Harris mumbles in his beard:

I have no problem with what people do with themselves in their own lives. If you enjoy pig mutilation, more power to you

A noble sentiment... Too bad it's rather blatantly contradicted by the rest of your post.

Whether you consider [homosexuality] an alternate lifestyle, a genetic preference, or whatever, it is a trueism that homosexuals will be burdened with a harder life.

Yes... And?

One, they are "diifferent"
Two, most religious denominations are against it.

Yup.

Perfectly idiotic reasons for perfectly idiotic people to make fags' lives harder, of course... But yes, they certainly do exist.

And that's somehow a reason to burden the queers with even MORE of "a harder life" than they would be already, with all the idiots that are out there???

Which is of course EXACTLY what you would be doing; the more so, the *less* you tell their presumtive tormentors that no, they aren't actually the Scum Of The Earth and deserve to die, *die*, DIE!!!.

Three, most "normal" heterosexuals are disgusted by it.

A) How do you "know" that? Where are your statistics from; who conducted the surveys; what was the sampling technique, the population they selected from, and the exact question they asked? (i.e, this is pure proctonumerology from you, right?)

B) Even if they are, so what? I may "be disgusted" by your diet, or your clothing and grooming habits (any piercings?), or, for that matter, by your beard... Is that any reason for my stupid prejudices to be allowed to make your life harder than it really has to be?

C) Oh, judging from *some* sectors of the all-pervasive media, *some* kinds of homosexuality seem to be quite popular. Hey, what *is* it with all these nude mud wrestling games that seem to be the highest form of entertainment a red-blooded American male aspires to see...? (That is, lesbianism -- newsflash, that's homosexuality too -- sure seems to sell in pornography. To otherwise self-proclaimed heterosexual men. So maybe this shit isn't as digitally either-or as you seem to think.)

(sex with a man is beyond my comprehension.)

Seems I have to point out, like I so often did to my old man when he thought his inability to understand something was somehow an argument against it, that this isn't necessarily an indictment of sex with a man (my girlfriend loves it, BTW -- you have an issue with that? :-) so much as of your own comprehension... (Furthermore, I submit that *your* opinion on the subject of sex carries rather less weight than that of virtually anybody else here: Most of us have had the opportunity to form an *informed* opinion.)

Socially, economically, spiritually, if one wishes to teach, I would think you'd try to turn him into more productive, joyous, socially acceptive person. You might mention homosexuality, but to teach it as acceptable is wrong.

This statement is a little unclear -- who is the "he" that is supposed to become "more productive, joyous, socially acceptive [sic]"? The teacher, or the pupil? Oh, never mind -- the same question applies in both cases: How the fuck, exactly, is teaching that "what people do with themselves in their own lives" (and you claim to have "no problem with"), how is teaching that this is NOT acceptable -- going to make someone a more "acceptive" person??? (Or show that the one doing the teaching is one.)

Yours seems to be a recipe only for perpetuating bigotry, washing your hands of it with (rather transparently hypocritical) pablums about how you "have no problem with" its victims.

Sheesh...!