Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I never really did a comparison but just guessing I would think that only Christianity gives you all of them. I gave my list in the context of comparing Christianity to say materialism or atheism.

To save time and introduce an actual context lets say only theism gives you them. You are an atheist I believe and it was in the context of our two worldviews that I made my claim.

That's quite a climb-down from what you actually said, that "only Christianity gives you all." Now it's not Christianity at all, but just believing in any sort of god at all.

What? I didn't say that I was the foundation for those things. I think quite lowly about myself personally. Christianity is a club that has the entrance exam of complete moral failure so I don't know what your referring to.

That doesn't even make sense, and I don't know any Christians who would agree that the way that got into that club was through "complete moral failure." (For the record, as you probably do not know it, I consider the doctrine of original sin to be simultaneously ludicrous, insane, evil and stupid. It is quite likely the result of Paul's homoerotic feelings which he tried so hard to suppress.)

You don't find what attractive?

The long list of things you said only Christians deserve

You don't find what to be Christian?

The insistence by some Christians that anybody else doesn't deserve that long list of goodies, and instead deserves eternal punishment by God, for the horrendous crime of simply believing what they were taught by parents and community from infancy -- in short, for getting their beliefs in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that most Christians do. Which, by the way, is not through careful thinking.

You had what explained to you?

Christian belief, by literally, at this point, thousands of Christians, in my personal life, in Christian literature, and right here on the internet.

Your responses don't seem to apply to what you responded to.

And now you can see that, yes, they do indeed apply, exactly as I meant them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I condemned homosexuality for some specific reasons, you applied those reasons (rightly or wrongly) to heterosexuality.

Glad to see you admit that you condemned homosexuality. However, all I did was to point out that the reasons you personally gave for doing so apply just as well to heterosexuality. I did not, however, then go on to condemn heterosexuality. And I gave you the reasons that I did not.

I didn't know you were a homosexual. Have you always known?

No, just since I experienced sexual attraction. About the same time, by the way, the heterosexuals discover their own orientation.

Homosexuality costs lives, produces misery, and costs a lot of money. It's theoretical benefits do not justify the massive costs.

If you want to review I provided some statistics. The CDC claims that the 4% of us that are gay in the US created over 60% of new aids cases.

Homosexuality does not equal AIDS, and in fact, the majority of the sufferers of AIDS in the world today are not homosexual.
These statements are so outrageous, and so misguided (to the point of ignorance) that I must respond in more depth.

You are trying to equate things that are not synonymous. The US is not the world. Your statistics are dated. The majority of people in the world today who have AIDS are heterosexual. And even if, as is no longer the case, "over 60% of new aids cases" are homosexual, then if you stopped that altogether, then 100% of new aids cases would be heterosexual. And then I would use your own argument against you in precisely the same way.

Yes, it is true that when AIDS first appeared, it was more rapidly spread by gays, who lived a more sexually liberal lifestyle in very large part for having been deliberately marginalized and ghettoized by stupid religious bigots. Now, when we are more accepted, we are marrying and living more settled, accepted lives, and the statistics around AIDS propagation are changing dramatically.

So, to get to the point, homosexuality doesn't cost lives, produce misery and cost a lot of money. AIDS, promiscuity, bigotry, careless use of needles by druggies, and all sorts of other things cause those things.

Ill-considered, simplistic and outdated assertions of cause-and-effect will ultimately do everyone more harm than good.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Because you are not warranted in asking that unless I made a point where it rested on heterosexuality having DNA markers. This is a thread about homosexuality. OTHERS have claimed homosexuality is genetic therefor it is their burden not mine to provide these DNA markers. Maybe you should start a thread on heterosexuality biology. It isn't my claim therefor I have no burden here.

You made a point that sexual orientation rested on having DNA markers. Therefore, you should be very familiar with the DNA markers for sexual orientation that all heterosexuals must have. If, however, heterosexuals don't have DNA markers for their sexual orientation, why are you insisting that homosexuals must have them?

On the other hand, here is some info on research that shows differences in DNA between straight men and gay men:

For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.

On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality.


In individuals, said Ngun, the presence of these distinct molecular marks can predict homosexuality with an accuracy of close to 70%.

Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

Is this sufficient for you?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That is irrelevant, apparently there is some massive difference between the sexual acts of homosexuals and those of heterosexuals. The CDC (not me) linked homosexuality and the massively higher chance of contracting aids.

The CDC linked the two and so I am perfectly justified in pointing out the distinction.

Lets say that 4% of us are left handed. Lets also say that left handed people win over 60% of all boxing matches. It is obvious that there is some kind of massive difference between left handed and right handed boxers. Claiming that there is no difference because they are both boxing is absurd and appears unbelievably desperate.

You must be kidding, right? Any sexual acts performed by homosexuals (either male or female) are also performed by heterosexuals. There is NO "massive difference" between the two.

The ONLY difference is that having unprotected sex (either homosexual or heterosexual) can spread the virus. Then again, IV drug users can also spread the virus by using dirty needles. Those who consume bush meat can contract the virus. There are many ways that a person can contract the AIDS virus, but a "massive difference" in sexual acts is NOT the cause.

 

[columbus]

Why mention homosexuality if it was not causal?

Because correlation is also very important when you're tasked with protecting the health of 300 million people. This is not a difficult concept.

What better way can you interpret the CDC data than that they are causally linked?

Since the cause of AIDS is well known, misinterpreting correlation for causation is pretty darned deceitful. AIDS is caused by a virus.

Are you actually claiming the CDC meant that AIDS and homosexuality share some common cause that they didn't state?

No.
They're just plain different things. Most homosexuals don't get AIDS. Many people who never have homosex do. In fact, that's the overwhelming majority. Which is a fact that you refuse to respond to.

If you see that at least 67% of new AIDS cases are of homosexuals what are you supposed to think the cause was?

A virus.
A virus that Almighty God created, if such a sapient being exists. AIDS is one the many reasons that I don't think that such a being exists.
Your attitude towards us queers, your very Christian attitude, is solid evidence that you don't know any more about God than I do. And neither do your ancient primitive authorities. Yall are just ethically and scientifically primitive.

BTW I certainly should have but did I ever even say it was a "cause"?

Yes, you certainly have. Several times over the last few years, here on RF.
Tom

 

[1robin]

IDK why you’re playing the “You’re too emotional card.” Seems like one of the deflection ploys in your bag of “I’m not going to engage” tricks. This is an open thread. My responses are within the parameters of forum rules. When I see something that bears response, I’m going to respond — whether you think I should or not. If you’re uncomfortable with my replies, perhaps you should take a closer look at how your posts may be reflecting something that makes you uncomfortable, rather than deflect your discomfort to my “emotional state.”

Sorry, not enough time has elapsed to get me to open up this discussion again. Try again in another thread or next week for this one.

 

[1robin]

as has been pointed out to you repeatedly now, correlation does not mean causation. Determining correlation requires in depth longitudanal study,with control groups and other controls . Looking at a bunch of raw data, saying "ooh, these two things look related, so , A must cause B" is the logic of charlatans and demogouges.
Yes. Where I quoted you saying it was caused by homosexuality.

The CDC didn't say it was correlation. They said those of us that are gay account for 67% of new aids cases. Correlation would be left handedness, height, color of hair, etc....... That is why the CDC did not relate them with aids. And AIDS is just the tip of the ice burg the same differential applies to homosexuality and dozens of STDs as well as many other negative things. If the 4% of us that are gay would stop having sex almost the entire 67% of aids cases would have never occurred, you can't be suggesting otherwise can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The CDC didn't say it was correlation. They said those of us that are gay account for 67% of new aids cases. Correlation would be left handedness, height, color of hair, etc....... That is why the CDC did not relate them with aids. And AIDS is just the tip of the ice burg the same differential applies to homosexuality and dozens of STDs as well as many other negative things. If the 4% of us that are gay would stop having sex almost the entire 67% of aids cases would have never occurred, you can't be suggesting otherwise can you?

But you are wrong even about what the CDC says. There statistics were not for new ADIS cases. Go back and check. It was new HIV cases. HIV does not always lead to AIDS, untreated it does, but today people with HIV are living long full lives.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The CDC didn't say it was correlation. They said those of us that are gay account for 67% of new aids cases. Correlation would be left handedness, height, color of hair, etc....... That is why the CDC did not relate them with aids. And AIDS is just the tip of the ice burg the same differential applies to homosexuality and dozens of STDs as well as many other negative things. If the 4% of us that are gay would stop having sex almost the entire 67% of aids cases would have never occurred, you can't be suggesting otherwise can you?

So you don't know what correlation means, either. Good to know.

If black people stopped having sex that would reduce new cases of sickle cell anemia by ~83%. See how silly that sounded? That's how silly you sound.

 

[1robin]

That's quite a climb-down from what you actually said, that "only Christianity gives you all." Now it's not Christianity at all, but just believing in any sort of god at all.

Yes it is, I thought the context in which I was posting would make that level of clarification unnecessary. Apparently I was wrong.

That doesn't even make sense, and I don't know any Christians who would agree that the way that got into that club was through "complete moral failure." (For the record, as you probably do not know it, I consider the doctrine of original sin to be simultaneously ludicrous, insane, evil and stupid. It is quite likely the result of Paul's homoerotic feelings which he tried so hard to suppress.)

The entrance into Christianity is Christ. That is why he calls himself a doorway many times. Christ is a savior. You do not need to seek a savior unless we are lost. Lost being moral failures. So to become a Christian we must first admit our complete moral failure but you know this so you appear to be being intentionally superficial. Let me give you a verse to sum this up.

New Living Translation
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God's glorious standard.

This is where Christianity begins.

The long list of things you said only Christians deserve

I didn't save only Christians deserve my list of things. I said only Christianity profound a foundation for them. Why are you being so contentious? You know very well what I said (or should).

The insistence by some Christians that anybody else doesn't deserve that long list of goodies, and instead deserves eternal punishment by God, for the horrendous crime of simply believing what they were taught by parents and community from infancy -- in short, for getting their beliefs in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that most Christians do. Which, by the way, is not through careful thinking.

I didn't say anything about who deserves what. It is like you didn't even read my post.

Christian belief, by literally, at this point, thousands of Christians, in my personal life, in Christian literature, and right here on the internet.

I need to know what Christian beliefs your referring to. Why don't you just quote from the bible since it is the highest ultimate Christian authority.

And now you can see that, yes, they do indeed apply, exactly as I meant them.

This entire post is either intentional ignorance or a complete misunderstanding of everything I said. Please review my post again.

 

[1robin]

Glad to see you admit that you condemned homosexuality. However, all I did was to point out that the reasons you personally gave for doing so apply just as well to heterosexuality. I did not, however, then go on to condemn heterosexuality. And I gave you the reasons that I did not.

Let me be very clear.

1. In this thread I have been judging homosexual sex using a secular argument.
2. I also condemn the orientation but do so on biblical grounds, and this is not what I have been talking about in this thread.

No, just since I experienced sexual attraction. About the same time, by the way, the heterosexuals discover their own orientation.

Ok.

Homosexuality does not equal AIDS, and in fact, the majority of the sufferers of AIDS in the world today are not homosexual.

I never suggested that homosexuality is co-equal with AIDS. That isn't even coherent.

These statements are so outrageous, and so misguided (to the point of ignorance) that I must respond in more depth.

I hope you don't. I have limited time and so am only responding to fairly brief posts. My position in this thread is very short and simple.

That homosexuality does not have benefits that justify it's massive costs.

It doesn't require a book to contend with that simplistic statement.

You are trying to equate things that are not synonymous. The US is not the world. Your statistics are dated. The majority of people in the world today who have AIDS are heterosexual. And even if, as is no longer the case, "over 60% of new aids cases" are homosexual, then if you stopped that altogether, then 100% of new aids cases would be heterosexual. And then I would use your own argument against you in precisely the same way.

I am spending 80% of my responses to you straightening out your misunderstanding of what I said. I was not equating anything, synonymous or not.

Homosexuality costs lives at a vastly higher rate and it does not create life.

Yes, it is true that when AIDS first appeared, it was more rapidly spread by gays, who lived a more sexually liberal lifestyle in very large part for having been deliberately marginalized and ghettoized by stupid religious bigots. Now, when we are more accepted, we are marrying and living more settled, accepted lives, and the statistics around AIDS propagation are changing dramatically.

The CDC statistics I posted are only a few years old. AIDS is still the same currently.

So, to get to the point, homosexuality doesn't cost lives, produce misery and cost a lot of money. AIDS, promiscuity, bigotry, careless use of needles by druggies, and all sorts of other things cause those things.

It most certainly costs every one of these things plus a bunch more you didn't even list.

Ill-considered, simplistic and outdated assertions of cause-and-effect will ultimately do everyone more harm than good.

My claims were simplistic but not ill-considered and definitely not out of date.

 

[1robin]

You made a point that sexual orientation rested on having DNA markers. Therefore, you should be very familiar with the DNA markers for sexual orientation that all heterosexuals must have. If, however, heterosexuals don't have DNA markers for their sexual orientation, why are you insisting that homosexuals must have them?

At least one other poster suggested that people become homosexual before birth. I said even if that was true no one could possibly know it. I illustrated this by asking others to post the genetic evidence for this. No one so far has even attempted it.

On the other hand, here is some info on research that shows differences in DNA between straight men and gay men:



Scientists find DNA differences between gay men and their straight twin brothers

Is this sufficient for you?

Not yet, please quote the specific claism from you link that counter my claims. If I find what you copy and paste to threaten my position I will read the rest of the article. I have limited time and can't read every article other refer to but if what you copy and paste proves challenging then I will invest the time to consider the rest of your link.

In the meantime let me start with a link of my own to show you an example of what I am asking for.

Homosexuality: Nature or nurture..........

In debating sexual orientation, much is unknown; according to Charles Darwin, “…we do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in darkness.” [2]. Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that “…it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience”[1], social theorists argue that an individual’s upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation].
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych

Or:

BORN OR BRED? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
https://concernedwomen.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

This is the format I am asking of you.

Also keep this in mind. I am condemning homosexual sex not the orientation. While it is at least possible the orientation is genetic the act of homosexual sex is definitely a choice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me be very clear.

1. In this thread I have been judging homosexual sex using a secular argument.
2. I also condemn the orientation but do so on biblical grounds, and this is not what I have been talking about in this thread.

1. No, you haven't. You have used flawed arguments based upon your Christian beliefs. They are not "secular arguments".

2. Yes, the Bible appears to be against homosexuality. This does not reflect well on the Bible.

Ok.
I never suggested that homosexuality is co-equal with AIDS. That isn't even coherent.

You pretty much did, even though your data that you referred to said nothing about AIDS. And yes, you were rather incoherent at times.

I hope you don't. I have limited time and so am only responding to fairly brief posts. My position in this thread is very short and simple.

That homosexuality does not have benefits that justify it's massive costs.

It doesn't require a book to contend with that simplistic statement.

You are right. It is simplistic, and as usual when a simplistic statement is applied to a complex topic it is wrong. Your "cost benefit analysis" fails because you cannot properly calculate the benefits, and you grossly overestimate the costs.

I am spending 80% of my responses to you straightening out your misunderstanding of what I said. I was not equating anything, synonymous or not.

It appears that we understand your responses better than you do. Once again, you can't straighten out others when you are so grossly mistaken.

Homosexuality costs lives at a vastly higher rate and it does not create life.

Nope, that is no longer true. You are living in the last century. Let me help you out:

Don't conflate HIV with AIDS.

The CDC statistics I posted are only a few years old. AIDS is still the same currently.

Those stats were not about AIDS.

It most certainly costs every one of these things plus a bunch more you didn't even list.

If it does then support your claim. You can't even support your AIDS claim.

My claims were simplistic but not ill-considered and definitely not out of date.

Simplistic yes, but definitely ill-considered. And definitely out of date. HIV no longer equals AIDS.

 

[1robin]

You must be kidding, right? Any sexual acts performed by homosexuals (either male or female) are also performed by heterosexuals. There is NO "massive difference" between the two.

That is irrelevant. There has to be something very very different because of the outcome differential.

1. 96% of the US is heterosexual but this only produces 33% of new aids cases.
2. Only 4% of us are gay but this produces 67% of new AIDS cases.

There has to be some kind of massive difference.

The ONLY difference is that having unprotected sex (either homosexual or heterosexual) can spread the virus. Then again, IV drug users can also spread the virus by using dirty needles. Those who consume bush meat can contract the virus. There are many ways that a person can contract the AIDS virus, but a "massive difference" in sexual acts is NOT the cause.

The difference is the results being night and day differences.

To make what your talking about meaningful your going to have to show me that this massive difference between results when comparing the two sexual orientations is caused by something unrelated to sexuality. Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

At least one other poster suggested that people become homosexual before birth. I said even if that was true no one could possibly know it. I illustrated this by asking others to post the genetic evidence for this. No one so far has even attempted it.

You don't seem to understand that all of the evidence supports being born that way. The one article that misunderstood said that. There could also be genetic causes. Homosexuality is a complex behavior and it can have several causes. Choice does not seem to be very high in the rankings.

Not yet, please quote the specific claism from you link that counter my claims. If I find what you copy and paste to threaten my position I will read the rest of the article. I have limited time and can't read every article other refer to but if what you copy and paste proves challenging then I will invest the time to consider the rest of your link.

Here is on quote from the linked article:

"On Thursday, UCLA molecular biologist Tuck C. Ngun reported that in studying the genetic material of 47 pairs of identical male twins, he has identified "epigenetic marks" in nine areas of the human genome that are strongly linked to male homosexuality."

If you want details you are probably going to have to pay to read the peer reviewed article. Science articles will give you the gist of an journal article but it will be short on specifics. What that article does show is that there is genetic evidence for homosexuality.

In the meantime let me start with a link of my own to show you an example of what I am asking for.

Homosexuality: Nature or nurture..........

In debating sexual orientation, much is unknown; according to Charles Darwin, “…we do not even in the least know the final cause of sexuality. The whole subject is hidden in darkness.” [2]. Although the APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that “…it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience”[1], social theorists argue that an individual’s upbringing can directly influence this [sexual orientation].
Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture | AllPsych

Holy cherry picking Robin! You had to quote an idea that is 150 years old to support yourself. Meanwhile in the very next paragraph we read:

"Let us first look at the biological debate. Biological theorists have found substantial instances of anatomical, genetic, and endocrine evidence to support their argument."

In other words evidence has been found that supports the claim that homosexuality is natural and not a choice.it then reviews some other studies all that seem to support the natural side such as this quote:

"Hamer hypothesized upon examining the family trees of the same men that on each subject’s mother’s side, there were markedly larger numbers of homosexual men, all stemming through the maternal lineages. This observation, along with his startling discovery on Xq28, led his findings to be dubbed the “gay gene study”. The statistical probability of the 5 genetic markers on Xq28 to have matched randomly was calculated to be 1/100,000 [2], lending even more support to his finding"

That you had to pick such a weak quote from that article is very telling.

Or:

BORN OR BRED? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic
https://concernedwomen.org/images/content/bornorbred.pdf

This is the format I am asking of you.

Also keep this in mind. I am condemning homosexual sex not the orientation. While it is at least possible the orientation is genetic the act of homosexual sex is definitely a choice.

An article from an anti-marriage equality whackjob organization? And that was supposed to be reliable? Instead of relying on biased sources it would be better to directly site the articles that they do. Of course if you did that you might find out that they were less than honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is irrelevant. There has to be something very very different because of the outcome differential.

1. 96% of the US is heterosexual but this only produces 33% of new aids cases.
2. Only 4% of us are gay but this produces 67% of new AIDS cases.

I can see that I will be correcting this error quite a few times. The CDC does not support this claim. Their article was about new HIV cases, now new AIDS cases. HIV does not equal AIDS today.

There has to be some kind of massive difference.

Gay promiscuity has been a big part of it. Guess what changes that? Marriage and social acceptance of married couples. If you are truly against the supposed devastation then you have to be for marriage equality. I am betting that you can't do the right thing here.

The difference is the results being night and day differences.

To make what your talking about meaningful your going to have to show me that this massive difference between results when comparing the two sexual orientations is caused by something unrelated to sexuality. Good luck.

It is all tied together. And you can't get rid of homosexuality. It would be immoral to even try. That means the best answer is to accept people and foster a positive attitude towards marriage and stable relationships.

Do you think that you can try?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, not enough time has elapsed to get me to open up this discussion again. Try again in another thread or next week for this one.

“Lalalala! I’m not listening!”

Typical. This ploy also seems to work when dealing with other minorities when they speak out against oppression.

 

[Muffled]

You’re not a prophet. I’m not buying “Jesus told me” under any circumstances involving the public or any community. For yourself? Ok. For me? Absolutely not!

I believe I am what I am by the grace of God. I speak the word of God but that doesn't make me a prophet. You are welcome to your opinion but I am simply stating what is true. The fact that God doesn't wish to reveal that to you is not my problem.

 

[Muffled]

No. It doesnt. That’s imposing your beliefs onto someone else, which Jesus does not condone, nor does the Constitution.

I believe we do it all the time. Laws against murder & rape etc.

 

[Muffled]

They don’t believe it’s a sin; I don’t believe it’s a sin — and I’m not gay, nor do I have any inclination toward same sex activity. Just because YOU believe it’s a sin doesn’t make it automatically, universally sinful.

I believe God says it is a sin and that is good enough for me.