Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[columbus]

I'm not seeing the connection made between being kicked out and responsibility for suicide. Are you? Can you cite that part?

I wish people who dismissed the results of religious abuse on children would spend some time working with groups like "at risk youth".
Tom

 

[Acim]

I wish people who dismissed the results of religious abuse on children would spend some time working with groups like "at risk youth".
Tom

That's fine. I wish people who posted made up bias about suicide, on forums, provided their rationale.

 

[1robin]

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.

FIRST LET ME POINT THAT WHILE I DO NOT THINK YOUR ARGUMENTS WILL PREVAIL YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON SO FAR IN THIS THREAD THAT PRESENTED A CHALLENGING ARGUMENT FOR ME TO CONSIDER.

1. However the rightness of wrongness of eating red meat has nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is not good because red meat is bad and homosexuality is not bad because eating red meat is good.
2. All manner of laws against certain behaviors because they cause harm exist despite other harmful behaviors being lawful.
3. For example it is legal to drink alcohol, but illegal to use cocaine.
4. So every behavior should be and most are considered in a vacuum.
5. Also these behaviors are not equivalent. 4% of the population creates 60% of new aids cases and massive damages and costs in countless categories are connected with homosexual behavior. However the 95% of us that eat red meat produce less than 95% of new cholesterol problems for example. So the average damage caused by the average instance of these behaviors is far more severe for homosexuality than eating red meat.
6. It is also obvious that we are adapted or created to eat red mean, but we are not adapted or created to perform homosexual acts. There are many reasons why eating red meat even if it causes damage may be justified that are not true for homosexuality.
7. Lastly, if you do not see how a behavior practiced by 4% of us produces 60% of new aids cases, a much lower life span for homosexuals, higher rates of adultery, higher rates of sexual assaults, much higher rates of promiscuity, and higher rates of unsafe sex then there exists no common ground by which we can resolve anything. Using your standards either nothing would be immoral or everything would be.

I can go on indefinitely but I must stop somewhere.

Do you understand the problem with your argument?

No, but I understand the problem with your argument. Deprivation without consent or sufficient justification is the primary foundation of law.

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.

There are what seems like 3 or 4 types of arguments I see used in the defense of homosexuality but those 3 or 4 arguments are dressed up in hundreds of ways. I will not address the specific ways you dressed up the same arguments I always see. For now I will simply show why these 3 or 4 types of arguments fail no matter how they are dressed up. However, if someone spends the time to type out a post as long as you have I try and respond in kind but let me start our by doing what I stated here and I will try to be more prolific after I respond here.

The type of argument and why it does not work.

1. The argument by proxy - The rightness or wrongness of any behavior has no connection what so ever with any other behavior. Homosexuality is not moral or immoral in connection to whether some other behavior is right or wrong, but even if it was related your standard would make all behaviors moral or all behaviors immoral.

2. The argument from a solution - The rightness or wrongness of a behavior has nothing to do with what actions should be taken against it. I am not qualified to determine every aspect of a behavior, for example I have no idea how to medically deal with aids but I am very well qualified to determine if an action lacks sufficient moral justification.

3. The argument from categorization - I cannot remember if you used this one or not but it is the attempt to say homosexuality is ok because some subset of homosexuals have less risk associated with their behavior. First I cannot subdivide things every demographic and discuss them all. I must stick to homosexuality verses heterosexuality. Anything else would require far too much space to post. Also no common subset of homosexual behaviors is free from risk. Virtually all sub sets of homosexuality have more risk that heterosexual behaviors and they do not have as great a benefit. These pet categories may be less drastic in their costs but they still lack sufficient justification.

Some last points. It is without any doubt that morality or legality is generalized. I used to work in various federal court rooms around the nation and many times I read texts out of their law libraries and doing so quickly shows that legality is very very specific. For example the benefits of a behavior are different, the punishments are different, and the costs are different even between actions that are generally similar. Also if you cut my arm off in an alley somewhere that is illegal but a doctor cutting my arm of in a hospital is legal. So it is not the type of action that is determinative but all manner of specifics involved.

Regardless, good effort but it still comes up short.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Let's say they did it as a hobby. I'd be curious who, other than IRS audit, is checking if their hobby meets legal requirement.

Nobody as hobby sales aren't regulated. But they have a pretty low cap on funds so if you're a bakery and getting a lot of money under the table from cakes you aren't disclosing then that audit would be no small deal.

 

[omega2xx]

Clearly they do.

Then give me some clear exmples.

 

[1robin]

What is true, and how do you know? Prove to me why your truth is more valid than mine. And you cannot quote the Bible. That is circular reasoning.

What? Unless you think that there is no way any one can ever determine what is true or likely true (which is absurd) I do not know what your driving at. I can certainly explain how I evaluate an issue but I cannot believe your asking what you seem to be, so I want confirmation before I spend time on this.

Also please see post #583 for an example of where someone posted a meaningful argument. Even though I think their arguments failed they at least posted something that was a little bit of a challenge, which is why I am here to begin with.

 

[Acim]

Nobody as hobby sales aren't regulated. But they have a pretty low cap on funds so if you're a bakery and getting a lot of money under the table from cakes you aren't disclosing then that audit would be no small deal.

Given the discrimination that exists, I could see some bakeries getting audited more than others in an attempt to discover how much sales they are doing to people having weddings.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Given the discrimination that exists, I could see some bakeries getting audited more than others in an attempt to discover how much sales they are doing to people having weddings.

Even assuming that one case about a baker's homophobic discrimination translates to 'discriminatory' attention towards bakers (and it doesn't) every business is required to disclose the same information to the IRS and keep the same amount of bookkeeping. Nobody has to prove their innocence more, the IRS has to establish guilt and have probable cause like everyone else.

 

[columbus]

4% of the population creates 60% of new aids cases and massive damages and costs in countless categories are connected with homosexual behavior.

Your inability or unwillingness to see beyond that, coupled with your inability to distinguish between causation and correlation, is why you find yourself so frustrated here on RF. Your arguments are poor and we aren't entirely the religionists you seem accustomed to preaching at.
Tom

 

[Acim]

Even assuming that one case about a baker's homophobic discrimination translates to 'discriminatory' attention towards bakers (and it doesn't) every business is required to disclose the same information to the IRS and keep the same amount of bookkeeping

And yet I would say very few hobbyists getting cash as revenue do. Of the ones I know (a few of which work in current establishments), they do not, or did not last time I spoke with them. If there is no paper trail, assets or bank account associated with such money, IRS would have tough time with such an audit. Which is perhaps why we don't hear too much about it.

 

[Jainarayan]

What? Unless you think that there is no way any one can ever determine what is true or likely true (which is absurd) I do not know what your driving at. I can certainly explain how I evaluate an issue but I cannot believe your asking what you seem to be, so I want confirmation before I spend time on this.

Also please see post #583 for an example of where someone posted a meaningful argument. Even though I think their arguments failed they at least posted something that was a little bit of a challenge, which is why I am here to begin with.

I'll refresh your memory:

1robin said: ↑
Sorry, what you believe has nothing what so ever to do with what is true. As I stated before, I do not care about your feelings and I do not care about what you believe. I care about what is true

Jainarayan said: ↑
What is true, and how do you know? Prove to me why your truth is more valid than mine. And you cannot quote the Bible. That is circular reasoning.

What I'm driving at is pointing out that you can't know what is true, though you seem to promote the idea that you do, and that it comes from your God. Truth is relative and subjective. I'm asking you to prove "what is true" that you care about.

In addition to not getting to decide what is true, you also don't get to decide what the rules of debating, or definition of a meaningful argument or discussion are. Besides, weren't you on the verge of not responding to me anymore?

 

[1robin]

Tom

Good grief man.

1. I said that what we believe does not cause what we believe to be true. Hopefully most of what I believe is actually true but what I believe does not MAKE anything true.
2. I believe that marriage is between a woman and a man, because marriage is a Holy Institution by virtue of it being an analogy of Christ's (the bridegroom) relationship to his church (the bride). However my believing it does not MAKE it true.
3. So whatever it was you were trying to show, it failed.

Regardless, I finally got someone to post something in this thread that was not completely without merit. What they posted was one of the same 3 or 4 types of argument I always see in homosexual debates. Their version of those 3 or 4 failed arguments defending homosexuality failed as well but it was stated in a meaningful way. Arguments like that made by them, and preferably better than what they provided are why I am here. Tom, please view post #583 to see an example of what a somewhat meaningful argument looks like. So far your responses have been exactly the kind that fails to even challenge me. Despite the fact you have yet to post any actual evidence for anything you are so emotionally invested that you just can not stop ineffectually trying to counter my arguments which so far you have yet to touch.

 

[columbus]

7. Lastly, if you do not see how a behavior practiced by 4% of us produces 60% of new aids cases, a much lower life span for homosexuals, higher rates of adultery, higher rates of sexual assaults, much higher rates of promiscuity, and higher rates of unsafe sex then there exists no common ground by which we can resolve anything.

Here's some information for you.

In 2015 about 36.7 million people were living with HIV and it resulted in 1.1 million deaths.[8] Most of those infected live in sub-Saharan Africa.[8] Between its discovery and 2014 AIDS has caused an estimated 39 million deaths worldwide.

AIDS is mainly caused by poverty, ignorance, and insecurity. That it causes about 6000 deaths per year in the USA isn't really too substantial. Perhaps someone who cares more about your opinions could google out statistics about suicide for you.
Tom
HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia​

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then give me some clear exmples.

That was a specific example, and I even offered my own experience as a teenager who was psychologically tormented--to the point of becoming suicidal and wishing to die--by the Church and their insistence that I am flawed, an abomination, and that god thinks I should die anyways (it really doesn't come off as "loving the sinner, hating the sin" when you're reminded, time and time again, moreso than any other sin, your very existence god finds offensive. More often than not Christianity is a bane to the existence of the LBGT community as a whole, the Bible justifies such negative thinking and even commands it, and it puts a frightening and tragic number of youth at high risk of suicide because the doctrine is toxic.
I could also go on about how abusive Christians were to me after I left the church, and how mean they can be towards atheists (to the point of making their god seem like a real jerk by saying he "doesn't believe in atheists.").

 

[1robin]

Your inability or unwillingness to see beyond that, coupled with your inability to distinguish between causation and correlation, is why you find yourself so frustrated here on RF. Your arguments are poor and we aren't entirely the religionists you seem accustomed to preaching at.
Tom

No, I am frustrated because I cannot could not get anyone to post a meaningful argument until I responded to one in post #583. This is compounded by the fact that once I engage someone or vice versa my courtesy towards others makes me loath to give up on them even after I see their arguments are pathetic. This post being a typical example.

You are correct in pointing out that I am unwilling to look beyond facts, evidence, and sound argumentation. I wish you would do the same, but you argue in spite of evidence, facts, and sound philosophical principles. You also need to stop trying to argue by proxy. Provide your own arguments, your own evidence, and your own position and stop trying to claim solidarity with the failed arguments of others whom you do not even know. At this point I am not even asking for good arguments, even a bad arguments are good enough to kill time with until someone can post a good one. However arguments you didn't or couldn't make have no value what so ever. Even though I do not like cutting of a discussion with even inept posters you are on the ragged edge of being put on ignore.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm not seeing the connection made between being kicked out and responsibility for suicide. Are you? Can you cite that part?

That's fine. I wish people who posted made up bias about suicide, on forums, provided their rationale.

First of all, the link I provided shows that the #1 cause of death among Utah teenagers is suicide. Second, if you can't see a causal link between familial rejection, shunning from a community that these kids already feel isolated from to begin with, the resulting homelessness, loss of sense of belonging, despair and a desire to find a way out then you are incredibly privileged since you can so casually dismiss the connection between these.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Then give me some clear exmples.

Read the link. There are clear examples in it.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And yet I would say very few hobbyists getting cash as revenue do. Of the ones I know (a few of which work in current establishments), they do not, or did not last time I spoke with them. If there is no paper trail, assets or bank account associated with such money, IRS would have tough time with such an audit. Which is perhaps why we don't hear too much about it.

I was only audited once as a sole proprietor. I had to disclose personal banking too to see that I was not mixing business and personal spending. I imagine if someone was hobby baking an illegal amount of undisclosed cakes then buying the inventory would come up, as well as an incongruous amount of income not matching business sales unless all the transactions are in cash. But I'm not an auditor and I do not play one on TV.

 

[Acim]

First of all, the link I provided shows that the #1 cause of death among Utah teenagers is suicide.

Grasping...at...

Second, if you can't see a causal link between familial rejection, shunning from a community that these kids already feel isolated from to begin with, the resulting homelessness, loss of sense of belonging, despair and a desire to find a way out then you are incredibly privileged since you can so casually dismiss the connection between these.

...straws

 

[Acim]

I was only audited once as a sole proprietor. I had to disclose personal banking too to see that I was not mixing business and personal spending. I imagine if someone was hobby baking an illegal amount of undisclosed cakes then buying the inventory would come up, as well as an incongruous amount of income not matching business sales unless all the transactions are in cash. But I'm not an auditor and I do not play one on TV.

So, other than the 50/50 proposition of possibly being busted under audit, which happens rarely, any other potential issues with how it might play out?