself is only wrong in that the opinion may be misguided or factually wrong. It is only making certain decisions based on such opinions, or expressing them in a way that could cause harm, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, I don't mean to imply that I support firing people, or writing censorship legislation. Not every debate needs to transform into some meta-debate about free speech. I'm saying that I'm not okay leaving these opinions as "to each his own", that prevalence of these opinions does harm.

Yes, I will tell them that. Dear gay people who don't like straight people: that's not okay. I never said I agreed with anything any gay person ever said, that would be ridiculous.

That's the quote that happened to be in the source I found; I worked with what I had. Read the full source yourself; it's quite short. Notice that they deride "homosexuality," the adjective, not "homosexual" the noun. The only uses of the noun form are to discuss portrayal in media and, separately, that homosexuals have God's love and can earn redemption. The distinction between "acts" and "people" is common in Christian discussions of homosexuality, and I stand by my source as an example of this.

You're absolutely right here. I misspoke; freedom to marry is an example of what activists want, rather than the goal in and of itself.

It's not the same. I didn't read all about sex, think about it for a while, and then decide "I'm attracted to women, but that could change if new evidence came to light or someone made a convincing argument." (I'm a man, if that colors your reading of the previous sentence.) It's not something I discovered about the world, it's something I know about myself and is not subject to debate. Same with, for example, (many; I can't speak for all or most) men who are attracted to men.

Also, if anyone holds a political opinion that isn't subject to change when faced with new evidence or arguments, while I admit that happens a lot, that's a problem.

What draconian attempt? I just don't think people should hide behind the false defense of "It's a political opinion, respect it!" as cover for broad dislike of a group that isn't defined by a political stance. Any imperative to accept all political opinions as valid doesn't apply. These opinions are harmful to express in their current prevalence due to the harmful social effects on many gays (with consequences including poverty and suicide), and in that sense they are unacceptable.

No one here (certainly not me, anyway) is censoring debate; I had mod points but chose to post in this thread rather than downmod, for example.

From the very page you link to:

First, let me state in no uncertain terms that, in very important ways, homosexuality and pedophilia are not equivalent and cannot serve as functional substitutes for one another in a debate in general. This is because "homosexuality" describes desires upon which to act is normal, healthy, and acceptable, while "pedophilia," in the sense you mean, describes desires upon which to act is harmful and unacceptable.

That said, in the broad sense you mean, I am supportive of pedophiles who refrain from acting on their desires. I don't know all that much about pedophilia, but I am under the impression that, as with attraction to a specific gender, attraction to children is innate and cannot be altered through willpower or other known means. Those who are afflicted with attraction to children yet do not harm them (either themselves or through child pornographers) deserve our acceptance and understanding. Anyone who spurns them causes suffering and misery, without justice. (In fact, I suspect this widespread hatred likely causes many such people to look more favorably on those who would encourage them to harm children.)

Also, by the way, I do not think that people who express (in words, without threat or intimidation) dislike for homosexuals or disapproval of homosexual acts or marriage are "morally wrong." Some are expressing political opinions which are misguided. This is not morally or ethically wrong; I just disagree with them. Others describe broader positions, the collective prevalence of which does real harm to homosexuals beyond the political realm by creating the unjust social burden of being treated as an outcast or deviant in many contexts and communities, with consequences ranging from loneliness and shame to poverty and suicide. Nevertheless, those espousing these positions are not committing a moral act; they are simply wrong, and the harm they cause is in the domain of ethics, rather than morality. (Those who shout slurs or otherwise intentionally intimidate people are morally wrong, but we weren't discussing them I don't think.)

Finally, stop trying to create some sort of equivalence over, for example, being fired for a political opinion and being fired for being gay. Both are generally wrong, but they are not the same.

Being gay isn't an ideology. Disliking homosexuals is completely different from not liking capitalists, conservatives, liberals, etc. Disliking homosexuals is disliking people for something that they didn't choose and cannot change. It is not a political opinion, and it is not acceptable.

Furthermore, note that "disliking homosexuals" is marginal, even among evangelical Christian organizations. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention is the largest protestant body in the US, and are evangelical Baptists. Their Resolution on Homosexuality, while harmful and deeply misguided, doesn't go nearly that far. In fact, it contains the language "God loves the homosexual."

Finally, I feel obligated to point out that you seem to be implicitly lumping LGBT rights activists with those seeking "equality of outcome," as though that program is seeking some sort of government handout. The key issue for LGBT rights activists is freedom to marry, which is "equal treatment under the law," not "equality of outcome."

While it seems likely that perfect play by both sides in chess will result in a stalemate, a quick search didn't turn up any actual research that proves it. Interestingly, for Go, there is a simple argument to see that perfect play will result in a draw, provided that the komi (handicap points awarded to white as compensation for moving second) are chosen optimally.

Let's say we have two theoretically perfect players playing a game of go. In normal go games, it doesn't matter what the difference in points is at the end of the game, you win so long as your point total exceeds that of the opponent. That fact affects real world strategies: if you're winning, you should play conservatively, solidifying the territory you already have a claim on, rather than trying riskier moves for even more points (similarly, if you're behind, you need to try to shoot the moon, so to speak, rather than try to minimize your losses). However, for perfect players, there is no such thing as risk; playing to maximize your score relative to your opponent's score is consistent with playing to win. When our hypothetical players play a game this way to optimize the score, what the actual point difference will be in the end is completely determined. If that point difference is taken to be the handicap, then perfect play results in a draw.

While this is an important part of making competitive bridge fair, I'd argue that there is still an element of chance, since players lack perfect information. As with chess, the notion of strategically perfect play makes sense. However, in contrast to chess, a bridge player could make the "wrong" decision based on a poor assessment of probability, yet still be rewarded when their bad guess happens to be correct. In any given game, this could lead to a bad move having a better outcome, even when the other team plays perfectly.

Replying to AC is pointless, but I can't resist just this once. Some day you'll grow up and realize that not everyone in the world shares your exact ideas for how everything should work. Sometimes those people have power, and yes, sometimes you have to fill out their forms. That's just the way it is, so lighten up; this isn't exactly the holocaust.