The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[Drolefille]

Really?
You give me absolutely no context and you want me to explain the difference?
Sigh....
Okey dokey.
You are a bisexual guy at a bar. You want to "relate" to someone.
There is a lovely lady of your favorite ethnicity on one side.
There is a handsome man of your favorite ethnicity on the other.
Who do you try and "relate" to in an easy and friendly manner - and why?

Problem a) I don't have a favorite ethnicity. The fact that this is a thing is weird to me.
Problem b) You use "relate" in scare quotes and thus deliberately don't define your term.
Problem c) I don't like going to bars

I'm going to answer this in multiple ways:

If this were me, and not "me as bisexual guy":
If I'm just looking for conversation: I'll probably strike it up with the guy first, not the girl. But this will depend on the individuals in question - is the guy watching the football game at the bar? Not so interested. Is he watching the soccer game? Ooh we have something in common. Is the girl carrying a Doctor Who key chain or has she spent the entire time sitting there talking on her phone?
If I'm looking for a romantic/sexual relationship, that is I'm trying to pick someone up:
I'll still probably strike it up with the guy first, unless I'm specifically at a gay bar. Because approx 90% of people are straight, so to avoid rejection or possibly worse, I'm going to talk to the person most likely to be (whether he's straight or bisexual) interested in me sexually.

If this were me "the bisexual guy.":
Conversation: I'd still probably base this on interests. I don't know enough about being a dude socially, but it would simply depend on how my conversation was received.

Pick up: There is no way in hell I'd talk to the guy unless I'm at a gay bar. The odds of me being assaulted are incredibly high. The odds of me being outed to the entire bar by a rude jerk who doesn't appreciate being hit on by a guy and decides to be an *** about it, are SO high. This is still a risk to the real me - partially solved by the real me not liking bars - but somewhat lessor.

This has been today's edition of "Actually asking a bisexual instead of making stupid assumptions."

 

[columbus]

So... you are saying that it just as easy to have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex as it is to have a relationship with member of the same sex?
That is so odd.

I'm here to tell you dude...
Maintaining a long term relationship with anyone is work. At
least straight people have traditional gender roles and legal and social support.

Doug and I haven't kept it together for 20 odd years because it is easy. Believe me it is not, especially not here in Jesustan.

You really think that this is the path of least resistance? Seriously? No, just being us(an old married gay couple) is much harder than it would be if one of us were female.

Tom

 

[1robin]

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?

However birth is justifiable where homosexuality is not. Once again (for maybe the 300th time) you drop one of my two simplistic claims to make a point yet you would object if I listed the points again. I have all but grown too tired with repeating myself to soldier any further. I am likely to call this no contest and get out of the thread.

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?

Yes, and as I have said a hundred times I don't agree with all heterosexual acts either but THIS IS NOT A HETEROSEXUAL THREAD. What I find too disgusting to post myself and what is unjustifiable in a cost/gain analysis are two entirely different subjects.

Apologies for the typo.

I make too many typo's to fault anyone else for them.

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.

These are two entirely different issues.

The reason I stop short of describing certain things is because of Y.
The reason I say homosexuality is unjustifiable is because of X.

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

I see people with an emotional commitment to a position that no reasons can effect.

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

At what cost? Killing anyone seen with a cigarette in their mouths would lower lung cancer rates but that is not worth it. Also you have already the data is not mature on the se issues and these are only locally true.

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.

What?

So you don’t support gay marriage?

No, but I have no conclusive secular argument against it.

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.

Actually that is not really true. However even if it was it would make no difference. We give pain killers for pain until the cause can be resolved. We give anti-depressants by the ton and most of the time never fix the problem. My point was not what is good or bad but the mechanics behind things. We love al kinds of things that are not good in the long run. Some things even have short term real benefits but are still justifiable in general.

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.

The only thing I remember about conversion was someone else mentioning them and SOMEONE else claiming Christianity has the greatest success rates in the area. I doubt they are highly effective but I do not have to be able to administer chemotherapy to know that cancer is bad.

You should maybe start one.

I start very very few threads myself.

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

Exactly as I said I don't remember doing it before talking to you. I asked to point a single one of these numerous places and you did not do so.

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

Nothing illegal or against the UCMY against "gossiping". Not to mention gossiping isn't effective unless you target someone. Saying lying is bad is not gossiping. Saying Joe lied might be. Saying what damages homosexuality results is no more gossiping than saying how damaging cancer can be.

Here it is again.

And it will continue to appear in the one place I already said it was. In a discussion with you about that point. It does not appear anywhere else or at least you failed to show it did. Who cares anyway?

 

[1robin]

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).

I am going to call a halt to my participation in homosexual threads. It's defenders are so emotionally motivated they take up 90% of my response time. That is not an insult it is just the way it is. I prefer theological debates but the one homosexual thread I am in takes 10 times the time as the half dozen theological threads I am in and since nothing really new seems to be on eh horizon I find myself repeating the same thing over and over. So if I disappear from this thread soon don't take it personally.

Ok here is the CDC claim:

"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention. The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.

Keep in mind the CDC are statistical specialists. They absolutely have to be. That is what they do? They don't say it is centered in drug users but correlates to homosexuals, centered in left handed people but correlates to homosexuality, etc.... They knew they were going be held to the political correct grind stone with whatever they claimed and yet gave no hint what so ever that it was merely incidental to homosexuality. I don't know how they could be any more emphatic. They were careful enough to state what aspect of homosexuality is most responsible. Did you know that not too long ago gay organizations called aids the "gay disease"? If you want to make the stand that the CDC does not know how to do statistics that is fine but it your burden.

Gays are statistically more likely to engage in risky sex (a tiny proportion even seek it out) but at rates far too small to account for the disparity in the numbers your attempting to negate.

 

[LuisDantas]

However birth is justifiable where homosexuality is not.

Ex-cu-se meee? You can't be serious.

(...)

(About how same sex marriages help in establishing families)

At what cost? Killing anyone seen with a cigarette in their mouths would lower lung cancer rates but that is not worth it. Also you have already the data is not mature on the se issues and these are only locally true.

Are you actually saying you are not certain that same sex marriages are overall beneficial to society, particularly when it comes to giving children actual loving families?

Sorry to say it, but it looks like you are purposefully alienated from facts. If you are that isolated from them, you should probably be careful before making statements about the matter, except as your opinion.

 

[1robin]

And I don't dispute that. But what does this "mean"? If 1 out of every 10 black men were arrested and only 1 in every 100 white men were arrested what does that mean? You don't know till you get more information. Perhaps the police had racial tendicnes. Perhaps the black men lived in a poorer neighborhood. Perhaps this was based off of a small sample? Ect.

Two things.
1. Disease is not prejudice. It does not want to punish any cultural group. Cops can pick on a cultural group because they don't like them. Diseases do not like or dislike anyone.
2. Black is a color not a choice. Even if crime was a function of color we could not consider a color wrong, or if as it is as you assume it is bias then it is and should by prosecuted.

The truth is that crime is a far more complex issue to make a good analogy. Homosexuality is not justifiable or unjustifiable based on a function of color, society, poverty, etc......

The underlying CAUSE of the statistics which you have assumed is not backed up by the CDC.

Yes it is.

Actually we use animal based serums all the time. We still do. Its pretty convenient. But beside the point.

I didn't say it was wrong or right. I said that is a theory about how aids infected humanity.

You still have not brought the meat of the argument which links homosexuality alone to the cause rather than any of the other factors.

Are you saying the only way I can claim X is true is to prove everything else is false?

"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.
The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates | News | LifeSite
If you say that homosexuality is not the primary factor in those statements then it is your burden to prove.

And you would condemn the behavior rather than the condition? Is that what I am hearing? Why not do the same with homosexuality?

I don't believe it is a condition. I believe it is a choice. Even if the orientation was pre-existing the sex is still a choice. The same would be true for promiscuous heterosexual behavior.

I find it funny that you feel like you have debased my argument but have strengthened it. Your rational approach to the racial analogy proves to me that you are capable of thinking about it rationally yet have chosen not to do so with homosexuality. The "behavior" is the sexual misconduct. It is the lack of protection. It is not the homosexual sex itself. Nothing innate about homosexuality spreads AIDS more than heterosexuality. It has been the behaviors fostered by our communities and misunderstandings and bigotry about homosexuality that has shaped and defined the exact causes that spread AIDS.

Debased your argument? I don't even know what hat means. This is like saying children with guns is a good idea as long as you make sure they have blanks in them.

Yet you refuse to admit that even when you admit it about other things.

To your list of 4.

1) Homosexuality is natural because it exists. I was showing you your double standard .Not that something else is bad so homosexuality is good.

What list of mine is that from. I don't believe that. We lock up thousands of people for what they do and what they do exists. Exists is not an excuse. Murder exists.

2) Because the fact is that you cannot link anything to homosexual sex except by the unfortunate demographic broad brush stroke that you have painted it with. Which exposes the lack of substance to your argument.

Ok this is not from any list I gave. I have no list of four. I have two simplistic points which have not been significantly challenged. To look into every single vagary of homosexuality is just not practical.

3) Real change has already begun to make things better. In fact it is the only thing that has or can make it better.

I have no idea what your talking about. Almost every single moral statistic is far worse today than when the secular revolution began in the US. We are killing ourselves in the womb by the millions, we have enough weapons to wipe out all life in existence, and we have the moral insanity to almost have used them at least twice. If anything is statistically better it is more likely it is because there are less things we believe are wrong regardless of how much damage they cause.

4) Human pleasure is the base of all things. Why not live as slaves to a tyrannical government and end all wars so we can live in peace? Because we want freedom to enjoy the ONLY life we get for sure. And to step on anyone's happiness because of bigotry is not to be tolerated. How many people kill themselves because of Christianity? How many wars were fought over Christianity? How much science that could have saved billions of lives by now was stopped in the name of Christianity? That doesn't make Christianity evil. It means that there are mistakes that people make sometimes even for the right reasons. And homosexuality has existed alongside heterosexuality for millions of years and has not been a problem until recently. This "suffering" comes from a disease. Blaming the victims of that disease is just stupid. How dare all those children not wash their hands? Do you know how many kids die of "X" disease each year? Of course not.

No human society is based on unlimited pleasure or freedom. The most free nations on earth have libraries full of laws restricting freedom. The basis for society is not hedonism but cost/benefit. As I always so no one lives (including you) by the standards you list. You do not arguing for the freedom of the person who burns your house because it makes him happy. Happiness is not the basis for law. In fact without God is a completely contrived standard invented for our benefit at he expense of the rest of earths creatures because we are us. Only with God does human fulfillment have a rational priority. Too many wars were fought over Christianity but not half as many as atheist utopias killed and only a fraction of the wars Christians fought have anything to do with God. Since Christianity out produced any similar demographic in science we have made may advances for every misstep and done more than any other group. 78% of Nobel's are Christians. How many of those who would have cured diseased have been killed in the womb? Homosexuality has been a problem as long as it existed. It ruined Roman aristocrats, broke Alexander's kingdom into fragments, etc...... However a modern problem is no less a problem if it is only a modern issue.

BTW I have about had all of this thread I can take. It is not personal but I am burned out and may soon discontinue my posts here.

 

[1robin]

It's more than just the right to engage in homosexual sex, it's having the right to marry. The right to be protected against bullying (often people have turned a blind eye to the practice). The right to adopt. The right to equal employment (discrimination has been quite prevalent in this area). The right to serve in the military. The right to be protected from hate crimes. The right to conjugal visits.

Where do rights come from? Does the government have a warehouse full of rights to distribute.

 

[1robin]

We've been trying to explain to you why the CDC statistic doesn't mean anything, except they found 4% of homosexual men apparently caused 60% of new cases, but it doesn't tell us how the disease was spread. It's very possible a handful of these men somehow came into contact with infected blood. They may have shared an infected needle. This statistic may show a correlation, but correlation does not mean causation. Also, when you are looking at only 4% of a group that forms a small percentage of the population at large, we are looking at an extremely small number.

As I have been saying. Fine, prove this. The CDC does mean something. They are highly paid because they are statistical wizards that specialize in the nature and cause of disease. I have a math degree and many classes in statistics. I know how they work. I can and will evaluate any evidence if you will ever provide anyone. On what standard is tens of thousands of aids cases a small number? How many people dying does homosexuality justify. What is a big deal?

 

[1robin]

Ex-cu-se meee? You can't be serious.

Ok, I I'll play. Birth is unjustifiable because?

(About how same sex marriages help in establishing families)

I have no idea what this means. In what way do heterosexual couples not establish a family?

Are you actually saying you are not certain that same sex marriages are overall beneficial to society, particularly when it comes to giving children actual loving families?

At what costs? How many aids victims is adoptions that are given to a sexual relationship that may end sooner than most heterosexual relationships, and does have higher rates of sexual violence, and domestic abuse worth? I never said no benefit cannot be claimed for homosexuality. I said no benefit that is claimed justifies the cost.

Sorry to say it, but it looks like you are purposefully alienated from facts. If you are that isolated from them, you should probably be careful before making statements about the matter, except as your opinion.

I am the only person giving statistics and facts on this issue. One of my many points was challenged. Even granting that one challenge my primary points are yet to be significantly effected at all. Typically your post does not include one statistic or specific fact yet it does contain the accusation which you are yourself guilty of. I burned out on this issue. It is like spending all my time watching mules fight over turnips. It is not personal but I am warning everyone I might soon discontinue my part in the thread.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, I I'll play. Birth is unjustifiable because?

Gosh. You're not being serious again. Of course homosexuality is justifiable, if it even needs a justification in the first place.

How can any adult person even have doubts about that?

I have no idea what this means. In what way do heterosexual couples not establish a family?

I was trying to give the context for the text right below.

At what costs? How many aids victims is adoptions that are given to a sexual relationship that may end sooner than most heterosexual relationships, and does have higher rates of sexual violence, and domestic abuse worth? I never said no benefit cannot be claimed for homosexuality. I said no benefit that is claimed justifies the cost.

You truly believe such a thing? That is incredibly biased and uninformed, I have to say.

Particularly the "may end sooner than most heterosexual relationships" part.

I am the only person giving statistics and facts on this issue. One of my many points was challenged. Even granting that one challenge my primary points are yet to be significantly effected at all. Typically your post does not include one statistic or specific fact yet it does contain the accusation which you are yourself guilty of. I burned out on this issue. It is like spending all my time watching mules fight over turnips. It is not personal but I am warning everyone I might soon discontinue my part in the thread.

I guess I don't particularly trust statistics (which are often easy to manipulate, anyway) when I know the actual people and situations. Nor do I acknowledge you the right to protect your bigotry with numbers.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.

In America. What about Africa, where cheating, unfaithful, and many times abusive husbands spread it to women? And in Africa, women are often powerless against their husbands, and if she request that he use a condom, this is often taken by men to be a sign that she is the one who has been unfaithful. The American statistic still does not say by in what ways the disease was spread.

On what standard is tens of thousands of aids cases a small number?

I was pointing out that the numbers are too small to pin this on homosexuals. If homosexuality were inherently the primary cause of HIV, then heterosexual couples would rarely ever get it and there would not be such an emphasis on how to handle blood. This is why at hospitals or doctors offices they ask you permission to have your blood screened for diseases encase a worker comes into contact with your blood before they even begin to draw your blood.

How many people dying does homosexuality justify. What is a big deal?

No one dies from homosexuality. Homosexuality is not causing any deaths. Unsafe sex practices, sharing needles, and other behaviors that spread the disease do. There have actually been studies by anthropologists who found that this focus on homosexuality put drug users at an elevated risk because many of them believe that because they are not gay, they cannot get HIV. But they did get HIV, and it was observed that many of these people had no idea it was spreading via the methods of drug preparation and consumption.

They don't say it is centered in drug users but correlates to homosexuals, centered in left handed people but correlates to homosexuality, etc..

And correlation does not mean causation. If you really have such a background in statistics, you would know this. You would also see this statistic does not indicate how the disease was spread.

If you want to make the stand that the CDC does not know how to do statistics that is fine but it your burden.

I never claimed that. What I did say, is first that government sources should not be considered the most credible source because they very frequently lie and very often cannot produce consistent reports over the same event, and second that this statistic is just that. It's a number that tells us who has HIV, who spread it, but not how it was spread. Rape, drugs, contact with infected blood, this statistic does not tell us if the disease was spread by sex or by accidentally coming into contact with infected blood.

 

[Skwim]

Where do rights come from? Does the government have a warehouse full of rights to distribute.

Ah ha, I see you haven't taken American Government 101 yet. I'll leave your education to your school system. I have neither the time nor the inclination to bring you up to speed.

 

[Moishe3rd]

It is actually very difficult for a hetero to have a same sex relationship, or for a "pure" homosexual to have a relationship with the opposite sex.

Did you want to imply that homosexuality is a choice and therefore should be avoided out of duty to someone? I fear that is a very misguided, misinformed opinion.

I'm here to tell you dude...
Maintaining a long term relationship with anyone is work. At
least straight people have traditional gender roles and legal and social support.

Doug and I haven't kept it together for 20 odd years because it is easy. Believe me it is not, especially not here in Jesustan.

You really think that this is the path of least resistance? Seriously? No, just being us(an old married gay couple) is much harder than it would be if one of us were female.

Tom

So folks, and everybody else: when I have tried to respond specifically to various statements or questions, y'all either get pissed off or change the goalposts.
I created the "relationship" issue because I was told that it wasn't just about "sex."
Fine by me.
But, I am still not understanding what the difficulty is in y'all understanding my point.

For the overwhelming majority of the human race - it easier; more convenient; less threatening; whatever the hell you want to call it, to make friends with; to relate to; to hang out with; to form a "relationship" with - a member of the same sex.
This is true of the entire human race for all of history and it hasn't nothing to do with one's sexual preferences.
Is that clearer?
If not - dispute the damn point and show me where and when this was or is NOT true.
Thank you.
And, be happy. Be gay. Try it. You might like it!

 

[columbus]

For the overwhelming majority of the human race - it easier; more convenient; less threatening; whatever the hell you want to call it, to make friends with; to relate to; to hang out with; to form a "relationship" with - a member of the same sex.

Here's why it easier to be buddies than spouses. The commitment level is much lower amongst friends. You might think it stupid to spend money on something, but it isn't shared bank accounts. You don't expect him to put out, in a mutually agreeable way. You probably don't expect him to put out at all. He can do whatever he wants in bed and you don't care, because it won't involve you. You don't share a home, even if you're roommates, it is a temporary arrangement.

Friends and spouses are very different relationships. You don't seem to understand that.

Tom

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here's why it easier to be buddies than spouses. The commitment level is much lower amongst friends. You might think it stupid to spend money on something, but it isn't shared bank accounts. You don't expect him to put out, in a mutually agreeable way. You probably don't expect him to put out at all. He can do whatever he wants in bed and you don't care, because it won't involve you. You don't share a home, even if you're roommates, it is a temporary arrangement.

Friends and spouses are very different relationships. You don't seem to understand that.

Tom

Heck, there's even a major difference in commitment and intimacy between Friends...

...and Friends With Benefits.

And FWB's don't even come close to the commitment and intimacy level of spouses where you share bank accounts, a home, insurance policies, assets and acquisitions, powers of attorney, living wills, raising children, etc.

Your point can't be emphasized enough here, Tom.

 

[Moishe3rd]

Here's why it easier to be buddies than spouses. The commitment level is much lower amongst friends. You might think it stupid to spend money on something, but it isn't shared bank accounts. You don't expect him to put out, in a mutually agreeable way. You probably don't expect him to put out at all. He can do whatever he wants in bed and you don't care, because it won't involve you. You don't share a home, even if you're roommates, it is a temporary arrangement.

Friends and spouses are very different relationships. You don't seem to understand that.

Tom

Peachy keen.
So, are you discussing long term committed monogamous relationships?
If so, was it implied that I was discussing long term monogamous relationships when I wrote:
"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."?

Because, actually, I wasn't. I was discussing "why" same sex relationships are on the increase.
The population of committed same sex couples is very tiny.
The population of people who have sex with each other is very large.
The population of people who have same sex relationships is relatively small.
My statement was that same sex relationships are on the increase because, as you pointed out, it is much easier to be buddies with someone of the same sex.
And, as you all don't seem to understand - you have won! Your "Good Works" have profited ye and, lots and lots of people are no longer afraid or ashamed of exchanging oral sexual favors with their buddy. Why not? Everybody says that it's "okay."
Okay?
Which means, based on your clear understanding of it being easier to bond with the same sex - same sex relationships are going to be on the increase.

Now, if the question instead is "why are long term committed same sex relationships on the increase?' Then, I don't know. But, if that is true, I suspect it is for the same reason. It's not such a big stigma anymore and lots of states support gay marriage.

Then again, maybe you all are discussing something else. What that would be, I don't know.

 

[McBell]

For the overwhelming majority of the human race - it easier; more convenient; less threatening; whatever the hell you want to call it, to make friends with; to relate to; to hang out with; to form a "relationship" with - a member of the same sex.

Source please.

This is true of the entire human race for all of history and it hasn't nothing to do with one's sexual preferences.
Is that clearer?
If not - dispute the damn point and show me where and when this was or is NOT true.

I am not doing your homework for you.
Either support your claim or have it dismissed as wishful thinking.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Two things.
1. Disease is not prejudice. It does not want to punish any cultural group. Cops can pick on a cultural group because they don't like them. Diseases do not like or dislike anyone.
2. Black is a color not a choice. Even if crime was a function of color we could not consider a color wrong, or if as it is as you assume it is bias then it is and should by prosecuted.

The truth is that crime is a far more complex issue to make a good analogy. Homosexuality is not justifiable or unjustifiable based on a function of color, society, poverty, etc......

1) Exactly. However that does not mean that diseases affect all demographics. The disease is to be blamed and the victims are unfortunate.

2) Homosexuality is not a choice. You keep acting as if it is.

Yes it is.

I would like a link to where it says that.

Are you saying the only way I can claim X is true is to prove everything else is false?

No. When are you going to actually read what I said? I said there are several variables and you are blaming one without isolating it.

You would need to show that homosexuality as a SINGLE variable regardless of education, treatment ect is to blame. You have not done this. Your pool that you use is tainted.

"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.
The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates | News | LifeSite
If you say that homosexuality is not the primary factor in those statements then it is your burden to prove.

Great. We have established that blue shirts run slower than red shirts. Why?

I don't believe it is a condition. I believe it is a choice. Even if the orientation was pre-existing the sex is still a choice. The same would be true for promiscuous heterosexual behavior.

True. Which is why we need to make pragmatic steps towards helping homosexuals make better sexual choices in their life. Using condoms. Being safe. Monogomy ect.

Debased your argument? I don't even know what hat means. This is like saying children with guns is a good idea as long as you make sure they have blanks in them.

Debase means to topple or overturn.

No. My argument is that we do have a problem with diseases. Homosexuality as a proven fact does not innately cause diseases. So what causes the diseases? Exposure, un-safe sex and the factors that lead to this. So lets start by eliminating all of the factors that cause the disease.

Then we will have healthy heterosexual and homosexual individuals practicing safe sex and HIV is no longer a concern to the general public.

What list of mine is that from. I don't believe that. We lock up thousands of people for what they do and what they do exists. Exists is not an excuse. Murder exists.

Homosexuality isn't a crime. Nor is it innately wrong in any way that you have demonstrated except that they are the victims to a horrible disease that was largely and intentionally ignored in the hopes that it would kill them off till about the 80's.

I have no idea what your talking about. Almost every single moral statistic is far worse today than when the secular revolution began in the US. We are killing ourselves in the womb by the millions, we have enough weapons to wipe out all life in existence, and we have the moral insanity to almost have used them at least twice. If anything is statistically better it is more likely it is because there are less things we believe are wrong regardless of how much damage they cause.

There is racial equality at least in law. There is less murder and crime. AIDS transference has been slowed. In every measurable way homosexual lives have gotten better over the past 50 years. If you believe in some golden era I hate to tell you but it didn't exist.

No human society is based on unlimited pleasure or freedom. The most free nations on earth have libraries full of laws restricting freedom. The basis for society is not hedonism but cost/benefit. As I always so no one lives (including you) by the standards you list. You do not arguing for the freedom of the person who burns your house because it makes him happy. Happiness is not the basis for law. In fact without God is a completely contrived standard invented for our benefit at he expense of the rest of earths creatures because we are us. Only with God does human fulfillment have a rational priority. Too many wars were fought over Christianity but not half as many as atheist utopias killed and only a fraction of the wars Christians fought have anything to do with God. Since Christianity out produced any similar demographic in science we have made may advances for every misstep and done more than any other group. 78% of Nobel's are Christians. How many of those who would have cured diseased have been killed in the womb? Homosexuality has been a problem as long as it existed. It ruined Roman aristocrats, broke Alexander's kingdom into fragments, etc...... However a modern problem is no less a problem if it is only a modern issue.

BTW I have about had all of this thread I can take. It is not personal but I am burned out and may soon discontinue my posts here.

Alexandrian kingdoms were not destroyed by homosexuality. Homosexuality was considered good for the whole of the greek empire. Rome fell due to a barrage of complexities and very little had to do with homosexuality. However there was great moral destruction that was added to the fuel but homosexuality was not something new to it. It is showcased by Christians as being a key cause but homosexuality existed the entire time in the Roman empire. It wasn't new. And the orgies and feasts and blood sports were done by homosexuals and heterosexuals alike. It would be more accurate to say there was "sexual discourse" rather than "homosexual discourse" as the heterosexual discourse caused a huge number of ******* children which was a hell to deal with by the tax collectors and population control. A sore *** the next day was a cheap price to pay compared to an impoverished mother with ******* children living off the government.

I understand why you would be burnt out.

 

[Ingledsva]

So folks, and everybody else: when I have tried to respond specifically to various statements or questions, y'all either get pissed off or change the goalposts.
I created the "relationship" issue because I was told that it wasn't just about "sex."
Fine by me.
But, I am still not understanding what the difficulty is in y'all understanding my point.

For the overwhelming majority of the human race - it easier; more convenient; less threatening; whatever the hell you want to call it, to make friends with; to relate to; to hang out with; to form a "relationship" with - a member of the same sex.
This is true of the entire human race for all of history and it hasn't nothing to do with one's sexual preferences.
Is that clearer?
If not - dispute the damn point and show me where and when this was or is NOT true.
Thank you.
And, be happy. Be gay. Try it. You might like it!

LOL! YOU are the one trying to change the goal posts! You were VERY OBVIOUSLY talking about same sex people having SEX!

YOU SAID - "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."


*

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If not - dispute the damn point and show me where and when this was or is NOT true.

Actually, for a number of reasons, people will often have an easier time making friends with people of the opposite sex. Though it is more typical for people to have same-sex friends, this should not be considered a universal norm, or even near-universal. It's like men more typically identifying with a group and women more typically identifying with closer relationships. Though it is not unusual to see this, it is not unusual to see it reversed.
It also ignores that fact that homosexual relationship have their own problems, just like any heterosexual relationship. It is very delusional to believe that these relationships are somehow absent of the things that typically cause problems in heterosexual relationships.