Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[columbus]

No, I am frustrated because I cannot could not get anyone to post a meaningful argument until I responded to one in post #583.

I will be interested to see your response to my post about HIV statistics.
Tom

 

[1robin]

I'll refresh your memory:





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.

Please post a single statement in all 12000 plus posts I made that said truth is unknowable. The closest I have ever gotten is to point out that with the exception that we think no one can be absolutely certain that what they believe is true. I have not been arguing to a certainty but as always to the best conclusion.

However what I was saying in the statement where you quoted me was that what we merely believe alone does not make for an argument. You posted only that you did not believe something. I said that your simply stating what you believe does nothing what so ever to counter anything I had said. What you believe unless it comes with evidence and argumentation is persuasively inert.

Also I never said that the basis for what I accept is whatever God told me was true.

You could not have said anything that is as wrong as your saying that truth is relative. There is not a truth that has ever existed that is relative. Truth is the least relative issue that can possibly exist, truth in fact is always objective and never subjective or relative. This is not a star wars movie. Please consider what you say before you type it. I get tired of pointing out stuff that freshman students get from classes in philosophy and probability.

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?

Oh yes I do. I can decide anything I want concerning my debates whether wrong or right, good or bad. Regardless debates are supposed to take place on common ground. Everything I have stated is logical, sound, well sourced, and rational.

Yes you and another person are on the ragged edge of my putting you on ignore, not because I do not like you but because your arguments are such a waste of time. However, for now I was using your abortive attempt at making arguments to kill down time. At some point I will run out of time and I will end our discussion if you cannot provide a challenging argument. So stop telling me what you believe or prefer, and start posting evidence and sound argumentation or when my time goes short you will get culled.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Grasping...at...
...straws

Grasping at facts, actually. The LDS Church itself has responded to the rise in suicides among LGBT youth in the Church asking members to treat them with compassion. There's obviously a need for them to do that in the first place.

That you dismiss this without providing any counter-evidence shows how untenable your position is and that you've not bothered to read the link I provided.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.



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



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.

Lesbians have the lowest STD rates of any group; lower than heterosexual men or women. So you're good with them, right?

 

[Acim]

Grasping at facts, actually. The LDS Church itself has responded to the rise in suicides among LGBT youth in the Church asking members to treat them with compassion. There's obviously a need for them to do that in the first place.

That you dismiss this without providing any counter-evidence shows how untenable your position is and that you've not bothered to read the link I provided.

I read the link. you've yet to make the connection. but you're appeal to emotion is noted

 

[1robin]

Here's some information for you.

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​

Is there anything you won't do to resurrect an unjustifiable behavior? You relentlessly respond to my posts, so if anyone cares about my claims then you do. Quit trying to use others to do what you fail to do yourself.

At least you did post some statistics this time, however your conclusions are horrific and do not follow.

1. It was not my conclusion as to what causes most new aids cases, it was the CDC who linked new aids cases with homosexual behavior. Sources do not get any more credible than the CDC. They did not claim poverty, ignorance, and especially insecurity was the major cause of new aids cases. No they confirmed exactly what I have said, not you.

2. People can be ignorant and not cause aids, in fact I am ignorant and have never speed aids to anyone. Ignorance can put a person in a position where aids can be spread more rabidly, but sex is the actual behavior the creates most new aids cases. BTW the statistic I gave were about the least ignorant nation on earth.

3. Poverty does not create new aids cases, sex and dirty needles cause most new aids cases. Again, my statistics concerned the most affluent nation of Earth.

4. I have no idea what insecurity has to do with anything.

5. I have no idea what suicide rates have to do with anything other than just guessing I would say that the homosexual community has higher rates of suicide than the homosexual community. Keep in mind that I said rates not total amounts.

Please try again while I am still merely killing time, because when I am not doing so I probably won't bother with this kind of stuff.

 

[columbus]

1. It was not my conclusion as to what causes most new aids cases, it was the CDC who linked new aids cases with homosexual behavior.

This is exactly the sort of demonstrably false statement that you base your arguments on.
The CDC doesn't track new aids cases. Only the small number in the USA. Nor does it track the causes of the dysfunctional behavior that results in the small number of aids deaths in the USA.
I am arguing that judgemental and legalistic religionists cause most of that dysfunctional behavior.
People like you, who make demonstrably false claims to support their otherwise unsupported opinions.
Tom

 

[columbus]

2. People can be ignorant and not cause aids, in fact I am ignorant and have never speed aids to anyone.

Neither have I, and neither have the enormous majority of gay men.
Tom

 

[1robin]

I will be interested to see your response to my post about HIV statistics.
Tom

Done.

 

[1robin]

Lesbians have the lowest STD rates of any group; lower than heterosexual men or women. So you're good with them, right?

Hello, Penguin. Since you posted something I dealt with in the exact same post you responded to I can only assume that you did not read that which you claimed to be addressing. Please see the bolded terms Argument from categorization in post #583.

 

[1robin]

This is exactly the sort of demonstrably false statement that you base your arguments on.
The CDC doesn't track new aids cases. Only the small number in the USA. Nor does it track the causes of the dysfunctional behavior that results in the small number of aids deaths in the USA.
I am arguing that judgemental and legalistic religionists cause most of that dysfunctional behavior.
People like you, who make demonstrably false claims to support their otherwise unsupported opinions.
Tom

Alright that is all I can take, please call the CDC and tell them their stats are wrong as well as their conclusions. As I am no longer going to respond to you on this subject, and if you keep this garbage up I will permanently put you on ignore. In a thread where all the arguments on the defenses' side are pathetic, yours are among the worst. I hope homosexuals find better people to defend them.

 

[columbus]

Done.

You didn't respond. You just repeated the same wrong stuff.
You imply that homosexuality is a cause of AIDS. You dance around the fact that the overwhelming number of new AIDS cases aren't linked in any way.
You asked for facts and then ignored them.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

Please post a single statement in all 12000 plus posts I made that said truth is unknowable.

No one used the word 'unknowable'.

↑
I care about what is true
↑
What is true, and how do you know?

However what I was saying in the statement where you quoted me was that what we merely believe alone does not make for an argument.

But you believe homosexuality is wrong. To not debate or argue that is to accept your statement as truth, which it's not. You posted statistics from the CDC to support your belief that homosexuality is detrimental.

Also I never said that the basis for what I accept is whatever God told me was true.

Soooo... you don't take the Bible as being the true word of God? It's open to interpretation? Whence come your beliefs?

You could not have said anything that is as wrong as your saying that truth is relative. There is not a truth that has ever existed that is relative. Truth is the least relative issue that can possibly exist, truth in fact is always objective and never subjective or relative.

Prove it to me, back up that statement with evidence.

Oh yes I do. I can decide anything I want concerning my debates whether wrong or right, good or bad.

Then you run the risk of debating with a mirror, because no one else will. Here we have "my way or no way".

because your arguments are such a waste of time.

In your opinion because I do not agree with you, and have said why.

you will get culled.

If that makes you feel better, OK. I'm not insulted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hello, Penguin. Since you posted something I dealt with in the exact same post you responded to I can only assume that you did not read that which you claimed to be addressing. Please see the bolded terms Argument from categorization in post #583.

I didn't read your whole wall-of-text, no.

Now that I have read it, your argument (effectively "I can't be bothered not to tar all homosexuals with the same brush") is less than compelling.

Since your issue seems to be with gay men, why did you decide to make your category all homosexuals instead of all men?

 

[columbus]

Since your issue seems to be with gay men, why did you decide to make your category all homosexuals instead of all men?

Good question.
Gay men are more prone to STDs than the norm. Gay women are less prone to STDs than the norm.
By a lot in both cases. The STDs problem isn't much related to orientation.
Tom

 

[1robin]

No one used the word 'unknowable'.

well that is what it seemed like you were saying. I do not know why you think this issue is relevant but why don't you post your conclusion so I do not have to keep guessing what it was?

But you believe homosexuality is wrong. To not debate or argue that is to accept your statement as truth, which it's not. You posted statistics from the CDC to support your belief that homosexuality is detrimental.

You must have missed where I explained how I came to discussing homosexuality. I have gained a great deal of trust in what the scriptures say. However that is not enough for me. When God says something I also want to see whether it also is consistent with logic. So I set out to see if what I believe God has said can also be shown to be logical and rational. That is why I went on to develop secular arguments that show what God has revealed is almost certainly true. For many subjects this can not be done, but to my surprise it seems it can be done in the case of homosexuality and it is very easy.

Soooo... you don't take the Bible as being the true word of God? It's open to interpretation? Whence come your beliefs?

You do not want to debate me about the bible, trust me but I will briefly answer you here. I take that back, as bad as the arguments have been in defense of homosexuality I hope you do switch to the Bible.

1. No educated Christian thinks that modern bible versions are without error. God only guaranteed the original revelation would be free from error.
2. What we do is asses how accurately a modern translation is compared with the originals.
3. Despite what you probably think it is easy to access what the originals said if you have about 5 types of things which the bible has in spaces. More on that if requested.
4. So, once I determine that the translation I am reading lines up with the originals then I am rational if I take as true what it says as long as it is not in one of the few but well known places where errors exist.
5. So once I conclude a passage is accurate I usually grant that it is true. However when possible I rigorously throw every test at it I can think of.
6. However I almost never put forth anything I take on faith as binding on anyone else. I usually present the arguments I used to investigate a scripture myself as evidence for a biblical claim being accurate. However here I did not even do that, I simply stated the secular reasons why homosexuality fails to adequately justify its self morally.

I would very much like to switch to biblical debate, but so far my faith is merely incidental to my arguments about homosexuality.

Prove it to me, back up that statement with evidence.

This stuff is so obvious and basic that your demanding of proof says way more about you than about my claims.

A true statement is true because it is not a subjective claim (it is not "subject" to anyone's opinion) and because it accurately refers to a existing fact. The official definition is: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality. Now in what way what so ever are facts and reality relevant to any one or all persons? I am getting so bored with taking many of those in this thread back to kindergarten and starting from scratch. I am going to have to finally give up on everyone in this thread giving me a good argument like I had to with one poster in the thread already, and find a thread that will offer me a challenge. I am tired of doing others home work for them. I will hold of with you long enough to see if you finally catch up or change the subject to my faith, I hope you will or can.

Then you run the risk of debating with a mirror, because no one else will. Here we have "my way or no way".

That is irrelevant and not even close, it is because apparently homosexuality has no moral defense. I do not want to have anything my way. I am here to be challenged and in other threads I am at times. I can give you the avatar names of at least a dozen people here who do challenge me if you want some examples. Heck I even posted in size 7 font that someone even in this thread who posted an actual argument. If you search the last two days in the thread you will not miss it. I hope you can learn form it. It wasn't a great argument and it will not prevail but at least it made me think. Also I challenged SkepticalThinker who has provided reasonable argument on homosexuality in the past. They agreed to but so far haven't, so that's two examples that prove your as wrong about what you said as what you have said in other places.

In your opinion because I do not agree with you, and have said why.

Again, not even close. There are good arguments that may or may not prove to be true, and then there are pathetic soul deadening arguments. I am here for the former and will occasionally put up with the latter for a certain amount of time. I am also more than happy to indicate which type of argument another person is making.

If that makes you feel better, OK. I'm not insulted.

Whether you insulted is irrelevant. I simply pointed out a pragmatic issue which will eventually cause me to give up on a person who cannot make a meaningful argument and what is worse does not understand the basics of moral theory and philosophy. I myself do not know when the moment I give up on someone will occur but I like to give far warning when I can see it coming.

 

[1robin]

I didn't read your whole wall-of-text, no.

For me that wasn't really a long post, though if you didn't read it all I occasionally do the same.

Now that I have read it, your argument (effectively "I can't be bothered not to tar all homosexuals with the same brush") is less than compelling.

Maybe you did not read it all even on the second attempt. I pointed out that to debate every category which a person who wants to defend a failed theory will use to attempt the rationalization of an irrational behavior will cough up in the attempt is impossible in an informal debate. I have made specific replies to arguments from categorization in this thread and in many other homosexual threads in the past, and the brief argument I made against any argument by appealing to arbitrary categories in general showed how that even if allowing for the fact that any arbitrary sub category of homosexuals is still morally unjustifiable. After doing so in many way I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over. My arguments are perfectly applicable and valid for the purpose for which they were given.

Since your issue seems to be with gay men, why did you decide to make your category all homosexuals instead of all men?

My issue is with homosexual behavior in general. However my arguments being applicable to al major subcategories are more apparent for some groups than others. I cannot spend enough time to debate left handed, greater than six foot tall, weighing more than 180lbs, having red hair or any other arbitrary group of homosexuals you arbitrarily group up. This is a homosexual debate, my arguments apply to homosexual behavior. If you want more than that I probably can't help you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My issue is with homosexual behavior in general. However my arguments being applicable to al major subcategories are more apparent for some groups than others. I cannot spend enough time to debate left handed, greater than six foot tall, weighing more than 180lbs, having red hair or any other arbitrary group of homosexuals you arbitrarily group up. This is a homosexual debate, my arguments apply to homosexual behavior. If you want more than that I probably can't help you.

The issue isn't making such a great distinction of groups, but, rather, when you divide them into just two different catagory, homosexual women have a lower rate of STIs than homosexual men and even both heterosexual men and women. That's not many distinctions or differences, but it makes a statement of trying to say homosexuals have a higher rate of STIs false.

 

[1robin]

The issue isn't making such a great distinction of groups, but, rather, when you divide them into just two different catagory, homosexual women have a lower rate of STIs than homosexual men and even both heterosexual men and women. That's not many distinctions or differences, but it makes a statement of trying to say homosexuals have a higher rate of STIs false.

Since I have not debated you in this thread or in any other I can remember let me point out a few things that might help.

1. I have in other threads exhaustively dealt with arguments which arbitrarily subdivided into homosexual behavior into all manner of groups. You can easily search my posts so I do not have to repeat all those arguments again and again.
2. My previous arguments acknowledged the different rates of harm produced for every subcategory I was presented with.
3. It is not the case that any major type of Homosexual behavior is moral justifiable. It is merely that some groups cause greater damage than others. None can be justified but some are more unjustifiable than others.
4. So I cannot go back and tackle every arbitrary group someone attempts to use to rationalize what can't be. 5. There is simply not adequate opportunity in a written debate to cover every sub category others can think of. No one could adequately do that in even a lifetime.
6. Additionally I replied to the arguments by categorization in general recently in this thread.

So, please go back and review as much as you need to satisfy your self that you understand all my responses to categorization as an attempt to justify what cannot be justified and let me know if you have any additional points or questions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not the case that any major type of Homosexual behavior is moral justifiable.

According to you, maybe. Me, I find nothing morally wrong with it.