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

[Uberpod]

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.

I don't condemn use of a study to support your views, but you can not make claims that are not supported by the data you use.

Is the CDC or WHO biased as well? Half my claims came from them.

Your sources may be quite competent. But, do your claims follow logically from the data you cite?

]This is why I am closing out my participation in this thread.

Do I get some credit for that?

 

[Tiberius]

Hey, 1robin.

I have sex with my girlfriend. She and I use contraception to make sure that procreation WILL NOT happen.

There are risks involved. One of us could spread a disease to the other. There is no justification for such sex, as no children are produced.

Should my girlfriend and I stop having sex? Is it immoral for me to have sex with my girlfriend?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hey, 1robin.

I have sex with my girlfriend. She and I use contraception to make sure that procreation WILL NOT happen.

There are risks involved. One of us could spread a disease to the other. There is no justification for such sex, as no children are produced.

Should my girlfriend and I stop having sex? Is it immoral for me to have sex with my girlfriend?

I've asked him that one (although I closed one loophole by making the couple married.)

No clear answer yet.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

1) I have refuted this several times with sources to back me up. You have demonstrated exactly 0 towards proving how homosexuals who are monogomus and participate in safe sex in ANY WAY are more likely to have problems. I have explained to you and Ken several times as to why there was an outbreak of HIV in the homosexual population and why it was not taken care of.

2) Except that people are gay? There is no way around it. Homosexuals exist and suppressing their sexuality has real world negative effects on their life.


I mean you can say you haven't been refuted but that only counts if you ingore all the times you have been refuted.....

 

[Enai de a lukal]

2) Except that people are gay? There is no way around it. Homosexuals exist and suppressing their sexuality has real world negative effects on their life.

Not only the negative, but on the positive side, being involved in romantic/sexual relationships gives people happiness/enjoyment/pleasure.

 

[Tiberius]

For the record, I do have an actual argument against homosexual relationships that is purely secular. I'll leave it up to you to judge how valid it is...

If a gay couple starts living together where both people are about the same size, then they effectively double their wardrobe. For example, person A can wear Person B's clothes. This generally doesn't happen in straight relationships. After all, how many men wear their wife's blouses when they go out?

If a gay couple doubles their wardrobe, then they will have less need to buy more clothes. If they buy less clothes, the economy suffers. Therefore, gay relationships harm the economy.

And it's more valid than 1robin's arguments, I think. Gotta laugh, huh?

 

[Tiberius]

I've asked him that one (although I closed one loophole by making the couple married.)

No clear answer yet.

Do you have an answer to this question, 1robin?

 

[Uberpod]

If a gay couple starts living together where both people are about the same size, then they effectively double their wardrobe. For example, person A can wear Person B's clothes. This generally doesn't happen in straight relationships. After all, how many men wear their wife's blouses when they go out?

No sorry - that's twice the wear on one set of clothes. Those clothes are gonna need to be replaced sooner. Besides gay men are more fashion conscious than hetero men and accessorize and buy more clothes than they need. So clearly, they help the economy. :areyoucra

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. Since this post is long, I will post it in three parts.

Argument #1

Since lesbians have less STD risks than heterosexual men and women do, you do not have any valid arguments against lesbians as far as STDs are concerned.

Argument #2

Other than STDs, what problems do lesbians have that can be corrected, or prevented, by them practicing abstinence?

Argument #3

Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years.

Please quote your sources.

Surely many homosexuals have practiced abstinence for much longer than that, such as those who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years. Why should they practice abstinence?

Even if a monogamous homosexual couple breaks up, there are not any problems as long as their new relationships are also monogamous.


A number of experts believe that about 3% of the people in the world are homosexuals. That would mean that there are about 210 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of those homosexuals are healthy, and strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, which is easily probable, that would be about 2 million homosexuals who would not need to practice abstinence.

If homosexuality is as bad as you say it is, it is quite remarkable that well over a million homosexuals are healthy, happy, and monogamous, and have overcome a difficult sexual identity that they did not ask for. Those homosexuals should be commended, not criticized.

Argument #4

When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time.

Five years or longer of monogamy, with good medical health, is a reasonable amount of time to warrant homosexuals staying together, and much more so regarding ten years or longer.

Argument #5

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them.

If a homosexual couple are monogamous, and do not have any STDs, what risks do they have as far as getting STDs are concerned?

Argument #6

But only a small percentage fraction of the suffering, and billions of dollars due to often preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

I am not discussing any other section of what causes suffering and costs. This is a homosexuality thread not a costs thread.

But most of your secular arguments against homosexuality in this thread have been about suffering and costs.

Argument #7

Pointing out that Y is worse than X does not justify X.

I never said, or implied that, and I have told you that at least several times in various threads. As I have told you, my intention of mentioning heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, was to try to get you to put homosexuality in its proper perspective. Yes, it is a serious problem, but nowhere near as serious a problem as heart disease alone. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died of heart disease. In other words, about 40 times more, or about 4000% more Americans died of heart disease than died of AIDS.

Far more homosexuals die from heart disease than die from AIDS, but for some odd reason you have spent months of your time debating homosexuality.

The world is full of physical, and financial problems from many things, most of which do not have anything to do with homosexuality. If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, the vast majority of those problems would still exist.

Argument #8

It is amazing that you have said that homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals since there are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals’ greatest health risk by far is themselves, certainly not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Some experts have predicted that by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs, not to mention the physical suffering. Obesity is often preventable.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Here is part two.

Argument #9

In order to be fair, you need to recommend that all of the following groups of people should practice abstinence since they are at risk:

Heterosexual men and women 45 years of age and older.

When you show they can't possibly have children then we can discuss this for the 5th time.

Been there, done that since I have told you probably at least twice that the vast majority of women of that age do not want to have children, and have sex only for pleasure. That is far more true today because it takes a lot more money to raise children than it used to, and wages have not kept up with prices for a number of decades. An article at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27...sks/index.html says that a large percentage of women 47 years of age and older who want to have children need to use other women's eggs, and that that can cost from $16,000 - $30,000 dollars.

In many countries women 45 years of age and older do not need to have children in order to help maintain the population.

Heterosexual black American men and women.

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV.

African Americans accounted for an estimated 44% of all new HIV infections among adults and adolescents (aged 13 years or older) in 2010, despite representing only 12% to 14% of the US population.

In 2010, black men accounted for 70% (14,700) of the estimated 20,900 new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. The estimated rate of new HIV infection for black men (103.6/100,000 population) was seven times as high as that of white men, twice as high as that of Latino men, and nearly three times as high as among black women.

In 2010, black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)represented an estimated 72% (10,600) of new infections among all black men and 36% of an estimated 29,800 new HIV infections among all MSM. More new HIV infections (4,800) occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group of MSM.

In 2010, black women accounted for 6,100 (29%) of the estimated new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. This number represents a decrease of 21% since 2008. Most HIV infections among black women (87%; 5,300) are attributed to heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women (38.1/100,000 population) was 20 times as high as the rate for white women, and almost five times as high as that of Latinas.

Heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HIV/AIDS is a global pandemic. As of 2011 approximately 34 million people have HIV worldwide. Of these, approximately 17.2 million are men, 16.8 million are women and 3.4 million are less than 15 years old. There were about 1.8 million deaths from AIDS in 2010, down from 2.2 million in 2005.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected. In 2010, an estimated 68% (22.9 million) of all HIV cases and 66% of all deaths (1.2 million) occurred in this region. This means that about 5% of the adult populations is infected. Here in contrast to other regions women compose nearly 60% of cases. South Africa has the largest population of people with HIV of any country in the world at 5.9 million.

The vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa are among heterosexuals. An article at http://aidscience.org/Science/Cohen288(5474)2153.html says:

"Africa has a primarily heterosexual epidemic."

People who live in poverty.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

On the contrary, it is provable that heterosexuals who live in poverty are a high risk group. Consider the following:

Addressing Poverty as Risk for Disease: Recommendations from CDC's Consultation on Microenterprise as HIV Prevention

In March 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened a consultation meeting to explore microenterprise as a potential human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) prevention intervention. The impulse to link microenterprise with HIV/AIDS prevention was driven by the fact that poverty is a significant factor contributing to the risk for infection. Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population.

As an HIV prevention intervention, microenterprise differs from previously developed interventions in important ways. First, it has the capacity to disentangle the nexus of risk that characterizes the lives of those at risk for HIV or living with HIV. Poverty (and racism, arguably its most significant determinant) is associated with numerous factors throughout the life course that lead almost inexorably to risk for HIV infection. That is, individuals at risk for HIV often have histories of trauma, drug abuse, incarceration, unemployment, poor education, and homelessness, all of which have the potential to be alleviated, at least in part, by economic empowerment programs.

Beyond this, microenterprise has the ability to affect numerous health conditions in addition to HIV risk. Poverty is implicated in most health problems, and poverty- and race-related health disparities are viewed by many as the preeminent health issue—in fact, social justice issue—currently confronting U.S. society. Accordingly, economic empowerment may be able to reduce hypertension and other cardiovascular health problems, the incidence and course of numerous cancers, violence, substance abuse, and many other negative health conditions. Economic empowerment may achieve this through behavioral and lifestyle changes, increasing health-care utilization, and also through the alleviation of poverty-induced stress and its numerous health-related manifestations. For example, CDC's Hope Works project, an intervention that includes assistance with developing economic objectives, targets weight management and stress reduction in addition to job-skills training and improving incomes. The ability to affect multiple health outcomes is promising not only for economic empowerment, but also for other structural and community-level interventions such as incarceration policy and community mobilization.

Please note:

"Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population."

People who live in overpopulated countries.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

What is not provable?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This is part 3

Argument #10

On a number of occasions, including in my post #2 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html, I have posted evidence that having sex provides significant health benefits, and that practicing long term abstinence has serious health risks.

On the other hand, there are not any serious health risks at all from eating healthier foods, and getting more exercise, so you should be far more critical of heterosexuals who have preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity than you are of homosexuals. Heart disease, and obesity are frequently preventable, and many cases of cancer are preventable.

Some people successfully practice long term abstinence, but many people who try it develop serious health problems as a result, and end up worse off than they were before.

 

[Tiberius]

No sorry - that's twice the wear on one set of clothes. Those clothes are gonna need to be replaced sooner. Besides gay men are more fashion conscious than hetero men and accessorize and buy more clothes than they need. So clearly, they help the economy. :areyoucra

Damn you and your logic!

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #2009, #2010, and #2011.

 

[Tiberius]

I think you'll be waiting. He hasn't responded to my questions either.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I think he tucked tail and ran. Probably the wisest strategic move he could've made- he would've been even better off if he had done that before offering all manners of flimsy and clearly unsound arguments for his prejudice.

 

[ladybug77]

Its ok to be gay you know. Its not a sin, if its not a sin of your heart. You do all realize that being gay is a form of population control also right??

 

[Tiberius]

Its ok to be gay you know. Its not a sin, if its not a sin of your heart. You do all realize that being gay is a form of population control also right??

Given that the human population is climbing so much that we are overburdening the planet, I don't think it's working.

Besides, I don't see any way in which evolution could produce a mechanism by which to keep a population in check.

 

[ladybug77]

Given that the human population is climbing so much that we are overburdening the planet, I don't think it's working.

Besides, I don't see any way in which evolution could produce a mechanism by which to keep a population in check.

It wont. Humanity kills the earth...and we either move to mars...or die. Simple as that. Lol.

 

[Leftimies]

Its a defect, for sure. But so is epilepsy, diabetes, adhd and a whole number of things.
So in my view, there are two things to be changed:

Straight people must realize that defect quality is not necessarily a bad thing. It can produce things, albeit in different fields of life. Especially in art this is evident.
Gay people must stop insisting that its natural, since it is defect. And they also must realize that there is nothing to be ashamed of such harmless, potentially beautiful defect.

Cool? Cool. Now this thread is rendered obsolete and requires no further posting XD

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Its ok to be gay you know. Its not a sin, if its not a sin of your heart. You do all realize that being gay is a form of population control also right??

I find it mildly offensive that homosexuality must have a higher purpose in order to be socially acceptable. Can't love stand on its own feet without being smacked around?