What is your belief about homosexuality?

[Draka]

Did the bible writers also cause the 60% of new aids cases or homosexuality? How about the billions it costs to those who do not practice it?

In what possible way does someone else being homosexual cost me? How are homosexuals costing non-homosexuals "billions"? This I gotta hear.

 

[Nada]

Lol...

 

[nazz]

In what possible way does someone else being homosexual cost me? How are homosexuals costing non-homosexuals "billions"? This I gotta hear.

Hey, ever see those expensive dresses they design?

 

[1robin]

@1robin , there, tagged you, don't feel like quoting that huge mess.

I have no idea what a tag is and it does not let me know you responded. Again it is just by luck I found this. You did at least make the effort but it only takes hitting the quote button.

Well, last statistics I saw were different, but be that as it may. Even given the stats linked to...so what?

If an unnecessary preference that causes 60% of new aids cases causes you to say so what? I have no need to make an additional argument.

It has to do with the type of sex performed and what precautions are taken. Whoop-Dee-doo. Still doesn't make homosexuality unnatural or bad. It simply means that they are more prone to contracting a certain disease.

I could use your posts as the best evidence for the correctness of some of my other posts. In any argument where I point out the fact that objective morality is only possible given God, I usually get back some claim about empathy being a basis for (non-objective) ethics. They seem to say it is just as good and no God necessary. You have proven them wrong. You have literally said, so they kill millions of people so what, it is still natural. Thanks for proving them wrong. I do not care about whether it is natural (and you have not the slightest idea of whether it is or is not anyway) I care about if it has enough justification to allow it to kill millions of people.

It is not a genetic likelihood to catch a disease, it is a behavioral likelihood of both spreading and catching diseases. Not only in the way we all think of but also in other ways like homosexuals being statistically much more promiscuous and less discriminating in general, being far more likely to commit adultery, and having an average marriage span of less than 10 years.

There are many diseases and many factors which make people prone to getting them. Those other factors aren't considered bad or unnatural. Asians may have a higher susceptibility to osteoporosis, blacks have more likelihood to be anemic, women are more susceptible to breast cancer, men to heart attacks. Those qualities of a person aren't considered unnatural or bad because of those susceptibilities. So why should homosexuality be considered thusly because of HIV/AIDS? And then, even with that...what of homosexual women? They certainly don't fall in the high risk group. What argument could be used for them? Using disease likelihood for a reason to call something unnatural or wrong is simply flawed.

Those are all involuntary. Homosexuality is not a color, a race, or a nationality. Even if it was involuntary the practice of it is voluntary. However there is massive evidence it is not natural. No animal on earth is strictly homosexual. The organs themselves are not designed for the uses employed. I could tell you stories from Navy corpsmen that have been forced to treat (and I am not even talking about the diseases here) the physical injuries that occur from male on male sex. At least I could but they sicken me too much, and the forum does not allow that type of language use. Even if you took disease completely off the table I can give you lists of stats of negative aspect of homosexuality that dwarf any contrived good that comes from it. Heck even some of the "natural" excuses used are in fact as unnatural as cancer. One example being a mother who produces too much of a certain chemical after having two previous children. It is a genetic mistake, and not natural. But all that is beside the point. My two claims stand.

1. It produces massive amounts of death and injury without any compensating gain of any kind.
2. It produces massive costs that are transferred to others who do not practice homosexuality, without any justification.

Until you can at least dent both you have done nothing.

 

[ChristineES]

What you do with it was the original question. When 4% of us do X with it and that produces 60% of new aids cases then X is as wrong as walking would be if you were to do it in rush hour traffic or on someone's face. Not mention the billions in medical expenses that the 4%'s actions cost the 96% who do not practice it. If that is not evidence a thing is wrong then pray tell what is? I am a Christian but am making strictly secular points.

I was speaking outside of my faith, as well. I am stating that people try to take things and make them into "good" things. Having sex with multiple partners can spread diseases, people don't like to acknowledge that. It seems it's: It feels good, it must be good. and that isn't the case.

 

[1robin]

In what possible way does someone else being homosexual cost me? How are homosexuals costing non-homosexuals "billions"? This I gotta hear.

Come off it man (however you did quote me so I will give you a point for that). I get the impression you have never debated the issue before. Health care isn't free, Obama does not have a stash somewhere despite what liberals have said. Most issues involve stuff so sickening I am not typing them out myself, but I will give an example or two.

This study compared prevalence rates of most common sexually transmitted diseases (STD) in heterosexual and homosexual men who made respectively 12,201 and 5324 visits to an STD clinic over 18 months. Overall, homosexual men were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83 %), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%) herpes genitalis (0.93% vs. 3.65%, p < 0.001), pediculosis pubis (4.30% vs. 5.35%, p < 0.005), scabies (0.42% vs. 0.76%, p < 0.02), and genital warts (1.68% vs. 6.69%, p < 0.001). In most cases the differences in rates remained significant (p < 0.05) when corrected for age and race. It is speculated that higher rates of gonorrhea and syphilis result from a larger mean number of sexual contacts, more potential sites of infection, and more hidden and asymptomatic disease, while the lower rates of the other STD result from a lesser susceptibility of anal mucosa to the causative agent(s) of NGU, herpes genitalis, and venereal warts or from a lack of pubic apposition (pediculosis pubis).
COMPARATIVE PREVALENCE RATES OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES IN HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN

a. Anal-genital
Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.4 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.
The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue, that is, blood. Therefore, any organisms that are introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina. The single layer tissue cannot withstand the friction associated with penile penetration, resulting in traumas that expose both participants to blood, organisms in feces, and a mixing of bodily fluids.

(Yeah sounds perfectly natural to me, Not.) my own words in ().


Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis7
Facts About Youth – Physical Health

Just these few diseases alone have cost us all money even in the past through uninsured patients and higher hospital bills and insurance premiums, now that the liberals have let the government take over the entire health care industry no one can even begin to argue we are not paying for these treatments. I was actually a juror on a trial that dealt specifically with the increases in hospital bills as a result of diseases transmitted by homosexuality. It does not even stop in my own nation. Aids is so rampant in other places like Africa that it potentially could bankrupt these poorer nations if it was not for billions in aid from more prosperous countries (usually western ones). In some of them aids victims die faster that they can be buried. Your lack of understanding that which you defend is depressing. I rarely debate it because the posts include stuff as disgusting as what I had to post above and I seem to be way better informed than you.

 

[1robin]

I was speaking outside of my faith, as well. I am stating that people try to take things and make them into "good" things. Having sex with multiple partners can spread diseases, people don't like to acknowledge that. It seems it's: It feels good, it must be good. and that isn't the case.

The ability of people (myself included) to take something harmful and spin it around until it is made to be justifiable is truly remarkable. I have trained myself to look for and stop this for decades since becoming a Christian and still find myself doing it from time to time. However things like homosexuality and abortion are so astronomically destructive that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to attempt to make it look ok.

 

[ChristineES]

The ability of people (myself included) to take something harmful and spin it around until it is made to be justifiable is truly remarkable. I have trained myself to look for and stop this for decades since becoming a Christian and still find myself doing it from time to time. However things like homosexuality and abortion are so astronomically destructive that it takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to attempt to make it look ok.

We all do it. I"ve done it myself. I think to myself, "It's not hurting anyone" and things of that nature. It's not what I try to do, but it is done. Admitting it is a good thing, I won't lie about it.

 

[1robin]

We all do it. I"ve done it myself. I think to myself, "It's not hurting anyone" and things of that nature. It's not what I try to do, but it is done. Admitting it is a good thing, I won't lie about it.

That is the thing that in general I find different between non-theists and Christians. Both groups will do wrong things but a Christian will usually say it was wrong.

Chesterton once said, " We can all agree on what is wrong, what we cannot agree on is what wrongs to excuse ". Everyone can admit that killing without justification is wrong, However some of us will excuse killing a human life in the womb. I always wondered that if killing humans on an industrial scale by the millions in the womb was not justification for a thing being wrong what could ever be. Using "gay" instead of "homosexual" may get you called every name in the book but killing a child in the womb for the parents action, now that is a sacred right. We are truly living in what the book of revelations described and even what Nietzsche said would occur once they got rid of God. Total moral insanity. Halleluiah where's the Tylenol.

 

[nazz]

That is the thing that in general I find different between non-theists and Christians. Both groups will do wrong things but a Christian will usually say it was wrong.

 

[ChristineES]

The thing I try not to do is judge those not of my faith. If a person is not following my faith and is doing something against my faith, then the fact it is against my faith is irrelevent to him or her. As a Christian, I am supposed to witness. I can tell people about my faith (although I would not do it if someone did not want to hear it, even Jesus said not to do that) but I can't tell them the "rules" about my faith unless someone decides to accept it.

 

[1robin]

The thing I try not to do is judge those not of my faith. If a person is not following my faith and is doing something against my faith, then the fact it is against my faith is irrelevent to him or her. As a Christian, I am supposed to witness. I can tell people about my faith (although I would not do it if someone did not want to hear it, even Jesus said not to do that) but I can't tell them the "rules" about my faith unless someone decides to accept it.

I don't spend too much time telling anyone about the rules of my faith which I myself cannot even perfectly keep and which do not save anyway. If they wish I tell them about Christ and the reasons and evidence by which we can have confidence in him. Rules (or our inability to keep them) are the problem. I stick to telling others about the solution. I think the only moral issue I ever debate is moral ontology (and rarely homosexuality) but I only do the latter from a secular position.

 

[1robin]

Ok, you convinced me.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't spend too much time telling anyone about the rules of my faith which I myself cannot even perfectly keep and which do not save anyway. If they wish I tell them about Christ and the reasons and evidence by which we can have confidence in him. Rules (or our inability to keep them) are the problem. I stick to telling others about the solution. I think the only moral issue I ever debate is moral ontology (and rarely homosexuality) but I only do the latter from a secular position.

You might not. I've known plenty of others who do, indeed, do just that. It turns more people away from the faith. I sin, I am not perfect. I just wish I was.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You can love whom ever you want,yes.But when it comes to sex,no.Putting ones yeah in a place where feces comes out is not natural to me.I'm sorry but that is how I feel about it.Exit only.

That's understandable, but then again, they probably think hetero sex is gross too. Even thinking about your parents or old people having sex is weird and kinda gross. It's a subject that strikes people viscerally.

 

[Nada]

That's understandable, but then again, they probably think hetero sex is gross too. Even thinking about your parents or old people having sex is weird and kinda gross. It's a subject that strikes people viscerally.

I don't see how one can find normal sex between a man and woman,that causes reproduction, gross, compared to unnatural sex that includes feces. Yeah,imagining sex between ones parents or grandparents would seem a bit scary.Lol..

 

[Ingledsva]

As I said earlier, the men in the Bible were never described as perfect. They were human just like the rest of us. That makes it better, in my opinion, not worse. If they were all saints, we would see them as unbelieveable, not the other way around.

But that's just me.

*
Actually it is appalling that the Bible's story "heroes" are not just "not perfect," but were actually criminals.

*

 

[ChristineES]

*
Actually it is appalling that the Bible's story "heroes" are not just "not perfect," but were actually criminals.

*

If you say so. That means all people are criminals, as well. I've heard some pretty hair raising things on the news.

 

[Nada]

???? Who?

 

[Ingledsva]

Means to an end and all huh? Isn't that lovely? With these ideas, and so many more messed up and disgusting things in the bible, why do some find it any wonder that there are so many of us that don't believe it or follow it? The fact that some do find it amazing that people have issues with what the bible says is what people should be concerned about. That book is rife with such wrong information and such questionable and hideous morals being touted as "right" that it's just scary that people believe this is the work of some benevolent god. I mean, how could it be? When us mere humans have better judgment of right and wrong than that book does? If it were inspired or the work of some deity, it would have to be a cruel and sadistic one. Certainly not one worthy of my worship.

That is why I like this "Explicit Warning" Bible sticker.