why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Sure you can have a relationship with other men! Anything is possible as long as you put willpower and determination in.

"Why can't we fly like the birds?" never stopped the wright brother from building a plane



I'm just gonna lay down 3 conditions to follow:

1. Accept that you're not doing society justice
2. Accept that it's not normal
3. Don't force the average joe / lawmakers to accept / make exceptions for this lifestyle (a.k.a gay agenda :help

BUT

Sure enough, with the direction morals are going these days and the vibe from this thread, I'm gonna take a stab and say that nobody is in agreement with them conditions :no:. So I guess we're right back where we started huh

1. What Justice are you trying to do to society? And which society are you speaking of?

2. You should learn more about how weird nature is before you start talking about normal, unless of course you are talking about just the rules that society make up.

3. Lol they use to say the same thing about blacks. Yeah you can free them from slavery, but dont' expect us average joes/lawmakers/to make exceptions to them.

 

[m.ramdeen]

1. What Justice are you trying to do to society? And which society are you speaking of?

2. You should learn more about how weird nature is before you start talking about normal, unless of course you are talking about just the rules that society make up.

3. Lol they use to say the same thing about blacks. Yeah you can free them from slavery, but dont' expect us average joes/lawmakers/to make exceptions to them.

See what I mean, already can't accept 3 conditions. So the tread is always going to be going in a circle. I'm not good with defending point but lemme give it a try

1. Not doing society justice by continuing the life cycle <Inset quote about artificial insemination and weeding out non-productive heterosexuals here>
2. Not normal because we our gender anatomies don't seem to match up in a homosexual way <insert quote about bonobo monkeys here>
3. I did say lifestyle (at least that's how I see homosexuality) , not a colour of skin. <Insert hypocrite argument here>

I just tried to keep it simple, no statistics or studies. Just an average joe argument. )(

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

See what I mean, already can't accept 3 conditions. So the tread is always going to be going in a circle. I'm not good with defending point but lemme give it a try

1. Not doing society justice by continuing the life cycle <Inset quote about artificial insemination and weeding out non-productive heterosexuals here>
2. Not normal because we our gender anatomies don't seem to match up in a homosexual way <insert quote about bonobo monkeys here>
3. I did say lifestyle (at least that's how I see homosexuality) , not a colour of skin. <Insert hypocrite argument here>

I just tried to keep it simple, no statistics or studies. Just an average joe argument. )(

I'm perfectly fine with your argument, but the question is why should those three conditions be accepted?

1. Not continuing the life cycle? But homosexuals can still reproduce, and artificial insemination would not even be necessary. There are plenty of men who participate in MSM and still produce heirs, because they well...have sex with women too.

2. And comments about parthenogensis, and asexual reproduction, and other myriad of reproductive patterns in nature.

3. Race is more than just skin color, ever heard of white washing? The pushing of white culture on the non-white savages? Or

I'm an average guy, and I could care less about what homosexuals do.

1. Because the life cycle will continue regardless

2. Normal is a societal construct

3. It's their lifestyle choice not mine and the harm that it supposedly produces is really an issue with the harm that SEX produces, not homosexuality in and of itself.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

3. It's their lifestyle choice not mine and the harm that it supposedly produces is really an issue with the harm that SEX produces, not homosexuality in and of itself.

That reminds me of something. I guess 1robin has no problem with homosexuality so long as the sexual activity is restricted to non-penetration sex, since that sort of sex has zero risk for AIDS or any other disease.

So 1robin approves of some homosexual acts but not others. I wonder why, then, he denounces 'homosexuality'?

1robin: Can you say whether you approve of zero-risk homosexual behaviors?

 

[1robin]

So 1robin approves of some homosexual acts but not others. I wonder why, then, he denounces 'homosexuality'?

Find any statement where I said any type of homosexuality is good. I must have asked you to provide the statement you said I had said a dozen times. So far have not actually done so once. Yet you keep trying to put your words in my mouth. Why? If you have to mangle another persons statement into the very opposite of what they have, what is the point?

1robin: Can you say whether you approve of zero-risk homosexual behaviors?

I can't because there are none. As Tiberius I believe said it, all behavior has risk, and all sex has risk. There is as far as I can think of no sexual behavior that is risk free. This is the most desperate of the desperate. If you claimed theft was wrong and I tried to defend it by asking you if you condemned a hypothetical thief that stole something no one ever knew was stolen then I have no business defending theft and should get away from debates all together.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Find any statement where I said any type of homosexuality is good.

Oh, no. I've surely never heard you say something like that. It's just that your arguments rationally require you to think of non-risk homosexual behavior as perfectly fine.

You argue that homosexual behavior is wrong because it is risky, without the compensating good of producing kids. But some homosexual behavior is no more risky that shaking hands with your wife.

So you must believe that this sort of homosexual behavior is right and fine. Yes?

I can't because there are none. As Tiberius I believe said it, all behavior has risk, and all sex has risk.

Ah. So then going to church is immoral. Since it is risky and there is no compensating benefit to it, therefore going to church is immoral.

Are you serious??????

There is as far as I can think of no sexual behavior that is risk free.

So you consider masturbation to be risky? Medically risky?

Sure you do.

How about phone sex? Would you be OK with two gay people having phone sex?

 

[1robin]

Here is the conclusion I promised at the end of answering all remaining points at this time.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.
2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

A. These two points in my sincere opinion have not been dented in this thread.

B. Agnostic75 produced a slight inconsistency with one small part of one sentence above that applied to a tiny group but even if true it did not help homosexuality at all. It made something else wrong, it did not make homosexuality right. Beyond this no one has done anything to effect my two main contention.

C. Most of what has been done consisted of maybe 6 arguments total but were stated a thousand different ways. As a summary I will try and list the six main archetype arguments made and show why they had no effect.

1. I will list the one that drove me nuts the worst first. In order to have anything to say against my two points they were habitually separated and attacked one at a time. But most of the attacks against 1 were destroyed by 2. Which is probably why 2 was not included. The attacks against two were countered by one. I ma sure that is why 1 was left out. Whatever the reasons it was impossible to explain how often and how consistently this was done in spite of at least 12 posts where I pointed it out and restated my 2 claims together.

2. That something else is worse, I assume it was said to imply that if anything can be shown to cause more damage then everything that causes less is automatically good. I hope why that is ridiculous is obvious.

3. That some subgroup of homosexuals have less risk. Less risk is still risk. Having less risk when you have no justification that can mitigate a single death is unjustifiable. It might not be such a large problem but it would still be wrong. However we are dealing with millions and millions of just deaths alone so less risk is still unjustifiable.

4. The fourth was an attack against some obscure and auxiliary claim I had made (and even if it had no effect or only a slight one on the auxiliary claim) it was said to have overturned the primary argument. That is a type of argument by proxy.

5. Number 4 is an amplified no 4 on steroids. It was to talk about anything at all as long as it had nothing to do with homosexuality. Whether that was arbitrary things claimed by an obscure methodology like formal logic which can't be verified, or the philosophy of how sources get footnoted. Even if the argument had been carried it would have had no power to make homosexuality right.

6. Then the tried and true favorite of every liberal in history. Attempt to make a bad thing good and a good thing bad, then using these false definitions attempt to claim your opponent (who was trying to preserve life) is somehow on lower moral ground. Other aspects of this effort including justifying death by the label love, claiming something that is old or consistent with any theology is wrong because it is such, or just yelling taunts and sarcasm through the keyboard.

I don't think any one person did all 6 but the majority of all 6 were in pretty much every post.

Now since I have been told over and over that 5 people or so who started off on the opposite side of the argument from me, claiming I can't see that my claims were refuted is proof they were (even though in every other circumstance that was reversed claims of fallacy of numbers would have been yelled as loud as possible even if my numbers were in the billions), I thought I would touch on that in closing. I have but two possibilities here.

1. I could conclude I had recently gone insane and the worst argumentation in defense of anything I have ever seen was actually effective.
2. Or I could believe that the emotional based liberal mindset in search of evidence had betrayed it's adherents. That is evidenced by the six arguments I mentioned above and the fact that all 6 or so people I had review the history of claims here agreed with me even though 4 of them were not Christians at all.

In conclusion, I have wearied of the ineffective, relentless, and redundant claims I can't find merit in for the life of me gone through from top to bottom by every new poster. I am worn out with it and am done with this thread. So talk amongst your selves concerning what you have done and how stubborn I am without me here all you wish. I leave you to it. Shalom,

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't and your nuts. I spend almost all my time dealing with atheistic assumptions in the effort to deny God and call him evil at the same time. Less that 1% of my posts have anything dark in them. Over 90% of them are fluffy good stuff to contradict claims about dark stuff. Only your side would call a verse condemning evil and the death it produces wrong dark in the first place. However even if it was dark and even if it occurred in more that 1% of posts it was mandated by a false claim.

.

Except when you're defending Biblical slavery, genocide and death to homosexuals.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

A. These two points in my sincere opinion have not been dented in this thread.

OK. In my sincere opinion, they've been utterly, irrefutably destroyed. Some of us have taken them apart brick by brick. Others of us have simply kicked the wall down.

3. That some subgroup of homosexuals have less risk. Less risk is still risk.

We showed you that some homosexual behavior has ZERO risk... but you haven't seemed comfortable addressing that.

1. I could conclude I had recently gone insane and the worst argumentation in defense of anything I have ever seen was actually effective.

I don't think you've gone insane. I just think that for some conservative religionists, their biases prevent them from addressing rational arguments which oppose their positions -- like a creationist who will not answer direct questions about his beliefs, lest the obvious and necessary answers demonstrate that his overall position is false.

Anyway, so long.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Except when you're defending Biblical slavery, genocide and death to homosexuals.

Nothing dark about that. It's just God working His moral righteousness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Junk Science Example: A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]

Here we have a study population that consisted of HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. This was in no way representative gay men in general.

This is a common tactic among anti-gay "researchers". They want their views to be backed by scientific research, but they misuse data and make claims unsupported by it. They feel good about the footnote and hope no one fact checks it.

Exactly. Which is why 1Robin appears so incensed whenever I point out that his links and sources are garbage when properly researched.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I never said it was fluffy. Your creating claims out of this air and insinuating I made them and then dismissing them. Convenient but not very honorable.

Post 1960:

I don't and your nuts. I spend almost all my time dealing with atheistic assumptions in the effort to deny God and call him evil at the same time. Less that 1% of my posts have anything dark in them. Over 90% of them are fluffy good stuff to contradict claims about dark stuff. Only your side would call a verse condemning evil and the death it produces wrong dark in the first place. However even if it was dark and even if it occurred in more that 1% of posts it was mandated by a false claim.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well that is the worst example of argumentation by proxy I have ever seen. You find a study you claim was not valid to condemn any use of any study that does not provide convenient data for you. Is the CDC or WHO biased as well? Half my claims came from them. This is why I am closing out my participation in this thread.

He's right.

The vast majority of your claims came from whatever website you cut and pasted huge swaths of them from. Half the links were dead, others were dead ends, links to discredited and/or unscientific studies, and others misrepresented the studies they were citing. It's kind of insulting to people who actually take the time to verify the stuff they post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Here is the conclusion I promised at the end of answering all remaining points at this time.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

And, as AmbiguousGuy pointed out, this only applies to certain forms of homosexual sex- not homosexuality per se. At best your argument is against certain forms of sexual activity, rather than homosexuality as a sexual orientation. But this is entirely moot, since your argument is plainly invalid and never gets to its conclusion anyways. But its still useful to note that, even if successful, your argument does not establish the desired conclusion.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

And hopefully you're well aware that every homosexual under the sun, as well as every heterosexual with even a drop of common sense, would dispute this. In fact, you're clearly ignoring a patent fact about human psychology- that sex, love, and romance motivate us to a high degree. And most people, homosexual or heterosexual, would claim (and have a strong argument), that if love and romance doesn't justify suffering, then nothing does.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

And, as AmbiguousGuy pointed out, this only applies to certain forms of homosexual sex- not homosexuality per se. At best your argument is against certain forms of sexual activity, rather than homosexuality as a sexual orientation. But this is entirely moot, since your argument is plainly invalid and never gets to its conclusion anyways. But its still useful to note that, even if successful, your argument does not establish the desired conclusion.


And hopefully you're well aware that every homosexual under the sun, as well as every heterosexual with even a drop of common sense, would dispute this. In fact, you're clearly ignoring a patent fact about human psychology- that sex, love, and romance motivate us to a high degree. And most people, homosexual or heterosexual, would claim (and have a strong argument), that if love and romance doesn't justify suffering, then nothing does.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The whole subject is extremely of very little use, that is why so few majors require it. When I fell in love with philosophy I also was fascinated by logical law. I intended to use it in argumentation so I began to study it. I concluded it was a tempest in a tea pot and so arbitrary as to contain little merit. I have all kinds of argument from the deep end of science, an example of this is quantum conclusion from extremely respected scholars that claim mind is independent of matter. I however have held off because the science it is based on is so speculative.

.

Gee, logic seems to come in pretty handy for you when you're using it to attempt to prove the existence of the god you believe in, isn't it?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nothing dark about that. It's just God working His moral righteousness.

Right. Fluffy, fluffy teddy bears and sunshine!

 

[SkepticThinker]

And, as AmbiguousGuy pointed out, this only applies to certain forms of homosexual sex- not homosexuality per se. At best your argument is against certain forms of sexual activity, rather than homosexuality as a sexual orientation. But this is entirely moot, since your argument is plainly invalid and never gets to its conclusion anyways. But its still useful to note that, even if successful, your argument does not establish the desired conclusion.


And hopefully you're well aware that every homosexual under the sun, as well as every heterosexual with even a drop of common sense, would dispute this. In fact, you're clearly ignoring a patent fact about human psychology- that sex, love, and romance motivate us to a high degree. And most people, homosexual or heterosexual, would claim (and have a strong argument), that if love and romance doesn't justify suffering, then nothing does.

Right on the money.

 

[1robin]

For those whom it appears are either my fan club, or a nontheistic support group. Especially Tiberius Fury.



I see I have a hint of prophet hood in me. Exactly what I said would occur when I left the thread has occurred in spades. Is this mutual support, consolation, or just plain talking about a person who is not around? Actually I do not want an answer. I forgot one thing.


I made an agreement to Tiberius I would provided sources for some data they asked about. I have done so, and I have done so very recently concerning the millions who die of aids that I mentioned. The part I needed to add is that I will also provide additional sources to claims I have made (even above what I have) if it can be shown that the ones I provided were impossible to find or made false claims (not that it took longer than 30 seconds to verify them). That is primarily for Tiberius, but I will make the same deal with anyone who deny the general data based claims I made are true, if they will agree to the conditions in my and Tiberius' arrangement. If maybe 6 people agree then maybe I will get one who will honor the agreement. If anyone wants to do so then do so by PM. I have had it with this thread. If not then honor suggests you do not comment on sources I have or will supply. It is pretty bad when arguments in a thread are not even good for killing time anymore.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I see I have a hint of prophet hood in me.

I see your narcissistic delusions have no limits.