Nope, I'm not gay, I'm straight as an arrow, but I'd fight to the death for their right to live as equals.  To the death.  Take that however you want to.  Science has never claimed to be an authority on anything, that's what the religious do.  Science is our 'best' explanation for the observable Universe, far, far better than any meta-physical mumbo jumbo, otherwise we'd probably still be tossing infants into post holes for housing supports, as a means to ensure the house would never collapse, or sacrificing children for a good harvest.

No, lazy and narrow-minded is assuming you know the answer, without anything to suggest that's the case, other than the words of people who had no concept of quantum mechanics, or that the Earth is but a microscopic dot in a much larger Universe.  Again, science assumes nothing, but it also presumes nothing either (which is what you're doing here).  Science works with the repeatable and the predictable.  You can lay claim to no such thing.

It wasnt veiled at all to me. The assumption that gays are born to suffer, feel pain and ridicule, be excluded from society... Not much subtetly there... The user was very selective about the "spiritual" sitations he used to make a point...      The thought of gay people having excellent and rich lives is probably something unimaginable to him.

OP is clearly intelligent but I can't find that there can be a discussion about homosexuality or human behavior purely based on a philosophical branch like metaphysics.

He's also very technical in his language, while frequent users of this forum talk in something a little more casual. I suggest going on Reddit or something.

 O_o... Did you read the same OP as me?

Madness of the blood is one the dumbest arguments ever made, not to mention the sign of a weak argument.

Intelligence isn't just the accumulation of knowledge. Especially if it's the wrong knowledge. And just because he throws one Latin term after another at us, doesn't mean that those who "talk in something a little more casual" are less intelligent than him.

If there was an esoteric twist and karmic consequences for someone, speaking in the language OP desires.

The ones with the karmic baggage are those who have to wake up every morning filled with hate, disgust, envy, discrimination bursting inside their core and occupying their minds... They have to live with themselves every day after all.

Like they have to wake up with the flu every morning, and coughs and sneezes all over everyone to release the sick feelings within them.

Since you're criticizing others of confusing fields, here's a whole list of things you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

1) Metaphysics

2) Empiricism

3) Russell's position on the ontological argument. He supported Anselm's argument, not Aquinas's.

4) Atheism in general

5) Modal Logic. You will never derive a proof for god's existence out of logic, ESPECIALLY modal logic. You can thank Kant for that. Existence is not a predicate; ergo, using existential quantifiers in modal logic (eX: There exists a quantity x, such that...) to prove a thing's existence will never work. This is the chief reason why after Kant, no serious philosopher has bothered to try forming a logical argument for god's existence. There are a few obscure philosophers like Plantinga and such, but their reasoning in no way responds to Kant's point; mainly because Kant is right.

6) Onus Probandi... Oh wait. I'm not pretentious and trying to show off. The philosophical burden of proof.

7) Using merriam webster to argue a philosophical point instead of using the Oxford English Dictionary, which takes its definitions from actual sourced literature.

8) Ontology and epistemology

Not really. I deal with people like this all the time. I call them "freshmen professors." They know just enough about the topics in question to appear well read to the layman, but actually have no in-depth knowledge once you poke at them further. The fact that he argued that Russell agreed with Aquinas, and that modal logic was an avenue to prove god's existence was a clear demonstration that he doesn't really know what he's talking about at all.

He talks that way to show off what he knows to everyone else. It's the whole point of making the thread. I'm not exaggerating when I say I talk with these people pretty much every day.

I just want to make clear that what he's saying isn't philosophy. It's pretentious nonsense.

I didn't say he was right, and I personally found the way he pushed his agenda offensive. He was very literal and technical with defining words like "atheism" and he wrote like just came out of his first philosophy class. 

People don't commonly dissect the word atheist and there's nothing wrong or less intelligent with talking without using big terms and I'm sorry that this is what you understood from my post.