Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[sojourner]

The distinction is irrelevant to my claims

I don’t think it is, because you’re doing everything you can to discourage homosexuals from having sex, while saying nothing about heterosexuals, based on some phony “cost analysis” of “having babies.”

I do not get what your trying to do by pointing out homosexuals and heterosexual do the same things

I’m trying to illuminate that your whole argument is based, not on the sham of statistics you’ve spouted, but rather upon your discrimination against homosexuals enjoying the full expression of human sexuality.

I am trying to prevent the millions of deaths and billions in medical bills and your defending them

No, you’re trying to prevent homosexuals from having sex. It’s that simple.

 

[sojourner]

No I am going to run out of time and when I do I will be forced to cull my nuts and edit things for length. That is the fact of the matter. You can virtue signal all you want, won't change that fact.

I really couldnt be less interested. What you do with your nuts on your time, in your home is none of my business. Call it what you like. You appear to have enough time to post your statistical drivel. But, miraculously, when someone puts up a good argument, you’re outta there.

 

[sojourner]

I most certainly did not, I am very well aware of what a population fallacy is. Deal with it.

Apparently, you’re not. Otherwise you wouldn’t have tried to play that card.

 

[sojourner]

This require no reply.

Marbles...

 

[sojourner]

People has been responding to two positions I hold.

1. The bible condemns homosexuality.

and

2. I believe that homosexuality has vastly higher costs than benefits.

I’m not going to waste time on your first misunderstood point. But I would care to address the second, because it is insidious. It dehumanizes while masquerading as humanitarian.

You believe that the costs of homosexuality vastly outweighs the benefits. So, a sexual orientation, that is, how one identifies, carries some “cost” to the human race. And by coming down on the negative side, you imply that the cost isn’t worth it for humanity. Can you see how utterly effing dismissive that is for that segment of the population? Can you not see how that devalues them for even being homosexual? And even if you meant “homosexual acts” rather than “homosexuality,” you’re still devaluing the benefits their sexual relations have for them, which is still dehumanizing. You’re treating them as if they have no right to express themselves, because it might “cost something.” Which is putting a price tag on human pursuit of fulfillment. Which is dehumanizing.

Your argument is evil, the more so because it masquerades as humanitarian.

 

[sojourner]

It is obvious that when homosexuals do them the costs is far higher. Its like you think justifying millions of deaths is a virtue

So, what’s your point? Heterosexuality is cheaper, so we should do away with homosexuality? That could easily be interpreted as “heterosexuals are worth more on the human bottom line than heterosexuals.” What a disgusting, foul, despicable idea to advertise. “Butt sex is ok for heterosexuals because it costs me less.” Un-frickin-believable!

You’ve just put a price tag on the homosexual community. Worse, you’ve also managed to ascribe that value judgment to God! God, who said that people are blessed when they’re reviled. God, who hears the cries and sees the plight of the disenfranchised. Really just pretty dang ugly, IMO.

 

[sojourner]

I’m finding the direction this thread had taken very discouraging. People who claim to follow Jesus, who spout saccharin sentimentality about how much Jesus loves us, who tout grace, and forgiveness, and justice. And then they come on social media , saying how much they love homosexuals, all the while affixing some kind of price tag to the human worth of homosexual people. Bunk! Rot! And many of them have judged me as being a “fake Christian” because I’m more concerned with the dehumanization than I am with what people are doing in their bedrooms. No wonder people are leaving the church in droves!

 

[1robin]

Umm, you are aware that all of your statistics specifically say males who have sex with males for a reason, right?
Because it's not actually verifiable that all said males are necessarily gay or even bi. Sex workers, desperate sex acts to get drugs, rape etc are also factors.
And so what? You could just as easily argue that disabled people are more of a drain on resources, than they are of "benefit" to society. That doesn't mean we should condemn them or shun them or whatever, same goes for the sick. That could be quite easily construed as a tad reprehensible.
But humans are not ants or whatever, who simply live to breed. Not having a portion of the population breed is actually a legitimate survival strategy we see occurring in many social species.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. The old and sick are a burden but being old or sick is not a choice, homosexuality is.

And FYI in countries that are actually the most affected by HIV/AIDS (which by the way is not actually America, no matter how often some Americans think they are the center of the damn universe) it's most often spread by heterosexual sex acts and/or heterosexual sexual violence involving young girls.
And in such countries many children are also infected through pregnancy. Not the most homosexual act I can think of but whatever.

UNICEF Eastern and Southern Africa - HIV and AIDS - Overview

Are you actually claiming that aids acts one way in the US and a completely different way in Africa?

 

[1robin]

A couple of points fo


It does not appear that you are trying to prevent deaths in any way.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

I have been condemning a behavior that kills millions and costs billions, your the one defending it.

King Canute did not take himself seriously when he ordered the tide to stop coming in. You on the other hand don't see the huge flaw in your reasoning.

What the heck is this?

 

[1robin]

Then perhaps you should know the proper terminology.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. Since you know exactly what I am talking about I am close enough.

 

[1robin]

And yet you did

Why are you wasting my time with this stuff?

 

[1robin]

Denying the obvious won't make it go away.

And instead of wasting time responding to corrections you should simply change your behavior.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. Still wasting my time.

SEE POST #423.

 

[1robin]

Once again don't complain about not having time and posting falsehoods about others. And if something is not on topic then why did you start the detour?

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up. Not on topic.

 

[1robin]

Actually I showed that you were wrong with a link. How did you miss it?

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

Your premise was completely wrong so everything that followed was invalid.

 

[1robin]

Oh, waaah! Like I didn’t have a mountain of stuff to read in grad school and beyond. Play dumb if you like. I’m not going to google something you can do yourself.

[/quote] I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

If you can't or won't back up your own claims I will dismiss them. If your not going to back up your claims why make them to begin with?

Superficial is still a difference.

But a distinction that makes an irrelevant difference.

You condemn some (as yet fabled) “activity.” You have not, as yet, identified that there are any acts that homosexuals engage in exclusively. Therefore, we must assume that there are only “sex acts.” And when you wish to curtail an identified group from playing freely, like everyone else, through judgment, condemnation, prejudice, coercion, or any other form of bullying, you imply that they are less human. Yes. This is identity politics, because you have differentiated between sex acts that an identified group participates exclusively in. No matter how you wish to hide behind statistics (which have been shown to be skewed), or some contrived religious righteousness, claiming that the Bible says things it does not say, you are differentiating between groups and campaigning to not let certain people play. And that’s wrong.

There must be some very significant differences between what heterosexuals and homosexuals do because one comes with a vastly higher penalty than the other. If everything is equal why did the CDC draw the distinctions they did.

This isn’t about what you do in the bedroom. It’s about how and why you’re disparaging others for what they do in the bedroom. Don’t misdirect; it won’t work. You are complicit in systemic violence against the homosexual community through sticking your nose into their sexual business. And I have a problem with that, as a member of the clergy, as an spadvocate for social justice, and as a speaker for equity within the human family.

I am condemning a behavior not a person.

If you followed my views you would inconvenience 4% of the population, if we followed your we get 60% of new aids cases and you think that is a virtue. Blahhhhhh!!!!

If you don’t see the connection, you need to study the issue some more.

We are discussing a secular argument against an act. Biblical exegesis is irrelevant.

 

[1robin]

I really couldnt be less interested. What you do with your nuts on your time, in your home is none of my business. Call it what you like. You appear to have enough time to post your statistical drivel. But, miraculously, when someone puts up a good argument, you’re outta there.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

I don't think you got what I said or your just making one big joke or something.

 

[1robin]

Apparently, you’re not. Otherwise you wouldn’t have tried to play that card.

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

Quote where I stated that anything was true because it was popular. Is this going to be yet another thing you refuse to backup?

 

[1robin]

Marbles...

I have gotten 41 responses so far just today. I am going to have to be brief to have any hope of catching up.

What the heck?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

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.

No, I don't think that I am agreeing with you. Just because an infant does not express a sexual attraction towards either the same or the opposite sex does not mean that they do not possess an inborn sexual orientation.

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.

This works both ways. You cannot legitimately claim that homosexuals do not have a same-sex attraction until later in life.

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.

You need to do some research because there have been a number of documented cases of animals that are, in fact, 100% homosexual without ever being interested in a member of the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is NOT "invented"...it simply is a part of life.

I remember reading about a captive condor breeding program in which the scientists tried unsuccessfully to get two male condors to mate with females. These males simply would not mate with females, but stayed as a bonded pair. Initially, the scientists thought that the loss of two breeding males would negatively impact the breeding program, but they eventually decided to allow these two males to remain as a couple, and they gave them fertilized eggs from heterosexual pairs to brood and raise the chicks.

The "uncles" turned out to be great parents to their adopted chicks, and the heterosexual pairs simply laid more eggs that they raised, so that the program benefited greatly.

There have also been similar 100% homosexual pairs of various animals that have been observed. NONE of these pairs EVER engaged in heterosexual sexual relations.

Being born with a homosexual orientation from birth most definitely DOES affect your arguments against homosexuality. If a person or animal is born with a specific sexual orientation, that makes it perfectly normal even if such humans or animals are not in the majority, and declaring them "sinful" or "useless" or "detrimental to society" and something that should be "eliminated" makes YOU the sinner--not them.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

What?




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.

Interesting. Are you actually claiming that sexual orientation shows up in DNA? Where, might I ask is the marker in DNA for heterosexuality? If you can tell us that, then I'm sure that researchers could look in that same area and find where the DNA differs for homosexuals.

So, where is the heterosexual marker?