>>3682416that post kind demonstrates the issue i have with this dialogue
see, cathy newman, your willingness to explore new concepts is so stunted by petty one-upsmanship that you're living in a world of deliberate intellectual dishonesty .
I too googled "arguments against progressive politics and homosexuality" and the first link that came up was a Wikipedia page outlining the LGBT social movements with a focus on north america.
At the bottom of this page is a very helpful little list of 128 informative citations, many of which are scientific papers detailing the effects of homosexuality through the lens of western philosophy as well as arguments against the progression of homosexual ideology.
Now, the second link that appears under this trove of informative material after I submit my google search is a Cambridge paper entitled "God, Gays, and Progressive Politics: Reconceptualizing Intersectionality as a Normatively Malleable Analytical Framework" (which in itself seems to be an informative and well thought-out piece" as well as a variety of other articles, some with a focus on religion, some not.
Instead of taking the time to read any of these papers, investigate any of the books and papers cited, truly EDUCATE yourself on the subject, you retaliate with:
"So religion is your arguement"?
It's just so exhausting and indicative of your unwillingness to move the dialogue forward, i really dont believe that it would be a good use of my time nor energy attempting to discuss the implications and effects of homosexuality or any of the other issues you brought up.
Here, let me play the strawman you so desperately want "MY ARGUMENT IS THAT GAYS IS BAD CUZ GOD IS TOLD ME SO AHYUCK HYUCK"