INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Which I would say is more related to number 2 and 3 and are easily remedied situations.

As for number 1, I had done a research project back in college where we focused on MSM (Men having sex with Men), a lot of this began with men who were in jail, but when they left jail they would at times still engage in sexual intercourse with other men, but they did not consider themselves homosexual, and because of that they were spreading diseases around to both women and other men outside of the jail system. So I was wondering what factors that played into? The big issue with MSM was that some of these men were attracted strictly to men, but downplayed their attraction for fear of social stigma, sot hey engaged in these "down-low" activities.

Like that Law & order episode!!

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following from another thread:

There is no cure for homosexuality. If there was, some homosexuals have said that they would take it for various reasons.

I believe there is, but I do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place.

What do you believe is the cause, and the cure for homosexuality?

In this thread, you said:

I think I only said it is not proven that it is caused by genetics alone.

First of all, I have never said that homosexuality is caused by genetics alone, and most experts do not make that claim either. Second, your comment indicates that you believe that at least some biology is involved, but in another thread, you said that you "do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place." Do you believe that biology is involved at all or not?

Among the over 1500 species of animals and birds that practice homosexuality, genetics is certainly involved. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual, and experts say that they derive some benefits from their bi-sexuality.

Regarding human homosexuality, if biology was not involved at all, we would not expect that the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would turn out to be heterosexuals, but that is what happens. However, if biology was largely involved, that is what we would expect to happen.

Even in settings that would supposedly be very favorable for children to become homosexuals, the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals. An example is children who are raised by homosexuals in the city of San Francisco. Even in that setting, the majority of children turn out to be heterosexuals.

Homosexuals can only do as well as they can do with what they have to deal with, and practicing abstinence for life is not the best that they can do. There are of course some exceptions, but those cases are probably quite rare.

Consider the following:

Causes of homosexuality studied | Scientist Live

2013

Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins.

Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.
Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The team led by Dr. Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics. Rahman explains:

"Overall, genetics accounted for around 35 per cent of the differences between men in homosexual behaviour and other individual-specific environmental factors (that is, not societal attitudes, family or parenting which are shared by twins) accounted for around 64 per cent. In other words, men become gay or straight because of different developmental pathways, not just one pathway."

For women, genetics explained roughly 18 per cent of the variation in same-sex behaviour, non-shared environment roughly 64 per cent and shared factors, or the family environment, explained 16 per cent.

The study shows that genetic influences are important but modest, and that non-shared environmental factors, which may include factors operating during foetal development, dominate. Importantly, heredity had roughly the same influence as shared environmental factors in women, whereas the latter had no impact on sexual behaviour in men.

Dr. Rahman adds: "The study is not without its limitations - we used a behavioural measure of sexual orientation which might be ok to use for men (men's psychological orientation, sexual behaviour, and sexual responses are highly related) but less so for women (who show a clearer separation between these elements of sexuality). Despite this, our study provides the most unbiased estimates presented so far of genetic and non-genetic contributions to sexual orientation."

Monogamous same-sex couples are justified because they are not harming anyone, and they enjoy having someone to share their lives with, including sharing sex.

Logic, and common sense, indicate that monogamous homosexuals are no more responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do than monogamous heterosexuals are responsible for what promiscuous heterosexuals do.

Apparently, you have some strange opinion that if a certain percentage of a group of people have serious medical problems, that somehow members of the group who do not have any serious medical problems are also at fault. How did you arrive at that conclusion? What percentage is a certain percentage? At what low percentage of serious medical problems among homosexuals would homosexuality become acceptable to you? Obviously, no percentage since you would still disapprove of homosexuality even if homosexuals were generally healthier than heterosexuals are. That means that your objections to high percentages of homosexuals having serious medical problems is bogus, and that your only real objection to homosexuality is because of the Bible. In a thread on homosexuality, you said that you had religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, and at one time in that thread, you said that most of the arguments that you had used so far had been secular arguments, but all that you really have are religious arguments. That is because there are not any valid secular arguments against monogamous homosexuals, and, because, as I just showed, the percentages of homosexuals who have medical problems do not really matter to you.

You said that even monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life since they cannot guarantee that they will stay monogamous. Are you even including monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades? Some research has shown that homosexual couples in the U.S., Britain, and Denmark stay together longer than heterosexual couples do.

Since lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are, it would obviously be absurd for monogamous lesbians to practice abstinence for life.

Regarding your claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, even monogamous homosexuals, in another thread you claimed that millions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life. What sources back up your claim? A good deal of scientific research has shown that long term sexual abstinence can cause lots of physical, and emotional problems. It is a given that having sex is normal, and that practicing abstinence for life is abnormal. There is a long, well-documented article about abstinence at THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.. It discusses some of the frequent problems that are caused by long term abstinence.

It would obviously be absurd for monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence for life, and needlessly risk developing serious medical problems.

It only takes a modest amount of common sense to know that if monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do very little to cause promiscuous homosexuals to practice abstinence. Promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, so quite obviously, they would be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life.

Homosexuals do generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but they did not ask for their homosexual sexual identity, and in spite of their sexual identity, millions of them around the world are monogamous, and are healthy as judged by any widely accepted methods of assessing physical and emotional health. Based upon your post #304 in a thread at why can't we have a relationship with other men?, it is no wonder that you believe so many false things about homosexuals. Some of it is true, but much of it is false, or poorly documented. Are you aware of any serious medical problem that pertains to the majority of homosexuals? I am not. Surely the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, are not alcoholics, do not abuse drugs, and do not have HIV, or AIDS.

 

[Agnostic75]

1robin's first post in this thread was his post #148. Following are some excerpts from that post:

I would only claim God as the leading and most sufficient theory but that is far less than an indisputable theory. However there are only two choices an abstract concept as creator or a mind. Abstracts create nothing on their own and we are left with mind until some intrepid scientist invents a new fantasy.

1robin considers any possibility other than God to be "a new fantasy" in spite of the fact that the National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God, and that the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and that even he himself said that God "is far less than an indisputable theory." How can God be "far less than an indisputable theory, and at the same time any naturalistic theory be "a new fantasy?"

As a Wikipedia article says, what is frequently counterintuitive in quantum physics is often not counterintuitive to quantum physicists. 1robin is way out of his league, and is far from being a quantum physicists. Even one of his own sources, Vilenkin, said that his, and his collegues' work does not give much of an advantage to Christians. Another one of 1robin's highly touted sources, Penrose, believes that something existed slightly before the big bang. A pertinent link about Penrose is at Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com.

As some physicists have speculated, it may never be possible to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with that.

Long before modern science, the majority of humans believed in various gods, and have never needed science to do that. Today, science has become a part of debates about the existence of God, but I think that science is limited regarding that issue, and many experts agree with me.

On the other hand, in the opinions of the vast majority of experts, science is quite useful regarding reasonably proving that common descent is very probably true.

 

[Agnostic75]

I showed that the practice of homosexuality spreads disease at a much greater rate than heterosexuality.

But you have created a strawman argument since most experts acknowledge that homosexuals generally have more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do, and in some cases, a lot more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do. However, a lot of homosexuals are generally healthy as judged by any widely accepted methods of assessing physical, and emotional health. In the U.S., about 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. In addition, the majority of them are not alcoholics, are not drug abusers, and are not pedophiles. Are you aware of any serious medical problem that the majority of homosexuals have? I am not.

Sexual identity is not a choice. Homosexuals can only do the best that they can do with the cards that they have been dealt, and for most of them, your suggestion that all of them should practice abstinence for life is not the best that they can do.

Statistics can easily be misleading if they are not interpreted correctly. For example, let's assume that hypothetically, a study showed that 10% of a group of heterosexuals were alcoholics, and that 25% of homosexuals were alcoholics. Only 15% of those homosexuals were alcoholics "because" they were homosexuals since if they had been heterosexuals, about 10% of them would still have been alcoholics. So, instead of comparing 10% to 25%, it would be more fair to compare 10% to 15%, which is obviously much different.

Another important issue is that many studies do not apply to the general populations of heterosexuals, and homosexuals, but only to people in both groups who have serious medical problems. The percentages of homosexuals who have HIV are much higher than the percentages of heterosexuals who have HIV, but in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

The percentage of homosexuals who have a certain medical problem might be 50 times higher than among heterosexuals, but only apply to less than 5% of all homosexuals. That is why we also need statistics that show the percentages of all homosexuals, and heterosexuals, who have serious medical problems. I am not aware of any serious medical problem that the majority of homosexuals have.

I proved in my previous post that you do not really care about what percentage of homosexuals have any serious medical problem since you would still be opposed to homosexuality even if homosexuals were generally healthier than heterosexuals are. Your primary objections to homosexuality by far are based upon religion, even though in another thread you disapproved of some conservative Christian experts (Stanton Jones, and Paul Yarhouse) doing the same thing. They both have a Ph.D. in psychology, and wrote a book about homosexuality. In that thread, I quoted them as follows:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

You basically said that they (and Henry Morris) are not people who you have confidence in, but why not since your biblical, and scientific positions (regarding that paragraph) about homosexuality are largely the same as their's are?

At least Morris, Jones, and Yarhouse come right out and admit that their primary bias is religious, not scientific.

In another thread, you said that God has completely freed quite a few homosexuals from the desire. However, the former head of the recently disbanded Exodus International disagrees with you, and admitted that he lied. In addition, Dr. Spitzer apologized to homosexuals, and said that he was wrong when he claimed that sexual orientation can be changed. Sexual actions can of course be changed, but apparently, sexual orientation can seldom be changed. The pertinent links are at Ex-gay group Exodus International shuts down, president apologizes | Religion News Service, and at EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Robert Spitzer Apologizes to Gay Community for Infamous ‘Ex-Gay’ Study | Truth Wins Out.

 

[Agnostic75]

1robin's opinions about evolution do not matter since 1) he is far from being an expert in biology, 2) he does not even have basic knowledge about many aspects of advanced biology, 3) the National Academy of Sciences strongly supports the position that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and 4) according to one study, in the U.S., 99.86% of experts believe that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, obviously including the vast majority of Christian experts.

Of the relative handful of experts accept creationism, and many of them accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory. Some examples are the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), and Answers in Genesis (AIG). Both of those organizations accept the global flood theory, and the young earth theory. The late Henry Morris, Ph.D., admitted that his primary reason for accepting the global flood theory was because of the Bible. Surely a decent number of creationist experts primarily accept creationism for the same reason.

As the judge at the Dover trial said, creationism, while it may be true, is not science, and cannot be taught in public schools. The judge is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president. Other court cases have had similar results.

As has been noted by many experts, in spite of some problems regarding adequately explaining some aspects of evolutionary theory, evolution has overwhelming support from the scientific community. Obviously, there are many unexplained aspects of many other widely supported scientific theories.

It is interesting to note that 1robin has refused to debate an expert in biology, but is still discussing it with laymen since he hopes to trick people who are not experts into having serious doubts about humans and chimps sharing a common ancestor, when there are not any good reasons for anyone to have serious doubts about macro evolution. A debate between 1robin and an expert would quickly show how little 1robin knows about advanced biology.

Since there are not any experts in biology at this forum (but there are plenty of experts at some other Internet websites), it is quite obvious that skeptic laymen that are here cannot adequately explain how evolution developed the human eye, but so what since 1robin would not be able to adequately explain hundreds, if not thousands of aspects of evolution? It is not a question of which amateurs can explain what, but of which experts can explain what. As the judge at the Dover trial noted, intelligent design has very little support among scientists.

No rational person would take 1robin's word over the word of the vast majority of experts who have spent most of their academic lives studying biology.

As far a homosexuality is concerned, 1robin has shown that he does not have any clue about much of what he says. When he gets into trouble, he comes up with all kinds of flimsy excuses.

 

[Agnostic75]

I said that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Even if one did it exists only in textbooks and not in nature.

If you said that at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences as an objection to macro evolution, you would be laughed off of the stage. As a Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution says, "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."[4][1]

Many other experts say the same thing, but apparently, you are not even aware of basic information like that.

In my post #1349, I showed that you used the same amateurish argument before, and that you used an article that is full of quote mining. The author of the article that you mentioned claims that macro evolution is impossible, and he uses lots of hyperbole. The fact that you are not willing to discuss the very same things that you mentioned in that post with an expert proves that you are only bluffing about your scientific objections to macro evolution, and do not really know what you are talking about. The simple truth is that even if creationism is true, you do not know enough about biology to reasonably prove that from an entirely scientific perspective.

In the opinions of the vast majority of experts, Ken Miller's complex article about the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.htmlis valid.

How does what you said matter regarding the widespread acceptance by most experts that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that all life is related?

Michael Behe, who you once amazingly used as a source to back up some of your arguments about intelligent design, said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

When you used Behe as a source to back up what you said about intelligent design, apparently at that time, you did not know that he believes that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that all life is related, but his acceptance of those things is known even by many amateurs, and novices. If you were discussing common descent with Behe, would you object to it by telling him that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution, or that evolutionists cannot adequately explain the evolution of the human eye? Of course you wouldn't because you know that those are not good arguments against common descent. However, you do not mind using poor arguments if you can create doubt among amateur skeptics.

You do not want to learn. You only want to create doubt among people who accept macro evolution.

If you are really interested in biology, why won't you debate an expert?

You once said that Christianity does not depend upon whether or not macro evolution is true. I agree (although the supposed truthfulness of creationism matters a lot to most Christian inerrantists, and to most biblical literalists), and it does not depend upon whether or not creationism is true, so why are we having these discussions? If one day most scientists said that creationisim is very probably true, I would still be a skeptic regarding all religious books, and probably so would most other skeptics, and certainly the billions of non-Christian theists would not give up their various religions and become Christians.

For people who are interested in whether or not common descent is true, in the opinions of the vast majority of experts, including the vast majority of Christian experts, it is very probably true, and has overwhelming support from most experts. From an entirely scientific perspective, there are not any good reasons for amateurs, and laymen, to disagree with the vast majority of experts.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following from another thread:

Agnostic what is the basis for your name. Your are certainly not short of conviction even where certainty is least likely. I do not have enough time to respond to you alone much less you plus the additional posters that hit me with stuff. I am going to have summarize almost all responses to you at least for the time being.

What do you believe is the cause, and the cure for homosexuality?

Choice and choice. However when no firm moral foundations exist it is futile to suggest hard choices will be made. I guess like most other bad ideas it will just have to destroy that which it can and then an end or repeat will occur.

In this thread, you said:



First of all, I have never said that homosexuality is caused by genetics alone, and most experts do not make that claim either. Second, your comment indicates that you believe that at least some biology is involved, but in another thread, you said that you "do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place." Do you believe that biology is involved at all or not?

1. I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality. 2. I do not KNOW what the case is but it is not proven that genetics are not what I stated above.
3. Regardless of genetics it has been demonstrated exhaustively the practice can be resisted and left behind by people of every race and origin.

I make comments about what I think and what is proven and what is possible. Mixing them together won't help.

Among the over 1500 species of animals and birds that practice homosexuality, genetics is certainly involved. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual, and experts say that they derive some benefits from their bi-sexuality.

Is what is true even if true of any given segment of the animal kingdom true of humanity. Thousands of animal types can breathe underwater, what does that have to do with humans. Something not proven for more understood humans is certainly less proven than for monkeys. The Bible says creation is broken. Pointing out examples of that is not proof it is false.

Regarding human homosexuality, if biology was not involved at all, we would not expect that the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would turn out to be heterosexuals, but that is what happens. However, if biology was largely involved, that is what we would expect to happen.

I think this a type O of a type I can't unravel.

Even in settings that would supposedly be very favorable for children to become homosexuals, the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals. An example is children who are raised by homosexuals in the city of San Francisco. Even in that setting, the majority of children turn out to be heterosexuals.

I was stationed in Frisco I never had any feeling that the homosexuality was a causal influence on anything in a general populations.

Homosexuals can only do as well as they can do with what they have to deal with, and practicing abstinence for life is not the best that they can do. There are of course some exceptions, but those cases are probably quite rare.

I do not understand the argument. What is the standard for best in this case? Where did you get it?

Monogamous same-sex couples are justified because they are not harming anyone, and they enjoy having someone to share their lives with, including sharing sex.

Logic, and common sense, indicate that monogamous homosexuals are no more responsible for what promiscuous homosexuals do than monogamous heterosexuals are responsible for what promiscuous heterosexuals do.

This argument is so awful I took time to render it meaningless long ago. I will do so again but will never debate it again. Drinking like homosexuality may be less harmful in some circumstances but:

1. Drinking causes a promiscuity in judgment that affects those same people when not in those exact environments.
2. Apparently homosexuality also causes or is indicative of promiscuity in judgment. Just as a person who drinks in safety (which is not even true) is more likely to drink in an unsafe manner. people who practice homosexuality is safe circumstances (assuming this can even be true) are more likely to do so even when not in the environment.
3. As I have pointed out at least in men the practice can be very very destructive even in the "safest environment" in ways that are not disease related but not excusive to that.

I am out of time so I will state the most obvious way your argument is flawed with an analogy. Is a person who drinks only at home more or less likely to drink that once or twice when driving than the person who sore off alcohol all together. The person who practices homosexuality is more likely to do so when the "safe arrangement" ends than the person who does not practice it at all. Your idea would also only apply to destruction and has no relevance to morality anyway. In fact the opposite could easily be the case in that context. I have to leave but I will agree to do something if you will. I will let the proposal above made by you settle the entire issue if you wish. As Grant said "we will fight it out on this line" if you can stomach a resolution.

http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htmhttp://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm That is like giving a link to the problems of responsible economics. Or the problems of not drinking. Whatever side effects even exist at the link (if they are even legit) are not even the slightest comparison to the suffering caused by the problems of non-abstinence. Sexual promiscuity, financial irresponsibility, and lust for power have probably produced more suffering than all other forms of vice in history combined.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......when no firm moral foundations exist it is futile to suggest hard choices will be made.

Are you making a religious argument, and giving up on secular arguments?

Why would safe, monogamous, harmless, beneficial sex between to people of the same sex who love each other need any more justification than that?

I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality.

Lots of research has shown that genetics are significantly influential. I have posted some detailed, documented scientific evidence about the influences of genetics. Apparently you did not understand it, or ignored it.

The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If genetics was not largely involved, that would not be the case.

Regardless of genetics it has been demonstrated exhaustively the practice can be resisted and left behind by people of every race and origin.

Well of course it can be resisted if free will exists, but at what cost? Lots of research has shown that long term abstinence often causes lots of physical, and emotional problems. Having sex is normal for humans. Practicing abstinence for life is very abnormal, and usually very frustrating, and not one in 100 people who have any interest at all in trying it.

Is what is true even if true of any given segment of the animal kingdom true of humanity. Thousands of animal types can breathe underwater, what does that have to do with humans. Something not proven for more understood humans is certainly less proven than for monkeys. The Bible says creation is broken. Pointing out examples of that is not proof it is false.

Although in the other thread you said that you had religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, I knew at that time that all that you really had were religious arguments. That always happens when I debate homosexuality with conservative Christians. They try to use some secular arguments, but the secular arguments never work, so eventually the only arguments that they have left are religious arguments. I cannot image a moral God disapproving of safe, monogamous sex among homosexuals, and such a God insisting on homosexuals living a life of loneliness, and frustration.

I was stationed in Frisco I never had any feeling that the homosexuality was a causal influence on anything in a general populations.

Of course, and that is exactly what I am arguing, which is that there is no way that environment can be 100% responsible, or even largely responsible for homosexuality since no matter what kinds of parents children have, whether same-sex parents, or heterosexual parents, and no matter what city they are raised in, and regardless of whether or not they are identical twins, the majority of them always turn out to be heterosexuals, which is exactly what we would expect if genetics has a lot of influence over sexual identity.

Drinking like homosexuality may be less harmful in some circumstances but:

1. Drinking causes a promiscuity in judgment that affects those same people when not in those exact environments.

2. Apparently homosexuality also causes or is indicative of promiscuity in judgment. Just as a person who drinks in safety (which is not even true) is more likely to drink in an unsafe manner. People who practice homosexuality in safe circumstances (assuming this can even be true) are more likely to do so even when not in the environment.

3. As I have pointed out at least in men the practice can be very very destructive even in the "safest environment" in ways that are not disease related but not exclusive to that.

I am out of time so I will state the most obvious way your argument is flawed with an analogy. Is a person who drinks only at home more or less likely to drink that once or twice when driving than the person who sore off alcohol all together. The person who practices homosexuality is more likely to do so when the "safe arrangement" ends than the person who does not practice it at all. Your idea would also only apply to destruction and has no relevance to morality anyway. In fact the opposite could easily be the case in that context. I have to leave but I will agree to do something if you will. I will let the proposal above made by you settle the entire issue if you wish. As Grant said "we will fight it out on this line" if you can stomach a resolution.

That is like giving a link to the problems of responsible economics. Or the problems of not drinking. Whatever side effects even exist at the link (if they are even legit) are not even the slightest comparison to the suffering caused by the problems of non-abstinence. Sexual promiscuity, financial irresponsibility, and lust for power have probably produced more suffering than all other forms of vice in history combined.

But all of that is easily dismissed because there is lots of evidence that shows that a great many monogamous same-sex couples have successfully, and healthily, practiced same-sex behavior for decades.

And what about lesbians? They are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are. What do you recommend for them? Abstinence for life would not be the best solution for monogamous lesbians except in rare cases.

Please provide documented scientific evidence that backs up your claims.

One of the most ridiculous, and absurd claims that you made was the following:

"The person who practices homosexuality is more likely to do so when the "safe arrangement" ends than the person who does not practice it at all."

Did you not even briefly read the long, authoritative article on long term abstinence that I posted? The article shows that often, the person who attempts long term abstinence becomes worse off, and develops serious physical, and emotional problems. Why in the world would healthy, monogamous homosexual couples want to frustrate themselves, and risk developing serious physical, and emotional problems by attempting long term abstinence as a solution to a problem that does not exist? There is nothing about long term abstinence that has a reasonable guarantee of being safe for those who practice it. If you wish, I can start a new thread just about abstinence, and we can compare your evidence with mine.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is like giving a link to the problems of responsible economics. Or the problems of not drinking. Whatever side effects even exist at the link (if they are even legit) are not even the slightest comparison to the suffering caused by the problems of non-abstinence. Sexual promiscuity, financial irresponsibility, and lust for power have probably produced more suffering than all other forms of vice in history combined.

But you cannot fairly blame monogamous homosexuals for the promiscuity of promiscuous heterosexuals. Even if monogamous homosexuals were somehow able to force themselves to practice abstinence (although there would not any need for that), that would do very little to influence promiscuous homosexuals to practice abstinence since they are not even interested in practicing safe sex, let alone practice abstinence for life.

Sexual identity is not a choice. Monogamous homosexuals can only do the best that they can do. The best that most of them can do is to share their lives together, and continue to practice safe sex. Practicing long term abstinence would be far more risky for the majority of them than continuing their monogamous relationships.

I have all of the major medical associations on my side, meaning that none of them recommend abstinence for life for monogamous homosexuals.

Monogamous homosexuals are generally not nearly as bad off as you believe they are. Since so many gay people have come out of the closet during the past 20 years or so, many heterosexuals have seen firsthand that a great many homosexuals are monogamous, healthy, and happy, and are nice people. The media have said that the vast majority of heterosexual personally know at least one homosexual. My gracious, at least two open lesbians have been the head of state. Many other open homosexuals have high government positions in many countries. Gay athletes won a good deal of medals in the 2012 olympics, including some gold medals. Many homosexuals admirably serve in their countries' military, and are willing to give their lives for their countries. More and more, lots of evidence is showing that monogamous homosexuals are generally much better of than you believe they are.

If you are willing to discuss lots of documented scientific research on both sides, you may eventually see that monogamous homosexuals are not nearly as bad off as you believe they are. I suggest that we discuss your documented evidence one issue at a time, and check out your sources, and see what the other side says, and compare the evidence. Some of the best sources would be the CDC, other major medical associations, leading universities, centers for epidemiology, and other known, and widely respected experts.

No matter what, most healthy, happy, long term monogamous homosexuals would needlessly place themselves at medical risk by attempting to practice abstinence for life when that would be attempting to find a solution to a problem that does not exist, at least from a scientific perspective.

Most experts do not agree with you. The many, and frequent difficulties with long term abstinence are well-known. Claims of successful abstinence are difficult to reasonably verify, but please provide whatever statistics you have regarding successful long term abstinence. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal. It is no wonder that only a very small percentage of people have practiced abstinence for life, and you can bet that many of them suffered a great deal because of it.

Homosexuals who are monogamous very probably ARE NOT the homosexuals who are primarily responsible for the statistics that promiscuous homosexuals mostly account for, and you cannot reasonably prove otherwise with documented statistics.

However, although you try to make a big deal out of statistics, they do not really make any difference to you since you would still object to homosexuality even if homosexuals were generally healthier than heterosexuals are.

Consider the following that I posted months ago in another thread from authors, and psychologists Stanton Jones, Ph.D., and Paul Yarhouse:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

You basically replied that they are not people who you have confidence in, but why not since your biblical, and scientific positions (regarding that paragraph) about homosexuality are largely the same as their's are? Jones and Yarhouse come right out and imply that they only use science as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with their religious beliefs, and reject science when it does not agree with their religious beliefs. Using science merely as a convenience is not valid science.

Jones and Yarhouse are widely quoted among conservative Christians who homosexuality. Jones is Provost at Wheaton College, which is a Christian college, and Yarhouse is a professor at Pat Robertson's Regent University.

Further proof that statistics do not really matter to you is that in the other thread, I asked you at what percentage would you no longer object to homosexuality. You became very evasive, and refused to answer the question. That is because you did not want to admit what was already obvious to everyone who was keeping up with that thread, which was the fact that your opinion is the same as the opinions of Jones and Yarhouse. I at least respect Jones and Yarhouse for honestly admitting that their primary objection to homosexuality by far is religious, not scientific.

Do you object to divorce except in cases of adultery? Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality.

A good deal of science disagrees with you. I just started a new thread that is titled "Homosexuality and genetics." Please read that thread, and note the quality of the prestigious sources that I used.

Is what is true even if true of any given segment of the animal kingdom true of humanity. Something not proven for.......humans is certainly less proven than for monkeys. The Bible says creation is broken. Pointing out examples of that is not proof it is false.

The animal kingdom did not become broken. The fossil record clearly shows that animals killed each other long before humans existed. They very probably also practiced homosexuality long before humans existed. Homosexuality has been a normal variation in animals for millions of years, and has been a normal variation in modern humans for tens of thousands of years.

The book of Genesis is mythical, or allegorical, not historical.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Do you believe that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

The vast majority of experts disagree with your claim that all of macro evolution has problems.

The majority of leading physicists disagree with your claim that God is the leading explanation for the existence of the universe.

The vast majority of experts disagree with your claim that even monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. You have often quoted the CDC, but you are surely aware that they would never recommend that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence. A CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm has lots of sensible recommendations for homosexuals, and abstinence is not mentioned.

 

[1robin]

A good deal of science disagrees with you. I just started a new thread that is titled "Homosexuality and genetics." Please read that thread, and note the quality of the prestigious sources that I used.

I will answer this but you have two aspects to your arguments that when combined are prohibitive to reply. 1. Many are very very bizarre and irrational in their reasoning. 2. You are very prolific. Some are reasonable but some display such an illogical chain of reasoning I just have no the slightest idea why you claimed them or how to consider them. This being an example:

But you have created a straw man argument since most experts acknowledge that homosexuals generally have more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do, and in some cases, a lot more serious medical problems than heterosexuals do.

I do not know what that is. I read it 4 times and still think you must have mistyped somewhere

The animal kingdom did not become broken. The fossil record clearly shows that animals killed each other long before humans existed. They very probably also practiced homosexuality long before humans existed. Homosexuality has been a normal variation in animals for millions of years, and has been a normal variation in modern humans for tens of thousands of years.

The book of Genesis is mythical, or allegorical, not historical.

I believe I have said that it may be allegorical many times and have certainly never taken a specific literal stance on the vast majority of Genesis. Why restate it again along with an argument to a position I do not have?

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Do you believe that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

That is not the full story. Here is some of the rest of it.
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
Read more: Bible Verses About Divorce: 22 Helpful Scriptures

I believe that only sin results in divorce so divorce is never "good" but it is permitted for adultery. I need context to tailor my response. It is not simple. Some things and divorce may be one are tailored for time periods as is meant by "it was not always so"

The vast majority of experts disagree with your claim that all of macro evolution has problems.

That is just wrong and you would not know this even if it were true, plus "problem' is subjective so you would need my definition to even evaluate it.

The majority of leading physicists disagree with your claim that God is the leading explanation for the existence of the universe.

I have already explained this over and over and that is another reason your posts are prohibitive. You post the same things (even the exact copies over and over). They can't consider God as a possibility as it is not accessible to them and secular institutions did not make public theological stances and even if God was the cause they could not determine the first thing about him or his causal capacity by physics nor are what opinions of physicists meaningful to theological claims. I unlike you use physicists for what physicists do. Physics. This is another example of a just plain weird claim. You might as well tell me what a thermometer says about politics.

The vast majority of experts disagree with your claim that even monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. You have often quoted the CDC, but you are surely aware that they would never recommend that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence. A CDC website at CDC - For Your Health - Gay and Bisexual Men's Health has lots of sensible recommendations for homosexuals, and abstinence is not mentioned.

That's an argument from silence. By what set of evaluations is this even determined? Abstinence would vastly reduced STD transmission and would produce no corresponding increase in suffering. The very idea is Ludacris. I believe you are only pointing out what is recommended from a list of possibilities that are not comprehensive. The same as you did for Physicists. BTW the solution for any behavior is independent from the moral character of that behavior. Not that I recall making any demands concerning remedy. Not that I even think your post accurate. Abstinence is recommended for all sexuality where inappropriate by even secular institutions but that is beside the point.

 

[Agnostic75]

Abstinence would vastly reduce STD transmission and would produce no corresponding increase in suffering.

That is partly true. If promiscuous homosexuals who practice unsafe sex (many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex) practiced abstinence, there would be less STD's, but many of those homosexuals would develop serious physical, and emotional problems as a result. Medical research has proven that.

If monogamous homosexuals (about half of homosexuals are monogamous) practiced abstinence, that would do very little to reduce STD transmission, let alone vastly reduce it. It is very probably promiscuous homosexuals who are primarily spreading STD's, not monogamous homosexuals. Since promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. If research was done just for monogamous homosexuals, it would probably show that monogamous homosexuals are generally much healthier than you believe they are.

BTW the solution for any behavior is independent from the moral character of that behavior.

If you are referring to the Bible, even if a God inspired the originals, there is no way that anyone can reasonably know how much of the originals he preserved free from errors, including what the Bible says about same-sex behavior.

Debates about religion can go on for years. As far as science is concerned, most experts would not recommend abstinence for life for monogamous homosexuals.

Abstinence is recommended for all sexuality where inappropriate by even secular institutions.......

Please quote any major medical association that recommends that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. As you probably know, there are not any. That is because such a notion is utterly absurd.

That's an argument from silence [regarding the CDC website].

No it isn't. The article was quite detailed, and mentioned most of the CDC's major recommendations for homosexuals. Abstinence was not mentioned. It would be a simple matter for you to contact the CDC for yourself and ask them about this issue. They surely would disagree with you. No one in their right mind would recommend that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

They can't consider God as a possibility as it is not accessible to them and secular institutions did not make public theological stances and even if God was the cause they could not determine the first thing about him or his causal capacity by physics nor are what opinions of physicists meaningful to theological claims.

Needless to say, this is NOT why God does not figure into any scientific theories.

 

[1robin]

Needless to say, this is NOT why God does not figure into any scientific theories.

There are quotes I have provided previously that not only is what I said true but they have publically claimed the theoretical objections (implications) of a scientific theory have led them to hostility towards it. To be fair they eventually had so much evidence the had to go with the theory (I believe it the Big Bang) even though they hated the fact it left the issue of God still very much in the running. They wished and hoped the steady state was true as it needed no God even long after the information was pretty certain. My main contention is speaking strictly scientifically God is not in the mix because he is not a scientifically accessed or (provable) hypothesis. It is not a scientific question and therefor not part of what they officially do.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is not the full story. Here is some of the rest of it.
Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not.

You made the same argument in another thread. I said:

That is not likely. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, and that Moses tolerated it because the Hebrews' hearts were hard, or something like that. That is not likely since during the time of Moses, God was tough, and ordered the death penalty for things such as practicing the freedom of religion by worshipping other gods, cursing at your parents, and working on the Sabbath Day. It is not likely that a God like that would give in to allowing divorce.

It would have made more sense for the Old Testament to condemn divorce, and for the New Testament to allow it since people were no longer under the law, and could eat whatever they wanted to eat, and worship on whatever day of the week that they wanted to worship, and because common sense indicates that in many cases, divorce is far better than staying married.

God's stern scolding of Job is a much more accurate description of the God of the Old Testament than God allowing divorce is.

Of course, it is well-known that the Bible contains at least some forgeries, and interpolations. Even the Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible since the last page of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If it was not possible to tamper with the texts, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

Today, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take the changes to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time.

You can claim that homosexuality is not practical (although it often is practical), but you cannot adequately claim that divorce is not practical except in cases of adultery.

Since there are only a few original fragments of the New Testament from the first and second centuries A.D., it is not reasonably possible to know how much of the originals was changed.

 

[Agnostic75]

I showed that the practice of homosexuality spreads disease at a much greater rate than heterosexuality.

Not for monogamous homosexuals, and not for lesbians since they are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Many homosexuals have been monogamous for decades, and have no interest in becoming promiscuous. It would obviously be ridiculous for them to practice abstinence for life, especially since for them, the risks would often outweigh the benefits. Please read about some of the health risks of long term abstinence in my most recent post in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-homosexuals-good-solution-5.html#post3401653. Please make a reply to that post.

Monogamous homosexuality among healthy homosexuals is safe, rewarding, and not harmful. Why would a moral God oppose that?

God withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him if they were aware of it. Such people are not rejecting God. They are only rejecting a lack of evidence since they would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. Similarly, no one can blame people who lived hundreds of years ago for eating lots of greasy foods since the health risks of doing that were not known back then, and many of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the health risks.

How can not being aware of truth that would be accepted if it was known be immoral?

 

[Agnostic75]

The vast majority of experts disagree with your claim that all of macro evolution has problems.

That is just wrong, and you would not know this even if it were true, plus "problem' is subjective so you would need my definition to even evaluate it.

Let me put it another way. The vast majority of experts accept macro evolution. You have made a number of posts that claim that there are many problems with macro evolution. As many experts have said, there are a number of unexplained issues regarding macro evolution, but in spite of those issues, there is still overwhelming support for it. There are many unsolved issues regarding a number of widely accepted scientific theories.

With your limited knowledge of biology, you are not in a position to lecture anyone about macro evolution. The fact that you have refused to debate an expert on it shows that you know that you do not know very much about biology.

Some research has shown that some of the mostly likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

I said that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution.

If you said that at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences as an objection to macro evolution, you would be laughed off of the stage. As a Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution says, "Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales."[4][1]

Many other experts say the same thing, but apparently, you are not even aware of basic information like that.

In the opinions of the vast majority of experts, Ken Miller's article about the flagellum, intelligent design, and irreducible complexity at http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/ev...article.htmlis is valid.

Michael Behe, who you once used as a source to back up some of your arguments about intelligent design, said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

If you were discussing common descent with Behe, would you object to it by telling him that no threshold exists for deciding when microevolution becomes macroevolution, or that evolutionists cannot adequately explain the evolution of the human eye? Of course you wouldn't because you know that those are not good arguments against macro evolution.

Consider the following:

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[19][20]

Describing the fundamental similarity between Macro and Microevolution in his authoritative textbook "Evolutionary Biology," biologist Douglas Futuyma writes,

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim. Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traved to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences. The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic, varies from little or none to complete. Thus, reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations.”

— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8[4]​

Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of[21] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".

Michael Behe concurs with that, as do the vast majority of other experts.

As the judge at the Dover trial said, intelligent design, while it may be true, is not science, does not have significant support among scientists, and cannot be taught in public schools. The judge is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president. Other court cases have had similar results. So even if intelligent design were true, it is not currently possible for science to reasonably prove that. However, according to the vast majority of experts, it is possible for science to reasonably prove that macro evolution is true.

If some amateur skeptics at this forum are not able to adequately answer some of your questions about macro evolution, that is of no importance whatsoever since any qualified expert could ask you thousands of questions that you would not be able to adequately answer.

There are Internet forums where there are some professional biologists, some of whom have a Ph.D. in biology. Obviously, you would never be willing to debate macro evolution at those forums.

On the other hand, even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, no one should listen to you since most experts would disagree with you. In addition, most laymen cannot adequately judge complex debates about biology.

There is a long Wikipedia article about common descent at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent#Humans. The article has 160 scientific references, a number of further reading references, and a number of external links.

If you wish to continue discussing common descent, I will start a new thread at the Evolution vs Creationism forum. That would be a better place to discuss that issue since there are more people at that forum who know a lot about biology than there are at this forum. Hopefully, Painted Wolf is still around at that forum since she if a professional biologist.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Except for my most post #1478 on evolution, I have combined all of my most recent posts into this post, so you do not need to reply to any of my previous posts except for my post #1478.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Do you believe that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

That is not the full story. Here is some of the rest of it.

Matthew 19:8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not.

You made the same argument in another thread. I replied:

That is not likely. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, and that Moses tolerated it because the Hebrews' hearts were hard, or something like that. That is not likely since during the time of Moses, God was tough, and ordered the death penalty for things such as practicing the freedom of religion by worshipping other gods, cursing at your parents, and working on the Sabbath Day. It is not likely that a God like that would give in to allowing divorce.

It would have made more sense for the Old Testament to condemn divorce, and for the New Testament to allow it since people were no longer under the law, and could eat whatever they wanted to eat, and worship on whatever day of the week that they wanted to worship, and because common sense indicates that in many cases, divorce is far better than staying married.

God's stern scolding of Job is a much more accurate description of the God of the Old Testament than God allowing divorce is.

Of course, it is well-known that the Bible contains at least some forgeries, and interpolations. Even the Bible admits that tampering with the texts is possible since the last page of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If it was not possible to tamper with the texts, there would not have been any need for the warnings.

Today, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take the changes to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time.

You can claim that homosexuality is not practical (although it often is practical), but you cannot adequately claim that divorce is not practical except in cases of adultery.

Abstinence would vastly reduce STD transmission and would produce no corresponding increase in suffering.

If monogamous homosexuals (about half of homosexuals are monogamous) practiced abstinence, that would do very little to reduce STD transmission, let alone vastly reduce it. It is very probably promiscuous homosexuals who are primarily spreading STD's, not monogamous homosexuals. Since promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. If research was done just for monogamous homosexuals, it would probably show that monogamous homosexuals are generally much healthier than you believe they are. Even regarding the general population of homosexuals, the majority of them are not alcoholics, are not drug abusers, are not pedophiles, and do not have HIV/AIDS.

You are wrong about the risks of long term abstinence. Please read about some of the health risks of long term abstinence, and some of the benefits of having sex, in my most recent post in a thread at Is abstinence for life for all homosexuals a good solution to homosexuality?. Please make a reply to that post. And, please provide in that thread whatever research that you have about how many people have practiced long term abstinence without developing any serious physical, and emotional problems. Quite obviously, having sex is normal, and long term abstinence is abnormal.

You said that "abstinence would vastly reduce STD transmission and would produce no corresponding increase in suffering." However, that is definitely false regarding healthy, monogamous homosexuals. There would be no reduction in STD transmission since there was not any in the first place, and there would be a risk for an increase in suffering, as a lot of medical research has proven.

Abstinence would vastly reduce STD transmission and would produce no corresponding increase in suffering.

That is partly true. If promiscuous homosexuals who practice unsafe sex (many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex) practiced abstinence, there would be less STD's, but many of those homosexuals would develop serious physical, and emotional problems as a result. Medical research has proven that.

If monogamous homosexuals (about half of homosexuals are monogamous) practiced abstinence, that would do very little to reduce STD transmission, let alone vastly reduce it. It is very probably promiscuous homosexuals who are primarily spreading STD's, not monogamous homosexuals. Since promiscuous homosexuals are not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. If research was done just for monogamous homosexuals, it would probably show that monogamous homosexuals are generally much healthier than you believe they are, and that their health compares favorably with the majority of heterosexuals.

One of your major problems is believing what you want to believe, which is arguing from convenience, not from logic, and not from documented research. Regarding your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, much of that post is false, and some of it is poorly documented even if it is true. I, and some other people, questioned that post, but you never discussed it with anyone, and did not even remember that you had posted it when I mentioned it to you. You asked me which post it was, I told you which post that is was, and you did not mention that post and more. It is deplorable to bear false witness against your neighbor, and post large blocks of texts without checking them out. Yes, if even half of that post is true, that would be important, but what is just as important is which half, and which particular claims? Would you like to discuss that post in detail, at that thread?

BTW the solution for any behavior is independent from the moral character of that behavior.

If you are referring to the Bible, even if a God inspired the originals, there is no way that anyone can reasonably know how much of the originals he preserved free from errors, including what the Bible says about same-sex behavior. Today, there are only a few existing original fragments of the New Testament from the first and second centuries A.D.

Debates about religion can go on for years. As far as science is concerned, most experts would not recommend abstinence for life for monogamous homosexuals, or for lesbians since they are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.

Abstinence is recommended for all sexuality where inappropriate by even secular institutions.......

No major medical institution recommends that healthy, monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. Monogamous homosexuality among healthy homosexuals is definitely not inappropriate. Major medical institutions that deal with STD's deal with promiscuity, and unsafe sex, never with healthy, monogamous couples, whether the couples are homosexual, or heterosexual. You are really a very strange, uninformed person.

Of course, everyone who has kept up with your posts in various threads already knows that medical statistics do not really mean anything to you, and that you would object to homosexuality no matter what statistics say. You are just like authors Stanton Jones, and Paul Yarhouse, both of whom have a Ph.D. in psychology. In their book on homosexuality, they say:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Like you, Jones and Yarhouse only use science as a convenience when they believe that it agrees with their religious beliefs. The difference between you and them is that they honestly come right out and admit their religious bias. In the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. If 99.99% of homosexuals did not have HIV, you would still oppose homosexuality, so percentages do not really matter to you. You never really had any valid secular arguments against homosexuality that apply to all homosexuals.

God withholds additional evidence that would cause more people to love, and accept him if they were aware of it. Such people are not rejecting God. They are only rejecting a lack of evidence since they would accept God if he provided them with additional evidence. Similarly, no one can blame people who lived hundreds of years ago for eating lots of greasy foods since the health risks of doing that were not known back then, and many of those people would not have eaten lots of greasy foods if they had known about the health risks.

How can not being aware of truth that would be accepted if it was known be immoral?