A Candid Discussion on Homosexuality

[1robin]

What the holy hell was that? I was just trying to nudge you into realizing that you were demanding DS into answering the question you put to dgirl. Heck, now I think you are talking to me as if I were DS. If trying to keep you on track about whom you are speaking with is "barking out orders" then what is ranting at people who didn't even make the comments you are attributing to them?

Your confusing and unnecessarily emphatic. Just forget this sidebar. I will wait for whoever it was I actually responded to, to answer. For pity sake. BY the way what you said is the very archetype of barking out an order. I am quite sure it was intended to be such but I do not really care.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't see how that impacts my primary claims. But here is a kicker homosexuals also show a much higher rate of engaging in acts they know well are dangerous. In fact quite a few do so intentionally (which is evidence of the general moral insanity here IMO).

Which would not be a problem for those who do chose to do safe-only acts, right?

Smoking is not always inherently harmful. You can do it very small amounts and never suffer any ill effects. I even think there may be some forms which have no significant harmful potential.

Then smoking would not always be wrong from a secular point of view either.

Your really obsessed with this sanitized hypothetical which it's self is not even remotely immune to all kinds of risks. However my analogy was not of this tiny subcategory but the general behavior. But it is similar in that it has a smaller likely hood of lasting harm.

No, the behavior in general because it causes harm in general.

So about homosexuality "in general"...are you arguing that all specific acts of homosexuality are bad because homosexuality "in general" is bad?

That is probably why I and God condemn non monogamous sexual relationships but for the hundredth time this is not a monogamy thread but a homosexual one. Meet me in a theological thread and we can discuss promiscuity in general all you want.

Aren't you turning this into an issue of monogamy/promiscuity yourself by trying to use statistics of it as evidence that homosexuality in general is bad? Why can you argue that issue but I cannot? If you want me to stop bringing up monogamy then perhaps you should stop bringing up promiscuity.

If they can guaranty to always be together and never have sex when stats suggest they soon split up then maybe but that leaves a whole host of destructive things they can still cause. I have never given most of these because they are mostly so disgusting I cannot post them. Talk to a Navy corpsman about just the physical destruction and other issues that can occur and you will get sick. And that is a much more disciplined environment. I am talking light bulbs and warts here.

Can does not mean must.

Well give proving that a shot (you will have to show it is overwhelming cause and maybe one in totality to get anywhere) and then link it. I can't debate maybes to well.

Why should I try to prove it? All I'm saying is that is reasonable and therefore could be part of the cause. A study would have to rule out other possibilities before it could be concluded that homosexuality in itself causes relationship problems.

Ah, I see now you really don't have a sufficient knowledge of these things. Rectal cancer to start with and the rest of the list is too messed up to post. I even know some that did. In fact almost half the gay people I know died young now that I think about it.

Rectal cancer assumes anal sex, does it not? What if they only practice oral? Or what if both of them are asexual but homoromantic (i.e. no sexual acts between them at all)? Also, how do you know that "half the gay people I know died young" is due specifically to them being gay?

That is what I thought you meant but now I need what claim you are applying it to. Certainly the CDC knows what a mean "means". Anyway I have to go. Have a good one.

The problem would be something like this: let's say, hypothetically, that a study found that 990 homosexuals are prone to infidelity and 10 have been involved in lifelong monogamy. That would suggest that, on average, any random homosexual is 99% likely to be unfaithful to their partner. Real life is more complicated than that. Misapplied, one might say from the statistics that all gays are 99% likely to be unfaithful. However, one individual might have a 99% chance, but another might have a 50% chance and another still might have a 5% chance.

In regards to the primary basis for your claim (i.e. something is bad if the benefits don't offset the costs), where would that put a sterile, straight couple? What benefit comes from the relationship that offsets the costs (particularly if the couple is of a race, nationality, social class, etc. that is statistically more likely to be subject to STDs or infidelity)? Or is it also wrong for such sterile people to marry or have sex?

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

@1robin

You speak of the justification of homosexuality as if there's an off switch to rid the world of this orientation. There would be no point in doing such a thing because people have the freedom to do as they please. That would be like me trying to give you the justification for the Islamic religion. Have you seen the Middle East? Boy that place is a mess! People are dying everyday because of this faith. I see no justification for it; let's ban it or hunt them down or whatever you had in mind in regards to homosexuality.

See how silly that sounds? Also, your statistics on gay marriage length, gay domestic abuse, etc etc - are absolute trash.

 

[McBell]

If trying to keep you on track about whom you are speaking with is "barking out orders" then what is ranting at people who didn't even make the comments you are attributing to them?

um...
I am going to have to go with "Par the norm"...
at least for them

 

[Al-Fatihah]

OK, so it's a few more than one word...
I don't know why I find men more sexually attractive than women. I wish I weren't that way, but I am. I did not pick it and I can't change it. But it also doesn't hurt anything. Quite the contrary, the world has too many people as it is and me not having any is a good thing morally.

I don't know you, I am guessing here, but I am guessing that you are male and married. Could you imagine making a life and home with your best male buddy? Doesn't it add a lot to have someone else around that you find attractive, even if you aren't planning to have sex at any given moment? Doesn't it make all the little things, like just watching her walk through the room or waking up in the morning better?

Well, that's all I want. Sex is just a part of it, and a shrinking part as we get older. Being less interested in sex than I was 20 years ago doesn't make me any less gay than I was when I was a kid. I still want to wake up next to Doug.

I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp or so threatening.

Tom

Response: Thank you and I do appreciate your honesty by saying you cannot really explain why you are attracted to men rather than women. That is all I am saying. Many times when I ask someone who Iis a homosexual why they have these attractions, they honestly say it is something even they can explain or understand. They just know that they do. So when I express my views on homosexuality, I amonly going off what they tell me.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: Thank you and I do appreciate your honesty by saying you cannot really explain why you are attracted to men rather than women. That is all I am saying. Many times when I ask someone who Iis a homosexual why they have these attractions, they honestly say it is something even they can explain or understand. They just know that they do. So when I express my views on homosexuality, I amonly going off what they tell me.

We don't know what causes someone's orientation. Scientists have theories but no concrete evidence. A gay person can't explain why they're attracted to the same sex much like a heterosexual can't explain why they find the opposite sex attractive. It's just who they are and the way each person's brains are wired.

Nevertheless, your declaration that homosexuals are incapable of being in a relationship based on love with the same sex is ridiculous.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is far from direct; I've read this four times now and I still have no idea what you are asking, or what your argument is. It sounds like rambling.

Whew! I thought it was just me!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Response: Thank you and I do appreciate your honesty by saying you cannot really explain why you are attracted to men rather than women. That is all I am saying. Many times when I ask someone who Iis a homosexual why they have these attractions, they honestly say it is something even they can explain or understand. They just know that they do. So when I express my views on homosexuality, I amonly going off what they tell me.

Can you explain why you are attracted to women rather than men?
(Assuming that is the case.)

 

[SkepticThinker]

So homosexuals are responsible for high divorce rates?

And adopting children symbolizes the breakup of the family unit? Huh?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Can you explain why you are attracted to women rather than men?
(Assuming that is the case.)

Response: I explained my reasoning some pages ago in post 89.

 

[Frank Bunneh]

I say what consenting adults do amongst themselves is entirely their own business

 

[SkepticThinker]

This was interesting enough to respond to but I am so burned out any longer and I wouldn't have.

1. We know what mushrooms are bad and we do in fact not eat them. We know what sexual behaviors are bad but anyone who wants to do them still does them.
2. Your analogy is not really a good one. A better one would be smoking. Sure not all smoking will cause cancer, break the bank, stain your teeth, or kill you but smoking is not a good thing for those reasons.
3. Is cancer good if we only get the easily treated kind?
4. I feel I have left you hanging with the mushrooms so let me add one more issue. I did not condemn all mushrooms. I condemned all the ones that cause harm but which do not return any gain that justifies eating them. There that one is better and I am satisfied.


Sorry that was as far on the off ramp as I am willing to go right now. I think I have explained in exhaustive detail why it is ultimately not really relevant especially since no homosuality is known to be lifelong monogamous before hand (BTW monogamy is kind of incidental, the real issue is disease free and that is kind of begging the question) and since very high rates of adultery and most marriages end in just a few years in homosexual matrimony stats and even add in that all kinds of homosexual problems can exist within a marriage (males at least can literally kill each other without getting a disease). That this whole issue is almost to miniscule to be meaningless in any conversation. Sorry.

BTW how do you mean "mean". An average or offensive behavior.

Hmmmm ....

"As of 2011, for states with available data, the dissolution rate of same-sex couples is lower that of opposite-sex couples. The percentage of those same-sex couples who end their legal relationship ranges from 0% to 1.8%, or 1.1% on average across all listed jurisdictions per year, while 2% of married opposite-sex couples divorce annually.[21] Other sources cite that lesbian divorce is twice the rate of gay male divorce.[22][23][24][25] Some studies have shown that lesbian committed relationships do not last as long as gay male committed relationships.[26]"

Divorce of same-sex couples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkepticThinker]

Holy cow. I just realized who I was talking to. Have not seen you in a while and you changed your avatar.

It's nice to see you here too.

Anyway, if you cannot see how he breakup of family units (especially when homosexuals adopt kids trying to prove some weird point in many cases) I have no idea what to say.

Well, I find this to be kind of an odd assertion given that what you're saying actually amounts to a consoldiation of the family unit.

I have no idea how good of a person you are but what your defending and saying is symptomatic of severe moral breakdowns so extreme that it has repeatedly destroyed empires and civilizations.

Are you saying that homosexuality has destroyed empires?

It is easy to see what the bible means by saying that in the last days wrong will be called right and right will be said to be wrong.

Wow, then we've been in the last days for thousands of years now, at least.

Moral insanity will reign supreme as illustrated by not recognizing that family units fragmenting is destructive and defending massive suffering for the sake of self indulgence is right and anyone who disagrees is an extremist. The world is truly being turned upside down when traditional morality becomes the target of insane secular reasoning. Again I am talking about what your doing not what you are. You may be a very disciplined and moral person in your personal life but what your defending and saying illustrates a depressing moral trend.

Well, I don't know, I think it's kind of insane to assert that the adoption of children by gay couples amounts to some kind of breakdown of the family unit. I mean, you're actually saying that creating a family unit is causing the break up of the family unit.

I'm sorry to say Robin, because I actually think you're better than the things you are saying here, I find your claims and assertions to be erroneous, immoral and demeaning to your fellow human being.

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

Response: I explained my reasoning some pages ago in post 89.

What you gave was some adolescent, 1950s warped views on gender roles and declared it as proof - followed by a personal opinion on what love is. What you can't do is scientifically explain why you are sexually attracted to a woman other then they're small and soft like a puppy that you want to take care of....Oh I forgot about your personal experience and recorded data with 2 homosexuals you see at work. I'm trying really hard not to laugh here.

So I'll just leave it at this, your opinions (emphasis on opinions) on why homosexuals can only lust after one another is adorable and child-like but unfortunately can't be taken as factual.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you gave was some adolescent, 1950s warped views on gender roles and declared it as proof - followed by a personal opinion on what love is. What you can't do is scientifically explain why you are sexually attracted to a woman other then they're small and soft like a puppy that you want to take care of....Oh I forgot about your personal experience and recorded data with 2 homosexuals you see at work. I'm trying really hard not to laugh here.

So I'll just leave it at this, your opinions (emphasis on opinions) on why homosexuals can only lust after one another is adorable and child-like but unfortunately can't be taken as factual.

This ^^^

 

[SkepticThinker]

Response: I explained my reasoning some pages ago in post 89.

Post 89 does not answer my question.

 

[oldbadger]

As far as my country and my views go. The US was built on Christian traditional morality. We became the mightiest, most successful, and most benevolent nation in history (not that we were ever perfect).

Before the 50's, huh?
Built on 'Wholesome' Christian values..... you forgot 'wholesome'. Oh dear..... the evil things that folks did by twisting their faith to fit their actions. Slavery was ok because the slaves bore the mark of Cain, and all that?

Since the secular revolution in the late 50's almost every moral statistic is on the decline

.
Well, before these times your society's hypocrisy could hide from prying eyes. Today it just gets exposed, often by accident.

As a US Christian I now expect to be bucking the tide of moral insanity that is destroying this nation and as just a Christian we have always been the moral rocks on which the tide of immorality breaks.

As US Christians the time has come for you to live the life of Christians, in love, understanding, care, thought and kindness.

Same sex love and devotion is not going away now. Many homosexuals are dedicated Christians, and I know one who is a minister. The Church of England recogniuses homosexual marriage......... Christ message is arriving, maybe?[/QUOTE]

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So I'll just leave it at this, your opinions (emphasis on opinions) on why homosexuals can only lust after one another is adorable and child-like but unfortunately can't be taken as factual.

I went to a civil partnership ceremony a few years back, a gay couple who had been together for 40 years. Sounds like a bit more than lust, doesn't it?
( civil partnership was what gay people had in the UK prior to the introduction of gay marriage )

 

[Midnight Rain]

Response: Thank you and I do appreciate your honesty by saying you cannot really explain why you are attracted to men rather than women. That is all I am saying. Many times when I ask someone who Iis a homosexual why they have these attractions, they honestly say it is something even they can explain or understand. They just know that they do. So when I express my views on homosexuality, I amonly going off what they tell me.

Hi. I'm bisexual. I have sexual attractions to both men and women. And I they are not "different" feelings to me. They are the same. Just as a woman can find a man attractive so can a man. Why do you have heterosexual feelings? Its not something you can simply explain.

 

[YmirGF]

Hi. I'm bisexual. I have sexual attractions to both men and women. And I they are not "different" feelings to me. They are the same. Just as a woman can find a man attractive so can a man. Why do you have heterosexual feelings? Its not something you can simply explain.

This and the simple fact that most human animals are not in touch with their feelings/emotions enough to accurately describe what it is they are feeling. Love is a perfect example that, in full bloom, defies descriptions as the individual is so caught up in the emotion that everything else takes a back seat. Why does it happen? I doubt anyone could explain. It just does.