Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[1robin]

No, not even close. That was clearly a typo. And not a genetic fallacy. You are not quite ready for those yet.

Yep and if you had not judged my grammar I wouldn't have mentioned yours.

You seemed to have done that in the post that I quoted. In fact you said this:

" Actually we are talking about more than just orientation at birth, we were talking about God making someone a certain way."

Yes, someone else stated that God makes people homosexual so I was commenting on what they said.

I think that you misunderstood @sojourner 's point.

They are perfectly at liberty to point that out.

 

[1robin]

Are you claiming that you were aware of YOUR sexual preference at birth?

No

I highly doubt that anyone was thinking about sexual attraction as they emerged from the womb. And many homosexuals have recalled feeling an attraction to someone of the same sex from a very young age.

Your actually agreeing with me. Sojourner said that God creates homosexuals at birth. I said that even if that was true no one would have anyway to verify that.

Would you please tell us exactly when YOU made a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex? You seem to be implying that homosexuals make a choice to be gay at some point. So, when did you choose?

I am saying no one knows this even if it were true. IOW no argument should be based on whether sexual orientation occurs at birth because no one can know that. I think this makes your questions irrelevant.

Keep in mind that no animal practices pure homosexuality. Being 100% homosexual seems to be something human invented. Also keep in mind that whether we are homosexual at birth doesn't effect my arguments against homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Your alleged cost/benefit is highly skewed.

Then the CDC is skewed because it was their statistics I used.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yep and if you had not judged my grammar I wouldn't have mentioned yours.

So are you admitting your errors?

Yes, someone else stated that God makes people homosexual so I was commenting on what they said.

They are perfectly at liberty to point that out.

Perhaps someone said that, though quoting out of context would not support that claim. If by your beliefs God made us, then he made people gay.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the CDC is skewed because it was their statistics I used.

Nope, this error of yours has already been explained to you more than once.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No

Your actually agreeing with me. Sojourner said that God creates homosexuals at birth. I said that even if that was true no one would have anyway to verify that.

I am saying no one knows this even if it were true. IOW no argument should be based on whether sexual orientation occurs at birth because no one can know that. I think this makes your questions irrelevant.

Keep in mind that no animal practices pure homosexuality. Being 100% homosexual seems to be something human invented. Also keep in mind that whether we are homosexual at birth doesn't effect my arguments against homosexuality.

Many animals practice homosexuality . And yes, unless you openly admit that you believe in an unjust and cruel god, being homosexuality from birth does affect your arguments .

 

[1robin]

Read. A. Book. This is like saying that it would be hard to prove that Martin Luther didn’t post his theses on the church door.

What?

You said the early church did not believe in sola scriptura. That is a hard thing to show but show it you must. It's your burden to back up any claim to knowledge of your part. I don't have time to read a book during the debate. That is absurd.

And they still can’t decide if white people are born that way, or just fade out over time...

I get the joke, I just don't know what I am supposed to do with it. There are markers in DNA that make us white. You must show there is homosexual DNA for your analogy to even be relevant.

Fine. Completely ignore my point about there not being any strictly homosexual acts, which is what you claim to be against, and not homosexuality itself. Would you mind addressing the fact that you wish to deny full sexual expression to a segment of the population, which constitutes dehumanization, which constitutes violence, which goes against Jesus’ teachings?

I didn't ignore it, I commented on it twice. Both times I showed why it is irrelevant. I am tired of beating this expired horse.

I’ll trump your CDC “statistics” and Navy doctors with the findings of the psychiatric community, as published in the DSMIV over 20 years ago.

You merely posted the name of a field of study, where is the data.

See above. You wish to deny full inclusion in sexual expression of a defined segment of the population whom YOU *believe* to be sinful. That is, indeed, violence, my friend.

No it is not. I am condemning a behavior, not a single person. This line of reasoning is beneath you and is a completely falls accusation. I love all sinners because I am one.

And the dance continues. I thought you had no theological problem with homosexuals.

Misunderstanding # 975. I said that the bible condemns homosexuality but that I was not making a biblical argument but instead a secular one.

That’s what you said earlier, yet here you’re running them down using clobber texts you say you don’t even embrace any longer, justifying it by saying that there’s some sort of fabled “attestation.” Condemnation of homosexuality. So you do have a problem with homosexuals, but you’re justifying that prejudice by *claiming* that you’re only against anal penetration— which the NT Never. Even. Mentions. But you’ve never perpetrated violence of any kind.

My core argument is secular but since you mention the bible on occasion so have I. Your the one who asked me about biblical slavery.

 

[1robin]

Oh, I see. That’s why you quote Leviticus as having some kind of currency in the issue. Seems like you ARE “going with whatever gratifies your preferences.” And... it’s ok, you can say it: “I have no defense of what l’m doing.”

There are two contexts here.

1. What God thinks about a certain moral value or duty. This does not change over time.
and
2. What God commands concerning a moral value or duty. This can change over time.
The same way that a parent changes what they expect out of their children as they grow. Its called progressive revelation.

 

[1robin]

I thought it wasn’t homosexuality you were against. If that’s the case. Why are you arguing this particular point? Could it be that you really are against homosexuality?

I am not against homosexuals but I am against homosexual sexual behavior. However while feverishly trying to keep up with my responses I use a sort of shorthand or terminology. Your the one who brought up the sexual orientation at birth. Did you not want a response?

 

[1robin]

This is known in the second grade as the “I’m gonna pick up my marbles and go home” ploy.

No, it is exactly what I said it was. I do not even believe I made this comment in connection with you. Why are you even responding to it?

 

[1robin]

This is the bandwagon fallacy: everyone believes it, so it must be true.

If your going to comment on posts I make to others please do your homework. If you reviewed a bit the person I was talking to said my view was the fringe position to which I replied that the majority of people in human history shared my view. I did not say anything about that view being correct. So no argument from popularity or a bandwagon. Please do your due diligence.

 

[1robin]

Blinders.

What? It appears you didn't do your homework again. You have every right to respond to statements I make to others but if you do please do your homework. I spend half my time getting you on the right page. This is three posts in a row where if you had reviewed you would have been able to post meaningful responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If your going to comment on posts I make to others please do your homework. If you reviewed a bit the person I was talking to said my view was the fringe position to which I replied that the majority of people in human history shared my view. I did not say anything about that view being correct. So no argument from popularity or a bandwagon. Please do your due diligence.

Wrong again, it was your personal interpretation of the Bible that was being commented on, not just your rather extreme views on homosexuality. You misunderstood the post. Here is a link to it:

Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

 

[1robin]

Tell me what are these benefits? How did you put a valuation on them? And we all die sooner or later so it appears you complaint should be that those people died too early (on that you would be right). But you still have no way of putting a proper evaluation on the pros. The sex alone "pays" for the medical bills if one looks at the cost of sex on the open market. And that would under value the sex.

I do not remember them all. If you review Sojourners recent replies you will find a list of them. Basically homosexuality costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and since it doesn't create life or money it isn't justifiable. Your the one defending homosexuality it is your burned to know its benefits. We all die sooner or later but homosexuality causes death without producing life. This is one absurd argument.

How could you not understand the you contradicted yourself?

I don't even understand your statement.

That may be, but your belief does not make anything true. Don't you believe the Flood myth?

I didn't claim otherwise. I don't have a firm position on the flood.

You did not properly provide evidence. You only provided statistics that you do not understand.

I told you would do anything to try and get out of the statistics I posted. So far you have not even given me a bad reason my statistics don't apply.

Sure you do, and there is no "virtue signaling and identity politics". Your putting a label on something that you do not understand is not an explanation, or as you would say "not an argument". And the behavior is part of the person. You cannot separate the two. This is a common problem with fundamentalists. It is why aversion therapy not only does not work, it is harmful to the people involved.

I am not sure you understand what those two things mean.

I am getting too many responses for the time I have so I am going to start deleting everything that isn't on topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? It appears you didn't do your homework again. You have every right to respond to statements I make to others but if you do please do your homework. I spend half my time getting you on the right page. This is three posts in a row where if you had reviewed you would have been able to post meaningful responses.

You did not understand his post? He was stating that you have put blinders on yourself so that you do not see the famous homosexuals in the past. For example it is widely argued that Michelangelo was gay:

The "Gay" Michelangelo: A Portrait of the Artist’s Lifelong Struggle With Same-Sex Attraction

I could list famous artist after famous artist. Frankly I don't know. But to claim that there was a lack of famous gay artists means that one does have to have blinders on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not remember them all. If you review Sojourners recent replies you will find a list of them. Basically homosexuality costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and since it doesn't create life or money it isn't justifiable. Your the one defending homosexuality it is your burned to know its benefits. We all die sooner or later but homosexuality causes death without producing life. This is one absurd argument.

You mean to say that your argument is rather absurd since you totally ignore the positive aspects of homosexuality. Just because they are not of value to you does not mean that they are not of value to others. Your "cost benefit" analysis fails since you cannot properly assess the positive values of homosexuality.

I don't even understand your statement.

Really? It was rather clear.

I didn't claim otherwise. I don't have a firm position on the flood.

You really should. That indicates an inability to judge properly.

I told you would do anything to try and get out of the statistics I posted. So far you have not even given me a bad reason my statistics don't apply.

How many times do you have to be told that you are not able to put a proper value on gay relationships. That alone blows your argument out of the water.

I am not sure you understand what those two things mean.

Actually I do. They are arguments used by conservatives that cannot support their claims by any rational means. Instead of using phrases meant to attack others you should be trying to refute their arguments. Use of such phrases amounts to an admission that you are not able to do so. And we go down another rabbit hole where you make an ignorant error and require constant correction.

 

[1robin]

You are aware that homosexual sex is not the sole vector for HIV/AIDS? HIV/AIDS can be spread not only through contact with semen but also blood and breast milk.

Source

1. Homosexual acts do not have benefits to justify their cost.
2. Heterosexual sex does have benefits to justify its costs.

So you see that I am well aware both have costs but the 4% of us that are gay causing 60% of new aids cases just isn't justifiable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Homosexual acts do not have benefits to justify their cost.
2. Heterosexual sex does have benefits to justify its costs.

So you see that I am well aware both have costs but the 4% of us that are gay causing 60% of new aids cases just isn't justifiable.

Special pleading fallacy among others.

 

[1robin]

The "entire population could fit into Florida" argument misses the point: the argument is not about crowding. The argument is that the world is reaching population levels that are causing large resource strains, mainly water and fuel. Of course procreation is necessary for the continuation of human life, but not the current massive rate of population increase which has produced a population size several times what it was in biblical times.

Even if we are becoming overcrowded homosexuality is not the cure. Unless your volunteering to be sterilized this argument just won't fly. Who made you the population police? Population numbers are self regulating in large part. Population swells when there is abundant resources and drastically shrinks when they are scarce.

Thankfully, population levels also tend to naturally go down with education rates, so some kind of China-style authoritarianism isn't necessary.

Population numbers are inverse to education. The most educated populations have the lowest birth rates.

My sister is infertile due to a condition she was born with, basically her endocrine system goes out of wack if she forgets her medication (thankfully hasn't happened in years) and even when regulated her ability to carry a child is greatly impaired to the point of clinical infertility. Would her having sex be immoral then? Is it "defending death," as you claim? The church allows her to be married, after all.

I gave two benefits of heterosexuality. To procreate and the maintenance of the traditional family unit. Is your sister married?

 

[1robin]

And I pointed out that that was a logical fallacy. Specifically an ad populum fallacy, also known as a bandwagon fallacy:

Population fallacies on exist where claims that something being right because it is popular which is now what I said and I have stated this twice now. Keep up man.

Your logical fallacy is bandwagon

There have been all sorts of things that were wrong that people believed in the past. That argument does not help you.

Already addressed 3 times.