Is the US a Christian nation?

[Agnostic75]

You did the same thing regarding homosexuality when you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

I never said that until you brought that issue up.

That is true. I told you that no one should be criticized for any behavior unless there are reasonable options. Then you recommended abstinence as a solution. You claimed that millions of people have successfully practiced abstinence. Later, in another thread, you claimed that sexual identity can be changed, and that gay therapy clinics all over the world are helping homosexuals change their sexual identity. I asked you where these clinics are, but you refused to mention them. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded Exodus International, which was the largest ex-gay organization in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and that 99.9% of the homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity.

In fact I don't think anyone but you ever suggested it at all. I am not here to fix the world but point out what needs fixing.

How should homosexuality be fixed?

What did I suggest? All that I have ever suggested is that everyone of every sexual preference should practice safe sex, and that is what the CDC also recommends.

I can show dozens of quotes from various threads where you have said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity.

You lose hands down since research has shown that lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. It was utter nonsense for you to claim that lesbians should practice abstinence because they are not representative of all homosexuals, and that homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years should practice abstinence because they are not representative of all homosexuals. That was a wild argument even for you.

The CDC says that black Americans have the highest HIV risk of any group. Black Americans are not representative of all Americans. Would you argue that since they are not representative of all Americans, they should not practice abstinence?

The fact that lesbians, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, are not representative of all homosexuals has nothing at all to do with who should practice abstinence. According to your philosophy, anyone, whether homosexual, or heterosexual, who is at risk should practice abstinence, and in the case of homosexuals, all homosexuals should practice abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity.

You accused me of composition fallacy, but that is what you have done, not me. Consider the following from Wikipedia:

The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.......

In economics, the famous Paradox of Thrift, is held to answer a fallacy of composition:

A. If a household saves more money now, instead of spending, it will have more money to spend in the future.

B. Therefore, if all households save more money now, instead of spending, they will all have more money to spend in the future.

The Paradox of Thrift shows this syllogism to be a fallacy of composition, in that the syllogism presumes that what is true for one household must be true for all households in the aggregate.

The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from an STD. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. The lifespan of all homosexuals is a good deal less than the lifespan of all heterosexuals, but the lifespan of homosexuals who practice safe sex is much higher than the lifespan of homosexuals who do not practice safe sex, and many homosexuals live past the age of 65.

If only 1% of homosexuals never get any STD, assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, about 1.5 million homosexuals will never get any STD. You have said that you do not personally object to homosexuals who never get any STDs since they have not harmed you personally. Very few homosexuals will practice abstinence for life, and many of them, at least millions of them, will never get any STD.

 

[1robin]

That is true. I told you that no one should be criticized for any behavior unless there are reasonable options. Then you recommended abstinence as a solution. You claimed that millions of people have successfully practiced abstinence. Later, in another thread, you claimed that sexual identity can be changed, and that gay therapy clinics all over the world are helping homosexuals change their sexual identity. I asked you where these clinics are, but you refused to mention them. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded Exodus International, which was the largest ex-gay organization in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and that 99.9% of the homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity.

Let me summarize these months’ worth of claims:
1. I have no need of a solution to claim something is wrong.
2. Once you introduced that irrelevant issue I suggested that abstinence was possible and has been often enough to prove it could be done. That was not my solution nor do I have any need for one.
3. Just to waste more time I will give you my official solution. God should be searched for by a homosexual or anyone who is doing what is wrong. His solution should be adopted and has been countless times successfully.

I also have an argument to your genetic rationalization. I just heard on the radio yesterday that of all things genetic causes for a woman’s likelihood of beating their children during hard economic times. No one would argue that is reason to allow it to occur and on that basis genetics is no argument that homosexuality should be accepted even if it was true. There are genetic factors associated with all kinds of behavior that is not acceptable.





The rest of this has been said far too many times and addressed too many times. Be honest are you simply out of canned arguments?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Let me summarize these months’ worth of claims:

1. I have no need of a solution to claim something is wrong.

You do if your position is that homosexuals have reasonable options. Smoking cigarettes would not be wrong if there are not any reasonable options.

Since you have recommended abstinence on many occasions, and have claimed that sexual identity can be changed, you in fact have recommended solutions.

2. Once you introduced that irrelevant issue I suggested that abstinence was possible and has been often enough to prove it could be done.

Some people who practice abstinence are happy, but many are not, and develop serious physical, and emotional problems as a result. Even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is much more difficult.

That was not my solution nor do I have any need for one.

You do if your position is that homosexuals have reasonable options. Smoking cigarettes would not be wrong if there are not any reasonable options.

Just to waste more time I will give you my official solution. God should be searched for by a homosexual or anyone who is doing what is wrong. His solution should be adopted and has been countless times successfully.

I knew from the beginning of our debates about homosexuality that eventually, you would have no option except to use religious arguments. That is what always happens when I debate homosexuality with conservative Christians. You said that you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, but now you have admitted that you only have religious arguments against it.

You have no idea how successful homosexuals have been regarding abstinence, and changing their sexual identity. In my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html, I provided lots of evidence that shows that sexual identity can only rarely be changed. I also showed that many supposedly cured homosexuals falsely interpret a change of sexual identity as a lessening of same-sex urges, not an elimination of same-sex urges. A change of sexual identity would only be indicated if there were no longer any moderate, or strong same-sex urges. Many if not most homosexuals who have given up homosexuality have admitted that they still have strong same-sex urges.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity.

Of course, this is irrelevant since from a secular perspective, lesbians who do not have any risks other than same-sex behavior, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, have no need of practicing abstinence, or trying to change their sexual identity, and should not unnecessarily have to deal with the heath risks of long term abstinence.

I also have an argument to your genetic rationalization. I just heard on the radio yesterday that of all things genetic causes for a woman’s likelihood of beating their children during hard economic times. No one would argue that is reason to allow it to occur.......

That is true, and I have never claimed otherwise.

.......

and on that basis genetics is no argument that homosexuality should be accepted even if it was true. There are genetic factors associated with all kinds of behavior that is not acceptable.

But my arguments would still be the same even if homosexuality is caused 100'% by environment. Whatever causes initial sexual identity, it is not a choice, and children have little control over their environment. My arguments about lesbians, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years would still be the same even if homosexuality was caused 100% by environment.

Whatever causes homosexuality, having sex has proven health benefits, long term abstinence has proven health risks, even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, sexual identity is completely changed only rarely, and there is no need for lesbians, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity.

Do you have any scientific evidence that initial sexual identity is primarily caused by environment?

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Do you believe that genetics largely accounts for sexual pleasure?

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not get it. It seems Craig agrees with exactly what I claimed. He even touched on your miracles issue as well. I did not see anything he said that was a challenge to anything I said. You misunderstood either me or him or I have.

I told you that it would be wrong for God to punish skeptics for eternity without parole. You replied:

Hell is not eternal torture. It is eternal non existence.

William Lane Craig disagrees with you. Consider the following:

Middle Knowledge and Hell | Reasonable Faith

Your response is that unbelievers “did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.”
As I've sought to show elsewhere, the reality of eternal punishment is in no way inconsistent with God's love or justice (Questions 35, 55, 172).

God doesn’t wish hell on anybody either, John. He has no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33.11). But those who freely reject God deserve their awful fate; they thrust eternal life from them. It is really they themselves and not God who is responsible for the reality of hell.

That clearly shows that Craig disagrees with you. Why don't you contact him and find out for yourself?

If Craig agreed with you, he would not have said "Your response is that unbelievers 'did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.'" That clearly shows that skeptics do not have the choice to cease to exist.

An article at After Controversy, Baptists Affirm Belief In 'Eternal' Hell shows that in 2011, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm the belief that hell is eternal torture.

 

[1robin]

You do if your position is that homosexuals have reasonable options. Smoking cigarettes would not be wrong if there are not any reasonable options.

No I do not. Whether something is wrong and what to do about it are completely independent concepts. Even if no solution existed it could still be wrong. Do we claim that a psychotic murderer's action were fine because he could not help it?

Since you have recommended abstinence on many occasions, and have claimed that sexual identity can be changed, you in fact have recommended solutions.

No I did not offer anything other than suggestions. Oh no you don't. I am not going down the homosexual rabbit hole again. I am only going to answer non-homosexual points if any actual exist in non-homosexual threads you post in.

I knew from the beginning of our debates about homosexuality that eventually, you would have no option except to use religious arguments. That is what always happens when I debate homosexuality with conservative Christians. You said that you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, but now you have admitted that you only have religious arguments against it.

That was a comment on a possible cure and no God is needed whatever to claim it is wrong. My Lord your manipulative. My primary points are still alive and untouched by anything you have said (even if you said it 20 times).

 

[Agnostic75]

No I do not. Whether something is wrong and what to do about it are completely independent concepts. Even if no solution existed it could still be wrong. Do we claim that a psychotic murderer's action were fine because he could not help it?

From a secular perspective, how can homosexuality be wrong if there are not any reasonable options? How can smoking cigarettes, or eating lots of greasy foods be wrong if there are not any reasonable options?

A psychotic murderer would be wrong since there is always an injured party. When monogamous homosexuals have sex, not only is there usually not an injured party, but you know that having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures if you are sexually active. Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

 

[1robin]

I told you that it would be wrong for God to punish skeptics for eternity without parole. You replied:



William Lane Craig disagrees with you. Consider the following:

Middle Knowledge and Hell | Reasonable Faith



That clearly shows that Craig disagrees with you. Why don't you contact him and find out for yourself?

Find out what? I did not see any conflict in his argument with mine. In what way are Craig's argument binding on me anyway. I certainly am not his rival nor equal. He may be right but I do not see where we disagree. Even if we do he does not agree with you in either case.

If Craig agreed with you, he would not have said "Your response is that unbelievers 'did not ask to be created, and had they been presented with the stark choice of Non-Existence and Eternal Conscious Torture they would undoubtedly choose Non-Existence.'" That clearly shows that skeptics do not have the choice to cease to exist.

That is an illustration of an argument that Craig does not have nor support. However he does examine it for the benefit of the one who does believe it.

An article at After Controversy, Baptists Affirm Belief In 'Eternal' Hell shows that in 2011, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to affirm the belief that hell is eternal torture.

I am very surprised by that but Baptists have a lot of divisions and sects. I do not agree with it but as I have said it is not a belief I hold as being on very sound ground. I am suspicious how much politics there is in this. My view is a primary view of I think the JWs. They are resented by Baptist leaders and it might be that it was as much for that fact as any scripture that that was determined. It is also the first "official" version of Hell used by Catholics to scare people into Church and has a lot of momentum and tradition. I can only give you my understanding of truth. I am not responsible for you say (but I do not see) that Craig claimed or any convention. I chose to be a Baptist primarily because their understanding of salvation is identical to mine, I did not care nor ever know what their understanding of Hell was. I will commend the relevance of the point but not any binds it places on me or truth.

 

[1robin]

From a secular perspective, how can homosexuality be wrong if there are not any reasonable options? How can smoking cigarettes, or eating lots of greasy foods be wrong if there are not any reasonable options?

A psychotic murderer would be wrong since there is always an injured party. When monogamous homosexuals have sex, not only is there usually not an injured party, but you know that having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures if you are sexually active. Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Oh no you don't. I am not going down the homosexual rabbit hole again. I am only going to answer non-homosexual points if any actual exist in non-homosexual threads you post in. I can repeat to. However I will answer this post.

Is manslaughter wrong?

Please please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming it is justification of it in general. This is not just wrong it is dishonest.
The rest is a genetic fallacy.

 

[Agnostic75]

Find out what? I did not see any conflict in his argument with mine.

Craig made it perfectly clear that be believes that skeptics will be punished for eternity. You do not believe that.

In what way are Craig's arguments binding on me anyway?

You are no more bound to accept Craig's arguments than Aquinas' arguments, or Descartes' arguments, but since you highly praise those sources, it is reasonable for me to quote them. If you disagree with Craig, that is fine, but you cannot claim that he does not believe the God will punish skeptics for eternity. He is easy to contact, but you will not contact him since you know that I am right. An article at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-a-loving-god-send-people-to-hell-the-craig-bradley-debate provides further evidence that I am right. Consider the following from the article:

.......it's possible that God would permit the damned to leave hell and go to heaven but that they freely refuse to do so. It is possible that persons in hell grow only more implacable in their hatred of God as time goes on. Rather than repent and ask God for forgiveness, they continue to curse Him and reject Him. God thus has no choice but to leave them where they are. In such a case, the door to hell is locked, as John Paul Sartre said, from the inside. The damned thus choose eternal separation from God. So, again, so as long as any of these scenarios is even possible, it invalidates the objection that God's perfect justice is incompatible with everlasting separation from God.

Aquinas said:

"As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man’s will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment."

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Is manslaughter wrong?

Yes, because there is always an injured party.

Please please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming it is justification of it in general. This is not just wrong it is dishonest. The rest is a genetic fallacy.

There is no more a justification in general for homosexual sex than there is for heterosexual sex. That is quite obviously true since plenty of heterosexuals are at risk. Obviously, it all gets down to "which" homosexuals are at risk, and "which" heterosexuals are at risk.

Ok, let's discuss subsections. Here are six subsections, 1) white heterosexual men, 2) white heterosexual women, 3) white gay men, 4) white lesbian women, 5) black American men, and 6) black American women.

The CDC studies those, and other subsections because it needs that research in order to develop risk prevention programs. The lowest risk group among all of those groups is lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior, but you claim that they are wrong, and that white heterosexual men and women, who have higher risk, are not wrong. Why is that? Quite obviously, low risk justifies having sex regardless of a person's sexual preference.

Since there are millions more women than men in the U.S., they are obviously quite a large subsection.

There is no genetic fallacy since I have told you that even if homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, my arguments would still be the same since initial sexual identity would still not be a choice.

It would be a genetic fallacy if I said that pedophilia is justified because it is caused by genetics, but I would never say that. Safe sex among homosexuals would be justified whether homosexuality is caused partly by genetics, and partly by environment, or 100% by genetics, or 100% by environment. That is because any action is acceptable if it is not harmful.

Other than religion, your main problem is that you believe false, or misleading research about homosexuals. I am partly referring to your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html. Some of it is true, but some of it is false, and some of it is misleading. If you would spend some time with me discussing that post, you would find out that I know what I am talking about.

An outright lie in that post is "Domestic violence 20 times more common than among heterosexuals." Another is "Children of homosexual 'parents' do the worst in 9 of 13 academic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples." A deliberately misleading claim is "One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year."

None of those claims had any source data.

It is very unfair, and very inappropriate for you to refuse to check out your sources.

Surely you know that many Christians are just as biased as anyone else is, and have their own political agenda. At the Dover trial, the judge, who is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president said that some of the defense witnesses lied under oath, and had selective memory loss.

Logically, homosexuals can only do the best that they can do. Many of them who have tried reparative therapy, or long term abstinence developed serious physical, and emotional problems as a result. Sometimes, that is not the case, but many times it is the case since all humans are individuals, and often have much different levels of tolerance.

Heterosexuals are far more to blame for health costs than homosexuals are because of their much greater numbers, which means that if they accepted their responsibility to lower health care costs, they would be able to reduce the costs far more than homosexuals ever could. You should spend more time criticizing those heterosexuals than you spend criticizing homosexuals since they could reduce health care costs far most than homosexuals ever could.

I could keep saying that heterosexuals should act differently, and you could keep claiming that homosexuals should act differently, but if we may, let's be practical for a moment and discuss what will happen instead of what ought to happen. What will happen is that the majority of heterosexuals will not live up to their responsibility to eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise, which will continue to result in far more medical expenses than homosexuals could ever cause because of heterosexuals' much larger numbers, and the majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. In the long run, the only homosexuals who will have been at fault will be those who caused a good deal more harm for themselves, and for other people, by having sex than they would have caused by not having sex. Even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having had any serious medical problems, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

What else is there to discuss about homosexuality? Essentially, what has been happening with homosexuals, and with heterosexuals, will continue to happen. Nothing that we can discuss will change that.

 

[1robin]

Craig made it perfectly clear that be believes that skeptics will be punished for eternity. You do not believe that.

Can you post what he said (specifically and only) consistent with what you said above. I did not see it in what you previously posted.

You are no more bound to accept Craig's arguments than Aquinas' arguments, or Descartes' arguments, but since you highly praise those sources, it is reasonable for me to quote them. If you disagree with Craig, that is fine, but you cannot claim that he does not believe the God will punish skeptics for eternity. He is easy to contact, but you will not contact him since you know that I am right. An article at Can a Loving God Send People to Hell? The Craig-Bradley Debate | Reasonable Faith provides further evidence that I am right. Consider the following from the article:

I did not claim he did not believe that. I had and still have no idea what he believes concerning Hell. If you provide the statements that deal with that then I will be more than happy to conceded it. That article is like 30 pages long. Post the section since you have read it. Even if you prove me and Craig disagree both I and Craig say Hell in any form is not inconsistent with a loving God. What are you trying to prove? Something about God? Or agreement between me and Craig.

Aquinas said:

"As stated above (Article 1), sin incurs a debt of punishment through disturbing an order. But the effect remains so long as the cause remains. Wherefore so long as the disturbance of the order remains the debt of punishment must needs remain also. Now disturbance of an order is sometimes reparable, sometimes irreparable: because a defect which destroys the principle is irreparable, whereas if the principle be saved, defects can be repaired by virtue of that principle. For instance, if the principle of sight be destroyed, sight cannot be restored except by Divine power; whereas, if the principle of sight be preserved, while there arise certain impediments to the use of sight, these can be remedied by nature or by art. Now in every order there is a principle whereby one takes part in that order. Consequently if a sin destroys the principle of the order whereby man’s will is subject to God, the disorder will be such as to be considered in itself, irreparable, although it is possible to repair it by the power of God. Now the principle of this order is the last end, to which man adheres by charity. Therefore whatever sins turn man away from God, so as to destroy charity, considered in themselves, incur a debt of eternal punishment."

Man Aquinas can talk some philosophical smack. Only the last two words had anything to do with what you said and only suggest we disagree not that God is unjust. Eternal punishment can mean eternal non-existence BTW. IMO my views are consistent with what is said here. I believe Hell is a real place that at some point in the future is destroyed with it's contents. There is even a verse that says that specifically I believe.

“Death and hell [hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.” (vs. 14) In the Old Testament, God prophesied the ultimate destruction of hell, sheol, hades. Through the Prophet Hosea he promised to “ransom” the people from the power of sheol. This, we have found, was the purpose of Jesus’ death, of his going into sheol. The ultimate result of this, the Lord said, would be, “I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave [sheol], I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.”—Hos. 13:14
Hell Destroyed
Hell: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation? - By Jeremy K. Moritz
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.


1. If for some bizarre reason you think it important whether I am and other Christians agree. I will concede the point even if is not true.
2. If you claim is God is unjust then let's stick with that.
3. Or you can show that I am inconsistent with the Bible concerning Hell.

 

[1robin]

Yes, because there is always an injured party.

I will answer this one but the rest was just a repeat or made so little sense there was no point.

I had something very good to say and have blanked out, so I will only say that attempted murder is always wrong and many times no one suffers at all. Stealing is wrong even if no one knows anything was taken, letting year old handle a 45-70 is wrong even if only cats are shot, terrorist planting IED's are wrong even if they (and they have) been so stupid they blew themselves up, heck liberals claim racial comments (that weren't) are always wrong even if no one hears them. Every time a homosexual engages in sex that has any risk at all possible they are risking other people's lives without any sufficient justification for doing so.

There is no more a justification in general for homosexual sex than there is for heterosexual sex.

This is just silly and it's is sillier in a secular context.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming it is justification of it in general. This is not just wrong it is dishonest.
The rest is a genetic fallacy.

What you apparently fail to realize is that is what YOU are doing. You're singling out a specific subset of homosexuals and generalizing across the board.

 

[Agnostic75]

I will answer this one but the rest was just a repeat or made so little sense there was no point.

The rest made a lot of sense, and that is why you refused to reply to it. Here is some of it:

Ok, let's discuss subsections. Here are six subsections, 1) white heterosexual men, 2) white heterosexual women, 3) white gay men, 4) white lesbian women, 5) black American men, and 6) black American women.

The CDC studies those, and other subsections because it needs that research in order to develop risk prevention programs. The lowest risk group among all of those groups is lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior, but you claim that they are wrong, and that white heterosexual men and women, who have higher risk, are not wrong. Why is that? Quite obviously, low risk justifies having sex regardless of a person's sexual preference.

Since there are millions more women than men in the U.S., they are obviously quite a large subsection.

As I said, "quite obviously, low risk justifies having sex regardless of a person's sexual preference."

That is irrefutable, and you know it. You said some utterly absurd thing about me trying to justify homosexuality in general because lesbians are a very low risk group, but I never suggested anything remotely close to that. You know very well that I do not justify unsafe sex by any group of people. No major medical association in the entire world would criticize any group of people who have low risk.

You do not like risk. Neither do I. What is the best way to deal with risk? Quite obviously, by encouraging the "highest" risk groups to practice safe sex, or abstinence if you wish, not the "lowest" risk groups as you have done. There is no way that you do not understand that higher risk groups are more culpable that lower risk groups are.

Would you like to claim that homosexuals who have been monogamous for twenty years are wrong, or immoral? What about homosexuals who died, and never had a serious medical problems? You have already admitted that you do not have anything personally against those homosexuals since they did not harm you.

A reply from you is not necessary since I know that I have already won the debate as far as secular arguments against homosexuality is concerned.

Attempted murder is always wrong and many times no one suffers at all.

That is correct.

Stealing is wrong even if no one knows anything was taken, letting year old handle a 45-70 is wrong even if only cats are shot, terrorist planting IED's are wrong even if they (and they have) been so stupid they blew themselves up.......

That is correct.

Every time a homosexual engages in sex that has any risk at all possible they are risking other people's lives without any sufficient justification for doing so.

Now really, how many times am I going to have to tell you that documented research proves that lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior have lower risk than heterosexual men and women do? Are you contesting the research?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Heterosexuals are far more to blame for health costs than homosexuals are because of their much greater numbers, which means that if they accepted their responsibility to lower health care costs, they would be able to reduce the costs far more than homosexuals ever could. You should spend more time criticizing those heterosexuals than you spend criticizing homosexuals since they could reduce health care costs far most than homosexuals ever could.

I could keep saying that heterosexuals should act differently, and you could keep claiming that homosexuals should act differently, but if we may, let's be practical for a moment and discuss what will happen instead of what ought to happen. What will happen is that the majority of heterosexuals will not live up to their responsibility to eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise, which will continue to result in far more medical expenses than homosexuals could ever cause because of heterosexuals' much larger numbers, and the majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. In the long run, the only homosexuals who will have been at fault will be those who caused a good deal more harm for themselves, and for other people, by having sex than they would have caused by not having sex. Even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having had any serious medical problems, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

As I said, "let's be practical for a moment and discuss what will happen instead of what ought to happen." Indeed, since you know that most homosexuals will never practice abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity, what need is there to discuss further what they ought to do? You have a valid argument against homosexuals who practice unsafe sex, and get, and spread STDs, but many homosexuals will die without ever having any STDs. You definitely do not have any valid secular arguments against those homosexuals. You have even admitted that yourself.

 

[Agnostic75]

Please please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming it is justification of it in general. This is not just wrong it is dishonest.

You frequently quote the CDC as a trusted source. Consider the following:

Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

To date, there are no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the United States database (K. McDavid, CDC, oral communication, March 2005). However, case reports of female-to-female transmission of HIV and the well-documented risk of female-to-male transmission indicate that vaginal secretions and menstrual blood are potentially infectious and that mucous membrane (for example, oral, vaginal) exposure to these secretions has the potential to lead to HIV infection.

Through December 2004, a total of 246,461 women were reported as HIV infected. Of these, 7,381 were reported to have had sex with women; however, most had other risk factors (such as injection drug use, sex with men who are infected or who have risk factors for infection, or, more rarely, receipt of blood or blood products).

Of the 534 (of 7,381) women who were reported to have had sex only with women, 91% also had another risk factor—typically, injection drug use.

So 534 of the 246,461 women who had HIV were lesbians. That means that only .002% of the women who had HIV were lesbians.

An article at Study Shows How Many Americans Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender | The New Civil Rights Movement,
lesbians comprise about .9% of the adult U.S. population.

If my math is correct, what we have is that although lesbians comprise about .9% of the adult population, they only comprise .002% of HIV cases among women. And, the figure is much smaller regarding lesbians whose only risk factor was same-sex behavior since, as the article said, 91% of the lesbians had other risk factors, such as injection drug use.

The research shows that it is you who are dishonest because you criticized lesbians in spite of the fact that they have far lower risk than heterosexual women do, and even less risk than that compared with heterosexual men.

It is an absolute fact that lower risk groups are less at fault than higher risk groups are. It is also an absolute fact that lesbians are not responsible for the much higher HIV rates among gay men.

Are you going to claim that low risk is not a justification for having sex?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.