Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I posted what the CDC claimed concerning aids. I didn't interpret what they said I just stated it. Are you going to address what they said or not?

What would you like me to address, exactly? And if you weren't interpreting CDC data, why did you post it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A couple of points for various anti-homosexual people to ponder:

First study after study has found a tie between homophobia and latent homosexuality. The following article discusses a more recent one:

Here’s what we know about the alleged link between homophobia and repressed homosexuality

How men were judged to be homophobia is given here:

'The researchers assessed the homophobia of 38 heterosexual young men - high scorers agreed strongly with statements like "Gay men should stop shoving their lifestyle down other people's throats". '

The reactions of these men were compared to including eye tracking on images along with other methods and the tests indicated that they may be latent homosexuals.

Second, most people do not think of sexuality as a choice. Most know that they are straight or gay. The only people that I have met (so this is not a scientific fact) that claim it is a choice also tend to be anti-gay if not clearly homophobic. I have seen only the homophobic claim that sexuality is a choice.

Though sexuality is said to be a spectrum I have seen that most tend to cluster around the ends of the spectrum. Our unfortunate few that hate homosexuals so much may be stuck in the middle and that in built desire along with their religious beliefs may cause shame to those reactions leading to their hatred of those that follow their natural tendencies.

 

[columbus]

I explained that I was out of time and don't like this debate.

This isn't the first time having your butt handed back to you on a platter had this result.
It's not even the second time.
Tom

 

[1robin]

They thought they were valid for the U.S..

Yes, because they are. No one in human history knows how to gather health related data better.

That is all. And it is such a pity that you do not understand the statements countering your poor and ignorant argument. Until you listen you will never learn.

More color commentary.

And please, no projection.

Color commentary.

If you only posted relevant responses and got rid of the color commentary you could fit it all in one small paragraph.

Wrong again, a fact that you can't deal with. Why do you do this?

Not an argument.

All of the scientific evidence is on my side. All you have is prejudice and hatred. That makes my odds waaaaaaaaaaay better than yours are.

So now the CDC data (which is all on my side and all that has been posted by anyone) is the result of hatred and prejudice. Do you know how biased and desperate this looks?

Even that is evidence against you. You should link those articles that you do not understand. And I do not know of any that claim it was due to a "genetic mistake".

This is probably because you haven't read as much as I have on the subject. I even posted the study in a former debate. Again, you can look it up if you want.

I believe it went like this. If a woman had 2 boys in a row there was a higher chance of a hormonal imbalance which made the next child more likely to be homosexual. The conclusion was that this occurring was a genetic flaw. But this is only one view among many concerning the nature verses nurture argument.

The reason I am still replying to you is because it appears you tried to be briefer than before. You went from 3 posts in a row to 2. Keep it up.

 

[1robin]

You also made the bogus claim of doing a "cost benefit analysis ". Meanwhile ignoring all the benefits.

This is very very simple. Among many other things homosexuality costs lives by the millions and costs billions. It does not create lives nor money so that it can't possibly justify it's costs.

Africa disagrees with you.

Africa is a pile of dirt without a mind and no intentions of any kind. It doesn't disagree with anything.

 

[1robin]

You are complicit in a system that finds fault in some way with a group of people, whether it be skin color, religious belief, or sexual orientation and/or activity. That fault is unfounded, regardless of what you believe. Your answer is the same as those who claim “separate but equal” isn’t racism. The broadcasting of your belief is part of that system. In this case, the behavior is tied to the identity.

This isn’t “emotional” — it’s calling out systemic violence for the evil it is. If you don’t like it, then don’t be complicit in it. It’s that simple. Or, you can employ 3rd grade tactics, such as “Lalalalalala! I’m not listening!”

I am not doing the belligerent identity politics thing with you. I said I was bringing our discussion to a close so you post 3 more responses. The only thing that explains this is your emotional bias. You are far too emotional at the moment to be rational so I don't want to debate you at present. In this context I am not in any group and am not complicit in any imaginary plots against homosexuals. I have two simplistic arguments that are untouchable. That's it. Your the one that is demanding that we accept the cost of 60% of new aids cases (among countless similar costs), I am the one condemning their cause. you can't virtue signal this into something it isn't. Yell "dehumanization" (which is absurd) at traffic isn't helping anything and does not apply to me or the vast majority.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, because they are. No one in human history knows how to gather health related data better.

True, too bad that you cannot use them properly and consistently.

More color commentary.

Color commentary.

If you only posted relevant responses and got rid of the color commentary you could fit it all in one small paragraph.

If you did not fail so badly the "color commentary" would not be part of the responses that you get. Complaining about it only underscores your failure.

Not an argument.

And that is the closest you will come to admitting that you are wrong.

So now the CDC data (which is all on my side and all that has been posted by anyone) is the result of hatred and prejudice. Do you know how biased and desperate this looks?

But the CDC data is not on your side. You misinterpret it and worse yet you are not consistent. Plus that is not what I said at all. Using a strawman argument is merely a dishonest way of admitting that you are wrong. Try to deal with the actual argument. And yes, your posts always show bias and desperation.

This is probably because you haven't read as much as I have on the subject. I even posted the study in a former debate. Again, you can look it up if you want.

I believe it went like this. If a woman had 2 boys in a row there was a higher chance of a hormonal imbalance which made the next child more likely to be homosexual. The conclusion was that this occurring was a genetic flaw. But this is only one view among many concerning the nature verses nurture argument.

The reason I am still replying to you is because it appears you tried to be briefer than before. You went from 3 posts in a row to 2. Keep it up.

It does not matter how much you read if you do not understand what you read. And I have read that article as well. No, the conclusion was never that it was a "genetic flaw". Why did you not find the article? Here let me show you how it is done:

THE RELATION OF BIRTH ORDER TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN MEN AND WOMEN | Journal of Biosocial Science | Cambridge Core

That was probably the paper that gave birth to the article that you read. Please note that successive male birth cause a build up of an anti-gen in the mother immune system that is thought to affect the fetus:

"hese results are consistent with the hypothesis that the high birth order of homosexual men reflects the progressive immunization of certain mothers to H-Y antigen by succeeding male fetuses, and the increasing effects of H-Y antibodies on sexual differentiation of the brain in succeeding male fetuses."

No, "genetic defect". By the way, this is only one way that men can "go gay" it also supports the claim that they are born that way and it is not a choice.

 

[1robin]

What would you like me to address, exactly? And if you weren't interpreting CDC data, why did you post it?

My argument is simple. The unbelievable costs of homosexuality can't possibly be justified by its benefits. It costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and it does not produce life or money. The CDC data simply supports this. That is why I posted it. You need to show that the data I posted does not apply to my argument. I can post stats like that all day but until someone counter the data I already posted I am not justified in posting more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very very simple. Among many other things homosexuality costs lives by the millions and costs billions. It does not create lives nor money so that it can't possibly justify it's costs.

What are you talking about? Gays produce all kinds of money. And you are not putting any value on homosexual sexual relations. I know these may be worthless to you, that does not mean that they are worthless to gay people. Just two examples of an epic failure by ou.

Africa is a pile of dirt without a mind and no intentions of any kind. It doesn't disagree with anything.

Wow!! Just WOW!. That needs no additional comment.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

The US statistics were plenty by them selves. Once someone somewhere actually deals with those I will post even more.

Yes but being black is not a chosen behavior. Homosexual conduct is. Are you making some racist distinction? I wasn't.

This is not a thread on race nor is race a choice.

I do not know what the rest of this rant is about.

Sexual orientation isn't a choice either, so what's your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My argument is simple. The unbelievable costs of homosexuality can't possibly be justified by its benefits. It costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and it does not produce life or money. The CDC data simply supports this. That is why I posted it. You need to show that the data I posted does not apply to my argument. I can post stats like that all day but until someone counter the data I already posted I am not justified in posting more.

You are improperly trying to separate out "homosexuality" from homosexual people. That simply is ridiculous. Like it or not the vast majority are "born that way". The one example that you referred to supports that claim. There is no destroying of homosexuality any more than there is destroying African Americans or other races.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sexual orientation isn't a choice either, so what's your point?

He believes it is. That is why he thinks he is justified in his prejudice.

 

[1robin]

True, too bad that you cannot use them properly and consistently.

I brag on you for being brief recently so you expand your post by at least 100%. Amazing.

Can you tell me how it is you are available for debate at least 16 hours a day?

My argument is simple. The costs of homosexuality are not justified by any benefits it may have in theory. The CDC data is evidence of those costs. Deal with it, anything else appear desperate.

If you did not fail so badly the "color commentary" would not be part of the responses that you get. Complaining about it only underscores your failure.

Instead of claiming "your wrong" all the time show that I am wrong.

And that is the closest you will come to admitting that you are wrong.

Color commentary.

But the CDC data is not on your side. You misinterpret it and worse yet you are not consistent. Plus that is not what I said at all. Using a strawman argument is merely a dishonest way of admitting that you are wrong. Try to deal with the actual argument. And yes, your posts always show bias and desperation.

It is on my side, it shows the costs of homosexuality.

It does not matter how much you read if you do not understand what you read. And I have read that article as well. No, the conclusion was never that it was a "genetic flaw". Why did you not find the article? Here let me show you how it is done:

I obviously read the article I am the one that posted it's conclusion.

THE RELATION OF BIRTH ORDER TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN MEN AND WOMEN | Journal of Biosocial Science | Cambridge Core

Lets pretend I did misunderstand the article. Would providing a link help with that?

That was probably the paper that gave birth to the article that you read. Please note that successive male birth cause a build up of an anti-gen in the mother immune system that is thought to affect the fetus:

How the heck could you possibly know this?

"hese results are consistent with the hypothesis that the high birth order of homosexual men reflects the progressive immunization of certain mothers to H-Y antigen by succeeding male fetuses, and the increasing effects of H-Y antibodies on sexual differentiation of the brain in succeeding male fetuses."

No, "genetic defect". By the way, this is only one way that men can "go gay" it also supports the claim that they are born that way and it is not a choice.

The article I am referring said specifically it was a genetic disorder. I am not sure your quoting the right paper.

BTW you never did what you said you would. The vast majority of animals are not purely homosexual and probably none of them are.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

My argument is simple. The unbelievable costs of homosexuality can't possibly be justified by its benefits. It costs millions of lives and billions of dollars and it does not produce life or money. The CDC data simply supports this. That is why I posted it. You need to show that the data I posted does not apply to my argument. I can post stats like that all day but until someone counter the data I already posted I am not justified in posting more.

Millions of lives? Over what period of time, might I ask? Did you not read columbus' quote made just a few posts ago? Billions of dollars? Where are you getting your numbers? Or are you just making them up because you think it sounds good?

Here is the relevant comment again, in case you either missed it or decided to ignore it because it doesn't support your jaundiced view:

"Death on an industrial scale"?
In 2015, in the USA, about 15,500 people with an HIV diagnosis died. Not necessarily of AIDS, that is all deaths of everyone for any reason.

 

[1robin]

What are you talking about? Gays produce all kinds of money. And you are not putting any value on homosexual sexual relations. I know these may be worthless to you, that does not mean that they are worthless to gay people. Just two examples of an epic failure by ou.

I am condemning a behavior not a person. I didn't say a gay person doesn't produce money. I said homosexual sex doesn't create money. At best it's purely biological. To save time lets pretend it does produce money it still doesn't produce a meaningful fraction of what it costs. I didn't say anything about the worth of a gay person. It is only Christianity that can give objective value to all lives. Nature sure can't.

Wow!! Just WOW!. That needs no additional comment.

It sure doesn't. It is what is called a properly basic fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am condemning a behavior not a person. I didn't say a gay person doesn't produce money. I said homosexual sex doesn't create money. At best it's purely biological. To save time lets pretend it does produce money it still doesn't produce a meaningful fraction of what it costs. I didn't say anything about the worth of a gay person. It is only Christianity that can give objective value to all lives. Nature sure can't.

The two are impossible to separate. You are being unreasonable.

It sure doesn't. It is what is called a properly basic fact.

No, it is called rampant racism.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I am condemning a behavior not a person. I didn't say a gay person doesn't produce money. I said homosexual sex doesn't create money. At best it's purely biological. To save time lets pretend it does produce money it still doesn't produce a meaningful fraction of what it costs. I didn't say anything about the worth of a gay person. It is only Christianity that can give objective value to all lives. Nature sure can't.




It sure doesn't. It is what is called a properly basic fact.

Heterosexual sex doesn't create money either. Or are you referring to heterosexual prostitution--money for sex? If that's the case, then homosexual prostitution creates money just as much as heterosexual prostitution does.

I'm not sure if you realized this or not, but ALL sexual relations are purely biological. Did your parents ever tell you about the "birds and the bees"?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is only Christianity that can give objective value to all lives. Nature sure can't.

Quick quiz, if you don't mind: what exactly is the "objective value" that only Christianity gives "to all lives?" Remember to be careful about your definitions of the terms "objective" and "value."

 

[1robin]

Sexual orientation isn't a choice either, so what's your point?

You couldn't possibly know this even if it was true. Not could anyone else at least so far. Find me some homosexual DNA markers. I have read a bit on homosexuality and scholars come down on both sides of the nature verses nurture debate.

 

[1robin]

You are improperly trying to separate out "homosexuality" from homosexual people. That simply is ridiculous. Like it or not the vast majority are "born that way". The one example that you referred to supports that claim. There is no destroying of homosexuality any more than there is destroying African Americans or other races.

Wow, only one post this go around.

I am condemning a behavior not a person. I am not condemning the orientation I am condemning homosexual sex. I only differentiated between the two because I needed to, to debate Sojourner.

It has nothing to do with what I like. The absolute undeniable fact is you have no idea whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and homosexual sex specifically is a choice. Your the one posting what you like instead of what you can possibly know.