Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[1robin]

​

It's not a matter of word choice---using one instead of another---(choosing a synonym as it were), but because of what is denoted by what you said. Instead of saying "many," which means "a large number" you went to the trouble to qualify that "many" to mean more than a large number. You wanted the reader to believe that a great many professing homosexuals became heterosexuals after seeking (Christian) counseling. "How many is that?" is certainly not a hyper technical question, nor is trying to pry the meaning of what you said out of you, hyper technical. That you obviously can't back up your claim, and now try to take refuge in a "go-look-here-and-figure-it-out-for-yourself defense, and whining about me being hyper technical is rather lame.

I can't believe we are still circling the semantic drain pipe. I used the word "many" exactly like what I told you. A significant amount or a number larger than what I would expect if homosexuality is determined before birth. You may have thought I meant the word "many" in another way but you would be wrong in that case. What I meant was painfully obvious. How does any of this counter my core argument? And at this point no more clarity can be gained by obsessing over the term "many".

And my "Curious. How many is that?" didn't imply I was looking for a specific number, just if you had said "so many people showed up for the football game" wouldn't prompt expectations for an exact number, but a decent approximation. Some kind of information about what motivated you to not just indicate a large number of people at the game, but a great number.

Asking me how many is that is definitely a request for a specific number. No one could possibly know exactly how many there are. This is silly.

So, why a great number, 1robin, instead of simply a large number? To reiterate, you went to the trouble to modify your "many" and I was simply curious what that was. Want to say, "12,554"? Fine, Want to say "Tens of thousands"? well,. . . . . okay. Want to say "Thousands and thousands"? Sorry, but I'll need evidence.

That is not what I meant by many. I meant many as I have said a half dozen times so far.

1. A number larger than the number I would have suspected if homosexuality was genetic. Heck just 1 is enough.
2. A significant number in this context.

The message you want to get across is in your hands, and if you can't stand by it then I'll know better what to look out for in your future posts.

I have clarified what I meant a half dozen times, I can't make you accept it so it is not in my hands apparently.

Sure you could have, but something prompted you to add it. Or do you simply make it a habit of exaggerating facts?

.

I am done with this, either defend homosexuality against my core argument or change the subject entirely. This tempest in a tea cup stuff must end. You at least after all this should know exactly what I was saying there is no more clarity to be found.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Homosexual sex comes with such a high cost (tens of thousand of lives and millions of dollars) it can't be justified by its "merits".
.

Hey! You're making progress! You originally claimed that homosexual sex costs millions of lives and billions of dollars! Now, you just need to take the next step and admit that there is no such thing as "homosexual sex" that is in any way different from heterosexual sex and we'll be cruising along!

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I think it ultimately is, because you’re the one who keeps saying “there’s a difference” between acts that are the same acts.


No. It doesn’t. The same acts (and let’s please just go ahead and identify them as butt sex, because that’s what we’re talking about) produce much higher “prices” among heterosexuals in Africa. Plus, not all homosexual couples engage in butt sex. It’s not a requirement. So the “culprit” isn’t “homosexuality,” it’s “indiscriminate butt sex.”


You’ve provided poor analytics of incomplete data.


Asked and answered.

Small correction, if I may. It's not even just "indiscriminate butt sex" but any type of sexual interaction that is unprotected, be it "butt sex" or vaginal sex.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I can't believe we are still circling the semantic drain pipe. I used the word "many" exactly like what I told you. A significant amount or a number larger than what I would expect if homosexuality is determined before birth. You may have thought I meant the word "many" in another way but you would be wrong in that case. What I meant was painfully obvious. How does any of this counter my core argument? And at this point no more clarity can be gained by obsessing over the term "many".

Asking me how many is that is definitely a request for a specific number. No one could possibly know exactly how many there are. This is silly.

Why couldn't anyone know exactly how many? I would think that these organizations that are claiming all these "successes" would be keeping pretty good records, don't you? So why can't you find any numbers?

You also need to take into account the fact that sexual orientation is not totally black or white. There are shades of gray, meaning that many currently practicing homosexuals are actually bisexual, and those people could be a greater proportion of the supposed "successes" claimed by these groups. Someone who is definitely homosexual cannot morph into being a heterosexual any more than someone who is definitely heterosexual could morph into a homosexual by attending some sort of "de-programming" sessions.

 

[1robin]

Hey! You're making progress! You originally claimed that homosexual sex costs millions of lives and billions of dollars! Now, you just need to take the next step and admit that there is no such thing as "homosexual sex" that is in any way different from heterosexual sex and we'll be cruising along!

Your distinction made no difference so I saw no reason not to lower my figures to keep from having to haggle over them. There I such a thing as homosexual sex and it must have some significant differences because it is far more destructive than what heterosexuals do.

 

[1robin]

Why couldn't anyone know exactly how many? I would think that these organizations that are claiming all these "successes" would be keeping pretty good records, don't you? So why can't you find any numbers?

I didn't say I could not find some numbers. I intact provided 3 links. I said no one I know of has exact figures. For one thing no one was around previous to a hundred years ago that kept these statistics.

You also need to take into account the fact that sexual orientation is not totally black or white. There are shades of gray, meaning that many currently practicing homosexuals are actually bisexual, and those people could be a greater proportion of the supposed "successes" claimed by these groups. Someone who is definitely homosexual cannot morph into being a heterosexual any more than someone who is definitely heterosexual could morph into a homosexual by attending some sort of "de-programming" sessions.

We are not discussing bisexualism nor heterosexuality nor anything in between. This is a thread about homosexuality. The same group as the CDC data I supplied. A better explanation of the facts is that homosexuality is a choice. However we are not really talking about the orientation, my argument is about the behavior.

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Your distinction made no difference so I saw no reason not to lower my figures to keep from having to haggle over them. There I such a thing as homosexual sex and it must have some significant differences because it is far more destructive than what heterosexuals do.

Honestly, you haven't appeared to have any problem whatsoever haggling about anything. I do think, though, when it was pointed out that, according to known percentages of homosexuals in the general population the number of homosexuals in the U.S. is around 9,000,000, that made your original claims obviously bogus...so, since you don't have any idea of what "damages" (either to people or in monetary terms) are supposedly in your mind caused by "homosexual sex," you just threw out much lower "statistics" and hoped that no one would notice. Right?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

I didn't say I could not find some numbers. I intact provided 3 links. I said no one I know of has exact figures. For one thing no one was around previous to a hundred years ago that kept these statistics.

We are not discussing bisexualism nor heterosexuality nor anything in between. This is a thread about homosexuality. The same group as the CDC data I supplied. A better explanation of the facts is that homosexuality is a choice. However we are not really talking about the orientation, my argument is about the behavior.

What's with the "previous to a hundred years ago" business? Are you saying that these "Christian re-orientation" scams were around over a hundred years ago? I highly doubt that, so, since these scams are not all that old, and since there must be records kept of all those wondrous "conversions" of which you brag, you surely could come up with some numbers...if they existed. Perhaps, though, those re-orientation scams don't keep records because there really aren't any major successes at all...just hype.

When you condemn a behavior in a particular group of people who do NOT have a choice in the matter, you are most definitely talking about the orientation. If homosexuality is a "choice" then so, too, is heterosexuality. You have been asked repeatedly to tell us when YOU made the "choice" to be a heterosexual. Why won't you answer? Could it be because you know that your sexual orientation is NOT a choice, and if heterosexuality is not a choice, then neither is homosexuality...and that merely makes you a bigot.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A better explanation of the facts is that homosexuality is a choice.

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

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Can we get back to my actual argument that homosexuality's costs can't be justified by its "merits"?

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

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.)

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[sojourner]

Small correction, if I may. It's not even just "indiscriminate butt sex" but any type of sexual interaction that is unprotected, be it "butt sex" or vaginal sex.

Yes, I know, but he’s talking about butt sex.

 

[sojourner]

I am done with this, either defend homosexuality against my core argument or change the subject entirely

I thought you said you had no argument with homosexuality. Do you, or don’t you?

Here: “we are not really talking about the orientation...”

 

[sojourner]

We are not discussing bisexualism nor heterosexuality nor anything in between. This is a thread about homosexuality. The same group as the CDC data I supplied. A better explanation of the facts is that homosexuality is a choice. However we are not really talking about the orientation, my argument is about the behavior

You seem to want to camouflage an argument against homosexuality (the orientation) by arguing against some fabled “homosexual act” (you have, as yet, been either unwilling or unable to name just what this exclusively homosexual act might be), using CDC data to back up your claim, reprinted here: “Homosexual sex comes with such a high cost (tens of thousand of lives and millions of dollars) it can't be justified by its ‘merits’.”

Yet, you’ve tipped your hand numerous times, as illustrated by your statement above, which I’ve highlighted for ease of viewing. This thread is about homosexuality, which you condemn through devaluing a sex act that is engaged in both by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, to wit: “There [is] such a thing as homosexual sex and it must have some significant differences because it is far more destructive than what heterosexuals do.”

So, let’s simplify this and re-engage your premise (which I’ve already done previously, but shall do so again, for your ease of viewing.)

There are, as you put it in quotation marks (implying that they are fictitious and, therefore, don’t count), “merits” to acts of physical intimacy for those who identify as homosexual, whether you think there are, or not. They are exactly the same merits that benefit those who identify as heterosexual and engage in acts of physical intimacy.

Those merits are mentioned in the Bible — also in several mainline denominational marriage ceremonies (I imagine including the Baptist marriage ceremonies). They include: intimacy, support, comfort, familiarity with each other, mutual joy and affection, the engagement of a “love language” through physical acts, the health benefits associated with the release of certain hormones and cardiovascular activity, happiness, and a medically-identified longevity factor.

Those things certainly are merits of the physical sex acts. As I’ve mentioned, the production of little humans is a happy by-product of the act, which is not universally enjoyed by heterosexual couples, so we won’t list it here.

Those merits are important, both to the emotional and physical health of the people involved, whether they identify as homosexual or heterosexual. You would not want to devalue them for heterosexual couples; why do you devalue them for homosexual couples?

You claim that the AIDS rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples, yet, that isn’t true. HIV may be higher, but it is not higher for that demographic worldwide. Nonetheless, you claim that the cost of disease outweighs the benefits of the merits. I don’t know how one goes about quantifying spiritual and emotional health benefits, but they are certainly high enough that people keep engaging in sex acts with beloved partners. I don’t think there’s a doctor or psychiatrist who would deny the great value and benefit of those emotional and physical merits. I doubt they would devalue them — even given the CDC “statistics” you provided.

But there’s a more telling statement you made a few pages back. I can’t find it, but you (and others) doubtless remember you making that statement. You said that the costs impact your wallet, and so that makes it your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, in essence, you’re abusing medical statistics as your ticket to pry into peoples’ private lives. That represents a marked disregard for the human sovereignty of those whose lives you would put under a microscope. IOW, it dehumanizes them. “Your wallet” is valued greater than their human sovereignty. Which is akin to the act of placing a monetary value on African slaves. Claiming that it’s “your business” is to claim entitlement to the value of both sexual identity and the accompanying acts.

This is insidious, it’s wrong, and it’s evil.

And you still haven’t provided answers to two important questions:
1) When did you make the choice to become heterosexual?
2) What, precisely, is this fabled, exclusive “homosexual act” you keep decrying?

 

[1robin]

Honestly, you haven't appeared to have any problem whatsoever haggling about anything. I do think, though, when it was pointed out that, according to known percentages of homosexuals in the general population the number of homosexuals in the U.S. is around 9,000,000, that made your original claims obviously bogus...so, since you don't have any idea of what "damages" (either to people or in monetary terms) are supposedly in your mind caused by "homosexual sex," you just threw out much lower "statistics" and hoped that no one would notice. Right?

We are not merely discussing the current numbers, we are talking about cumulative numbers and only in the last few years have we had groups keeping up with the numbers. This means that exact numbers are impossible to know. Scaling my numbers down does not change the core argument so I went ahead and did so to limit the number of things we disagree on. The point you made is called a distinction without a difference. Are we clear on this now/ It seems like were we are wasting time spinning our wheels.

 

[1robin]

What's with the "previous to a hundred years ago" business? Are you saying that these "Christian re-orientation" scams were around over a hundred years ago? I highly doubt that, so, since these scams are not all that old, and since there must be records kept of all those wondrous "conversions" of which you brag, you surely could come up with some numbers...if they existed. Perhaps, though, those re-orientation scams don't keep records because there really aren't any major successes at all...just hype.

No, I was saying that accurate record keeping in this context has only been occurring for the past 100 years or so.

When you condemn a behavior in a particular group of people who do NOT have a choice in the matter, you are most definitely talking about the orientation. If homosexuality is a "choice" then so, too, is heterosexuality. You have been asked repeatedly to tell us when YOU made the "choice" to be a heterosexual. Why won't you answer? Could it be because you know that your sexual orientation is NOT a choice, and if heterosexuality is not a choice, then neither is homosexuality...and that merely makes you a bigot.

Homosexual sex is without the slightest doubt a choice. I am not trying to condemn the orientation. I have answered many times but only to point out this is irrelevant. I am not judging the orientation. I am giving a secular argument against homosexual sex which is 100% a choice. If I can get you to make more relevant posts we can move closer to the truth.

Let me clarify my arguments again.

1. I believe the orientation is immoral but I am not arguing that point. Therefor the nature versus nurture argument is irrelevant. When I realized I was heterosexual is irrelevant.
2. I am condemning a behavior.
3. I provided statistics which demonstrate number 2.

 

[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.

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.

I thought you gave up on posting to me, did you change your mind? Before I invest any significant time responding to you will you please tell me whether your in or out. I am probably not going to agree with you on this issue, can you stomach that or not? If you want to keep going then let me know and then I will address your posts.

 

[1robin]

I thought you said you had no argument with homosexuality. Do you, or don’t you?

Here: “we are not really talking about the orientation...”

Ok, one last time. I will post my position again.

1. I believe that the homosexual orientation is immoral but I only have biblical arguments against it. The orientation is a hard thing to judge so I haven't been attempting it. So the orientation is not the argument I am interested in discussing.
2. I have been judging homosexual sex. I have given a secular argument against it and some stats that back up the argument. This is the topic I am interested in discussing.

So, do we at least have an understanding of what I am driving at? I understand how this might be confusing but I can only restate my position so many times.

 

[1robin]

You seem to want to camouflage an argument against homosexuality (the orientation) by arguing against some fabled “homosexual act” (you have, as yet, been either unwilling or unable to name just what this exclusively homosexual act might be), using CDC data to back up your claim, reprinted here: “Homosexual sex comes with such a high cost (tens of thousand of lives and millions of dollars) it can't be justified by its ‘merits’.”

Yet, you’ve tipped your hand numerous times, as illustrated by your statement above, which I’ve highlighted for ease of viewing. This thread is about homosexuality, which you condemn through devaluing a sex act that is engaged in both by homosexual couples and heterosexual couples, to wit: “There [is] such a thing as homosexual sex and it must have some significant differences because it is far more destructive than what heterosexuals do.”

So, let’s simplify this and re-engage your premise (which I’ve already done previously, but shall do so again, for your ease of viewing.)

There are, as you put it in quotation marks (implying that they are fictitious and, therefore, don’t count), “merits” to acts of physical intimacy for those who identify as homosexual, whether you think there are, or not. They are exactly the same merits that benefit those who identify as heterosexual and engage in acts of physical intimacy.

Those merits are mentioned in the Bible — also in several mainline denominational marriage ceremonies (I imagine including the Baptist marriage ceremonies). They include: intimacy, support, comfort, familiarity with each other, mutual joy and affection, the engagement of a “love language” through physical acts, the health benefits associated with the release of certain hormones and cardiovascular activity, happiness, and a medically-identified longevity factor.

Those things certainly are merits of the physical sex acts. As I’ve mentioned, the production of little humans is a happy by-product of the act, which is not universally enjoyed by heterosexual couples, so we won’t list it here.

Those merits are important, both to the emotional and physical health of the people involved, whether they identify as homosexual or heterosexual. You would not want to devalue them for heterosexual couples; why do you devalue them for homosexual couples?

You claim that the AIDS rates are higher for homosexual couples than for heterosexual couples, yet, that isn’t true. HIV may be higher, but it is not higher for that demographic worldwide. Nonetheless, you claim that the cost of disease outweighs the benefits of the merits. I don’t know how one goes about quantifying spiritual and emotional health benefits, but they are certainly high enough that people keep engaging in sex acts with beloved partners. I don’t think there’s a doctor or psychiatrist who would deny the great value and benefit of those emotional and physical merits. I doubt they would devalue them — even given the CDC “statistics” you provided.

But there’s a more telling statement you made a few pages back. I can’t find it, but you (and others) doubtless remember you making that statement. You said that the costs impact your wallet, and so that makes it your business what people do in the privacy of their own homes. So, in essence, you’re abusing medical statistics as your ticket to pry into peoples’ private lives. That represents a marked disregard for the human sovereignty of those whose lives you would put under a microscope. IOW, it dehumanizes them. “Your wallet” is valued greater than their human sovereignty. Which is akin to the act of placing a monetary value on African slaves. Claiming that it’s “your business” is to claim entitlement to the value of both sexual identity and the accompanying acts.

This is insidious, it’s wrong, and it’s evil.

And you still haven’t provided answers to two important questions:
1) When did you make the choice to become heterosexual?
2) What, precisely, is this fabled, exclusive “homosexual act” you keep decrying?

Now you are doing what made me suspend our discussion recently again. Your arguments are interspersed with claims that what I am doing is insidious and evil, etc.... I will not stand for this garbage. If you will go back and strip all the color commentary from you post I will address it but I have reached the end of my patience with your virtue signaling and identity politics. So will you remove all the insulting language from your post and leave just the core argument? I just can't keep being insulted in every other post.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I thought you gave up on posting to me. Before I invest any significant time responding to you will you please tell me whether your in or out. I am probably not going to agree with you on this issue, can you stomach that or not. If you want to keep going then let me know and then I will address your posts.

Clearly I do not like what you post, and clearly I think you are very badly misinformed about many things. I will respond as honestly and as forthrightly as I am able to honest viewpoints. I will ask for evidence when claims are made that seem improbable or worse, and I will give my opinion...always with reasons and evidence provided...for why I think such claims are nonsense.

If you can live with that, post away.

 

[1robin]

Clearly I do not like what you post, and clearly I think you are very badly misinformed about many things. I will respond as honestly and as forthrightly as I am able to honest viewpoints. I will ask for evidence when claims are made that seem improbable or worse, and I will give my opinion...always with reasons and evidence provided...for why I think such claims are nonsense.

If you can live with that, post away.

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.