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

[Agnostic75]

I don't doubt that exaggeration is a factor in unscientific polls such as these as people sometimes m alter the truth slightly because of fear of looking depraved. This would easily explain why Genre's numbers are significantly lower than some of the more "scientific" studies conducted.

Let's get back to basics. What exactly are your main objections to homosexuality from a secular perspective, and what alternatives do you offer to homosexuals that usually work well. Please provide proper documentation from reputable sources.

There is a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/144333-homosexuality-pedophilia.html at the Evolution vs Creationism forum that it titled "Homosexuality and pedophilia" which you conveniently abandoned after none of your secular arguments worked. Readers can see for themselves how poorly prepared you are to debate homosexuality from a secular perspective. But then again, no one is adequately prepared to debate homosexuality from an entirely secular perspective. One reason for that is that no one can offer homosexuals alternatives that usually work well. There is documented proof that some homosexuals who have tried reparative therapy ended up much worse off than they were before. In addition, even some proponents of reparative therapy have admitted that it usually works best for religiously motivated homosexuals, and that it often fails even for religiously motivated people. Regarding trying abstinence from sex for life, some homosexuals are able to do that successfully, but many cannot. The same goes for heterosexuals who try abstinence.

I wonder how well you understand statistics. For example, are you aware that statistics that compare the percentage of homosexuals who are alcoholics to the percentage of heterosexuals who are alcoholics do not tell us anything about the percentage of all homosexuals, and all heterosexuals who are alcoholics? Such statistics only tell us the percentages of homosexuals "who are alcoholics," and the percentages of heterosexuals "who are alcoholics." The vast majority of homosexuals, and heterosexuals, are not alcoholics.

Let me make it even simpler than that for you. This is all hypothetical. In the U.S., there are 100 million heterosexuals, and 3 million homosexuals. 2% of homosexuals are alcoholics, which would be 60,000 homosexuals. 2/10 of 1% of heterosexuals are alcoholics, which would be 200,000 heterosexuals. The statistics show that alcoholism is 10 times, or 1,000% more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals, but is is also very important to note that the statistics also show that 98% of homosexuals are not alcoholics. In real life, a higher percentage of homosexuals are alcoholics than heterosexuals who are alcoholics, but the vast majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics.

Regarding the hypothetical statistics, I said that the statistics show that alcoholism is 10 times, or 1,000% more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. A much better way to understand that would be to say that AMONG PEOPLE WHO ARE ALCOHOLICS, the statistics show that alcoholism is 10 times, or 1,000% more common among homosexuals than it is among heterosexuals. The first way that I said it makes it appear to many people that far more homosexuals are alcoholics than is the case regarding the hypothetical statistics.

Most experts agree that generally, homosexuals have higher elevated levels of stress than heterosexuals do, but what are the best ways for homosexuals to try to deal with the stress? For example, what should an alcoholic homosexual do about his alcoholism, change his sexual identity? Usually not. Some homosexual alcoholics who tried reparative therapy were able to give up alcoholism, but many homosexuals have overcome alcoholism by using the same professional care that heterosexual alcoholics use, and some homosexual alcoholics who tried repartive therapy were not able to give up alcoholism.

As I said at the other forum, all that you really have are religious arguments.

 

[Ken Brown]

According to Ezekiel....

Ezekiel 16:48-50
As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

Hi tumbleweed41, that's one Scripture that should be used, but I like this translation better:

(Eze 16:49) Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

First on the list of Sodom's sin is PRIDE, but the rest of her sin sort of follows what the Laodiceans did:

(Rev 3:17) Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

The Laodiceans were poor, even though they had earthly wealth, and they were admonished by Yeshua to become rich. He wanted to strengthen their hand so that they didn't remain poor and naked, and this is why He admonished them to repent and overcome. It's only by repenting and overcoming that we can come out of the poverty of sinfulness, and Sodom did nothing to help in that regard. In fact, here is what she did:

(Isa 3:9) The look on their faces will be held against them. They boast about their sins, which are like those of the people of Sodom. They don't even bother to hide them. How horrible it will be for these people, because they have brought disaster on themselves.

Sodom's sin was PRIDE. Sodom came out of the closet and didn't even bother in trying to hide their sinfulness. One translation has it that they would PARADE their sin like Sodom (CJB), and they would do nothing to strengthen the hand of poor sinners to come OUT of that lifestyle. So it looks to me that the reason Sodom was destroyed is because she openly and with PRIDE, announced to the world their sin and did nothing to help poor sinners who were weakened in that lifestyle to be strengthened out of it. KB

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'd like to know from those who oppose homosexuality: Theological arguments included, what rationalizations exist for the discrimination against homosexuals?

What rationalizations exist for harassment? Violence? "Corrective" rape? Bullying in school? Parental abuse or neglect? Beating? Or murder?

These happenings exist. And gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered experience a vast amount as a result of broad stereotyping and discrimination. So, tell me, what is the rationalization for creating this type of criminal behavior toward fellow human beings?

 

[Agnostic75]

Death and disease comes as a result of our sin, or someone's sin.

Obviously not. Many animals got sick, or died, long before humans existed, and animals do not commit sins.

If you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve, which implies to some people that creationism is true, one research study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. There are not any good reasons for anyone to take the story of Adam and Eve literally.

The entire species of bonobo monkeys is bi-sexual. Why do you suppose that God did that? A lot of scientific evidence shows that bonobo monkeys derive many benefits from their bi-sexuality.

If a God exists, there is not any reasonable evidence that he opposes homosexuality. If he does, it is quite odd that he caused the entire species of bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual, thereby giving many people the mistaken impression that he finds homosexuaility to be beneficial for at least some kinds of animals. Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. I am not implying that humans should do everything that animals do, nor am I implying that animals should do everything that humans do, especially since humans might one day destroy all human life with global warming.

I do not believe that it is sensible for anyone to believe that God punishes animals because of sins that humans committed. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and the first sinners, there are not any good reasons why a moral God would punish animals along with humans. Some conservative Christians who know that this is a problem, such as William Lane Craig, have claimed that animals do not feel pain, but most scientists believe that all higher animals feel pain. Why are old, sick animals sometimes put to sleep? Why are there laws against cruelty to animals? Obviously, because most people believe that animals feel pain.

Do you by chance believe that a global flood occured?

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi tumbleweed41, I had already went to those links and they provide nothing about what triggered the AIDS epidemic. Those links address the early, pre-outbreak existence of HIV BEFORE the AIDS epidemic, and they really leave much to speculation---the 1959 case-"The oldest known case of HIV-1 infection was reported to be that of a sailor from Manchester who died of an AIDS-like illness in 1959; however, the authenticity of this case has not been confirmed."

Please, give at least one link to a "peer reviewed study" which addresses the simultaneous outbreak of the AIDS epidemic in both the gay male population and the heterosexual African villager population? Surely, there has to be at least ONE peer reviewed study which addresses that important question. KB

What are you interested in proving?

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle.

If what you said is true, it would only apply to homosexuals who got, and transimitted Hep B to other people.

Unsafe sex is unfortunate for homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Yes, homosexuals generally do have unsafe sex a good deal more than heterosexuals do, but the best solution for that would be for them to practice safe sex, which would be the same recommendation for heterosexuals.

If all disease on earth was eliminated, you would still object to homosexuality. In addition, AIDS if a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality that occured before AIDS developed.

Heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity are easily far more dangerous than homosexuality is, are far more expensive to treat, and are often preventable.

As serious as those problems are, they pale by comparison with the possible effects of global warming, which might one day destroy all human life by means of global cooling as a result of melting ice being cirulated in the world's oceans.

If you wish to claim that God's commands are always practical from a secular perspective, you are wrong since the majority of people know that sometimes, divorce is a good thing. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but many Christians who did not commit adultery get divorced, and, in their hypocrisy, criticize homosexuals.

 

[Ken Brown]

Obviously not. Many animals got sick, or died, long before humans existed, and animals do not commit sins.

If you are referring to the story of Adam and Eve, which implies to some people that creationism is true, one research study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. There are not any good reasons for anyone to take the story of Adam and Eve literally.

The entire species of bonobo monkeys is bi-sexual. Why do you suppose that God did that? A lot of scientific evidence shows that bonobo monkeys derive many benefits from their bi-sexuality.

If a God exists, there is not any reasonable evidence that he opposes homosexuality. If he does, it is quite odd that he caused the entire species of bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual, thereby giving many people the mistaken impression that he finds homosexuaility to be beneficial for at least some kinds of animals. Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. I am not implying that humans should do everything that animals do, nor am I implying that animals should do everything that humans do, especially since humans might one day destroy all human life with global warming.

I do not believe that it is sensible for anyone to believe that God punishes animals because of sins that humans committed. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, and the first sinners, there are not any good reasons why a moral God would punish animals along with humans. Some conservative Christians who know that this is a problem, such as William Lane Craig, have claimed that animals do not feel pain, but most scientists believe that all higher animals feel pain. Why are old, sick animals sometimes put to sleep? Why are there laws against cruelty to animals? Obviously, because most people believe that animals feel pain.

Do you by chance believe that a global flood occured?

Hi Agnostic75, evolution and looking at nature. You probably have never heard from anyone else what I believe, and we may get into it, but for now, I will have patience. Concerning the use of Bonobo monkeys and the 1500 species as a justification for homosexuality, what about the animals who eat their offspring, or kill their mating partners, would you use them as a means to justify that activity? I have a belief that G-d created animals to reflect the different characteristics of man. So if we see disgusting and perverse activities with animals (eating their offspring, being bi-sexual, killing their mating partners), that doesn't necessarily mean that we are given free reign to follow those activities, does it? KB

 

[1robin]

This isn't true at all.

No I am not and what I said is accurate.

I could easily play with words too:

By definition what you said is inaccurate. There are atheists that honestly feel that the Bible is not true and I have no opposition to their putting their case forward at all. Militant atheism is something entirely different. It is an emotion and preference driven belief that not only are there no God's but belief in any one of them is wrong and should be attacked by any means necessary (be they right, wrong, true or false). It is the hostility that makes the difference.

I wasn't even talking about good or bad when i wrote that quote. There is a reason to debate over this subject.

I never even hinted at opposition to debate. Christianity as I said produces a net good in the world. Even if false it is not worth attacking and it is by no means known to be such. I only want the debate meaningful and civil and "The God delusions" and "God is not great" books of the world are not a positive effect on the debate as a whole. Militant atheism only obscures and clouds, it rarely clarifies. If something needs attacking it is the rejection of traditional morality that has produced spikes in abortion, teen pregnancy, violence, school shootings, divorce, and homosexuality that are killing millions and costing billion. Yet not one "the moral delusion" or "Moral relativity is not great" books are written. Why is not Dawkins after the Muslims first if he is on a humanitarian mission? There are virtually no Christian terrorists in comparison.

From my point of view, the militant atheists perceive that the good part of Christianity could remain and even prosper in some areas without Christianity, while the bad side would mostly go away with it.

The only bad side is when someone disobeys it. Actually without God morality as an actual category of truth has no foundation. Even terms like good, bad, evil, justice, or fairness have no justification without a transcendent moral framework. It is impossible to know a stick is crooked without a straight one to compare it to. The US and Europe are heading the direction you describe. Do you think (judging from reality) we are going the direction we should? Here is a poem that accurately describes the creed of the world that progressives, are dragging us towards.
“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner
We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind.

Partially justificated by atheism? How?

Atheism is the positive denial of the only justification for human worth and the sanctity of life. Once people are biological anomalies with no intrinsic value wiping out a million or so is not that big of a deal. This is long and complex and takes a long time to get through but that was a good start.

So what you take issue with is the hostility?

I resent the hostility but that is not the main thing. Hostility is the signal that the position is emotionally derived not evidence derived. As soon as I see that a person is mad in a debate I lose all confidence that he is rational.

What do you mean by this?

So, if i argue in favor of a flying spaghetti monster i have more merit than someone who argues against it?

If there was any indication of merit in the existence of the monster then it would have to be considered. While I think Pascal’s wager is stupid it is along the lines I am talking about. An argument for God (is has an infinite potential for gain and only a very small chance for harm). A hostility towards God (has an infinite potential for loss and a small potential for gain).

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75, evolution and looking at nature. You probably have never heard from anyone else what I believe, and we may get into it, but for now, I will have patience.

Apparently you consider yourself to be gifted with special revelations from God that only a few people have.

Concerning the use of Bonobo monkeys and the 1500 species as a justification for homosexuality, what about the animals who eat their offspring, or kill their mating partners, would you use them as a means to justify that activity? I have a belief that G-d created animals to reflect the different characteristics of man. So if we see disgusting and perverse activities with animals (eating their offspring, being bi-sexual, killing their mating partners), that doesn't necessarily mean that we are given free reign to follow those activities, does it? KB

But I clearly stated that I was not implying that humans should do everything that animals do, and that animals should do everything that humans do. I was making a case that if a God exists, he made homosexuality a part of nature, including among humans. Since humans are more intelligent than other animals are, they have been able to spread diseases more effectively than animals have.

It all gets down to which "particular" things are beneficial for animals to do, and for humans to do. Regarding homosexuals who are healthy, and happy, it is beneficial for them to practice safe sex. What other options would you recommend for them?

 

[Ken Brown]

What are you interested in proving?

Hi Agnostic75, you would have to go back and read all of what I have written to tumbleweed41. You see, what I was trying to get from him is that the AIDS epidemic started as a botched or failed experiment with the Hep B vaccine. I'm sure you are aware that Hep B is a disease plagued by those who come into contact with human feces/waste. This vaccine was cultured in chimpanzee products and allowed the HIV virus to be transmitted to a group of gay men in NYC and some African villagers in the late 70's. AIDS started in the U.S. as a result of these gay men being given this vaccine. You can research it, but AIDS started in the U.S. as EXCLUSIVELY a gay disease...MSM. Then it eventually spread to the heterosexual community, as a result of the voracious sexual appetite and lifestyle of the gays who were infected. So my point is, IF the gay lifestyle wasn't plagued by Hep B, AIDS would not have exploded in the U.S. as it did. And if the general public realized this truth about how AIDS started in the U.S., they might not be as friendly and let's say "accommodating" to this lifestyle. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75, you would have to go back and read all of what I have written to tumbleweed41. You see, what I was trying to get from him is that the AIDS epidemic started as a botched or failed experiment with the Hep B vaccine. I'm sure you are aware that Hep B is a disease plagued by those who come into contact with human feces/waste. This vaccine was cultured in chimpanzee products and allowed the HIV virus to be transmitted to a group of gay men in NYC and some African villagers in the late 70's. AIDS started in the U.S. as a result of these gay men being given this vaccine. You can research it, but AIDS started in the U.S. as EXCLUSIVELY a gay disease...MSM. Then it eventually spread to the heterosexual community, as a result of the voracious sexual appetite and lifestyle of the gays who were infected. So my point is, IF the gay lifestyle wasn't plagued by Hep B, AIDS would not have exploded in the U.S. as it did. And if the general public realized this truth about how AIDS started in the U.S., they might not be as friendly and let's say "accommodating" to this lifestyle. KB

But today's homosexuals are not responsible for the first case of AIDS.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle.

If what you said is true, it would only apply to homosexuals who got, and transimitted Hep B to other people.

Unsafe sex is unfortunate for homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Yes, homosexuals generally do have unsafe sex a good deal more than heterosexuals do, but the best solution for that would be for them to practice safe sex, which would be the same recommendation for heterosexuals.

If all disease on earth was eliminated, you would still object to homosexuality. In addition, AIDS if a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality that occured before AIDS developed.

Heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity are easily far more dangerous than homosexuality is, are far more expensive to treat, and are often preventable.

As serious as those problems are, they pale by comparison with the possible effects of global warming, which might one day destroy all human life by means of global cooling as a result of melting ice being cirulated in the world's oceans.

If you wish to claim that God's commands are always practical from a secular perspective, you are wrong since the majority of people know that sometimes, divorce is a good thing. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but many Christians who did not commit adultery get divorced, and, in their hypocrisy, criticize homosexuals.

 

[1robin]

Except the data doesn't say homosexuals are always more promiscuous. All it says is that a higher percentage of homosexuals are promiscuous than heterosexuals, but it's still less than half by quite a bit.

Until you can uncouple promiscuity and homosexuality you are arguing irrelevant degrees.

Besides, there's no inconvenience to be had. Like I said, I have no personal stake in this matter.

I will not say I know what it is but something is without doubt forcing you to challenge the conclusions of every statistic provided even from the site you said you trusted.

Yet where there's less ignorance, people do better. Where there's more "discipline", people do worse.

This must be a typeO. The greatest key to success in any attempt is adherence to truth. That is why the word disciple is rooted in discipline. A society of geniuses that have no discipline will destroy it's self very quickly.

And it has.

That is funny. Please see the above post and the poem in it. It describes the lunacy in that claim.

Actually, they're far lower than ever in regards to all of history.

You insisted on statistical integrity and now are making claims about all of history.

I don't have to worry about marauding bandits, invading hoards, or random maniacs just slicing or shooting everything up as much as I would have had to not a century ago. I don't have to worry about being extorted by corrupted officials as much as I would have used to. Gang violence is actually not much of a problem these days; heck, the local Hells Angels have participated in good community work, I've heard.

No you have instead to be worried about being killed in the womb before you draw a breath, being melted down or frozen out in a nuclear holocaust, being saturated with a weaponized virus that feeds on antibiotics, or having your lungs boil out of your chest after being covered in a mist of a chemical agent. Your claims concern technology more than moral advancement. There have been rough patches in history but within the last 50 years we have for the first time learned how kill us all off and at least twice we were on the very brink.

My advice: the worst place to learn about current situations is the news. Any news (except perhaps the BBC.)

I agree pretty much but have no idea why you said this.

Yet the standard of living is far higher than it's ever been. Therefore, we're actually doing quite well.

Are you suggesting the standard of living is a way to measure morality or a result of moral evolution?

Besides, it's where Christian politics is most prevalent where teen pregnancy is highest, and here on the coasts, which is far more secular and liberal in its education, where teen pregnancy is lowest.

Let me look into this. I have never heard anyone break the US down by religious regions. I have heard that the US is 80% Christians and very high in incarceration but they are not linked. We are 100% free and have a criminal philosophy skewed very much in the direction of letting many guilty go to save a few innocent people from being convicted and that is the actual reason.

Divorce is not a problem at all. Same sex parents do very well, in truth. Drugs have always been popular.

I did not mean pot. I meant riddilin. No child I ever knew took psycho meds while in school. Now a large percentage are doped up. Data shows very clearly same sex parents contribute to troubled children. Again the wrong direction. Please see that poem it is awesome. Wait a minute I tried to avoid a religious debate and got one anyway. Let's get back to homosexuality if that is possible. We can argue about God somewhere else if you wish.

 

[Agnostic75]

I will not say I know what it is but something is without doubt forcing you to challenge the conclusions of every statistic provided.......

Ok, generally, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals are. What solution to that problem would make you happy? Do monogamous homosexuals make you happy? No, because you have a religious bias against all homosexuality, even among homosexuals who are not promiscuous.

Unsafe sex is unfortunate for homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Yes, homosexuals generally do have unsafe sex a good deal more than heterosexuals do, but the best solution for that would be for them to practice safe sex, which would be the same recommendation for heterosexuals.

If all disease on earth was eliminated, you would still object to homosexuality. In addition, AIDS if a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality that occured before AIDS developed.

People should be judged as individuals, not as groups. Many homosexuals are healthy, and happy, and live past 65 years of age.

Heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity are easily far more dangerous than homosexuality is, are far more expensive to treat, and are often preventable.

As serious as those problems are, they pale by comparison with the possible effects of global warming, which might one day destroy all human life by means of global cooling as a result of melting ice being cirulated in the world's oceans.

If you wish to claim that God's commands are always practical from a secular perspective, you are wrong since the majority of people know that sometimes, divorce is a good thing. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but many Christians who did not commit adultery get divorced, and, in their hypocrisy, criticize homosexuals.

 

[Ken Brown]

Apparently you consider yourself to be gifted with special revelations from God that only a few people have.

But I clearly stated that I was not implying that humans should do everything that animals do, and that animals should do everything that humans do. I was making a case that if a God exists, he made homosexuality a part of nature, including among humans. Since humans are more intelligent than other animals are, they have been able to spread diseases more effectively than animals have.

It all gets down to which "particular" things are beneficial for animals to do, and for humans to do. Regarding homosexuals who are healthy, and happy, it is beneficial for them to practice safe sex. What other options would you recommend for them?

Hi Agnostic75, and my point would be that if G-d exists, He made animals that eat their young and kill their mates...that's all part of nature. So do we look at that nature and say it is good to follow those characteristics of nature (and some humans have). Just like some humans have followed animals in their sexual practices...it doesn't make it right or excusable. KB

 

[1robin]

It most certainly does if you call the behavior harmful, or unhealthy. It would be unacceptable to criticize people who smoke cigarettes unless you provided them with better options. Among most experts, it has already been widely agreed upon that homosexuals generally experience greater elevated levels of stress than heterosexuals do, so you are merely stating the obvious. The main debates among experts are about what causes homosexuality, and what should be done about it.

I do not have to provide a solution to indicate something is destructive. That is one bizarre claim. I do not have to give an alternative to smoking to prove smoking harmful. That makes no sense.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that in some cases, it is more harmful to homosexuals to try reparative therapy, or abstinence, than to continue engaging in same-sex behavior. Even some supporters of reparative therapy have admitted that it generally works best for religiously motivated people, and that it often does not work well even for religiously motivated people.

There is no argument what so ever that a bad habit must be indulged. Countless people have put down habits far more enslaving than homosexuality. This is one strange argument.

Homosexuals develop homosexual sexual identities through no efforts of their own.

I do not agree but will not comment further. The science is way to young.

If you wish, I will be happy to discuss your misrepresentations about gays in the military, and same-sex marriage in two new threads that I could start. Over 30 countries allow openly gay people to join the military. There is no way that you can provide documented evidence that all of those countries would be better off if they did not have that policy. The "social cohesion" that you mentioned quite obviously varies in different countries. Many Western countries are much more liberal than the U.S. is, and in many of those countries, homosexuality is not a big deal.

Other countries have no bearing on the issue even if you are correct. Cannibalism and ritual sacrifice worked well for some nations according to them. Unless you were in the military during this time frame you will not understand the arguments I would make. I have 6 threads going in this forum and 2 in another. I cannot deal with what I have, well. You may PM me but I can't adopt another thread and what I will say is not appropriate for the public.
Consider the following:

Do you really think that your own personal, anecdotal, undocumented evidence is superior to the extensive research that the military branches themselves have conducted?

I take it you have never served or you would understand this.

No newly proposed system ever promises not to have any problems. Rather, it is a process of considering the overall positive things to the overall negative things. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has approved of the new policy since the start. At least one past Chairman also approves. The Commandant of the Marine Corps initially opposed the new policy, but changed his mind when he found out that it has worked pretty well. So you are presuming that you know more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and all of the people who provided them with data, even though they have studied far more research than you personally experienced. Many current servicemen have given exactly the opposite reports that you gave.

I will give another example that illustrates the same thing. It has just been announced that women are now allowed in combat units including special ops. The nail in the coffin is that they will have lower standards to qualify. This will kill people and create resentment and a loss in moral in the field. Joint chiefs have political pressure and agendas they must obey. That does not help the dead guy in a fox hole. Commands and philosophies of staff officers have killed soldiers by the millions for thousands of years. In one battle in WW1 a single officer had a philosophy developed in a think tank that killed tens of thousands in one battle. You can't imagine the disconnect between the field and the brass at the top. I have been instructed many times to provide false data up the chain because that is what was desired.

The new policy has only been in effect since 2011. You were probably in the military prior to that, so you cannot accurately judge current opinions in the military. Now that there is evidence that the policy has worked pretty well, some people who were initially opposed to it have changed their minds, including the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

That is true but I have worked in the defense industry since then. I can leave my lab and pass a hundred combat vets before I get out of the building.

It is important to note that when you were in the military, openly homosexual people were not allowed to join the military. Now that they are, there is bound to be more acceptance of the new policy. The approval of the President of the U.S. has great influence, and the majority of Americans favor the new policy.

To properly illustrate why I say what I do will take a lot longer than the time I have. You are the third person in this single thread I have to respond to. Something must give and since this was the latest it will have to be it. If you PM me I will try and respond as I have time. This is a complex issue and requires much effort to examine. I can provide a great many studies that do not agree with yours. This is the kind of thing I witnessed time and time again:

In the deadly game of war it’s dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security. In combat, even the slightest disruption or distraction can spell the difference between victory and defeat – life and death. The left fails to understand this grave reality.
The boots on the ground do not. In a March 31 letter addressed to President Obama and members of Congress, over 1,100 of the military’s highest ranking and most distinguished commanders warned that they were “greatly concerned” by movement toward military homosexualization. They expressed fear that a DADT repeal would “eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”
It seems their fears are justified. A 2009 Military Times poll determined that nearly one in 10 of those currently serving would not re-enlist if the policy were repealed. In today’s highly perilous global political climate, such a plummet in service could be devastating to national security.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/102177/#OU7ZR2KDovEeUlE0.99
http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Gays_in_the_military_undermine_unit_cohesion_and_morale

 

[Agnostic75]

Wait a minute I tried to avoid a religious debate and got one anyway. Let's get back to homosexuality if that is possible. We can argue about God somewhere else if you wish.

Well, you previously said:

My primary objection is religious and the truth of that is indicated by science.

There is nothing in science which offers alternatives for homosexuals that usually work well. When you get a deck of cards dealt to you, you have no choice but to play them as well as you can. Sexual identity is not a choice. If sexual actions are a choice, homosexuals basically have three opinions, they can 1) continue to engage in same-sex behavior, 2) try reparative therapy, or 3) try abstinence. Research has shown that items 2, and 3, do not work well for many homosexuals.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just like some humans have followed animals in their sexual practices...it doesn't make it right or excusable. KB

But since God made human homosexuals, it can't be wrong. It's perfectly right and natural.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75, and my point would be that if God exists, He made animals that eat their young and kill their mates...that's all part of nature. So do we look at that nature and say it is good to follow those characteristics of nature (and some humans have). Just like some humans have followed animals in their sexual practices...it doesn't make it right or excusable.

I already dealt with that in my post #429. I said:

"I was not implying that humans should do everything that animals do, and that animals should do everything that humans do. I was making a case that if a God exists, he made homosexuality a part of nature, including among humans. Since humans are more intelligent than other animals are, they have been able to spread diseases more effectively than animals have.

"It all gets down to which "particular" things are beneficial for animals to do, and for humans to do. Regarding homosexuals who are healthy, and happy, it is beneficial for them to practice safe sex. What other options would you recommend for them?"

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Riverwolf, Hep B has nothing to do with a monogamous life, and it plagues MSM. Aids started as a result of trying to administer a Hep B vaccine to a group of gay men from NY, and it spread to the rest of the United States through their voracious appetite for sex. Now we have AIDS spread throughout the heterosexual community because Hep B was an active result of their destructive lifestyle.

If what you said is true, it would only apply to homosexuals who got, and transimitted Hep B to other people.


Unsafe sex is unfortunate for homosexuals, or heterosexuals. Yes, homosexuals generally do have unsafe sex a good deal more than heterosexuals do, but the best solution for that would be for them to practice safe sex, which would be the same recommendation for heterosexuals.


If all disease on earth was eliminated, you would still object to homosexuality. In addition, AIDS if a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality that occured before AIDS developed.


Heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity are easily far more dangerous than homosexuality is, are far more expensive to treat, and are often preventable.

As serious as those problems are, they pale by comparison with the possible effects of global warming, which might one day destroy all human life by means of global cooling as a result of melting ice being cirulated in the world's oceans.

If you wish to claim that God's commands are always practical from a secular perspective, you are wrong since the majority of people know that sometimes, divorce is a good thing. Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but many Christians who did not commit adultery get divorced, and, in their hypocrisy, criticize homosexuals.