Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[1robin]

I wonder if you can even see what you just did there, in your blind hate and ignorance. You just accused me of my "own misery." As if you actually knew anything. Well trust me, you know much less about me than you know about science and human nature, and since you demonstrate very little knowledge of them, your knowledge of me becomes much less than trivial.

I responded to absurdity with absurdity. Your the one saying you should go kill yourself not me.

I am a happy, fulfilled man, living my life with my life partner of many decades, satisfied with my achievements in life, unaffected with the disease you'd love to see me saddled with. The "hysterics," little person, are not mine.

Again, you the one threatening suicide. That is nothing to be joking about.
Ok, your claim I want you to have a disease is a bridge too far. We are done for now. Nice work. Just plain disgusting.

 

[1robin]

Heterosexuals also engage in anal sex and, if they engage in unprotected sex--either vaginal or anal--they, too, can transmit AIDS. Female homosexuals, however, generally are not at risk, so that pretty much blows your argument out of the water.

That makes no difference as it costs way more when homosexuals do so compared to heterosexuals, something is vey different. However this is not a thread on heterosexuality nor an anal sex thread.

Oh, really? I do believe that the majority of rapists and pedophiles are heterosexual.

Come off it. 96% of the population is heterosexuals and I condemn rape and pedophilia as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying "their more sexually wreck less." Did you mean to say "they're more sexually reckless"? If so, then again...not true. Some homosexuals are promiscuous, but many more heterosexuals are promiscuous.

For example they are far more willing to engage in unsafe sex.

Homosexuals who are in a committed monogamous relationship are no more promiscuous than any heterosexuals--and probably less so.

Homosexuals are also more likely to not stay in that committed relationship. You can't defend one form of homosexuality by claiming another type is even worse. That is evidence for my claims not yours.

I understand what you're saying, but I honestly don't think that you understanding what you're saying. You say that you are condemning a "behavior" but that "behavior" is not unique to homosexuals. By claiming that it is, you ARE, in fact, condemning a group of people.

So I have no idea what I am saying but you do. What? Homosexual sex (which is what the CDC linked with AIDS) is unique to homosexuals and produces far higher rates of STDS.

If this is so, then will you openly and freely judge heterosexuals as well, since the behavior you condemn is practiced by them as well as homosexuals. Come on...condemn heterosexuals--both single and married--who practice the "behaviors" you claim that are the only thing you are condemning.

As a Christian I am perfectly able to condemn the "sin" without condemning the "sinner" that is what Christ does concerning all of us. He condemns my own sin but loves me anyway. What is so hard to understand here?

Or two heterosexuals--but not two female homosexuals. You're digging a deep, deep hole here.

I am not digging any holes. I don't even know what your talking about. There is such a thing as homosexual sex and it includes all homosexuals who have sex. Deal with it.

I didn't say that you did say that. I simply commented on the homosexual couples I know who probably engage in those "behaviors" you condemn, who are perfectly healthy, happy, and productive.

We are all happy until we are not. That is like saying she was perfectly happy in the ocean until bitten in half by a great white shark.

It's not "homosexual sex." It's a group of people that you are condemning. The "deadly behavior" is practiced just as frequently by heterosexuals as by homosexuals, so stop lying to yourself. Now, if you were condemning promiscuous sexual relations, unprotected sex, IV drug abuse with dirty needles as practiced by both homosexuals and heterosexuals, you might have a point. But condemning an entire group of people simply because you obviously hate them is ridiculous.

It's my statement and I know exactly what I meant by it.

Lets review again.
The 4% of us in the US who are gay produce 67% of new aids cases. No they are not equal.

Homosexuals are as diverse as are heterosexuals. Some of them in both groups are promiscuous and some of them in both groups are nasty people--but the majority of people in both groups are decent people who do not have AIDS, nor do they engage in any activities that could be construed as "destructive" so that they need to be eliminated.

But they all have homosexual sex (except for any celibate homosexuals out there). I did suggests that homosexual weren't descent people. I have not met one personally I didn't like. That does not mean their behavior is justifiable.

You keep taking off ramps every time I turn around. Lets get back to my simplistic arguments.

1. I claim that homosexuality comes at such a cost (in lives, misery, and money) that it isn't justifiable.
2. I am judging a behavior not a person.
3. That homosexual sex and heterosexual sex must be different in some way because the former is so much more destructive. See my CDC statistics.

Those arguments can be challenged.[/quote]

 

[1robin]

Oh, okay...you totally got it...yeah, right.

What am I supposed to do with this? I am in a debate but your in a word fight.

 

[sojourner]

You can't make homosexuality right no matter how many other things you try and condemn. You can't get your murderous client off by pointing out that others are thieves

Murder and theft are legal definitions for criminal activities. These in no way equate to one’s sexual orientation, which is not a crime.

We don’t have to “make” homosexuality right. It already is right for those who identify as homosexual. The medical community spoke on this over 20 years ago now.

I have a question for you. If homosexuality is a biological fact (though the behavior is definitely a choice) that we can't escape how is it that so many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling

They don’t. Again, the medical community has not only stated that reparative therapy is not efficacious, they have also gone further and stated that it is harmful.

You state that the only bone of contention you have is with the activity (which is not even “homosexual” in nature); you state that you have no problem with the orientation. Then in this post, you come braying out with these kinds of biased, hateful statements. You don’t get to play both sides.

White supremicists claim to not “hate blacks.” But separating them out and thinking of them as “flawed” or “different” is a form of hate. It’s the same with the way some think of homosexual people.

 

[sojourner]

However this is not a thread on heterosexuality nor an anal sex thread

No, it’s a thread on homosexuals having sex, even though the sex they have is the exact same kind as many heterosexual couples have. So it’s not really about the acts, themselves, it’s about who’s doing the acts, isn’t it.

Homosexuals are also more likely to not stay in that committed relationship

Because of the social stigma that had been forced upon them by such activities as labeling them as “sinners” for being who they are. Therefore, it’s not really the homosexuals who cause the problems, but the ones who judge and condemn and act against them by claiming that they’re sinful and not “cost-effective.”

Homosexual sex (which is what the CDC linked with AIDS) is unique to homosexuals and produces far higher rates of STDS

See? As I said above, it’s not about the acts, but the people doing those acts. You appear to want to deny homosexuals the same rights and privileges as other people. You condemn homosexual sexuality acts, but not corresponding heterosexual sexuality acts. I bet you even condone extramarital heterosexual activity above marital homosexual activity.

As a Christian I am perfectly able to condemn the "sin" without condemning the "sinner"

No, you’re not, because there is no sin in one being true to oneself. As a Christian, you are discouraged from making that judgment.

There is such a thing as homosexual sex and it includes all homosexuals who have s

I’ve asked you several times to provide a list of exclusively homosexual sex acts. You have neglected to provide that information, yet you insist that there exist such acts. What are they?

But they all have homosexual sex (except for any celibate homosexuals out there). I did suggests that homosexual weren't descent people. I have not met one personally I didn't like. That does not mean their behavior is justifiable

“I know many black people I personally like, but that doesn’t mean that their drinking out of my water fountain is justifiable.”

 

[sojourner]

Your own words make my point for me. Look below at those words. The things you compare it with are theft, murder, slavery, "behavior destructive on an industrial scale," even your use of the term "existence of a problem," whether you know how to fix it or not.

Listen very carefully -- my homosexuality is NOT A PROBLEM. Not for me, not for my life partner, not for anybody anywhere. I have no diseases, I do nothing to anyone that they do not want. Yet, you call me a "problem." That's your term, not mine. You have spoken for yourself.

Theft and murder hurt people. Why do you suppose that me making love to my partner (who really wants me to) hurts anybody? Does it hurt you? Did you feel a tremor in the force last time we got it on? WHAT IS IT TO YOU? WHY DO YOU BOTHER TALKING ABOUT IT?

Because you want us to stop, that's why. And frankly, it is none of your bloody business.

Behaviour on an industrial scale. I say again -- the vast majority of people in the world are heterosexual, and they did NOT get it through gay sex. Therefore, the only place your argument can go is to require all sexual activity, all over the world, to cease.

Homosexual orientation is also not a choice. And once again, you make yourself abundantly clear about where you stand by making the comparison to murderers and thieves. Where in the world did I get the idea that you fear or hate homosexuals? From you.

Preach it!

 

[sojourner]

Are you suggested that within the past 2000 years there have not been 3 people who embraced heterosexuality after having identified as a homosexual. I might know 3 personally. Do I really have to demonstrate something that is self evident?

Do People Change from Homosexuality? Hundreds of Stories of Hope and Transformation (Part I)

It isn’t “self-evident.” Yes. You have to demonstrate it.

 

[sojourner]

I am the greatest possible expert on my own views, far better than yourself and I do not fear nor hate homosexuals and I resent the accusation

People are often too close, too subjective with regard to their own feelings to be an objective expert with regard to them. That’s why we have counseling. Your posts corroborate this.

I have said over and over that I am judging a behavior not a person

Southern whites used to judge behaviors of others sitting in the front of the bus, too. That ploy won’t wash here.

I am not condemning any specific homosexual's experience, I am discussing a type of generalized behavior that humanity as a whole in many ways

Oh, so I was right. This IS systemic dehumanization.

Anything that potentially costs me money and increases over all suffering is my business

Heterosexual privilege.

However I am not condemning the orientation. I am condemning homosexual sex which is 100% choice

Please provide a list of these alleged, exclusive acts.

 

[sojourner]

I can not have a guy who I merely disagree with try and blame me for his own misery

Apparently you can, because that’s whats happening. You are creating definitions and moral rules, claiming that those things are “the way it is,” and expect the one who doesn’t live up to your arbitrary standards to “just stop doing what I, myself, do.”

 

[sojourner]

It most certainly is, especially male on male

So you admit to bigotry. Finally! Owning the problem is half way to a solution.

homosexuals also produce higher rates of sexual crimes, their more sexually wreck less, and their more promiscuous.

Because people like you keep marginalizing them. (See your third quote below).

I know what I said more so than anyone else on earth

Apparently you don’t...

It is an inescapable fact that I am condemning a behavior instead of a person

It’s an inescapable fact that you’re condemning people, that is, unless you can provide a list of sexual activities exclysive to homosexuals.

I am judging a behavior not those who practice it though I would be perfectly just if I had done so.

See above. Judging people based on who they are is never a just act. Never. Doing so only serves to marginalize them.

Oh yes there is. It is a sexual act performed by two homosexuals

Provide a list, or it ain’t so.

homosexual sex is unbelievably destructive

So is judging them and hiding that judgment behind a facade of CDC “facts.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

That makes no difference as it costs way more when homosexuals do so compared to heterosexuals, something is vey different. However this is not a thread on heterosexuality nor an anal sex thread.



Come off it. 96% of the population is heterosexuals and I condemn rape and pedophilia as well.

For example they are far more willing to engage in unsafe sex.

Homosexuals are also more likely to not stay in that committed relationship. You can't defend one form of homosexuality by claiming another type is even worse. That is evidence for my claims not yours.






So I have no idea what I am saying but you do. What? Homosexual sex (which is what the CDC linked with AIDS) is unique to homosexuals and produces far higher rates of STDS.






As a Christian I am perfectly able to condemn the "sin" without condemning the "sinner" that is what Christ does concerning all of us. He condemns my own sin but loves me anyway. What is so hard to understand here?





I am not digging any holes. I don't even know what your talking about. There is such a thing as homosexual sex and it includes all homosexuals who have sex. Deal with it.


We are all happy until we are not. That is like saying she was perfectly happy in the ocean until bitten in half by a great white shark.



It's my statement and I know exactly what I meant by it.

Lets review again.
The 4% of us in the US who are gay produce 67% of new aids cases. No they are not equal.

But they all have homosexual sex (except for any celibate homosexuals out there). I did suggests that homosexual weren't descent people. I have not met one personally I didn't like. That does not mean their behavior is justifiable.

You keep taking off ramps every time I turn around. Lets get back to my simplistic arguments.

1. I claim that homosexuality comes at such a cost (in lives, misery, and money) that it isn't justifiable.
2. I am judging a behavior not a person.
3. That homosexual sex and heterosexual sex must be different in some way because the former is so much more destructive. See my CDC statistics.

Those arguments can be challenged.

The CDC does not support this claim of yours. You are still making the same mistake that I pointed out days ago.

 

[1robin]

Murder and theft are legal definitions for criminal activities. These in no way equate to one’s sexual orientation, which is not a crime.

I used crimes as a analogy not as an equality so stop claiming otherwise.

I have some spare time at the moment so I will reopen our discussion but please stop the color commentary and don't let this discussion get out of hand.

We don’t have to “make” homosexuality right. It already is right for those who identify as homosexual. The medical community spoke on this over 20 years ago now.

This is to equate what is objectively right with what you prefer. This is a type begging the question. This is a moral question not one some medical personnel can claim is right. You claimed X is objectively "right" then gave me two subjective opinions to ground your claim. This just doesn't work.

They don’t. Again, the medical community has not only stated that reparative therapy is not efficacious, they have also gone further and stated that it is harmful.

They do and I gave a link to support this that apparently you ignored. Science can only tell us what is, it can't tell us what ought to be. This is called the "is" "ought" gap.

You state that the only bone of contention you have is with the activity (which is not even “homosexual” in nature); you state that you have no problem with the orientation. Then in this post, you come braying out with these kinds of biased, hateful statements. You don’t get to play both sides.

I stated that that was all I was driving at in our discussion. Let me lay this out so you know.

1. I claim homosexual sex is a choice.
2. I said that the merits of homosexuality sex can't justify its costs.
3. I gave a secular argument and secular statistics for the above.
4. I also believe the orientation is wrong but I have not been arguing that point.
5. For number 4 I only have biblical arguments for it.

Please keep these simplistic claims in mind.

White supremicists claim to not “hate blacks.” But separating them out and thinking of them as “flawed” or “different” is a form of hate. It’s the same with the way some think of homosexual people.

I do not care what white supremacists claim. It has no effect on me or Christianity as a whole. I didn't say they were flawed nor did I claim they were different. Your not only trying to bait me into saying something you can point to a cry foul, you simply claim I did without that being the case. Quit claiming I said things I haven't. If you keep up the "woe is me poor victim routine" this discussion won't last long.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I used crimes as a analogy not as an equality so stop claiming otherwise.

I have some spare time at the moment so I will reopen our discussion but please stop the color commentary and don't let this discussion get out of hand.

Perhaps if you were clear with what you mean by "color commentary" people could avoid it. I still have no idea what you mean. And before you complain remember you laid this ridiculous charge against me as well and this is an open forum.

This is to equate what is objectively right with what you prefer. This is a type begging the question. This is a moral question not one some medical personnel can claim is right. You claimed X is objectively "right" then gave me two subjective opinions to ground your claim. This just doesn't work.

You are trying to put an undeserved qualifier on a term. "Rights" come from governments. There may be "rights" that seem so obvious that one should not have to have them in writing, but history tells us that if it is not in writing people will abuse those so called rights. The idea of "objective rights" is simply false, regardless of what the Declaration of Independence says. The Declaration of Independence as a legal document only affected our relationship with Britain.

They do and I gave a link to support this that apparently you ignored. Science can only tell us what is, it can't tell us what ought to be. This is called the "is" "ought" gap.

Claims from highly dubious sources are regularly ignored. If you want to claim "science" you should have found an article that went through the peer review process as a starting point. Peer review does not guarantee an idea to be true, but it does guarantee against incredibly bad errors and people that try to avoid peer review quite often make incredibly bad errors.

I stated that that was all I was driving at in our discussion. Let me lay this out so you know.

1. I claim homosexual sex is a choice.
2. I said that the merits of homosexuality sex can't justify its costs.
3. I gave a secular argument and secular statistics for the above.
4. I also believe the orientation is wrong but I have not been arguing that point.
5. For number 4 I only have biblical arguments for it.

Please keep these simplistic claims in mind.

You really should not have used the term "simplistic". "Simple" would have been better since the former could lead to insults.

We know what you claim about it being a choice. Evidence has been given that it is not one and none given to support that it is a choice.

You have demonstrated time after time that you are neither able to correctly assess the costs nor the benefits of homosexuality. I need to remind you of your error with the CDC report again as an example of our failure.

No, you gave a prejudicial argument, not a secular one. A secular argument would have been properly supported with facts and figures.

As to four and five what you believe may is fine, but it is not an excuse when dealing with others. One needs more than simple belief if you want to effect change.

I do not care what white supremacists claim. It has no effect on me or Christianity as a whole. I didn't say they were flawed nor did I claim they were different. Your not only trying to bait me into saying something you can point to a cry foul, you simply claim I did without that being the case. Quit claiming I said things I haven't. If you keep up the "woe is me poor victim routine" this discussion won't last long.

The point was that you use the same sort of arguments, and sometimes the same arguments to a tee, that they use. It simply means that you might want to take another look at your tactics.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

That makes no difference as it costs way more when homosexuals do so compared to heterosexuals, something is vey different. However this is not a thread on heterosexuality nor an anal sex thread.

Let's see...homosexuals engage in certain sex acts. Heterosexuals engage in the same sex acts. There are fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, but you claim that when homosexuals "do it" it costs "way more"? Do you even think about what you're claiming?

Come off it. 96% of the population is heterosexuals and I condemn rape and pedophilia as well.

But you just claimed that homosexuals commit the majority of the acts of pedophilia and that is a blatant lie.

For example they are far more willing to engage in unsafe sex.

And you know this...how? Makes me wonder if you claim this because it is a personal experience of yours?

Homosexuals are also more likely to not stay in that committed relationship. You can't defend one form of homosexuality by claiming another type is even worse. That is evidence for my claims not yours.

Not according to statistics. And not according to those with whom I'm familiar. Do homosexuals break up and get divorced? Yes, but no more so than heterosexuals.

There are not various "forms" of homosexuality just as there are not various "forms" of heterosexuality. There are people of both orientations who act out in harmful ways on the fringes of society and the majority in both orientations who live quiet lives, work at jobs, have a partner and perhaps a family. No difference.

So I have no idea what I am saying but you do. What? Homosexual sex (which is what the CDC linked with AIDS) is unique to homosexuals and produces far higher rates of STDS.

No, there are no sex acts that are unique to homosexuals. The higher rates of STDs in both homosexuals and heterosexuals (who perform the exact same sex acts) occur because of unprotected sex, prostitution and promiscuity.

As a Christian I am perfectly able to condemn the "sin" without condemning the "sinner" that is what Christ does concerning all of us. He condemns my own sin but loves me anyway. What is so hard to understand here?

When you are condemning who a person IS you are most definitely not confining your condemnation to what you consider to be a "sin." You can try to salve your conscience all you want by claiming that you "love the sinner but hate the sin" but it simply is not true. When you condemn someone for being black, or Asian, or homosexual, you ARE condemning the person. You are a bigot. Embrace it because that's what you are.

I am not digging any holes. I don't even know what your talking about. There is such a thing as homosexual sex and it includes all homosexuals who have sex. Deal with it.

You really don't think about things, do you? Female homosexuals engage in sex acts. They do not have much of a problem with HIV or AIDS. They actually are "cleaner" than the majority of heterosexuals. Sex acts are sex acts--there is no such thing as "homosexual sex" and "heterosexual sex." Both orientations engage in the exact same acts.

We are all happy until we are not. That is like saying she was perfectly happy in the ocean until bitten in half by a great white shark.

Are you implying that by simply being homosexual these monogamous couples are condemned to contract AIDS? It's almost sounding as if you are implying that AIDS is a punishment inflicted on all homosexuals by God. Is that it?

It's my statement and I know exactly what I meant by it.

Lets review again.
The 4% of us in the US who are gay produce 67% of new aids cases. No they are not equal.

Yes, we see what you meant, but you are flat-out wrong.

But they all have homosexual sex (except for any celibate homosexuals out there). I did suggests that homosexual weren't descent people. I have not met one personally I didn't like. That does not mean their behavior is justifiable.

You keep taking off ramps every time I turn around. Lets get back to my simplistic arguments.

1. I claim that homosexuality comes at such a cost (in lives, misery, and money) that it isn't justifiable.
2. I am judging a behavior not a person.
3. That homosexual sex and heterosexual sex must be different in some way because the former is so much more destructive. See my CDC statistics.

Those arguments can be challenged.

[/QUOTE]

Those arguments (which you have twisted) have been challenged and disproved time after time after time, but it seems that you either don't read with comprehension or you simply can't admit that you're wrong.

 

[Skwim]

If homosexuality is a biological fact (though the behavior is definitely a choice) that we can't escape how is it that so many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling?

Curious. How many is that? I ask because

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic — believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
source
​

This means that only 55% of those who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight reached, what Dr. Robert Spitzer called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
But while most, 55%, did achieve "good heterosexual functioning," almost half, a good 45%, did not. Which is hardly stellar results. And what are these 45% left with? Any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they may have had as homosexuals is gone, as is any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they expected as heterosexuals.

Interestingly, if none had aids before becoming heterosexuals they only dodged a 48%* chance of getting it by changing their sexual orientation, and incurred a 45% chance of becoming emotionally unsatisfied heterosexuals without a loving relationship. One has to wonder how a person weighs out these two options.

And let's not forget that the rate of new aids cases and deaths is in a very healthy decline, which means that in time one of the selling points of Christianity's moral right may become moot. One can only hope.

*source

.

 

[1robin]

Let's see...homosexuals engage in certain sex acts. Heterosexuals engage in the same sex acts. There are fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, but you claim that when homosexuals "do it" it costs "way more"? Do you even think about what you're claiming?

Almost nothing you said applies. You just do not get it so I will post it again.

HIV Infections
There were an estimated 38,500 new HIV infections in 2015. Among all populations in the United States, the estimated number of annual infections declined 8% from 2010 (41,800) to 2015 (38,500).


Download the Fact Sheet



Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States by Transmission Category, 2015

*Includes infections among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs and therefore have two risk factors.

Source: CDC. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2010-2015. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2018;23(1).

HIV Diagnoses
In 2016, 39,782 people received an HIV diagnosis. The annual number of HIV diagnoses declined 5% between 2011 and 2015.

New HIV Diagnoses in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2016

Subpopulations representing 2% or less of all people who received an HIV diagnosis in 2016 are not represented in this chart.

Source: CDC. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2016. HIV Surveillance Report 2017;28.

Gay and bisexual menc are the population most affected by HIV. In 2016:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% (26,570) of all HIV diagnoses and 83% of diagnoses among males.

HIV in the United States | Statistics Overview | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC

So as you can see,, just about everything you posted above is wrong. Despite being a tiny minority homosexuals produce 67% of new aids cases. The exact same kind of stats concerning all manner of suffering exists just like that above.

But you just claimed that homosexuals commit the majority of the acts of pedophilia and that is a blatant lie.

I most certainly did not. Quote me. Argue against what I actually say quit inventing stuff.

And you know this...how? Makes me wonder if you claim this because it is a personal experience of yours?

I looked it up for 3 previous debates. I will not provide the same statistics over and over again until you deal with those I posted above.

Not according to statistics. And not according to those with whom I'm familiar. Do homosexuals break up and get divorced? Yes, but no more so than heterosexuals.

Homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexuals. That can only be true if the rate they break up with each other is higher as well.

There are not various "forms" of homosexuality just as there are not various "forms" of heterosexuality. There are people of both orientations who act out in harmful ways on the fringes of society and the majority in both orientations who live quiet lives, work at jobs, have a partner and perhaps a family. No difference.

No there aren't but you keep subdividing in an abortive attempt to make it look better than it is.

No, there are no sex acts that are unique to homosexuals. The higher rates of STDs in both homosexuals and heterosexuals (who perform the exact same sex acts) occur because of unprotected sex, prostitution and promiscuity.

I didn't say there are sexual acts exclusive to homosexuality. Your claiming I said things I didn't again. I said there is a rate of catching aids that is exclusive to homosexuality and it is enormous.

When you are condemning who a person IS you are most definitely not confining your condemnation to what you consider to be a "sin." You can try to salve your conscience all you want by claiming that you "love the sinner but hate the sin" but it simply is not true. When you condemn someone for being black, or Asian, or homosexual, you ARE condemning the person. You are a bigot. Embrace it because that's what you are.

I am perfectly able to condemn a behavior without condemning a person. I hate alcoholism but I love alcoholics. I hate theft but love thieves. I hate homelessness but love the homeless. If you disagree with this then it means you either love the sin or hate the sinner.

You really don't think about things, do you? Female homosexuals engage in sex acts. They do not have much of a problem with HIV or AIDS. They actually are "cleaner" than the majority of heterosexuals. Sex acts are sex acts--there is no such thing as "homosexual sex" and "heterosexual sex." Both orientations engage in the exact same acts.

You don't think about things. Less cost is still cost that does not have a justification. It is rarer but female homosexuals also transmit diseases and have higher rates of many of the things males do. Female homosexuality is less destructive but still can't justify it's costs. Now who was that was separating homosexuals into groups.

Are you implying that by simply being homosexual these monogamous couples are condemned to contract AIDS? It's almost sounding as if you are implying that AIDS is a punishment inflicted on all homosexuals by God. Is that it?

Where on God's green earth do you get this stuff. If you can't track anything I say why would I keep talkin to you. I never ever said anything about all monogamous homosexuals get AIDS but some do. I was saying that homosexual couples stop being monogamous at a higher rate that heterosexuals. You are still separating homosexuals into groups then blaming it on me.

Yes, we see what you meant, but you are flat-out wrong.

Glad you posted such a great argument, wait a minute you didn't even post a bad argument here.

Those arguments (which you have twisted) have been challenged and disproved time after time after time, but it seems that you either don't read with comprehension or you simply can't admit that you're wrong.

Then you should be doing much better than you are if all that stuff actually existed. You just have a preference you are emotional about. Your not interested in actual argumentation you just want to misrepresent what I say, falsely accuse me of what you yourself are doing, and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

O

Curious. How many is that? I ask because

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a psychiatry professor at Columbia University, said he began his study as a skeptic — believing, as major mental health organizations do, that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and attempts to do so can even cause harm.

But Spitzer's study, which has not yet been published or reviewed, seems to indicate otherwise. Spitzer says he spoke to 143 men and 57 women who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight, and concluded that 66 percent of the men and 44 percent of women reached what he called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
source
​

This means that only 55% of those who say they changed their orientation from gay to straight reached, what Dr. Robert Spitzer called good heterosexual functioning — a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year and getting enough emotional satisfaction to rate at least a seven on a 10-point scale.
But while most, 55%, did achieve "good heterosexual functioning," almost half, a good 45%, did not. Which is hardly stellar results. And what are these 45% left with? Any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they may have had as homosexuals is gone, as is any loving relationship and emotional satisfaction they expected as heterosexuals.

Interestingly, if none had aids before becoming heterosexuals they only dodged a 48%* chance of getting it by changing their sexual orientation, and incurred a 45% chance of becoming emotionally unsatisfied heterosexuals without a loving relationship. One has to wonder how a person weighs out these two options.

And let's not forget that the rate of new aids cases and deaths is in a very healthy decline, which means that in time one of the selling points of Christianity's moral right may become moot. One can only hope.

*source

.

One correction. You are talking about the chance of new HIV cases, not AIDS cases. In the bad old days HIV and AIDS were one and the same. Today not so much I already linked an article on how those with HIV that undergo treatment, and of course keep it up, can live a full life without AIDS. The average lifetime cost of treating HIV is under $400,000.00. And that amount is dropping as drug companies continually drop their charges:

HIV Cost-effectiveness | Guidance | Program Resources | HIV/AIDS | CDC

 

[Subduction Zone]

Almost nothing you said applies. You just do not get it so I will post it again.

HIV Infections
There were an estimated 38,500 new HIV infections in 2015. Among all populations in the United States, the estimated number of annual infections declined 8% from 2010 (41,800) to 2015 (38,500).


Download the Fact Sheet



Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States by Transmission Category, 2015

*Includes infections among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs and therefore have two risk factors.

Source: CDC. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2010-2015. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2018;23(1).

HIV Diagnoses
In 2016, 39,782 people received an HIV diagnosis. The annual number of HIV diagnoses declined 5% between 2011 and 2015.

New HIV Diagnoses in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2016

Subpopulations representing 2% or less of all people who received an HIV diagnosis in 2016 are not represented in this chart.

Source: CDC. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2016. HIV Surveillance Report 2017;28.

Gay and bisexual menc are the population most affected by HIV. In 2016:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% (26,570) of all HIV diagnoses and 83% of diagnoses among males.

HIV in the United States | Statistics Overview | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC

So as you can see,, just about everything you posted above is wrong. Despite being a tiny minority homosexuals produce 67% of new aids cases. The exact same kind of stats concerning all manner of suffering exists just like that above.


I most certainly did not. Quote me. Argue against what I actually say quit inventing stuff.



I looked it up for 3 previous debates. I will not provide the same statistics over and over again until you deal with those I posted above.



Homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexuals. That can only be true if the rate they break up with each other is higher as well.

No there aren't but you keep subdividing in an abortive attempt to make it look better than it is.





I didn't say there are sexual acts exclusive to homosexuality. Your claiming I said things I didn't again. I said there is a rate of catching aids that is exclusive to homosexuality and it is enormous.



I am perfectly able to condemn a behavior without condemning a person. I hate alcoholism but I love alcoholics. I hate theft but love thieves. I hate homelessness but love the homeless. If you disagree with this then it means you either love the sin or hate the sinner.



You don't think about things. Less cost is still cost that does not have a justification. It is rarer but female homosexuals also transmit diseases and have higher rates of many of the things males do. Female homosexuality is less destructive but still can't justify it's costs. Now who was that was separating homosexuals into groups.




Where on God's green earth do you get this stuff. If you can't track anything I say why would I keep talkin to you. I never ever said anything about all monogamous homosexuals get AIDS but some do. I was saying that homosexual couples stop being monogamous at a higher rate that heterosexuals. You are still separating homosexuals into groups then blaming it on me.





Glad you posted such a great argument, wait a minute you didn't even post a bad argument here.

Then you should be doing much better than you are if all that stuff actually existed. You just have a preference you are emotional about. Your not interested in actual argumentation you just want to misrepresent what I say, falsely accuse me of what you yourself are doing, and hurl insults at anyone who disagrees with you.

Try to drop the term "AIDS" in your post and some of your claims would be valid. Also you keep complaining about excessively long posts and yet you write a book. You will see your errors more clearly if you follow your own demands.

 

[sojourner]

I used crimes as a analogy not as an equality so stop claiming otherwise

You could have chosen analogies, then that are actual analogies. Your choices here show your bias.

please stop the color commentary

Please stop the discriminatory commentary against homosexuals, then. It’s the same thing. To wit:

This is to equate what is objectively right with what you prefer. This is a type begging the question. This is a moral question not one some medical personnel can claim is right. You claimed X is objectively "right" then gave me two subjective opinions to ground your claim. This just doesn't work

How is sexual identity a moral question, any more than racial identity is a moral question? What is “objectively right” is being true to oneself. The medical evidence is neither “subjective” nor “opinion.” However, if your assessment be the case, then, by your criteria, the CDC opinions you passed along are also subjective and are similarly moot, which throws your whole argument out the window.

They do and I gave a link to support this that apparently you ignored. Science can only tell us what is, it can't tell us what ought to be

Science told us a quarter century ago that homosexuality IS a normal facet of human sexuality.

I claim homosexual sex is a choice

What you claim is irrelevant. Unless, of course, you can point us to the moment when you chose to ignore your attraction for men and chose, instead, to become attracted to women.

I said that the merits of homosexuality sex can't justify its costs

A subjective opinion. The costs of having ones sexual identity called into question and having ones actions condemned is even more costly. Therefore, if you really are motivated to stop the cost bleed, then stop voicing your bias.

I also believe the orientation is wrong but I have not been arguing that point

This isn’t about what you “believe.” Or is it?

For number 4 I only have biblical arguments for it.

Your argument has more holes than a screen door.

I didn't say they were flawed nor did I claim they were different. Your not only trying to bait me into saying something you can point to a cry foul, you simply claim I did without that being the case

See your quote two above this one. “I believe the orientation is WRONG.” “Wrong” = “flawed.”

If you keep up the "woe is me poor victim routine" this discussion won't last long.

Woe is me?? I’m not gay. However, I do claim that your argument does serve to victimize homosexual persons.

 

[sojourner]

Less cost is still cost that does not have a justification

You’re placing a price on human happiness and fulfillment. You’re claiming that the cost is justified for the majority, but not for the minority. That, in itself, separates people, justifying some and condemning others. In effect, you’re saying, “This particular group’s happiness and fulfillment isn’t worth it to me.” For each statistical number you produce with that argument, there is a human being — did you catch that? A Human. Being. — being dehumanized and turned into a dollar sign for your convenience. I’d say there’s a problem here, but it’s not gay men humping each other...