Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, fair enough. I will go back and respond to your earlier posts however please try and keep the color commentary to a minimum. I am not evil, no one is after you to stop anything you might be doing, I simply disagree with you and believe I have the better argument.

Fine, then just respond to #670. The rest are unimportant.

 

[sojourner]

Your arguments are interspersed with claims that what I am doing is insidious and evil, etc.... I will not stand for this garbage

I will not be complicit in the garbage of dehumanization. I’ve said that before. I shall continue to call it out. I’ve seen and heard enough of it, and seen firsthand what that kind of judgment does to people — how it harms them. You have to understand that these are people — not statistics.

I just can't keep being insulted in every other post

But it’s ok for you to insult others by placing an arbitrary value on their sexual expression, eh?

 

[1robin]

Now since this statement directly contradicts the opinions APA and essentially the entire medical profession, and the research that has led to those opinions.

There is all manner of opinion concerning whether homosexuality is genetic or not. However looking at the known facts it appears that Homosexuality being a choice is the best interpretation of them but my argument does not concern the orientation. I have my own opinion about the orientation but that is not what I am arguing about. My argument is that homosexual sex cannot justify its enormous costs. Please keep this in mind.

Since that is the case, I think we are solid ground now asking you to provide your credentials and research to back up your claim.

Again, keep in mind my argument is about the behavior not the orientation. My argument is that the costs of homosexual sex far outweigh its benefits. I can post plenty but so far I have only posted that CDC research paper. Until someone counter sit I have no need to post more data.

 

[1robin]

It is time to answer this question intelligently, even though it is not well-formed at all.

Very well.

First, the presumption is that homosexuality itself causes illness in-and-of-itself. Yet, this is not the case. Unprotected sex, which facilitates the spread of the illness-causing virus, is at the heart of the issue. And unprotected sex is available to anybody who can score a willing partner. (Alternately, there's also the potential to transmit the virus through injectable drug use and unsterile needles. I have yet to hear an argument that says, "Needles cause AIDS." That would set medicine back a few paces, I can tell you.)

Of course I am not saying that the homosexual orientation causes AIDS. Again it is homosexual sex that I am condemning. Yes, every particular type of sex has differing dangers and problems. I can't very well comment on every type of sex that people have. I have to instead judge things in general. My general argument is simply based on the link that the CDC drew in the data I have posted.

Now, it may well be that some homosexual men are indeed having unprotected sex more often than heterosexual men. And yes, that certainly hugely increase their odds of getting infected. That is stupid, but once again, stupidity is not directly correlated to homosexuality, and nobody is saying "stupidity causes AIDS."

You are correct in suggesting that homosexuals engage in far higher rates of promiscuity and reckless sex along with many other things.

Second, has anyone noticed that the vast majority of sexually active homosexual men DO NOT HAVE AIDS. Why should this be, if homosexuality causes AIDS? Shouldn't they all be getting it? Well, not if they are in monogamous relationships (as I have been for most of my life, along with most of my friends), or are practicing safe sex when they are not monogamous, or with someone who they cannot be sure is not infected, whatever their orientation turns out to be.

This would only apply if I had said that all homosexuals have AIDS which I didn't. You tell me why homosexual sex has so high a rate of transmitting STDs. All I know is that the CDC linked homosexuality with increased rate of STD transmission.

Third, there are no particular "merits" to homosexuality whose costs need to be justified. There are certainly "merits" to taking precautions against harming yourself or others when there is a clear and present danger, as is the case with HIV.

Another poster who was defending homosexuality came up with some merits. None of them justified the costs but at least they tried to post some.

Fourth, all that @1robin is asking is that, because gay men aren't like him, they should just voluntarily give up any hope for a full and satisfying life, and submit to misery because of their unfortunate orientation -- which (s)he would call a "choice," but which the entire science community who has actually studied the issue (rather than listen to their friendly pastor opine on something (s)he's no more qualified to speak on than brain surgery) has said is false. But of course, @1robin, who thinks that "naturally occurring" can only mean "genetic," actually has very little idea what that means. The matter is hugely more complex than that, but complex does not mean "unnatural." Usually, quite the reverse, actually.

Why are you mentioning me in a response to me. That's a new one. I most certainly did not ask a single gay person to act in any other way. I have no idea what the solution is, but can easily see what the problem is. I do not have to present a solution to recognize a problem. Just like I can very easily conclude my car is malfunctioning without having a clue how to fix it. I have not suggesting homosexuals anything in particular so arguments in this context are irrelevant.

Now, if @1robin would actually make the argument that "unprotected, indiscriminate sex's costs can't be justified by its "merits," I would be happy to agree with him/her on the spot. You see, homosexuality doesn't cause unprotected, indiscriminate sex, nor is it somehow equated to that.

I agree with that but this is not a thread about unprotected sex, promiscuity, or reckless sex. This is a homosexual thread and I only made the connection that the CDC did so far. When they linked homosexuality to AIDS I am perfectly justified in echoing it.

And the remedy? Tell the Catholic Church to shut up on condom use, and be more open about educating children intelligently about sex, sexuality, self-respect, respect for others, and how to be a responsible sexual adult.

I am not fan of the catholic church and do not wish to defend what they think about condemns. Again you are talking about arguments I am not making. Let me clarify once again.

1. I have an opinion about the homosexual orientation but am not making an argument about it here.
2. My argument is about the cost benefit relationship of homosexual sex.
3. My primary argument is simply an echo of what the CDC said (or at least that is all it has been so far).
4. I am condemning a behavior. I am not suggesting what the solution may be.

If you would keep these points in mind you would save both you and I some significant time. Most of your claims are not about my core arguments.

 

[1robin]

Fine, then just respond to #670. The rest are unimportant.

Ok, I did.

 

[1robin]

I will not be complicit in the garbage of dehumanization.

What does that mean. I do not think your going to change my mind and I am going to keep making similar arguments so you can decide if you want to have conversations similar to those recently right now. I don't know what your so obsessed with the term de-humanization but I have said nothing that suggests I believe that homosexuals are just as "valuable' as anyone else. If fact I believe that God loves them as much as anyone. I will continue to make arguments similar to those in the past, do you want in or out?

I’ve said that before. I shall continue to call it out. I’ve seen and heard enough of it, and seen firsthand what that kind of judgment does to people — how it harms them. You have to understand that these are people — not statistics.

If you want strip out the accusations and insults our discussion will end here. I do not have time to strain your posts for the few meaningful points you bury in them. So drop the judgmental garbage or I will suspend our discussion in this thread again.

But it’s ok for you to insult others by placing an arbitrary value on their sexual expression, eh?

My posts are nothing like yours. I never said you were evil or were doing evil, never said you were dehumanizing anyone, never mistook disagreement for a personal attack, you have.

Look you are either going to stop the insults and accusations or we are done here for now. It is not that hard to be civil instead of accusatory. This isn't complicated, is it a yes or a no?

 

[sojourner]

What does that mean

It means that your posts consistently place some arbitrary and uncalled for value judgment on human life and fulfillment.

I don't know what your so obsessed with the term de-humanization but I have said nothing that suggests I believe that homosexuals are just as "valuable' as anyone else

Of course you have. You’ve devalued the sexual expression of some. “Merits are outweighed by cost.” That’s a value and it’s a lesser value than the cost to you. In effect, homosexual expression is worth less than heterosexual expression. The way we express ourselves sexually cannot be wholly separated from how we identify and how we see our place in the world. IOW, how we express ourselves is synonymous with who we are as human beings. When you place a lesser value on the expression of one group, it strips them of some of their humanity.

I will continue to make arguments similar to those in the past, do you want in or out?

And when you do, I shall continue to speak against it. That’s how a debate forum works.

So drop the judgmental garbage

Right back at ya. Drop the judgmental garbage against homosexual expression.

My posts are nothing like yours

You’re absolutely right. I’m not judging anyone’s full inclusion in human sexual expression.

I never said you were evil or were doing evil, never said you were dehumanizing anyone, never mistook disagreement for a personal attack, you have

I didn’t say you were evil. But I believe that your argument is evil, because it marginalizes a group whom you deem as not normal. I haven’t made those kinds of statements, so of course you wouldn’t say I was doing evil. I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking the ideas. Therefore, not a personal attack.

It is not that hard to be civil instead of accusatory

Again: right back at ya. The whole problem I have with your position is that you’re saying that they shouldn’t participate fully in human intimacy because the cost is “too high.” That’s accusatory and it’s unnecessarily judgmental, and it only serves to marginalize them, rather than serve to help them.

 

[1robin]

It means that your posts consistently place some arbitrary and uncalled for value judgment on human life and fulfillment.

This entire post is about me instead of homosexuality. Since you can't give me a yes or no I will make the decision for you. I will respond to this post but the next time I find a bunch or erroneous accusations and character judgements I will bring this discussion to an end.

Of course you have. You’ve devalued the sexual expression of some. “Merits are outweighed by cost.” That’s a value and it’s a lesser value than the cost to you. In effect, homosexual expression is worth less than heterosexual expression. The way we express ourselves sexually cannot be wholly separated from how we identify and how we see our place in the world. IOW, how we express ourselves is synonymous with who we are as human beings. When you place a lesser value on the expression of one group, it strips them of some of their humanity.

I didn't devalue anything. To say that something's costs is not justified by its merits is not to devalue anything. I don't even know how anyone could devalue a behavior. That doesn't make any sense. I didn't give a value for heterosexuality either so I didn't contrast it with anything in a value context. Whatever the "value?" a behavior has is static and can't be changed by anything I say. Again, this isn't making any sense.

And when you do, I shall continue to speak against it. That’s how a debate forum works.

No, telling someone their evil is not and should not be the way any debate works. I have watched hundreds of professional theistic debates and have never seen one where it occurred.

Right back at ya. Drop the judgmental garbage against homosexual expression.

No, I will not change what I said about homosexual sex. I am not the one that has claimed the other is evil. I never said that about anything or anyone. You have.

You’re absolutely right. I’m not judging anyone’s full inclusion in human sexual expression.

No, your the one claiming that any who disagrees with you is doing evil and de-humanizing others.

I didn’t say you were evil. But I believe that your argument is evil, because it marginalizes a group whom you deem as not normal. I haven’t made those kinds of statements, so of course you wouldn’t say I was doing evil. I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking the ideas. Therefore, not a personal attack.

You said that I was doing or being evil. You are attacking me. Nothing in this entire post so far has been a defense of homosexuality. It has been nothing but personal accusations.

Again: right back at ya. The whole problem I have with your position is that you’re saying that they shouldn’t participate fully in human intimacy because the cost is “too high.” That’s accusatory and it’s unnecessarily judgmental, and it only serves to marginalize them, rather than serve to help them.

Whether I continue this discussion is something I have not yet decided but I will start deleting things that are not defenses of homosexuality. Lets get this discussion out of the ditch and back on topic.

My argument is that homosexual sex's costs are not justifiable by its merits. You must show that this is wrong. So far my statistics have not been countered.

 

[Skwim]

This entire post is about me instead of homosexuality.

Just an observation, but perhaps it's because over half of your replies were about you?

"I don't know what your so obsessed with the term de-humanization but I have said nothing that suggests I believe that homosexuals are just as "valuable' as anyone else"

"I will continue to make arguments similar to those in the past, do you want in or out?"

"My posts are nothing like yours."

"I never said you were evil or were doing evil, never said you were dehumanizing anyone, never mistook disagreement for a personal attack, you have."

.

 

[1robin]

Just an observation, but perhaps it's because over half of your replies were about you?

Half my replies? What? Do you mean half of that one reply?

"I don't know what your so obsessed with the term de-humanization but I have said nothing that suggests I believe that homosexuals are just as "valuable' as anyone else"

I am the one debating so it is perfectly natural I would put several Is in a post.

I didn't suggest the post used too many pronouns. I suggested it's content had everything to do with my character and nothing at all to do with defending homosexuality. Was that not painfully apparent? BTW your own post was not a defense of homosexuality either.

 

[Skwim]

Half my replies? What? Do you mean half of that one reply?

​

...REPLY #

1.

"What does that mean"

2.

I don't know what your so obsessed with the term de-humanization but I have said nothing that suggests I believe that homosexuals are just as "valuable' as anyone else

3.

I will continue to make arguments similar to those in the past, do you want in or out?

4.

So drop the judgmental garbage

5.

My posts are nothing like yours

6.

I never said you were evil or were doing evil, never said you were dehumanizing anyone, never mistook disagreement for a personal attack, you have

7.

It is not that hard to be civil instead of accusatory

Four out of seven = >half.

BTW your own post was not a defense of homosexuality either.

Homosexuality doesn't need any defending.

 

[sojourner]

but the next time I find a bunch or erroneous accusations and character judgements I will bring this discussion to an end

Ooh, well I guess I’ve been spanked by the Principal... you can opt to not respond to me, but you can be assured that I shall respond appropriately to whatever posts I feel deserve my commentary.

I don't even know how anyone could devalue a behavior

Well, somehow you’ve managed it. That’s what I e been trying to point out. You can’t make statements like that about someone else’s sexual expression. It’s wrong to do that. That judgment devalues that expression — especially when the judgment is rendered by a person whose own expression is in the majority.

I didn't give a value for heterosexuality either so I didn't contrast it with anything in a value context

You implied it. Otherwise, you would have said that, given the HIV epidemic in third world countries, heterosexual acts don’t merit the costs. Obviously, for you, there’s either something magically wrong with homosexuality, or magically right about heterosexuality, because both expressions have high HIV rates in various places.

telling someone their evil is not and should not be the way any debate works

I didn’t tell you that you are evil. I said that the undue and clandestine judgement on a minority group is evil.

No, I will not change what I said about homosexual sex. I am not the one that has claimed the other is evil

No, but you claimed that it’s not worth the “cost.” That assessment is garbage and uncalled for.

No, your the one claiming that any who disagrees with you is doing evil and de-humanizing others

I have not made that claim. I’ve claimed that statements such as you have made serve to dehumanize others. I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m asking that, if you can’t say something nice about a marginalized group, then don’t say it.

You said that I was doing or being evil. You are attacking me

I’m attacking the statement and the idea behind it.

Lets get this discussion out of the ditch and back on topic

It is on topic.

My argument is that homosexual sex's costs are not justifiable by its merits

Homosexual expression is justifiable for the reasons I’ve mentioned, regardless of HIV rates.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok, I did.

Yes, and in doing so you made exceedingly clear you very deep and immovable bias, which is why I dislike conversing with you.

I point out, one more time -- and shows your bias completely -- that you equate "homosexual sex" with "unsafe sex" This is what you said: "Of course I am not saying that the homosexual orientation causes AIDS. Again it is homosexual sex that I am condemning."

You refuse to break those two things apart, because you do not wish to admit for a single instant that a heterosexual couple have heterosexual sex can cause the spread of AIDS -- if one of them has it, and if their sex is not safe. You would not then say "heterosexual sex causes AIDS." You would say, "among heterosexuals, unsafe sex can cause AIDS, maybe one or twice a century but hardly ever." But with homosexuals, it is not unsafe sex that causes AIDS to you, it is homosexual sex.

And let me point out, in other countries, especially Africa, just about all the transmission of HIV is among heterosexuals, having heterosexual sex with other heterosexuals. So, either admit that heterosexual sex causes AIDS, or revise your spurious condemnation of homosexual sex and learn the truth -- that the problem is unsafe sex, not any particular orientation.

That is your obsession, and since you are going to stick with it, I think it best we cease. I see no particular reason why I should stop living my personal life to its maximum potential and full satisfaction just because you and your religion don't approve. I do not believe in your religion, and I do not practice unsafe sex. In fact, since my partner was hospitalized 15 months ago, I practice none at all, but that's entirely outside the point.

As to your use of the word "condemning," you can condemn any freaking thing you like -- Christians take a perverse pleasure in doing that, and who am I to deny your pleasures. For myself, I won't notice as I'm putting you back on ignore.

 

[Muffled]

You speak what you *believe* to be the word of God. There’s a difference between the two in just what is revealed to whom.

I believe I speak the Word of God not what I believe to be the Word of God. You may believe otherwise but it is an unfounded belief on your part.

 

[Muffled]

Murder and rape are against the Constitution.

I believe that is only because our founders were mostly Christian. Indians didn't have any problem murdering people.

 

[columbus]

You refuse to break those two things apart, because you do not wish to admit for a single instant that a heterosexual couple have heterosexual sex can cause the spread of AIDS

I honestly believe that the reason that homophobic Christians refuse to see that distinction is pretty simple. I think that they do understand, at least subconsciously, that their behavior and teachings are the root of much of the problem.

Teaching gay kids to hate themselves and straight kids to hate gay ones has very ugly real world consequences. All manner of dysfunction and the suffering it causes can be "linked" to people like him. But they consider it their God given right and duty to go on inflicting psychological damage on the young and vulnerable.

They can bang on all they want to about "God is Love" or "Love the sinner, hate the sin" or similar crap. But, as I heard somewhere, you will know them by their fruit.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I believe that is only because our founders were mostly Christian. Indians didn't have any problem murdering people.

You're kidding yourself.
The Christians who founded this country only objected to the rape and murder of white people. For everyone else slavery and genocide was fine, expected even.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

I believe I speak the Word of God not what I believe to be the Word of God. You may believe otherwise but it is an unfounded belief on your part.

It’s all belief. No one *knows* the “word of God.” Because it all comes through the filters of what fallible people are able to apprehend.

 

[sojourner]

I believe that is only because our founders were mostly Christian. Indians didn't have any problem murdering people.

Ha! Neither did the Christian Whites. We committed genocide of the native population.

 

[1robin]

​

...REPLY #

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.​

Four out of seven = >half.

This is one trivial discussion but it appeared you were saying half of my replies were about myself.

Homosexuality doesn't need any defending.

Then why reply to me?