The following is from another thread. 1robin does not mind if I cut and paste what he says between various threads, and forums, and I will notify him about this post, which quotes what he said recently at another forum.
1robin said:
.......demand society tolerate a sexual practice of 4% of us that causes 60% of the AIDS cases and costs billions without any justification.
You refused to reply to many of my arguments when you got into trouble. You retreated to saying that no one had adequately refuted your main points, but you did not adequately refute my main points, and you claimed victory over points that I never contested in the first place, such as your CDC statistics, which I never disputed. Homosexuality is an important problem, but what should be done about it? One very comical issue was that I asked you what your recommended solutions were for homosexuality. You said that you have no responsibility to provide any solutions, but yet you tried to provide solutions on many occasions, such as your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, including lesbians, who actually have less risks than heterosexual men and women do, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years.
From a secular moral perspective, no practice is morally wrong if there are not any viable alternatives. I showed you research that shows that having sex has proven health benefits, and that that long term abstinence has proven risks. That obviously makes long term abstinence an even more ludicrous, and preposterous recommendation for lesbians, and for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years.
Why didn't you recommend abstinence for heterosexual black Americans (who have very high risks), black Africans (who have the highest risks in the world), people who live in poverty, and women over 45 years of age? I asked you about those groups of people, and you said that you do not recommend that any of them practice abstinence. Your moral values are suspect, at least regarding the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Surely women over 45 do not need to have sex in order to maintain adequately populations in most countries, and your argument is especially suspect regarding women over 45 having sex in overpopulated countries. In addition, it is often risky for women over 45 to have children.
How big a threat are homosexuals to heterosexuals? Not nearly as big a threat as heterosexuals are to themselves, since heart disease alone kills about 40 times more, or about 4,000% more people a year in the U.S. than AIDS does. Heart disease is often preventable.
In another thread, you said that there are successful reparative therapy clinics all over the world. That is definitely false, especially since the Christian founder of the recently disbanded reparative clinic Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about becoming a heterosexual, and said that over 99% of homosexuals who came to his clinic failed to change their sexual orientation.
I think that it was this thread where you claimed that sexual identity is a choice, and refused to provide any scientific evidence to support your claim. Do you claim that sexual identity is a choice? If it is a choice, it is quite odd that the majority of time, children who are raised by homosexuals choose to become heterosexuals. Some homosexuals have said that if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to escape bigotry against them, but were not able to change their sexual identity. In another thread, you said that there are examples of where homosexuals have changed their sexual identity, but I have studied the scientific literature extensively, and have made a number of posts about it in various threads, and the evidence shows that such changes are very rare. In addition, as I wrote about sex expert Dr. Throckmorton in another thread, he said that on many occasions, so-called "converted" homosexuals were not converted at all, and were defining "change" merely as a reduction in same-sex attraction, not actual conversions to heterosexuality.
But by all means, please do continue to argue against homosexuality since that helps to cause more dissension, and disorganization among Republicans. The majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage. The more that religious conservatives make an issue out of homosexuality instead of sticking to far more important issues such as the economy, obamacare, and immigration, the more it angers Republicans who support same-sex marriage, and the more dissension it causes in the Republican party.
, and am gay as all get-out.
