The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[SkepticThinker]

What? I have no suspicion of left handed people. My Dad is left handed. I have never known anyone who did. I don't know what your talking about or what the analogy is suppose to mean.

Go look up the historical connection between left-handed people and the word "sinister."

My stepfather was one of those kids who was forced to write with his right hand even though he was left-handed because it was thought by the nuns at the Catholic school he attended that it was evil to be left-handed. They'd smack his hand with a ruler and various other objects if he attempted to use his left hand to do anything.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bizarro world or not that is legal criteria. It even stands for expert testimony. I was actually on a trial where many experts were hauled in. We were instructed that their expertise was considered validation unless disproven. They did not spend 1 second explaining why their determinations were correct. They simply stated what they were. In fact that is what made us resolve the decision we did. It was a medical case where someone was suing a hospital. Doctors examined here (in a private room where we were not even in) and acme back. They said what she claimed was the cause would not result in the symptoms she had. That was taken a fact and we denied the claim. This is even true for ancient documents as well. They have a few additional criteria like their being acquired from the source they should be expected to be found in. But generally they are granted as true until shown to be false. I agree with you that many times that may produce a false deduction but we are left with having to establish some criteria. Yours would require and endless regression of "oh yeah prove that", "oh yeah prove the proof", etc..... Competent authorities are considered competent until shown otherwise.

We aren't lawyers, and we're not a in court room. We are in a debate setting where backing up assertions is kind of the point. People are trying to debate certain aspects of the facts you have presented and instead of addressing them you just keep saying "well the CDC said so" as though there's nothing up for discussion.

 

[McBell]

We aren't lawyers, and we're not a in court room. We are in a debate setting where backing up assertions is kind of the point. People are trying to debate certain aspects of the facts you have presented and instead of addressing them you just keep saying "well the CDC said so" as though there's nothing up for discussion.

Perhaps he has nothing else...?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is fine with me. I have little time and have been in poor health here lately.
I did not Cherry pick those places. Why in the world would I have? As you said the data is not easy to find. In the few minutes I happen to have that was all I found. I really did not pay attention to the nation in question anyway.

Sure you did. I posted a list of a bunch of places and you just so happened to choose the only two places on the entire list where the numbers are higher for homosexuals while not addressing any others. I’m guessing you would have done it because you probably think it reinforces your arguments.

I don't recall saying I have a lot of data on it. It is the weakest point I have made which I imagine is why you cherry picked it out of all the others.

Right, and I pointed that out as well. So I’m still wondering how you think we can make definitive conclusions from incomplete data.

My primary contentions are supported by health related issues. The other related issues are just window dressing. I in fact said the exact opposite. I gave several theories about how the data we have is too premature and has all kinds of control problems that skew it one way or another. That is one reason I called stalemate instead of saying you were wrong. It is going to be hard to prove this one way or another.

So again, I’m still wondering how you’re making definitive conclusions based on incomplete data.

What health-related issues are you talking about? If that is now the main contention of your argument, let’s delve into that. All of your facts that I keep looking into are apparently not the ones you want to discuss. So tell me exactly where you want to go with this.

You act as if I defeated your position and so you are impugning related issues to undermine the data I gave. I did not think that was the case. I thought you gave more data than I and my data was not really that conclusive. I do not have time to really investigate this and so called a truce. I said this was the best point raised against my contentions.

How about you do take some time to investigate the claims you’re making?

The only thing I said that undermines your claims was about applicability not data. I said my position was supported by a few central columns and there were some secondary and minor columns as well. You dented one of the minor columns (which I specifically stated and which implies I regarded your data as meaningful) but you have done nothing to effect the structure it's self. Which is only the latest instance of people claiming they stopped the train when they only scratched the paint.

Remember in that last post where I was telling you that when someone addresses one of the points of your arguments that you usually claim that it’s merely one of your “secondary” arguments and doesn’t really address your main points? Then you asked for an example of where you’ve done this. See this paragraph for that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, I said describing some of the damage is too disgusting to do for me. I am simply not going into Gerbils, light bulbs, warts etc...... I am not exposed to any of the sexual acts so they offend me very little. Of course I find them so unappealing they baffle me but I was talking about the results not the acts.

Well, it’s pretty disgusting for me to discuss the damage caused to a woman’s body as the result of giving birth. I was there when my sister gave birth to me nephew and the damage it did to her body was pretty disgusting. What does personal level of disgust have to do with anything?
Do you think heterosexual people don’t engage in sex acts you find disgusting? Do you think your personal idea about disgust have anything to do with anything?

No that is what you acting like it is. It is a homosexual thread.

Apologies for the typo.

I do have a problem with it. That problem has no relevance to my argument. Even if I was secular I should be put off by the behavior. What I think about a behavior is not driven by and does not produce what I think about a person. I hate and condemn many things I have done but I don't hate myself.

Except that it is relevant to your argument. How about addressing the fact that men from either sexual orientation are more promiscuous than women, in general. And the apparent fact that women are more likely to end long-term relationships than men are. It is absolutely relevant to your main arguments about homosexuality supposedly causing more harm than good.

My primary claim is a cost benefit analysis. The only time I am not discussing it is because others have abandoned the attempt to contend with it and instead have opted to kill the messenger. I have been correcting them as I felt like doing but my purpose here is a secular argument not defending against or making personal commentaries.

I don’t see anyone killing any messenger. I see people taking issue with your arguments.

I know and agree but in another post you seem to suggest I think the opposite.

I guess I’m confused as to what you’re suggesting about those numbers. Is your argument not based around them?

That is like supporting theft because it reduces incarcerations. The only thing of interest to me about this is why. I can't think of any reason this would be true though I think it probably is. Killing everyone who gets divorced would lower the divorce rate so by your logical I should support that.

It would be true because gay marriages add to the overall marriage rate and the formation of families. Which you say you support.

Killing everyone who gets divorced would not lower the divorce rate because they’ve already gotten divorced before I’ve killed them. Not so logical.

It has always been though my initial investigation did not lead me to believe it would be.

It has always been but you just didn’t realize that it was??

What part of I did not make the argument means I am for a thing? Come off it.

So you don’t support gay marriage?

That is absurd. There are gains to all kinds of things we do not accept. The reason drugs are so bad is because they work. When me mother was dying I by accident found that pain killers helped my depression. I eventually started taking them for only that reason and they actually helped without any serious effects in my specific situation but that does not make them right in general. The case is far worse for homosexuality. There are gains and there are justifying gains.

The drugs didn’t help you deal with the actual problem you were having, which was depression. Drugs just mask your truly feelings for a while. After the drugs are gone, all the feelings come right back. That’s not much of a gain.

I’ve seen you talk about gay-conversion therapies a few times. You seem to think they’re highly effective in converting people to heterosexuality. But it amounts to basically the same thing as taking drugs to forget about your problems.

No, I am an equal opportunity offender. I "rail" against whatever wrong I happen to be exposed to a debate setting. Never seen a thread on promiscuity.

You should maybe start one.

No I do not. I do not recall having ever said that before. Find any post in the past 10,000 where I mentioned secondary pillars before this. I called a stalemate for the time being on divorce rates but considered what it would mean if they are not what I have said. I determined it would have a very minimal impact on my argument which is mainly supported by other things. This is a fact and so I mentioned it. You are not sorry for addressing it nor did I suggest you should be. Get a grip. I gave you at least as much credit as what you posted deserved.

You’ve done it like 2 or 3 times on just this page alone.

Doctors disclosing general details about general behaviors have not done anything wrong or illegal. They in fact do so in published journals every single day. In fact that is the basis for the entire medical field.

Oh, were you recording his reports to be published in a journal? I doubt it. Or was he just gossiping and running his mouth?

Nope, you potentially dented (or perhaps even negated) a secondary issue that supports my claims among many others and several primary supports. My argument stands until the primary supports are all destroyed and no one has dented one yet.

Here it is again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps he has nothing else...?

Bingo.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My entire position comes from statistics from the CDC and
equally competent authorities. I don't know what you specifically said but my sources (the CDC being the primary one) HAVE been constantly dismissed. They have as of yet to give a single reason to dismiss them. They just say that bias exists in the world so any inconvenient statistics are ignored. In fact he statistic I post by far the most is a CDC statistic and all that I need to justify my position.

1. In the US the 4% of us that are homosexual produce 60% of new aids cases.

Correlation does not mean causation. This has nothing to do with a distrust of government sources, but is the most basic rule of all sciences and statistics. There exist a positive correlation between ice cream sales and robberies. Obviously one does not cause the other, but nevertheless there is a strong positive correlation between the two. If you look at Africa, often times those who are spreading HIV are men who give it to their wife and other women he has sex with. Now, here in America, should 4% of homosexuals (which would be an extremely small amount of the population since homosexuals as a whole make up a small percentage of the overall population) cause 60% of all new cases of HIV, this seems to suggest there is only a very small number of people who have high-risk sexual encounters and are spreading the disease. Instead of trying to state this makes HIV a gay disease, the energy and effort would be much better spent in public education of safe sex, and taking measures to not spread or contract the disease. But because sex is not the only way to transmit HIV, it must also be confirmed how these cases came to be. It may be a part of that 60% are gay men who didn't get it from sex, but from sharing an infected needle with someone (of any sex and orientation).

 

[patty graham]

In humanistic reasoning, a person can think and choose to do as he pleases. In the Christian Covenant, one submits his thinking and actions to his Creator, the One he serves and worships. EVERY person has an opinion, as he should. When one chooses to follow the God of the Word, he accepts and follows what the Word teaches. It is clear that God condemns homosexuality, and will eventually destroy those who practice this sin; after all, He already has once before. If one chooses to rebel against the teachings of God, he agrees to sign his death warrant. The only way God will give him the mercy of forgiveness, is through repentance. Man is not the authority to define sin, God has already told us. We simply have weak opinions, He has the truth. Only the truth will set us free-- John 8:31-32

 

[yokomodoful]

There are always a heavy supply of threads on religious type forums regarding homosexuality especially when debating the fact that it is wrong or against wrong or whatever.

What I notice the most in these discussions and debates is when outspoken conservative christians come out with what they call the truth about homosexuality, they are quite hateful towards the sexuality. This could be understandable if it ended there but it doesnt. There seems to be this irrational fear or hate towards the person with the sexuality. Is this what it means to follow jesus?

In my opinon, if these people truly cared about us and saw us as equal human beings they would do the obligatory mention that it is a sin and we may burn or whatever but it would end there. They wouldnt then disown, humiliate, embarass, bash, harass etc said person.

I am Catholic and I agree with you. It is sin like many others and no one is without sin. No one should be humiliated embarrassed, bashed etc. However, the behavior is also nothing to be proud of and I don't think it should be called marriage. What ever happened to the term civil union with equal rights as married couples. That I would support more than the term marriage for two same sex married partners.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"overzealous evolutionists"

They're nothing but trouble.

 

[longhair]

I think I'm too tired, sick, and hungry this morning to participate in a debate when I haven't eaten breakfast yet. I also think my opinion here is out of place and won't do much good, but I'm going to talk anyway. Maybe I will sum it up quickly instead of my usual enormous wall of text.

1. The percentage of homo-/bisexual people is increasing. (I'm too tired to argue about this statistic and I'm just going to assume it's true.) Just like autism.

2. Something is causing it to increase.

3. It's not the fault of the people who are gay. You were born that way. 'Moral' implies that something is a person's choice. Being born a certain way is not your choice.

4. It's caused by the increase in people taking prescription drugs while pregnant, such as antidepressants, and also by the use of birth control pills just before a pregnancy, or during a pregnancy if you don't know you're pregnant. There are also other chemicals in the environment that can influence the development of the baby in the womb, chemicals in pollution.

5. I don't even really care anymore whether it's moral or immoral, whether the behavior is harmful for secular reasons, or not - to me, homosexuality is a problem because it's just one more thing going wrong with our bodies as a result of exposure to drugs and chemicals and vaccines.

Author Weston Price studied isolated primitive tribes and found (like many other people have observed) that they have an extremely low rate of physical deformities, including deformities that we take for granted as 'normal variations,' such as the narrow mouth which causes our teeth to come in crooked so that we have to get braces.

These deformities are actually not a normal variation, nor are they genetic. They result from either 1. malnutrition of the parents before and during pregnancy, 2. exposure to toxic chemicals, drugs, or pollution, or 3. both.

I believe homosexuality is another one of these deformities resulting from malnutrition and poison. Something in the modern lifestyle is causing it to happen, something which has increased in recent decades, and both prescription drugs (any and all) during pregnancy, or birth control pills, are very likely to be the causes.

It benefits people to fix those problems regardless of whether being gay is immoral or not. There are a whole bunch of other problems that come along with those deformities in general. It benefits people to stop taking all prescription drugs, and to learn about a truly nourishing diet (which is very different from what the government tells you is a good diet - they are not telling people about the need for animal fats, for example), before having a baby.

You can prevent SO MANY problems in that baby's life if you do the right things before and during pregnancy. You can prevent their homosexuality, you can prevent minor deformities such as crooked teeth (or 'vampire fangs' like I had when I was a kid, before braces), you can prevent low IQ, you can prevent autism. All these problems are increasing together, at once, in recent decades, due to the changes in our eating habits and also to the increasing use of every kind of prescription drug for every reason.

There - I was able to write a massive wall of text anyway. Now I will probably disappear from the debate because I just don't feel like arguing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

2. Something is causing it to increase.

Probably because gays now increasingly have the confidence to come out and own their sexuality.

 

[Uberpod]

There - I was able to write a massive wall of text anyway. Now I will probably disappear from the debate because I just don't feel like arguing.

You better run! Autism is not caused by vaccinations. The reduced number of vaccinations have lead to an increase in disease, however. I can provide evidence on this.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that mothers of gay children have a different pattern of drug use during pregnancy as compared to the mothers of heteros?

 

[longhair]

To my previous post, I'm adding: total acceptance of homo-/bisexual people as they are. I view them as victims of a misfortune.

I won't be arguing in favor of homosexuality as being a desirable thing somehow, in any way. If it happens to you, if you are happy about it, if you can accept and embrace who you are, if you feel that homosexuality is actually a *good* thing, then more power to you, but meanwhile, I am going to try to prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Oh goodie....in case anyone is looking for a secular stance that exemplifies homophobia and biphobia, here it is. They don't have to manifest from religious doctrine, in case folks thought it only happens there.

Sooooo, orientation that is not straight can apparently be prevented by pregnant women being good pregnant women so deformities don't occur. Like bad teeth or autism. Not only is this a spectacular claim, but we are back to the outdated and archaic mindset that blames moms for being "refrigerator moms" that caused autism in children if they didn't give them enough attention.

I don't buy that I as a bisexual woman or my son on the Autism Spectrum are malformed. We aren't examples of failures in the human species.

 

[Moishe3rd]

My two bits:
The Torah specifically tells us that male male anal intercourse is an abomination.
And, we learn that same sex sexual relations is "lewdness" and therefore a "sin."
And, we learn that "immoral sexual acts" are also a "sin."
However, eating shellfish and a few other acts are also abominations.
And, speaking "loshen hora" (gossip and other forms of speech) is a "bigger sin" than sexual immorality.
So. What?
The current focus on same sex sexuality is both ignorant and rude.
The Torah also tells us that public expressions of sexuality are forbidden and a "sin."
In other words, as Mrs. Patrick Campbell once put it: "I don't care what they do as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."
In today's world, same sex folk are carping about how everybody else gets to "do it in the streets" so they should be able to "do it in the streets" too!!
Didn't your mother ever ask you "if everybody else jumped off a cliff....?

It's okay. If people don't want to be modest and polite, you can't stop, 'em. It's also too bad.

And, same sex relationships are on the increase because it's easy.
A hell of lot easier than dealing with the opposite sex.
And, by the way - "Gay" people - you know this. Stop lying about it. It is so so so much easier to have sex with your sex than it is to have to deal with the opposite sex. Oh? Did I say "sex with your sex?" That's right, I did.
Self sex is the easiest.
Same sex sex is the next easiest.
And opposite sex sex is full of pain and total incomprehensibility over what the hell he/ she wants or is thinking.

IMHO, that's why G-d said "Don't do it. Get married to the opposite sex." A man or woman is supposed to learn and grow from their time on this Earth. And being married to the opposite sex is going to be the most productive learning experience a human being can have - if they are able to focus on Learning in Life.
Same sex relationships are just a free ride.
Which is okay. Hopefully, you will meet your learning challenges elsewhere in Life.
Although, as Sex and Lies tend to rule Life in This World, if you are not going to deal with the challenges of Sex, how are you going to deal with the challenges of Lies?
I don't know.
But, Good Luck! Life is beautiful all the time.

 

[Moishe3rd]

You better run! Autism is not caused by vaccinations. The reduced number of vaccinations have lead to an increase in disease, however. I can provide evidence on this.

Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that mothers of gay children have a different pattern of drug use during pregnancy as compared to the mothers of heteros?

Vis a vis vaccinations - I was of the same opinion as you. Then I read "Stonewalled" by Sheryl Atkinson. She is an investigative journalist. Most of the book is about being "stonewalled" and lied to by the current administration; the media; and corporations. However, there is a part that deals with the correlation between autism and specific vaccinations. It's interesting.

 

[McBell]

In humanistic reasoning, a person can think and choose to do as he pleases. In the Christian Covenant, one submits his thinking and actions to his Creator, the One he serves and worships. EVERY person has an opinion, as he should. When one chooses to follow the God of the Word, he accepts and follows what the Word teaches. It is clear that God condemns homosexuality, and will eventually destroy those who practice this sin; after all, He already has once before. If one chooses to rebel against the teachings of God, he agrees to sign his death warrant. The only way God will give him the mercy of forgiveness, is through repentance. Man is not the authority to define sin, God has already told us. We simply have weak opinions, He has the truth. Only the truth will set us free-- John 8:31-32

Nice little sermon.
To bad it does not apply to those outside your choir.

 

[McBell]

I am Catholic and I agree with you. It is sin like many others and no one is without sin. No one should be humiliated embarrassed, bashed etc. However, the behavior is also nothing to be proud of and I don't think it should be called marriage. What ever happened to the term civil union with equal rights as married couples. That I would support more than the term marriage for two same sex married partners.

Good idea.
Tet us make the word Marriage mean nothing more than the religious window dressing and call what is now marriage civil unions.

That way theists get to keep their word and same sex couple can have equal rights.

 

[McBell]

Holy crap.
The bull **** level of this thread just shot through the roof...AGAIN!