Homosexuality and Homosexual Marriages: Why do Christians Care?

[Jainarayan]

If you do not know how the STDs and the expense associated with them can bleed over from the homosexual community into the heterosexual community then your unqualified to debate these issues, you need to take a sex education course, or at least have your parents give you the birds and bees talk.

How can STDs "bleed over" from homosexuals to heterosexuals unless heterosexuals are having unsafe sex with homosexuals. That makes those heterosexuals not so heterosexual.

Give statistics on the medical expenses.

And if you make one more comment, veiled or overt, about my intelligence or ability to debate, and disparaging my intelligence, or about another poster, or suggest I am a troll, I will make a report for personal attacks. I've been more than patient.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Gosh. I have never met a Christian that said "I don't care about your feelings." (I do not care about your feelings, I care about what is true #754) That, to me, is saying you only care about the feelings of people you like, agree with, and/or love. Jesus never taught that neither through his actions, words, nor passion. I know whatever is true for me is not true for you. and I do care about what you say regardless of your disagreements. I know I'm not the only one. I just find it, well, odd. To say it nicely. When I was Christian, I started to develop this same mindset "them vs. me" and I did not like it. So, that's one big reason I left. I can't imagine people having that. This is what causes wars.
​

If you find nothing wrong with 4% of the population creating over 60% of new aids cases in the US, nothing wrong with the fact that homosexual life spans are significantly lower than heterosexual life spans, nothing wrong with the higher rates of sexual assault, nothing wrong with massively higher rates of promiscuity, higher rates of unsafe sex, and higher rates of adultery within the homosexual community, etc...... then pray tell me what it is you do consider wrong? If your moral compass is off that far then there exists no common ground to debate these issues.

My point:

1. I know this statistic doesn't involve me. How do you agree with this statistic? By what moral and logical argument (not as in opposing heated opinions) do you find this makes any sense regardless of who says it? What is your point of view?

2. If this has to do with morals (your moral compass is way off), explain how? What is the logic behind homosexual behavior and sexual assaults (which is a crime), among other things you listed?

My point #697

Straight people do this just as much as LGBT community. Homosexuality has nothing to do with behavior. Why single out the homosexual community?

3. I know what you posted. How do you personally gather that homosexuals have a higher risk of, I'll just use sexual asault, than the straight community?

4. And how do you know they are homosexual to begin with?

No straight people do not, and yes it is about behavior, that is the only thing it is about. Even if you entitled to your own opinion you want last long or do anyone any good by inventing your own non-existent evidence.

5. How does the homosexual sexual behavior (HSB) have to do with higher sexual assaults?

Anyone can state a statistic. It means nothing in a discussion if you have no commentary to support why you picked the statistic and how it is logical to the discussion.

Because this is a homosexual thread, genius. However I did not single out a community I singled out a behavior, actually a whole series of behaviors.

(722)

This is sarcasm. I don't know many Christians off-line that disagree by saracsm. If they disagree, they tell me but they are not rude about it. On that note, I asked this question because straight people do the same things too.

6. How does a person's sexual behavior have to do with that person and who he sexually assaults? How do they connect?

7. How does homosexual sexual behavior = higher risk of sexual assault (reference above)

To which I relied: No straight people do not. Not that straight people's behavior never produces harmful effects but just that they do not do so at the same rate as homosexuals do, it is not even close.

Context is everything and I cannot spend hours going back and stating what the context was for all those unwilling to do so themselves.

I said straight people do just as much sexual assault (at risk of doing) as homosexuals do. Going by what you said below.

You said "nothing wrong with the fact that homosexual life spans are significantly lower than heterosexual life spans, nothing wrong with the higher rates of sexual assault, nothing wrong with massively higher rates of promiscuity, higher rates of unsafe sex, and higher rates of adultery within the homosexual community (It was meant to be sarcastic to another poster you replied to; I unbolded it)
​

But then you said in post 735 which I won't comment on all things since you may not be reading this actively.

To which I relied: No straight people do not. Not that straight people's behavior never produces harmful effects but just that they do not do so at the same rate as homosexuals do, it is not even close.

We are talking about how straight people have a lower risk than homosexuals in sexual assaults. I never said straight people never produce harmful results. Please keep up with the quotes.

I connected homosexual behavior to the destruction it causes. However reality has deemed that homosexual behavior is related to homosexuals, not me. Oh Lord, did you just play the victimhood card? My claims have nothing to do with how any homosexual was treated, so do not even hint that I have ever treated a homosexual badly in any way. I will end this debate very quickly if you go down that road.

So I said another statement about how homosexual sexual behavior has to do with homosexuals.

Think about it logically for a minute, not opinionated nor the victimhood card view. That is a copout and an insult.

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals are all human and we all have hormones and all of that jazz to which some of us are attracted to those of the opposite sex, some both sex, and others same-sex. Regardless if it has been proven, the fact is it is a sexual orientation not a behavior.

So, given that note:

I am a homosexual.
I can sleep with a guy right now.
I would still be homosexual

8. If I slept with a guy and became heterosexual I would be straight (according to your posts/behavior is a choice). If I slept with a woman, I would be homosexual (according to your post). That would mean I can switch from gay to straight every day.

Is that true?

Exactly how many times do I have to state that I am not discussing homosexuals specifically but that I am discussing homosexual sexual behavior before you get it?

9. Um, you said homosexuals are linked to homosexual behavior (above). If not, why use the word homosexual? It is derogatory to every single last person who is a straight LGBT ally to LGBT themselves.

I know jesus cared about sinners. Why don't you? You don't have to agree with behaviors that straight people commit just as much, if not more, than gay people but hopefully, you are humble to not debate people's opinions and talk to them as people.

I do not give a rip about how anyone identifies them selves. I am discussing what homosexuals do not who they think they are.

If you have read this far, thank you. "do not (know?) who they think they are?" Grammar error.

Jesus cared about people and who people are. I think he cares about you, even if you don't care about others and their feelings. He died for people like you so that you can change your ways and die for others symbolically by communion or so have you.

When you (above) use derogatory language and (above) use saracasm for a simple discussion, I wonder what jesus is actually thinking right now. It's alright to disagree.

I'd just like to understand the logic of your disagreement.

10. Why don't you care about homosexuals and how we identify ourselves? Do you have homosexual friends?

I remember I was in a chat room and the man I spoke with didn't want to identify with homosexuals and have homosexuals as friends.

He was honest and direct.

11. Is that the same with you?

Your last post 754

I never intended to say anything about crime, and I have no recollection of having done so. Please quote my post where I talked about homosexual criminal or crime.

Sexual assault (above) is a crime. My comment was 697. I'd have to back track but you posted to someone else not me. It's the first part of this whole post in bold.

I did not say anything about who is defined by what. I said homosexual sexual behavior causes higher rates of all kinds of bad stuff than heterosexual sexual behavior.

Yes. I said homosexuals are defined by their sexual orientation not by their behavior.

I said that a person's behavior has nothing to do with their sexual orientation

I was the one who questioned your logic behind why you said there are higher rates among homosexuals than heterosexuals. (Above)

I also asked you to support why you agree with this statistic.​

continued....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

continued.....

We have not argued statistics at all, I posted some but you haven't.

Why would I post statistics? I know I am not at a higher risk at sexual assault that you do. My sexual orientation doesn't make me choose who I sleep and how. That's my choice.

If you want statistics, ask the people not the book about themselves and their goals et. Take interest in the people.

If you are a Christian (I hope most religious for that matter), I'd hope there is some humbleness and interest in another person. RF doesn't make it simple for trust and I come here to discuss and compare religions. Debates happen because people don't know how to agree to disagree, don't want to find interest in what the other party says, or just ignorant (have no knowledge, aka) of what the other person believes to have a sound criticism of their statements.​

If you are a homosexual then you fall into the same risk category that all homosexuals do unless you are a lifelong celibate.

We have gone through this. I just hope you actually take into consideration what I type.

I am homosexual regardless of who I sleep with. I don't need to sleep with anyone to be homosexual.

I am not promiscuous and (above) I don't have a higher risk of committing sexual assaults.

12. Statistics do not define me. Do you have a moral reason why you think the way you do?

What crimes are you talking about? Please quote where I said crimes.

13. I'm referring to sexual assault. (You mentioned earlier). All the other s/ is personal opinion. I can't imagine basing sexual orientation or homosexual sexual behavior to higher risk of sexual assault. That's silly.

But I haven't heard a moral rational or reason for believing this yet.

I do but I do not have to. The CDC linked homosexual behavior to new aids cases, not me. They may be the most qualified agency in human history concerning health related statistics.

How old are you? This is why the Stone Riots and Gay Rights Movement came up for things like this. Aids have nothing to do with homosexual behavior.

Aids is spread through body fluids. Sexual behavior from a straight person and gay person are equally acceptable to having AIDS without having the proper protection.

I do not care about your feelings, I care about what is true. Being black is not a choice, engaging in homosexual acts is a choice. So no they are not the same. Yet again it was the CDC and other organizations that linked the stats I have given to homosexuality, not me. I can not spend hours explaining to a dozen posters why reality exists.

I know jesus cares about sinners feelings. So, I don't understand unless you are not chrisitan.

I won't comment sense I know homosexuality isn't about behavior; but you are talking about us as if we are defined by it. So.... I give up on that.

I am a debater. I am here to challenge and be challenged concerning the condemnation or validation of a position. As a Christian I want to confront a person with evidence and argumentation that may one day save their soul, I am not here to placate anyone's feelings. I am direct, blunt, but never hostile because a sharp knife cuts the cleanest and heals the fastest.

This ends my post. Why would you want to challenge people towards an argument like this? There are many other ways to evangelize and "Save people's souls".

You can do so by

1. Carring about what people say
2. Taking an interest in what others believe
3. Sharing your knowledge and giving your experiences
4. Sharing some scripture as well as logic behind it
5. Find a reason to evangalize
6. And do what jesus do

Until then, your blunt and directness will always come off rude, saracstic, and so forth.

I hope that's not your intentation.


I hope you read all of this. If not, at least read the last bit. You do not have to answer all the questions. I just want you t know where I come from.

People call JW all kinds of names but to tell you honestly, JW and Catholics priests are the only people who actually gave a hoot about what I said religious wise.

I don't know about others.

14. Why is that?

I know you don't care about what I just said. I type fast so this wasn't a big stretch for me. I hope others can learn from this too even if they don't learn anything but a pinch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are they unable to buy cakes from anywhere in the market? Don't see you addressing this point.

Irrelevant. If they're refused by even a single supplier, then the supply of cakes to same-sex couples is reduced. And even if there's a supplier of same-sex wedding cakes that they can use, the effort expended for the first store represents a wasted expenditure of resources by the couple.

What I was getting at, though, is that market economics is generally predicated on the idea that businesses exist to make profit. When a business operates counter to its economic interest (e.g. by turning away paying customers on the basis of their orientation), then we need to stop and re-evaluate public policies that are predicated on the idea that businesses will pursue their own economic self-interest, because other factors are at play.

I did not, nor did you quote from a place where I did.

Yes, you did. The most recent example is right here:

Good to know you agree with me that it is their cross to bear, in denying other people (smokers) their freedom.

I haven't even mentioned smoking in this thread.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you do not know how the STDs and the expense associated with them can bleed over from the homosexual community into the heterosexual community then your unqualified to debate these issues, you need to take a sex education course, or at least have your parents give you the birds and bees talk.

Straight question.

If I slept with a guy, how, medically, are my chances to get STD less than if I slept with a woman without my using protection and proper "sex safety tips" in both male and female, as taught in Americans schools?

 

[1robin]

So give it one more time, a concise answer to my last question.

Ok, fine but it will take two posts to even supply a tiny fraction of the data. You are lucky I am bored, because I have no obligation to continuously go back and do your work for you.

Gay and bisexual men are the population most affected by HIV. In 2015c:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 82% (26,375) of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses.
• Black/African American gay and bisexual men accounted for the largest number of HIV diagnoses (10,315), followed by white gay and bisexual men (7,570).

Among all gay and bisexual men, trends have varied by race and over time. From 2005 to 2014:

• Among white gay and bisexual men, diagnoses dropped steadily, declining 18% overall.
• Among Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, diagnoses rose by 24%.
• Although diagnoses among African American gay and bisexual men increased 22%, they have leveled off in the past 5 years, increasing less than 1% since 2010.
• Young African American gay and bisexual men (aged 13 to 24) experienced an 87% increase in diagnoses. But since 2010, diagnoses have declined 2%.

From 2005 to 2014:

• Diagnoses among all women declined 40%, and among African American women, diagnoses declined 42%.
• Among all heterosexuals, diagnoses declined 35%, and among people who inject drugs, diagnoses declined 63%.

African Americans continue to experience the greatest burden of HIV compared to other races and ethnicities. Hispanics/Latinos are also disproportionately affected by HIV. In 2015:

• African Americans represented 12% of the US population, but accounted for 45% (17,670) of HIV diagnoses.
• Hispanics/Latinos represented about 18% of the US population, but accounted for 24% (9,290) of HIV diagnoses.

New HIV Diagnoses in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2015

By age, of persons diagnosed with HIV in the United States in 2015, 4% (1,723) were aged 13-19, 37% (14,594) were aged 20-29, 24% (9,631) were aged 30-39, 17% (6,720) were aged 40-49, 12% (4,870) were aged 50-59, and 5% (1,855) were aged 60 and over.

Living With HIV

• At the end of 2013, the most recent year for which such data are available, an estimated 1,242,000 adults and adolescents were living with HIV.
• An estimated 161,200 (13%) had not been diagnosed.
• Young people were the most likely to be unaware of their infection. Among people aged 13-24, an estimated 51% (31,300) of those living with HIV didn’t know.

AIDS Diagnoses and Deaths
In 2015, 18,303 people were diagnosed with AIDS. Since the epidemic began in the early 1980s, 1,216,917 people have been diagnosed with AIDS.

In 2014, there were 12,333 deaths (due to any cause) of people with diagnosed HIV infection ever classified as AIDS, and 6,721 deaths were attributed directly to HIV.

HIV in the United States | Statistics Overview | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/library/reports/surveillance/cdc-hiv-surveillance-report-2015-vol-27.pdf
The stats don’t lie: ‘Gay’ health costs coming your way

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Continued from above.

Here are some issues that I did not even bother supplying in the past. It is a Christian site but the sources they cited are secular.

• "A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

• 25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

• $12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

• $1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society's financial stability.

Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

• " . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s." (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
• 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Sexual Molestation
Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29--percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).
Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another 'sexual orientation' see Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals). Society needs to protect its children--not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. "There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society; and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their "orientation," is extremely dangerous.

Death of a society
If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society.

Opening the door wide
Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many, and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that pedophiles are doing just that. See the article "Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals." Muslims practice polygamy, and they are increasing in America. Mormons have practiced it in the past, and who is to say they won't get another revelation declaring that it is permissible again once the homosexual movement and its redefinition of marriage is ingrained in society? Incest is sure to follow (See the article "Rick Santorum was right about Incest and the Slippery Slope )." The slippery slope is exactly the issue. Once sexual morays are loosed, marriage definitions and fidelity are loosened, too. Nothing happens in a society by itself since their intertwining social strings have collateral effects.

Conclusion

So, is homosexuality dangerous to society? The facts show that it is. We have to ask, why then would it be promoted so heavily when it is so harmful? The only answer I can come up with (aside from a biblical one) is that the politically correct don't care about the facts. Instead, they want their agenda promoted. They want their sexual freedom without responsibility. They, like so many tyrants in history, want to force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites.

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

 

[1robin]

How can STDs "bleed over" from homosexuals to heterosexuals unless heterosexuals are having unsafe sex with homosexuals. That makes those heterosexuals not so heterosexual.

Give statistics on the medical expenses.

And if you make one more comment, veiled or overt, about my intelligence or ability to debate, and disparaging my intelligence, or about another poster, or suggest I am a troll, I will make a report for personal attacks. I've been more than patient.

Ok then, you and I need to part company then. I have been trying my best to not pull this trigger so far, but you have forced my hand.

 

[1robin]

Straight question.

Since I was speaking to someone else in that conversation's context I am not sure how to interpret the response "Straight question". In a debate about homosexuality certain questions require answers that it would disgust me to post. So in most cases I am loath to give details.

If I slept with a guy, how, medically, are my chances to get STD less than if I slept with a woman without my using protection and proper "sex safety tips" in both male and female, as taught in Americans schools?

You have so many arbitrary qualifications in your question I literally cannot tell what your asking. If I am not losing my mind it seems you asked a question about two groups under different and arbitrary circumstances which made your question no longer apply to our discussion. Can you clarify by removing all those meaningless and arbitrary qualifications and state you question more emphatically.

My arguments have nothing what so ever to do with sex education classes or comparing one group under one set of circumstances with another group under entirely different circumstances.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Interesting.

Spoiler: Educational information about AIDS and transmission of it. PG13+

This is an educational information of how AIDS can be transmitted between people of all gender identities and sexual orientations. The BODY If it's inappropriate just delete it; I understand.

Parental Guidance Version:

How is AIDS spread:

HIV is spread only in certain body fluids from a person infected with HIV. These fluids are blood, semen, pre-seminal fluids, rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by having sex or sharing injection drug equipment, such as needles, with someone who has HIV.Jun 9, 2016 AIDS Prevention I know this personally. My grandmother passed away from the HIV Virus.
​

I will just say body fluids. When body fluids are passed from one Sam to another Sam and he/she in any matter if one has contracted the HIV virus, then the other person regardless of Sam's sexual orientation is at high risk of infection.

Woman tend to have more BF then men do (think about it-VF and mentrual). So if Sam is affected by Sam, then obviously he/she (the other person) would be at higher risk regardless of her sexual orientation.

Men would be at less risk because they don't have the extra BF as women do. In case of behaviors, if Sam and Sam had protected sexual behaviors, they are at less of a risk. If Sam is infected and they have not practiced safe sexual protection, then Sam (the other person) is at risk of being infected.

What type of behaviors are more at risk than others? (Think about it). If Sam was all natu'al about his/her behaviors then this person would probably be at more risk if with the other person infected because of the results of orgasm. While the other person Sam who is with the other do not have this same experience (yet?) therefore have less of a risk of being affected by HIV if the other had it.

This has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation.

If Sam was promiscuous and used no protection and did whatever, than this person would, if affected with HIV give the other a higher risk of having the virus than Sam would if have if this person had protection. However, even protection between Sam and Sam doesn't guarantee either would not contact the virus if one is infected with it.

There are ways Sam and Sam can be at high risk of HIV if they are not protected to be at lower risks then a couple that took no precautions. The link in the spoiler above gives more details than I would quote here.

If I were Sam and I dated someone named Sam and we were not protected, then we are at higher risk the the couple next to us, Pat and Pat.

Sexual orientation: "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."

If Pat and Pat had promiscuous behavior, they would be going against the Bible.

If Sam and Sam did not, and their behavior was expressed in marriage by the blessings of god, they have not sinned.

Pat and Pat as well as Sam and Sam are both human beings. They are defined by the people they are not by only their physiological attractions. We, Pats and Sams, and myself, and Joe Smoe all are on a sliding scale of who we are attracted to. Jesse may have no attraction to anyone while Andy is attracted to anyone without preference and attraction to physical part of a person.

Sexuality, if god given, is not a black and white affair. These people all have different means by which they are attracted to their other.

You can substitute the names with whatever male and female names you want but that does not mean in my head they are correct because gender goes beyond that. Bias by looking at names causes many ill reasons to belittle others because of what they do with the person they love.

It's best to love the person for who they are not what they are. It is also best that if that person decides to marry and consummate their love, whoever they are with should not put down based on gender. I did the same thing with names to show that names/gender does not matter.

We see people for who they are not just what makes them male or female.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since I was speaking to someone else in that conversation's context I am not sure how to interpret the response "Straight question". In a debate about homosexuality certain questions require answers that it would disgust me to post. So in most cases I am loath to give details.

You have so many arbitrary qualifications in your question I literally cannot tell what your asking. If I am not losing my mind it seems you asked a question about two groups under different and arbitrary circumstances which made your question no longer apply to our discussion. Can you clarify by removing all those meaningless and arbitrary qualifications and state you question more emphatically.

My arguments have nothing what so ever to do with sex education classes or comparing one group under one set of circumstances with another group under entirely different circumstances.

Ima skip this post only because I know what you are saying is related to your belief, lack of concern of people's opinions, and not considering how people see themselves.

I wrote another post addressed to all people about AIDS and sexual attraction. Replace the names with a male name or female name, it doesn't matter. It's a name. If jesus loved people for who they are, then by gosh, I would assume christians would follow suite.

Since I am not a christian, I am allowed not to have that black and white mindset. I am free and regardless if I believed in a creator or not, at least with how I see things now makes me more attuned with reality rather than bicker over scripture and people who are supposed to follow and treat others with unconditional love.

Not a lot of people-and I mean people-do.

It's sad.

 

[1robin]

Ima skip this post only because I know what you are saying is related to your belief, lack of concern of people's opinions, and not considering how people see themselves.

I really have a tough time tracking what your saying.

1. What I primarily have been saying is composed of two simplistic secular arguments. The only times I have posted anything concerning my faith have been because I was specifically asked to do so.
2. My primary secular arguments has nothing to do with my faith, does not have anything to do with anyone's opinions, and nothing to do with how people see themselves.
3. My arguments have to do with objective actions not anyone's identity.

I wrote another post addressed to all people about AIDS and sexual attraction. Replace the names with a male name or female name, it doesn't matter. It's a name. If jesus loved people for who they are, then by gosh, I would assume christians would follow suite.

Since I have no way to know what post you are referring to this does not shed any light on anything. I also have never once mentioned who I love or who I hate. Christians are required to hate sin (immorality) not to hate the one engaged in immorality.

I wish you and others would quit claiming I and others hate or want to harm others just because they do not agree with a certain kind of behavior. It is disgusting, hypocritical, and completely unjustified for some to do that. It will also end any discussion we might be having if it is kept up.

Since I am not a christian, I am allowed not to have that black and white mindset. I am free and regardless if I believed in a creator or not, at least with how I see things now makes me more attuned with reality rather than bicker over scripture and people who are supposed to follow and treat others with unconditional love.

No, just because you are not a Christian does not mean you may call facts opinions. My primary arguments are about issues that are in fact white and black whether you think they are or not. In the same way the current existence of the Sun is a white or black issue, the destruction cased by homosexual sexual acts is a white a black issue and since the CDC has said it exists then there is no wiggle room.

Not a lot of people-and I mean people-do.

It's sad.

That truly is sad, it's sad because what you stated is incoherent. I do not have the slightest idea what your talking about. I can't agree, disagree, be pleased, be mad or respond meaningfully because what you stated is indecipherable.

 

[1robin]

Interesting.

Spoiler: Educational information about AIDS and transmission of it. PG13+

This is an educational information of how AIDS can be transmitted between people of all gender identities and sexual orientations. The BODY If it's inappropriate just delete it; I understand.

Parental Guidance Version:

How is AIDS spread:

HIV is spread only in certain body fluids from a person infected with HIV. These fluids are blood, semen, pre-seminal fluids, rectal fluids, vaginal fluids, and breast milk. In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by having sex or sharing injection drug equipment, such as needles, with someone who has HIV.Jun 9, 2016 AIDS Prevention I know this personally. My grandmother passed away from the HIV Virus.
​

I will just say body fluids. When body fluids are passed from one Sam to another Sam and he/she in any matter if one has contracted the HIV virus, then the other person regardless of Sam's sexual orientation is at high risk of infection.

Woman tend to have more BF then men do (think about it-VF and mentrual). So if Sam is affected by Sam, then obviously he/she (the other person) would be at higher risk regardless of her sexual orientation.

Men would be at less risk because they don't have the extra BF as women do. In case of behaviors, if Sam and Sam had protected sexual behaviors, they are at less of a risk. If Sam is infected and they have not practiced safe sexual protection, then Sam (the other person) is at risk of being infected.

What type of behaviors are more at risk than others? (Think about it). If Sam was all natu'al about his/her behaviors then this person would probably be at more risk if with the other person infected because of the results of orgasm. While the other person Sam who is with the other do not have this same experience (yet?) therefore have less of a risk of being affected by HIV if the other had it.

This has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation.

If Sam was promiscuous and used no protection and did whatever, than this person would, if affected with HIV give the other a higher risk of having the virus than Sam would if have if this person had protection. However, even protection between Sam and Sam doesn't guarantee either would not contact the virus if one is infected with it.

There are ways Sam and Sam can be at high risk of HIV if they are not protected to be at lower risks then a couple that took no precautions. The link in the spoiler above gives more details than I would quote here.

If I were Sam and I dated someone named Sam and we were not protected, then we are at higher risk the the couple next to us, Pat and Pat.

Sexual orientation: "a person's sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual."

If Pat and Pat had promiscuous behavior, they would be going against the Bible.

If Sam and Sam did not, and their behavior was expressed in marriage by the blessings of god, they have not sinned.

Pat and Pat as well as Sam and Sam are both human beings. They are defined by the people they are not by only their physiological attractions. We, Pats and Sams, and myself, and Joe Smoe all are on a sliding scale of who we are attracted to. Jesse may have no attraction to anyone while Andy is attracted to anyone without preference and attraction to physical part of a person.

Sexuality, if god given, is not a black and white affair. These people all have different means by which they are attracted to their other.

You can substitute the names with whatever male and female names you want but that does not mean in my head they are correct because gender goes beyond that. Bias by looking at names causes many ill reasons to belittle others because of what they do with the person they love.

It's best to love the person for who they are not what they are. It is also best that if that person decides to marry and consummate their love, whoever they are with should not put down based on gender. I did the same thing with names to show that names/gender does not matter.

We see people for who they are not just what makes them male or female.

If you make a post you want me to read and respond to you really need to format it correctly because if you don't I do not get any alerts to indicate you posted to me. It is only by coincidence if I see a non-formatted post.

Also, it is an absolute fact (because it is impossible that it would not be a fact) that if God created sexuality that whatever else it might be it is definitely a black and white issue, not that you have supplied any reason to think you have anyway to know anything God has done related to sexuality. Do not project your preferences on the God who you do not think even exists, doing so will have no effect on anything he has or will do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@1robin

Topics like homosexuality to many allies and people who are LGBTQ... is really personal. It's not a behavior. Believe it or not. It doesn't matter since facts say it is not.

You already said you don't care about my opinions. If I said I don't care about your opinions as a christian, that's totally rude and undermines you as a person regardless of what I think of christianty. For example, Christianity is created by the apostles of the Catholic Church not protestesim. That's a fact.

But I will not push this fact on you because that is not (maybe?) how you identify yourself. If you are not Catholic, why would I place that label on you all because of the fact Christianity is a Catholic faith?

That's silly.

It is the same with homosexuality.

I don't understand why you would take something very personal and telling us we are wrong for defining ourselves by a word that has nothing to do with who we are as people. If you want to get to know actual homosexuals, talk with us? Get to know us?

We are not facts and statistics.

But you don't care some people's opinions; so, this discussion means nothing to you. It bothers me that people actually think this way. It really does.

That's all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you make a post you want me to read and respond to you really need to format it correctly because if you don't I do not get any alerts to indicate you posted to me. It is only by coincidence if I see a non-formatted post.

Also, it is an absolute fact (because it is impossible that it would not be a fact) that if God created sexuality that whatever else it might be it is definitely a black and white issue, not that you have supplied any reason to think you have anyway to know anything God has done related to sexuality. Do not project your preferences on the God who you do not think even exists, doing so will have no effect on anything he has or will do.

It is not for you it's for all people. That is why I did not address you.

Please do not assume some anything. I didn't quote you for a reason.

I am not indirect Robin. Take what I say at face value.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok then, you and I need to part company then. I have been trying my best to not pull this trigger so far, but you have forced my hand.

Very dramatic.

 

[Jainarayan]

Ok, fine but it will take two posts to even supply a tiny fraction of the data. You are lucky I am bored, because I have no obligation to continuously go back and do your work for you.

That's not what I asked.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Continued from above.

Here are some issues that I did not even bother supplying in the past. It is a Christian site but the sources they cited are secular.

• "A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

• 25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Financial Impact

• $12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)

• $1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society's financial stability.

Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

• " . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s." (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
• 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Sexual Molestation
Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: “A disproportionate percentage--29--percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50.” (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).
Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another 'sexual orientation' see Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals). Society needs to protect its children--not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. "There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources: Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society; and their behavior, which is a manifestation of their "orientation," is extremely dangerous.

Death of a society
If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society.

Opening the door wide
Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many, and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that pedophiles are doing just that. See the article "Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals." Muslims practice polygamy, and they are increasing in America. Mormons have practiced it in the past, and who is to say they won't get another revelation declaring that it is permissible again once the homosexual movement and its redefinition of marriage is ingrained in society? Incest is sure to follow (See the article "Rick Santorum was right about Incest and the Slippery Slope )." The slippery slope is exactly the issue. Once sexual morays are loosed, marriage definitions and fidelity are loosened, too. Nothing happens in a society by itself since their intertwining social strings have collateral effects.

Conclusion

So, is homosexuality dangerous to society? The facts show that it is. We have to ask, why then would it be promoted so heavily when it is so harmful? The only answer I can come up with (aside from a biblical one) is that the politically correct don't care about the facts. Instead, they want their agenda promoted. They want their sexual freedom without responsibility. They, like so many tyrants in history, want to force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites.

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Now you're just citing straight up bs from anti-gay groups. Their citations are not "secular", but anti-gay hogwash. Cameron? You must be joking. He's a lunatic with a vitriolic hatred of gay men in particular. He's been kicked out of the APA and denounced by pretty much every professional body you can think of. Good job on falling into the sewer. You have no cred here.

 

[1robin]

@1robin

Topics like homosexuality to many allies and people who are LGBTQ... is really personal. It's not a behavior. Believe it or not. It doesn't matter since facts say it is not.

Arguments are not made only about issues if no one finds them inconvenient. The things about which arguments may offend are probably those in most need of being made. I do not care about feelings, preferences, safe spaces, 50 gender identities, SJWs, BLMs, or any other recent pop cultural insanity. I care about facts, whether they are convenient for me or others or not. Respond to me with facts or you are going to waste your time.

You already said you don't care about my opinions. If I said I don't care about your opinions as a christian, that's totally rude and undermines you as a person regardless of what I think of christianty. For example, Christianity is created by the apostles of the Catholic Church not protestesim. That's a fact.

I do not care about feelings, opinions, or beliefs if they are not backed up by logic and evidence. If you want to post your opinion that is fine but if you do so in a vacuum or without first posting any reasons why your opinions are justifiable then, no I do not care about them.

Christianity was created by Christ or ultimately by God, not Catholics, not protestants, not even the apostles. They were merely the instruments not the source.

But I will not push this fact on you because that is not (maybe?) how you identify yourself. If you are not Catholic, why would I place that label on you all because of the fact Christianity is a Catholic faith?

It does not matter one bit if I am a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Satanist or any other label. It matters what the evidence is that any of those are true or right. I will never ever make an argument on the basis of what denomination I belong to or even if I did I would not expect anyone to find such an argument persuasive. That is precisely the difference between my position and those who defend homosexuality.

That's silly.

It is the same with homosexuality.

What is silly? What is the same as homosexuality (which is not what my argument was about anyway). You did better this time but you are still formatting incorrectly. If you need help then please ask.

I don't understand why you would take something very personal and telling us we are wrong for defining ourselves by a word that has nothing to do with who we are as people. If you want to get to know actual homosexuals, talk with us? Get to know us?

That is an easy one, because no matter who you think you are it does effect what I said about what people do. I know plenty of homosexuals and they are without exception friends of mine. If you want to gather around the fire and console each other instead of debating the facts then this is not the correct place. I'm am arguing about facts, not feelings.

We are not facts and statistics.

That is probably why I have not been condemning homosexuals, just certain homosexual behaviors.

But you don't care some people's opinions; so, this discussion means nothing to you. It bothers me that people actually think this way. It really does.

That's all.

It actually bothers you that "others" think about facts instead of feelings, if so then God help the poor homosexual community. Debates take place on the common ground of reality, not identity, preference, or feelings. If your feelings contradict reality I can tell you which one needs to change.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

just certain homosexual behaviors.

Anal sex is not a "homosexual behavior". Straights have it more than gays do. Straight men love it.