Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Jainarayan]

That statement is pathetic, it is wrong in far more cases than it is right. You are so arrogant and petty that if you do not pick up the level of your argumentation soon I am going to cease debating you. I come here to be challenged, not for what ever it is your doing.

Why is it pathetic and wrong? If you can't fix the problem you are complaining about, you're contributing to its continuation. Why complain about the weather when the weather does what weather does? If you don't want to get soaked in a downpour, either use an umbrella or don't go out. It makes no sense to go out without an umbrella and then complain about the rain.

I am paying for everyone's medical bills, we all are.

You're certainly not paying mine. I pay my insurance premiums, and my company contributes. Where are you contributing to my insurance or medical bills? Your argument fails.

Whatever a challenging argument might be, your argument here is the exact opposite. You might want to turn off your computer and go yell at traffic somewhere.

That's it, you can not even be bothered to post a bad argument. I originally said that anyone who bring preference and emotion to a fact fight would be ignored.

I am done with you.

OK, buh bye. But don't think I'm going to stop pointing out the epic failures of your comments. You should examine your own arguments and posts, since the best one you can come up with is "I am done with you", no matter whom you are talking to. You will find that their epic failures are epic. It is a very typical and common "my way or no way, so I'm taking my toys and going home" mindset that people of a certain belief system have.

Btw, yelling at traffic comes under the Why Complain About Something You Can't Change? heading.

 

[columbus]

Among dozens of problems associated with homosexuality in the US the 4% of the population causes well over 60% of new aids cases. That data comes from the CDC.

But you never can clearly explain the causative link and ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of HIV victims aren't even in the USA.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

If you made any bad, it was your phraseology, "There's too much 'Us Vs Them' going on here." While you see this as describing enemies, I only see it as describing opponents.You know, *sigh* like in a debate.

Bad guess.


.

In a real debate, there ire no ad hominems, character assassinations or generalizations.

We are all human beings who want the same things out of life, but just disagree on how to get those things.

We are not enemies or opponents.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sounds good.

Let me restate my primary contentions and where it is I believe we left off at last time. You can correct me if you remember anything differently.

My two main contentions are:

1. Homosexual behavior (sex) causes losses of health, life, and property to such a massive extent that whatever benefits result from it are not enough to morally justify the behavior.
2. Heterosexual behavior (sex) causes far lower losses of health, life, and property and has a much higher magnitude of benefits so that it can be morally justified.

Keep in mind that these behaviors must be adjusted for population inequalities because the fact that more of us are heterosexual is not causally linked to the costs of heterosexual behavior.

As to where we left off. I believe that you showed that perhaps one of the pillars (divorce rates) I used to show the costs of homosexual behavior may not have been accurate but as I recall you did not present a serious challenge to the majority of costs associated with homosexual behavior.

If my memory serves as well as yours does, I think you are correct about the divorce rates. I'll have to get to work on the others a bit later tonight when I've got more time to think about it.

So with that you may fire when ready. Lets try to keep this from growing prohibitively too large too fast if possible.

Given our posting history, I'm not sure that is possible. But I'll try.

 

[Skwim]

In a real debate, there ire no ad hominems, character assassinations or generalizations.

We are not enemies or opponents.

There are no real debates here. And yes there are opponents.

opponent
[uh-poh-nuh nt]

noun
1. a person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary.

adjective
2. being opposite, as in position.


.​

 

[sayak83]

I will simply post one of the examples I gave, no offense intended but I do not have the time to go though a weeks worth of posts every time you want to know something I have said. Among dozens of problems associated with homosexuality in the US the 4% of the population causes well over 60% of new aids cases. That data comes from the CDC. I posted several graphs and links when I originally posted my data, it should not take you long to look it up if you doubt I am telling the truth.

Umm, so what? If a certain sexual (homosexual) or dietary (red meat eating) behavior creates increased risk of disease (aids or heart disease) for that person, what of it? I see no morally relevant argument here at all. The only point here I see is an argument for properly adjusting the health insurance premiums of people depending on the life-choices they make in a systematic manner. Thus it would go like this:-

1) This person's diet increase his risk of heart disease by X% above mean. So medical premium goes up by Y%
2) This person's recreation activity (like drinking ) increases his risk of kidney disease by X2 % above mean. So his medical premium goes up by Y2%
3) This person's family choices (like marrying late) increases her risk of breast cancer by X3 % above mean. So her medical premium goes up by Y3%.
4) This persons's sexual activity (like homosexuality/promiscuity) increases his risk of HIV and other STD by X4% above mean. So his medical premium goes up by Y4%

This can be done (and is often done), though privacy concerns would mean that there will be some balance between informed insurance policy based on metadata and privacy rights. Whatever the right and wrong of such a targeted insurance idea , these are all economic issues of how to manage a financially successful and socially viable health insurance system. I see nothing here that is morally significant.


Do you understand the problem with your argument?

You say
1) The behavior and life choices of a certain person X increases his risk of getting a health condition (or risk of him dying) by Y%

Looks fine

But how does it follow from this that:-
2) Therefore the person should not be allowed to make that life choice X??


And how does it apply only to homosexuality as a life choice and not
1) Red Meat (heart disease)
2) Sugar and Ice Cream (Dental Health, Diabetes)
3) Alcohol (all the plethora of health problems associated with that)
4) Driving Cars (1.25 million deaths per year worldwide).
5) Swimming in the sea beaches or hiking (drowning, bear attacks)


You asked why do other risk factors I mention matter. They matter because, you are proposing that a person's own lifestyle choices that increase or decrease certain risks to his life and his health is somehow a moral concern. I am saying they are not a moral concern, and we make thousands of life style choices that increase and decrease such risks in thousands of ways (see examples above) and what is so greatly different about homosexuality that it has to be singled out and not us driving cars?

The key point here is that moral principles are always generalizeable.
Stealing is immoral and illegal in general. Its not as if stealing cars is immoral and stealing diamonds is not. There is a certain principle acting behind the argument that stealing (non-consensual appropriation of property) is wrong. So if you are suddenly going to propose that "risk taking behavior X is wrong because its risky to the person"...it has to apply to each and every possible risk enhancing behavior with specific ways to assess the risks and decide.

 

[omega2xx]

No it isn't and BOY do I see Christians misunderstand what Free Speech is on the regular.

The free speech clause in the constitution protects you from government retribution for things you say. It *does not in any way* protect you from consequences outside of that scope. If someone tells you "stop talking", they aren't "stifling" your "free speech", they are exercising theirs.
*You are not protected from the consequences of your speech from other private entities* The End.

If I can be hauled into jail to saying homosexual acts are s sin against God, my right to free speech is being violated. If I refuse to sell cupcakes to any individual for any reason,and can be put into jail, my freedom of religion is being violated. The end

 

[Prestor John]

There are no real debates here. And yes there are opponents.

opponent
[uh-poh-nuh nt]

noun
1. a person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary.

adjective
2. being opposite, as in position.


.​

I guess I'm viewing "opponent" with the most negative connotation.

I'm not seeing "opponents" on this thread, but "enemies".

 

[columbus]

If I can be hauled into jail to saying homosexual acts are s sin against God, my right to free speech is being violated. If I refuse to sell cupcakes to any individual for any reason,and can be put into jail, my freedom of religion is being violated. The end

And I am saying that this doesn't actually happen, at least not in the USA. A couple of high profile cases with political agendas against bakers or something aren't really too important.
I don't know how people do things in other countries but I am sure that religionists do the vast bulk of the oppressing.

What is nearly always happening is the usual, Christians denied the ability to oppress others feel persecuted.

I wouldn't even object to churches teaching against gay rights, if they gave up their special tax benefits.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I guess I'm viewing "opponent" with the most negative connotation.

I'm not seeing "opponents" on this thread, but "enemies".

You don't seem like an enemy to me, as much as we disagree. But other posters here are the enemy and represent the kind of people who regularly drive others to suicide and other kinds of self destruction to bulwark their religious beliefs.

You aren't the same. But you're not entirely different either.
Tom

 

[omega2xx]

And I am saying that this doesn't actually happen, at least not in the USA. A couple of high profile cases with political agendas against bakers or something aren't really too important.

You don't get to determine what is important to others. I bet if the shoe was on the other foot, you would squesl like a stuck pig.

I don't know how people do things in other countries but I am sure that religionists do the vast bulk of the oppressing.

Publically speaking what the Bible says about homosexuality is not oppressive.

What is nearly always happening is the usual, Christians denied the ability to oppress others feel persecuted.

What a silly thing to say. Tha tis the usual homosexual rights rhetoric.

I wouldn't even object to churches teaching against gay rights, if they gave up their special tax benefits.
Tom

I wish churches would give up their special tax benefits to show the world that God will provide what we need. I wish all organizations would give up their special tax benefits., unless they are truly helping the needy and not getting big salaries.

 

[omega2xx]

You don't seem like an enemy to me, as much as we disagree. But other posters here are the enemy and represent the kind of people who regularly drive others to suicide and other kinds of self destruction to bulwark their religious beliefs.

You aren't the same. But you're not entirely different either.
Tom

How silly and biased. Christians do not regularly drive others to suicide.

 

[Skwim]

I guess I'm viewing "opponent" with the most negative connotation.

I'm not seeing "opponents" on this thread, but "enemies".

That's too bad.


.

 

[Jainarayan]

If I can be hauled into jail to saying homosexual acts are s sin against God, my right to free speech is being violated. If I refuse to sell cupcakes to any individual for any reason,and can be put into jail, my freedom of religion is being violated. The end

Neither one of those scenarios is true in the US. The end.

 

[Prestor John]

If I refuse to sell cupcakes to any individual for any reason,and can be put into jail, my freedom of religion is being violated. The end

Where in your religion are you commanded to not sell cupcakes to someone?

 

[Prestor John]

Umm, so what? If a certain sexual (homosexual) or dietary (red meat eating) behavior creates increased risk of disease (aids or heart disease) for that person, what of it? I see no morally relevant argument here at all. The only point here I see is an argument for properly adjusting the health insurance premiums of people depending on the life-choices they make in a systematic manner. Thus it would go like this:-

1) This person's diet increase his risk of heart disease by X% above mean. So medical premium goes up by Y%
2) This person's recreation activity (like drinking ) increases his risk of kidney disease by X2 % above mean. So his medical premium goes up by Y2%
3) This person's family choices (like marrying late) increases her risk of breast cancer by X3 % above mean. So her medical premium goes up by Y3%.
4) This persons's sexual activity (like homosexuality/promiscuity) increases his risk of HIV and other STD by X4% above mean. So his medical premium goes up by Y4%

This can be done (and is often done), though privacy concerns would mean that there will be some balance between informed insurance policy based on metadata and privacy rights. Whatever the right and wrong of such a targeted insurance idea , these are all economic issues of how to manage a financially successful and socially viable health insurance system. I see nothing here that is morally significant.


Do you understand the problem with your argument?

You say
1) The behavior and life choices of a certain person X increases his risk of getting a health condition (or risk of him dying) by Y%

Looks fine

But how does it follow from this that:-
2) Therefore the person should not be allowed to make that life choice X??


And how does it apply only to homosexuality as a life choice and not
1) Red Meat (heart disease)
2) Sugar and Ice Cream (Dental Health, Diabetes)
3) Alcohol (all the plethora of health problems associated with that)
4) Driving Cars (1.25 million deaths per year worldwide).
5) Swimming in the sea beaches or hiking (drowning, bear attacks)


You asked why do other risk factors I mention matter. They matter because, you are proposing that a person's own lifestyle choices that increase or decrease certain risks to his life and his health is somehow a moral concern. I am saying they are not a moral concern, and we make thousands of life style choices that increase and decrease such risks in thousands of ways (see examples above) and what is so greatly different about homosexuality that it has to be singled out and not us driving cars?

The key point here is that moral principles are always generalizeable.
Stealing is immoral and illegal in general. Its not as if stealing cars is immoral and stealing diamonds is not. There is a certain principle acting behind the argument that stealing (non-consensual appropriation of property) is wrong. So if you are suddenly going to propose that "risk taking behavior X is wrong because its risky to the person"...it has to apply to each and every possible risk enhancing behavior with specific ways to assess the risks and decide.

Applause

 

[Prestor John]

I wouldn't even object to churches teaching against gay rights, if they gave up their special tax benefits.

Actually, the entire Separation of Church and State and tax-exempt status thing has more to do with not endorsing certain political candidates, not matters of legislation or morality.

Churches can lobby on local, State or Federal levels for all kinds of issues (including "same-sex marriage") without it affecting their status.

Well, they could before the Supreme Court made their ruling.

 

[Prestor John]

You don't seem like an enemy to me, as much as we disagree. But other posters here are the enemy and represent the kind of people who regularly drive others to suicide and other kinds of self destruction to bulwark their religious beliefs.

You aren't the same. But you're not entirely different either.
Tom

Thanks...I guess.

I definitely feel the "enemy" vibe one both sides of this issue.

 

[Prestor John]

That's too bad.

It is too bad. These bad vibes are blowing this issue way out of proportion.

 

[1robin]

I agree and yet I need to ask, you consider what you have said here to be your best attempt at doing that?

This has not been my best. This is because those who defend homosexuality do not have any facts to use in their arguments yet they are die hard emotionally attached to defending homosexuality. That means that all I ever get are long winded but absolutely abysmal arguments. So over the years I have become very blunt and direct when it comes to my responses here. What is it you think I should be doing but am not? I really do not know what your driving at here.

Is it possible to share the truth that is in Christ in the least Christ-like way possible?

I am not proselytizing here. I have not mentioned God, Christ, or scriptures in my primary arguments. I am not trying to win anyone here to Christ, I am trying to show the light of truth on an immoral behavior.

If you take arguments made by me for one purpose and then you act as if I made them for another purpose no wonder you think I failed.

Sure He does if how you shared that truth somehow turned people away from that very truth you were sharing.

My duties before God and between me and him. He has no problem illustrating his disappointment with me when I fail him.

Well, don’t get too ahead of yourself. My belief concerning homosexuality is independent of anything you have shared and I don’t agree with the exact message you have shared.

Well, if you do not wish to believe facts and what they indicate, then you are free to wonder around in fantasy land until your fantasy is brought to an abrupt halt by the cold and terrifying intrusion of reality, only it will be too late at that point.

At least, I don’t see God explaining the damages of butt-sex anywhere.

So you expect God to have written a book (or should I say a million libraries full of books) that includes every thing you demand. God does not answer to you or me. God does as he wishes and I must adapt accordingly.

I am of the opinion that the further you veer from what God has actually said on a given subject, the less likely your audience will be convinced of the truthfulness of what you have said.

For pity's sake man. I originally made a secular argument against homosexual behavior, what God say about it does not apply. However God said plenty about homosexuality and it is way worse than anything I said. Do you really want to know what he thinks about homosexuality because I can sure lay it on you?

I have also been on many forums sites like this one over the years and I am confident that when I get a “cringe” over what someone has said, it won’t go over well with other people.

I have no idea what your talking about.

I suppose I would in order to convince you.

You must to have any credibility in the proper use of statistical data.

However, consider for a moment that during the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ He never spoke of things in a temporal or physical sense. All of His teachings and parables were about the eternal or spiritual aspects of our existence.

He spoke of temporal issues continuously. Did he give the multitudes bread and fish or not? I really thought you were an atheist. Seeing you are LDS is disappointing because your entire religion is contradictory.

I don’t think you need to be talking about HIV and butt-sex in order to deliver God’s message about the sin of homosexuality.

You do not know much about debate apparently. You do not make arguments about what God has said to those who do not believe he exists. You make appeals to reason and logic to unbelievers because that is common ground we both share.

I do not find the truth distasteful. I find your methods of delivery to be distasteful.

I do not care about your feelings, I care about the truth.

The “punch in the face” thing was out of line. I just wanted to convey my frustration of agreeing with the truth behind your message, but disliking your method of delivery.

You do not seem to be experienced enough with debate to be a qualified judge of what I say. Do you remember when Jesus called his own priests a brood of vipers who could not hope to escape Hell? Why was that ok for him and my far more benevolent statements wrong?

I understand how it feels to be a target of resentment because of your beliefs.

Ok

I don’t consider the truth to be inconvenient. I just don’t think we need to bring up butt-sex to tell the truth about God and homosexuality.

You must do that exact thing to debate a person who denies the God your appealing to even exists.

We can have a discussion if you’d like, but since I know that God exists and that my life shines with Gospel light, I don’t know what we would discuss.

That was one strange statement.

I understand that I too have been down that rabbit hole, but I promise you that that approach is not effective.

Why don't you tell them what God thinks and see if they respond with anything but dismissal. Tell, you what read my response to Skeptical thinker that I will post in a little while and see what she thinks about arguments which use God to condemn homosexuality.

It does not display God’s love nor does it give anyone a reason to care about what God wants for them.

God sends people to Hell and Christ spoke the most scorching words about sin that anyone who ever lived. You need to read your bible again.

You don’t have to defend the truth of Christ against me. I agree with you there with my whole heart.

I did not intend to post anything about Christ until you mentioned him. Again I am making secular arguments to people who are emotionally impervious to evidence and facts.