INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

I know what it is you claim and I have given you an absolute way to prove it. I wish you would do that instead of repeat this claim again.

Why does it require proof???

Ask a gay person. There's your "proof."

I however do not have the slightest idea what you posted the claim to that statement by me. The two are totally unrelated.

What? What's unrelated?

 

[1robin]

Why does it require proof???

Ask a gay person. There's your "proof."

You can't seriously be asking why a practice that kills so many should have proof it is genetic. You also can't be seriously saying that what a gay person claims is proof of any genetic mandate for homosexuality.

What? What's unrelated?

My comments were given to another person and on the subject of thread relevance. They had nothing whatever to do with the genetic aspect of homosexuality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can't seriously be asking why a practice that kills so many should have proof it is genetic. You also can't be seriously saying that what a gay person claims is proof of any genetic mandate for homosexuality.

Ummm, I was referring to your claim that homosexuality is an act.

My comments were given to another person and on the subject of thread relevance. They had nothing whatever to do with the genetic aspect of homosexuality.

Why are you replying to me when you're talking to someone else?

 

[1robin]

Ummm, I was referring to your claim that homosexuality is an act.

Oh, I usually am quick to spot humor and I did almost ask if that was meant rhetorically but was in a hurry and no matter how absurd I usually find out the atheist was being serious. So I played the odds. My bad.

Why are you replying to me when you're talking to someone else?

I think this humor as it is absurd. Was I right? I laughed anyway.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will transfer this post to a relevant thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-86.html#post3428260. Please reply to it there.

Let me ask you this. There are people that have strong sexual attractions to animals. Is that biological as well?

I will answer your question, but let's start by trying to agree on why sexual behavior originally began among animals, and among humans. Pleasure had to be a large part of the reason why animals originally started to have sex, and genetics had to be largely responsible for that whether or not a God exists. Regarding humans, we know that today, having sex solely for pleasure, mostly because of genetics, is often very pleasing, and that millions of Christians sometimes have sex solely for pleasure.

So, we know that genetics has always been the primary reason why animals, and humans, often have sex entirely for pleasure. No other reason is possible. As far as why some humans prefer same-sex behavior is concerned, there is a lot of scientific evidence that genetics are largely involved, but even if sexual identity was caused 100% by environment, the facts remain that sexual identity can very rarely be changed, and that children have little control over their environment.

As far as why some people are sexually attracted to animals is concerned, I do not know, but that does not have anything to do with homosexuals, and I assume that very few homosexuals have sex with animals.

Wikipedia says:

"Zoophilia is placed in the classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified." in the DSM-III and IV. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as "other disorder of sexual preference".[29] The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Should that be accepted?

There are many opinions about that. Zoophilia is legal in about twelve states. In the rest of the states, it is a misdemeanor, or a felony. Surprisingly, it is legal in Alabama, and is only a misdemeanor in Louisiana.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with the American Psychiatric Association that "the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Obviously, a great many homosexuals have no distress with their daily functioning, and thus have no reason to practice abstinence.

Please reply to all of my post #1557.

 

[1robin]

I will answer your question, but let's start by trying to agree on why sexual behavior originally began among animals, and among humans. Pleasure had to be a large part of the reason why animals originally started to have sex, and genetics had to be largely responsible for that whether or not a God exists. Regarding humans, we know that today, having sex solely for pleasure, mostly because of genetics, is often very pleasing, and that millions of Christians sometimes have sex solely for pleasure.

Believe me I do not need to be told why Christians do things, especially things for pleasure. Your entire paragraph is an unnecessary assumption. I am sure much of it was true but almost all of it is assumed and none of it was necessary.

So, we know that genetics has always been the primary reason why animals, and humans, often have sex entirely for pleasure.

Saying that sex is pleasurable is not to say it always is, nor that it's pleasurable aspects (even assuming evolution played Mr. Wizard here and created it that way) are all legitimate or morally good. What feels Good but is destructive is apparently also created by evolution for the opposite reason as in the case you give. Did evolution make heroine feel good or people who enjoy pain in others, that way? No moral judgment can follow from the way something feels even if evolution can explain all those I mentioned or just the good ones as most atheists allow. Even if everything you said was true since Humans and animals can't reproduce then it will not explain that.

No other reason is possible. As far as why some humans prefer same-sex behavior is concerned, there is a lot of scientific evidence that genetics are largely involved, but even if sexual identity was caused 100% by environment, the facts remain that sexual identity can very rarely be changed, and that children have little control over their environment.

The concept of whether something can be easily changed or even changed at all is irrelevant to whether it is good or bad.

As far as why some people are sexually attracted to animals is concerned, I do not know, but that does not have anything to do with homosexuals, and I assume that very few homosexuals have sex with animals.

But if one was genetic would not the other be? If they are both genetic wouldn't you have to insist sex with animals should be allowed?

Wikipedia says:

"Zoophilia is placed in the classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified." in the DSM-III and IV. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as "other disorder of sexual preference".[29] The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

You should know by now that I do not think the moral decisions made by the public at large is meaningful. I believe the world is fallen and in rebellion and so most of it's pronouncements would be wrong. I might have cared what science said but moral opinions as those at Wiki above are not much of a help.

There are many opinions about that. Zoophilia is legal in about twelve states. In the rest of the states, it is a misdemeanor, or a felony. Surprisingly, it is legal in Alabama, and is only a misdemeanor in Louisiana.

Ok either you knew I was from Alabama and made a joke or didn't and made a stereo type which is not true. We may be idiots many times but we are usually intolerant, not tolerant if mistaken. Actually where I live is extremely intellectual (The city that built the rockets to the moon) and has traditionally had the highest incomes and the most PhDs per capita than any other southern county if not the US. However legality is also not an issue here. Only for your side is legality the best you can do for morality and that is a poor statement indeed.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with the American Psychiatric Association that "the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

These official statements are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum. Let me frame the debate to make it more efficient.

1. Prove that homosexuality is mandated by genetics?
2. Once that is done then would not also bestiality be genetic?
3. Would not then bestiality not be as legitimate as homosexuality?
4. If so then why do even states and nations that have allowed homosexuality condemn bestiality?

I was thinking that it was a shame to have to go to the lengths of introducing bestiality to produce something you would condemn right up until the time you even refused to do that. How many lives (even innocent lives) is enough to lose to get your side to declare something wrong? Just abortion and homosexuality alone are well over a billion at this time.

Obviously, a great many homosexuals have no distress with their daily functioning, and thus have no reason to practice abstinence.

Right up until they get aids and die, that is after their habits cost people who do not practice them lots of money. Drinking is no problem, even drinking and driving is no problem until you get liver disease or crash into a busload of children. Of course bestiality and Anheuser bush do not have the lobby that homosexuality does. Morality by campaign contribution sounds about right.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I have transferred this post, and my next post, to a relevant thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-86.html#post3427765, so please reply to this post, and to my next post, in that thread.

1. Prove that homosexuality is mandated by genetics?

Initial sexuality identity at puberty has to largely involve genetics. Dr. Bailey's twin study conclusively proves that, reference my post #19 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed-2.html. If sexual identity at puberty was caused mainly by environment, the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would not turn out to be heterosexuals, which is the case. If a homosexual sexual identity is primarily caused by environment, which kinds of environment are you referring to?

Right up until they get aids and die, that is after their habits cost people who do not practice them lots of money. Drinking is no problem, even drinking and driving is no problem until you get liver disease or crash into a busload of children.

Far more homosexuals die from heart disease than from any STD. A large percentage of homosexuals do not die from any STD. In the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV, and a good many of them will never get HIV, or AIDS.

Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk was same-sex behavior, and not also recommend abstinence for heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have HIV, or AIDS, ever could. That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals could if they all ate healthy foods, and got enough exercise.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will transfer this post to a relevant thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3428267. Please reply to it there.

Message to 1robin: A Wikipedia article at Zoophilia and the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that zoophilia is legal in 17 countries all over the world. It is legal everywhere in 15 countries, and in parts of Australia, and in parts of the U.S.

Even if zoophilia was illegal in every country in the world, that would not have anything to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is illegal in every state in the U.S., and that does not have anything to do with homosexuality either.

Most homosexuals have no interest in zoophilia, or pedophilia, and support laws against those things.

The American Psychiatric Association "recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Many homosexuals have little or no "distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Sexual pleasure has to be largely caused by genetics. Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

The legitimacy of having sex, whether among homosexuals, or among heterosexuals, would be determined by comparing the advantages with the disadvantages, and by considering the results of other options. Having sex has proven advantages. Long term abstinence has proven disadvantages. Research has shown that even a large percentage of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is much more difficult. That means that non-religious homosexuals would have a much more difficult time trying to give up homosexuality, and a much more difficult time trying to change their sexual identity.

Far more homosexuals will die from heart disease than from any STD.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable. Health care costs for heart disease among heterosexuals are far greater than treating STDs among homosexuals could ever be. That is because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are. Such being the case, if all heterosexuals accepted their responsibility to lower their risks of getting heart disease, far more money would be saved than if all homosexuals practiced abstinence, not to mention lengthening life, and having less suffering.

And that does not include obesity, and cancer, which are also frequently preventable.

Regarding homosexuals who already have STDs, practicing abstinence would limit further risks, but that would not do anything to get rid of the STDs that they already have, and medical costs would still be required.

Research has shown that lesbians who have no HIV risks other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. It would not be sensible for you to recommend that they practice abstinence since their risks are less than the risks of heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

 

[Thief]

I see the discussion now wiggles one all directions.
Like a worm about to be die under foot.

And as the worms come to feast.....
Will we stand and watch?

Or remain in the flesh....lay there.... and let it happen?

It's one or the other.

 

[McBell]

It's one or the other.

Says who?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will transfer this post to a relevant thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-86.html#post3428252. Please reply to it there.

These official statements are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum. Let me frame the debate to make it more efficient.

Not a chance. When homosexuality was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, no Christian opponent of homosexuality would have claimed that political pressure, or liability were involved. If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them frequently. If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations who support it would be at risk, so your arguments are absurd.

No moral expert is going to put his own children at risk, or the health of homosexuals themselves, merely because of politics.

Prove that homosexuality is mandated by genetics?

I have never said, or implied that homosexuals are forced by genetics to engage in same-sex behavior. If free will exists, obviously, any homosexual can practice abstinence if he wants to, but at what cost? That is the main issue, just like stopping smoking cigarettes, or stopping drinking alcohol. Withdrawal from stopping smoking cigarettes, or from stopping drinking alcohol, can be very distressing, so distressing that even many smoking, and drinking addicts who are strongly committed to giving up their addictions find withdrawal symptoms too difficult to bear. It is worth trying to give up smoking, and drinking addictions since they always eventually destroys people's health, but homosexuality does not always eventually destroy homosexuals' health. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD.

Logically, physical and emotional health are best just individually, not collectively. While some homosexuals never give up practicing unsafe sex, other homosexuals never give up practicing safe sex. Based upon your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, it is no wonder that you believe so many lies about homosexuals. Much of that post is false, misleading, or poorly documented.

Regarding the thread that I just mentioned, please reply to two recent posts that I made.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I will transfer this post to a relevant thread on homosexuality at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-86.html#post3428252. Please reply to it there.

Very well.

Not a chance. When homosexuality was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, no Christian opponent of homosexuality would have claimed that political pressure, or liability were involved.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it belonged there. This is another genetic fallacy with a argument from silence for good measure.

If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them frequently. If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations who support it would be at risk, so your arguments are absurd.

I probably would but I would have entertained the comments I made if you had made them instead.

No moral expert is going to put his own children at risk, or the health of homosexuals themselves, merely because of politics.

Before I answer further I have forgotten the context here and there are no links. You post so much I can't even find what this is about. Can you give me the post number for the post before the one where you wrote this?

I have never said, or implied that homosexuals are forced by genetics to engage in same-sex behavior. If free will exists, obviously, any homosexual can practice abstinence if he wants to, but at what cost? That is the main issue, just like stopping smoking cigarettes, or stopping drinking alcohol. Withdrawal from stopping smoking cigarettes, or from stopping drinking alcohol, can be very distressing, so distressing that even many smoking, and drinking addicts who are strongly committed to giving up their addictions find withdrawal symptoms too difficult to bear. It is worth trying to give up smoking, and drinking addictions since they always eventually destroys people's health, but homosexuality does not always eventually destroy homosexuals' health. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD.

Please lets put this one point to bed. I see it every post you make. I follow your argument but it hinges on the problematic area we find in all of these claims. Cost.

1. Homosexuality massively increases suffering and adds billions in costs even to those who do not practice it. That is or should be what determines right and wrong for secular people. It is arbitrary but still the best you can do without God. This one is like the prime directive that everything else relates to.
2. The practice does not have any corroborating gain associated with it that would even hint at justifying it's practice as "good", "moral", or "ok".
3. Even assuming there is a cost to stopping the practice that is beyond the same felt by anyone who discontinues anything they like doing there is still no cost so great that would mandate the continuation of the practice considering the cost unless the cost is instant death of those that discontinue doing it. This is the most applicable one to you claim above.
4. How many may practice it a safe manner (which does not exist) unless guaranteed to always do so (which can't be) is an irrelevant point.
5. Whether nature produces this impulse alone would not change these things but would make decisions based on them harder.

No argument that uses amount of harm, inconvenience or cost (entire societies have outlawed homosexuality yet their gay communities did not go insane or commit suicide in significant numbers) of non-indulgence, or what agencies recommend concerning remedy. The only thing that has a chance against what is above is showing those stats about how much harm the practice causes are all wrong, or something unknown that you have no so far posted. I think you may have exhausted your arsenal because I only see rehashing or point blank repletion of the same claims you began with.

Logically, physical and emotional health are best just individually, not collectively. While some homosexuals never give up practicing unsafe sex, other homosexuals never give up practicing safe sex. Based upon your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, it is no wonder that you believe so many lies about homosexuals. Much of that post is false, misleading, or poorly documented.

I will tell you what I will delete anything from that list that you can prove is false or even if you prove it inaccurate I will change it so it is accurate. That post was from January. How did you remember it? Here are the sources for those stats so have at it.

1) Advocate, 1985
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299
(5) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992
(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy (16) MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96
(17) Newsweek, February 1993
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk." (22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990
(25) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987
(26) United States Census Bureau (27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

© 2000- 2003 International Organization of Heterosexual Rights

Regarding the thread that I just mentioned, please reply to two recent posts that I made.

I am replying to that thread based on convenience so I make no promises but this argument above is the same claim I make to just about all your posts and no additional argumentation is needed.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am replying to that thread based on convenience so I make no promises but this argument above is the same claim I make to just about all your posts and no additional argumentation is needed.

You are referring to the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3428269. I have transferred many arguments to that thread that you have not replied to. It is just as convenient for you to reply to posts about homosexuality in that thread as it is in another thread. And, that is a thread about homosexuality, and this one isn't. Several days ago, you agreed to discuss homosexuality only in relevant threads, but since then, you have discussed it in at least two non-relevant threads. You even said that having discussions only in relevant threads could only benefit you, but you could not have believed that since you have not spent nearly as much time discussing homosexuality in relevant threads as you have in non-relevant threads.

 

[1robin]

You are referring to the thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...e-have-relationship-other-87.html#post3428269. I have transferred many arguments to that thread that you have not replied to. It is just as convenient for you to reply to posts about homosexuality in that thread as it is in another thread. And, that is a thread about homosexuality, and this one isn't. Several days ago, you agreed to discuss homosexuality only in relevant threads, but since then, you have discussed it in at least two non-relevant threads. You even said that having discussions only in relevant threads could only benefit you, but you could not have believed that since you have not spent nearly as much time discussing homosexuality in relevant threads as you have in non-relevant threads.

Oh come on. I can't keep all this straight. To sort this out use my last post on homosexuality as my opening post and start fresh from there in the thread on relationships with me (just typing that gives me the shivers) and neither of us should mention homosexuality to each other in any other thread. Agreed? You can debate me in any thread but only on it's or a related topic, OK? That might free up enough time to get to homosexuality. To explain my use on convenient, when I come into work I look at what time I might have to debate. I then start that time in the threads that I am most interested in. It goes on down the priority list from there. Homosexuality is only above arguments on theology so terrible they deserve no reply from me. That puts it at the end of my time. Convenient means I had enough time left to engage. You have actually grown on me in the months we have discussed things but the length of your posts and the amount of them on your pet topic are prohibitive in a way. I wish you made less repetition, more direct and simple points, and liked theology as much as you like homosexuality. I can't remember why is that such an important issue for you personally can you tell me again? Do you agree with the above?

 

[1robin]

I see the discussion now wiggles one all directions.
Like a worm about to be die under foot.

And as the worms come to feast.....
Will we stand and watch?

Or remain in the flesh....lay there.... and let it happen?

It's one or the other.

That is either a disturbing poem or a Pink Floyd Lyric.

 

[1robin]

Why does it require proof???

I trust your sources even less than you trust mine on this issue. However that is not the main reason. Proof is always better than data and claims alone. It should exist in this case if the claims about the data were accurate. There is no reason to resist posting it unless it does not exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

These official statements [about zoophilia] are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum.

What criteria are you referring to?

When homosexuality was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, no Christian opponent of homosexuality would have claimed that political pressure, or liability were involved.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it belonged there.

That is debatable, but that is another issue. You changed the subject since you know that I made a good argument. We were not discussing anything at all about whether or not homosexuality originally belonged in the DSM. My reply had everything to do with what you said, so please reply to what I said. Regarding liability, if homosexuality was nearly as harmful as you claim it is, the APA would be far more liable endorsing it than they would be opposing it, so what you said does not make any sense at all.

The following organizations support homosexuals.

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association

How could all of those organizations have been liable if they had not supported homosexuality?

As far as political pressure is concerned, when homosexuality was originally included in the DSM, there is no doubt that political pressure from religious conservatives was largely involved. Today, the chief group that opposes homosexuality politically is conservative Christians, and the chief supporters of Proposition 8 in California were the Roman Catholic church, and the Mormon church, so your arguments about political pressure are ridiculous.

How can a democratic country be run without politics? What is wrong with politics? You certainly approve of it when it goes your way. Conservative Christians have many political organizations.

It is very insulting, and unfair, that you accused major medical organizations of endorsing a practice (homosexuality) that they privately oppose.

The American Psychiatric Association, and the World Health Organization, do not recommend that zoophilia be treated unless it causes distress, and interferes with daily functions. You can argue with that if you wish, but what does zoophilia have to do with homosexuality? If you really want to continue trying to link zoophilia with homosexuality, I will start a new thread on that subject, and many people will get to see how absurd some of your arguments are.

Zoophilia is humans having sex with animals. Homosexuality is humans having sex with humans. How can you compare the two? Most homosexuals are not interested in having sex with animals.

If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them frequently.

I probably would but I would have entertained the comments I made if you had made them instead.

What are you talking about? You said:

These official statements [about zoophilia] are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum.

How could I ever make those comments since they are ridiculous? You argue from convenience, not from facts. You object to what major medical organizations say if they do not agree with you, but you admitted that you would approve of what the very same organizations said if they agreed with you.

The main issue is what should be done about homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please let's put this one point to bed. I see it every post you make. I follow your argument but it hinges on the problematic area we find in all of these claims. Cost.

Homosexuality massively increases suffering and adds billions in costs even to those who do not practice it. That is or should be what determines right and wrong for secular people. It is arbitrary but still the best you can do without God. This one is like the prime directive that everything else relates to.

That is easy to refute. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable. Health care costs for heart disease among heterosexuals are far greater than treating STDs among homosexuals could ever be. That is because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are. Such being the case, if all heterosexuals accepted their responsibility to lower their risks of getting heart disease, far more money would be saved than if all homosexuals practiced abstinence, not to mention lengthening life, and having less suffering.

And that does not include obesity, and cancer, which are also frequently preventable.

Regarding homosexuals who already have STDs, practicing abstinence would limit further risks, but that would not do anything to get rid of the STDs that they already have, and medical costs would still be required.

Research has shown that lesbians who have no HIV risks other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. It would not be sensible for you to recommend that they practice abstinence since their risks are less than the risks of heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

The practice does not have any corroborating gain associated with it that would even hint at justifying it's practice as "good", "moral", or "ok".

Yes it does. Consider the following:

Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer - 06 April 2004 - New Scientist

Frequent sexual intercourse and masturbation protects men against a common form of cancer, suggests the largest study of the issue to date yet.

The US study, which followed nearly 30,000 men over eight years, showed that those that ejaculated most frequently were significantly less likely to get prostate cancer. The results back the findings of a smaller Australian study revealed by New Scientist in July 2003 that asserted that masturbation was good for men.

In the US study, the group with the highest lifetime average of ejaculation - 21 times per month - were a third less likely to develop the cancer than the reference group, who ejaculated four to seven times a month.

 

[Agnostic75]

Even assuming there is a cost to stopping the practice that is beyond the same felt by anyone who discontinues anything they like doing there is still no cost so great that would mandate the continuation of the practice considering the cost unless the cost is instant death of those that discontinue doing it. This is the most applicable one to you claim above.

Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual abstinence diminishes the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases but prevents one from obtaining the health benefits of sex.

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer - 06 April 2004 - New Scientist

PSYPLEXUS - a portal for mental health professionals

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.

There are not any good reasons why homosexuals who have practiced safe sex for many years should risk developing serious physical, and mental problems.

 

[Agnostic75]

How many may practice it a safe manner (which does not exist) unless guaranteed to always do so (which can't be) is an irrelevant point.

As far as HIV goes, a research study involving 21 American cities showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Research has shown that lesbians who have no HIV risks other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. It would not be sensible for you to recommend that they practice abstinence since their risks are less than the risks of heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

So, as usual, you do not know what you are talking about.

As far as a guarantee is concerned, the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD shows that no guarantee is necessary regarding homosexuals who do not die from any STD. The leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, is heart disease.

Lesbians do not need a guarantee since I just told you that "research has shown that lesbians who have no HIV risks other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women."

No argument that uses amount of harm, inconvenience or cost (entire societies have outlawed homosexuality yet their gay communities did not go insane or commit suicide in significant numbers) of non-indulgence, or what agencies recommend concerning remedy.

Research has shown that the persecution of homosexuals raises their suicide rates, and causes them lots of distress. Everyone deserves equal rights.

I will tell you what I will delete anything from that list that you can prove is false or even if you prove it inaccurate I will change it so it is accurate. That post was from January. How did you remember it? Here are the sources for those stats so have at it.

1) Advocate, 1985
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299
(5) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992
(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy (16) MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96
(17) Newsweek, February 1993
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37
(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk." (22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322
(24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990
(25) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987
(26) United States Census Bureau (27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

© 2000- 2003 International Organization of Heterosexual Rights

You are referring to your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html. I remembered that post since I realized that it is probably one of the main reasons why you oppose homosexuality so much. I recommend that we go to that thread, and discuss the claims one at a time. Some of the claims are provably false, and there is no way that you could have carefully checked out even 10% of them. One of the sources is Dr. Paul Cameron, who is a psychologist, a conservative Christian, and an outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Wikipedia says:

"In 1983, the American Psychological Association expelled Cameron for non-cooperation with an ethics investigation. Position statements issued by the American Sociological Association, Canadian Psychological Association and the Nebraska Psychological Association have accused Cameron of misrepresenting social science research."

Consider the following true claims:

1. The majority of homosexuals do not die from any STD.
2. The vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.
3. The vast majority of homosexuals are not interested in having sex with animals.
4. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS.
5. The vast majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics.
6. The vast majority of homosexuals do not abuse drugs.
7. Having sex has proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.
8. Lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women,

So homosexuals are generally not nearly as bad off as you claim they are.

Even true statistics can be misleading, or easily misinterpreted. For example, many research studies only study distressed homosexuals, and distressed heterosexuals, and compare the percentages of distressed homosexuals with the percentages of distressed heterosexuals. The results do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals, and to the vast majority of heterosexuals. It is true that among distressed people, in many cases, the percentages of homosexuals are much higher than the percentages of heterosexuals, but the percentages would only apply to distressed homosexuals, not to the majority of homosexuals

What you need are health statistics that apply to the majority of homosexuals.

Please reply to my previous three posts.