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

[Ken Brown]

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.

Hi Agnostic75, ahh, global warming, yes, something that is definitely going to occur, maybe not in the way most think though. And I don't think you followed correctly about the Hep B reasoning...if it wasn't for the inappropriate activity of MSM, the Hep B vaccine would not have been administered to those NYC gay men, and the explosion of AIDS in the U.S. would have been drastically reduced.

And concerning homosexuality and divorce without a just cause (adultery). I don't see much difference. They are both sins and need to be repented from and overcame. You might ask, how do you overcome divorce? Through repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But if you truly are loving your spouse as you should, it should ever even come to the point of divorce. So the point could be that maybe someone is not a true Christian if they get to the point of divorce without a just cause. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But you have not provided any scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It is quite obvious that in many cases, same-sex behavior is not harmful, and is beneficial. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not alcoholics, and are not pedophiles.

There are many cases where reparative therapy, and abstinence, have harmed homosexuals, so you are not making any sense at all.

There is no argument whatsoever that a bad habit must be indulged. Countless people have put down habits far more enslaving than homosexuality.

No one has said that homosexuality must be indulged.

You made a big, and illogical mistake. Every man is an individual. What some people can endure successfully, many other people cannot. The desire to have sex is very strong in the majority of humans. For various reasons, some people, both heterosexuals, and homosexuals, have been able to successfully practice abstinence for life.

Even some proponents of reparative therapy have admitted that it usually works well for religiously motivated people, and that it frequently is not successful even for religiously motivated people.

I assume that among all cases of successful reparative therapy, and abstinence for life for both homosexuals, and heterosexuals, over 90% of those people were religiously motivated. So much for your science arguments.

It is well-known among experts that some homosexuals who tried reparative therapy ended up much worse off than they were before.

You do not seem to know that many homosexuals are healthy, and happy.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown: Do you have any secular reasons why homosexuals should not engage in same-sex behavior?

 

[Ken Brown]

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?"

Hi Agnostic75, to stop sinning. That's my recommendation. What's yours? Let me ask you a question. What would you tell a person that habitually lies in everything they say? I remember a laborer who used to work around us carpenters and almost everything that came out of his mouth was a lie. He couldn't help himself and his brother would let is know about his lying. Most would just let him go on lying and telling his stories because he was happy and not hurting anyone, but what would you say to him? Would you tell him it is OK to keep lying? As long as he is safe about lying and not hurting or harming anyone, would you say it's alright? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Message to Ken Brown: Do you have any secular reasons why homosexuals should not engage in same-sex behavior?

Hi Agnostic75, why would I need any? KB

 

[Koldo]

No I am not and what I said is accurate.
By definition what you said is inaccurate.

By definition? What do you mean?

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.

Just like there are theists out there who are emotion and preference driven, who think think that everyone should believe in their god(s), and that try to spread their beliefs through any means necessary.

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.

But if there are problems related to christianity then there is reason to attack it.

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.

Actually, those kinds of books were not made for debate. A debate would require multiple persons exposing their opposing views.

What is so negative about these books, in your opinion?

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.

What is this 'traditional morality'?
Would you include slavery as permissible in this 'traditional morality'?

Why is not Dawkins after the Muslims first if he is on a humanitarian mission? There are virtually no Christian terrorists in comparison.

Probably because christiniaty is far more relevant in the country he lives in.

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.

Before determining whether we are headed towards the direction we should go, we have to first and foremost determine what is the direction we should go. I think the ideal direction would be the one that leads us to the utmost well-being in this world. Considering humans beings are highly individualistic and/or tribalistic beings, i wonder if it would be possible to choose any better direction than the current one.

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.

You made quite an assumption in that sentence. Why would God be the only justification for human worth? Or better yet, how does God serve as a justification for human worth?

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.

Why do you say that?

Don't you even try to understand why the person is mad in the first place?
Perhaps that would be quite enlightening.

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).

So you were talking about Pascal's wager?
Why do you dismiss the possibility of another god out there that might send you to eternal suffering if you believe in any gods ( including the christian God ) but him?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

And that is your counter to the fact that over 30 countries have allowed openly gay people to join the military for many years, including Israel for 20 years? You will never get very far with an argument like that. Most of those countries are predominantly Christian. You just do not want to admit that allowing openly gay people to join the military has worked very well in many countries. Religion has a lot to do with it since many polls have shown that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious people. Most, or all of those countries have higher percentages of liberal Christians than the U.S. does.

Unless you were in the military during this time frame you will not understand the arguments I would make.

But the new policy has only been in effect since September, 2011. The research that was done prior to the new policy addressed “current” attitudes at that time. During the past 10 years, acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. has increased dramatically. By September, 2011, acceptance of homosexuality would have been much more than it was in say 2006, which was five years earlier.

The research that was done prior to the new policy covered far more data, and from all four services, than your own personal experiences could provide.

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

I was in the Army, and served in the Vietnam War.

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.

If that is true, I assume that the primary reason is misplaced religious bigotry towards homosexuals, not because homosexual servicemen are not able to do their jobs well.

What the letter did not tell was the large amount of religious bigotry by the vast majority of people who signed it. There is most certainly no reliable evidence that homosexual servicemen are not able to perform their jobs well.

It would be wrong for homosexuals to be held hostage by religious bigotry.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/06/102177/#OU7ZR2KDovEeUlE0.99, and at

[URL]http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Gays_in_the_military_undermine_unit_cohesion_and_morale[/URL]

I beg your pardon? Both articles were written before the new policy began, and thus cannot be successfully be used as evidence about how the new policy has worked.

 

[1robin]

But you have not provided any scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It is quite obvious that in many cases, same-sex behavior is not harmful, and is beneficial. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not alcoholics, and are not pedophiles.

Yes I did, I provided three studies one by the CDC. Is claiming that not every murder is punished an argument for murder? I do not get your reasoning.

There are many cases where reparative therapy, and abstinence, has harmed homosexuals, so you are not making any sense at all.

How in the heck can abstinence harm anything? Maybe there is a flaw with the therapy. There are quite a few homosexuals who claim God freed them completely from the desire.

No one has said that homosexuality must be indulged.

What else do all these strange arguments suggest?

You made a big, and illogical mistake. Every man is an individual. What some people can endure successfully, many other people cannot. The desire to have sex is very strong in the majority of humans. For various reasons, some people, both heterosexuals, and homosexuals, have been able to successfully practice abstinence for life.

That is incorrect no one will explode if they are denied sexual fulfillment. That is a known fact in penitentiaries around the world for thousands of years. What will happen if sexual desire can't be gratified? No one’s head will fall off will it?

Even some proponents of reparative therapy have admitted that it usually works well for religiously motivated people, and that it frequently is not successful even for religiously motivated people.

That is an argument (though a confusing one) about the therapy, not the practice.

I assume that among all cases of successful reparative therapy, and abstinence for life for both homosexuals, and heterosexuals, over 90% of those people were religiously motivated. So much for your science arguments.

I have not made a single argument about therapy nor recovery. However your arguments prove my point exactly. Modern secular pseudo psychology is garbage. However as you state religion does work many many times. You make the most unusual arguments I have ever heard.

It is well-known among experts that some homosexuals who tried reparative therapy ended up much worse off than they were before.

Again that is an indictment of the therapy even if true. A large percentage of criminals become repeat offenders. Is that an argument for declaring what they do a necessary allowance that must be granted? I truly no not get your reasoning at all.

You do not seem to know that many homosexuals are healthy, and happy.

Again not an argument. Many killers are happy, many child molesters are happy, many thieves are ecstatic by your reasoning then they are all legitimate practices that must be allowed. The exact same chaotic moral reasoning in your posts was profoundly illustrated in the poem I referenced. Did you read it? WOW




[/quote]

 

[Ken Brown]

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

Hi AmbiguousGuy, didn't G-d make us ALL sinners? Then if we use your reasoning, it can't be wrong to be a murderer, liar, rapist, pedophile, or anything else that is naturally followed by our flesh. All flesh was consigned to sin, so by your standards, all sinners are perfectly right and natural in following after their sin. See I don't buy that. I believe that even though G-d created us all with natural tendencies to sin, He wants us ALL to overcome and change from how we were created. It's all about Him teaching us how NOT TO BE, so that we can learn how to exist and live forever. If everyone was homosexual, and followed that practice, it would lead to the destruction and demise of mankind. Nature tells us that for a species to exist, there has to be male to female sex (this is the natural or normal process, and you can always find abnormalities). So why can't everyone listen to the natural, or the normal side of nature? KB

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Hi Peacemaker, really? KB

Yes. There are also "apologetics" which claim that David and Jonathon were lovers in an attempt to provide biblical "evidence" for the support of this behavior.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I request refraining from comparing homosexuals to criminals. We occasionally have the same problem with members here and there comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, which is considered trolling and bullying.

If one is to characterize homosexuals, what meets the standard here at RF is to provide arguments that does not misrepresent the entire community or to attack them as people. Sources and ideas are open to being attacked, but not people - and that includes both religious communities as well as homosexuals.

Otherwise, this debate degrades into character assassinations, which isn't productive at all and out of bounds on these forums.

 

[Agnostic75]

There are quite a few homosexuals who claim God freed them completely from the desire.

'

And there is plenty of evidence where reparative therapy failed even for religiously motivated homosexuals, and is much less effective for homosexuals who are not religious.

Some proponents of reparative therapy have admitted that it only works well about 30% of the time.

That is incorrect no one will explode if they are denied sexual fulfillment. That is a known fact in penitentiaries around the world for thousands of years. What will happen if sexual desire can't be gratified? No one’s head will fall off will it?

That is simply absurd. You are proposing abstinence "for life," not for a limited time. There is no science that says that the vast majority of people would be able to function well by practicing abstinence for life. Not only that, but abstinence is usually easier for religious people. What about not-religous people?

What married, healthy, sexually functional heterosexual couple would ever consider practicing abstinence for life? Almost none. Why? Quite obviously, because the vast majority of humans find sex to be very pleasing, and an important part of life.

That is an argument (though a confusing one) about the therapy, not the practice.

I have not made a single argument about therapy nor recovery. However your arguments prove my point exactly. Modern secular pseudo psychology is garbage. However as you state religion does work many many times. You make the most unusual arguments I have ever heard.

No, it is you who are the very strange bird, not me. You miss the obvious. If the God of the Bible does not exist, and a Christian homosexual believes that he exists, and that he opposes homosexuality, and will help him overcome his homosexuality, it is quite obvious that it will generally be much easier for him to overcome homosexuality than it would be for non-religious homosexuals.

Again that is an indictment of the therapy even if true.

Ok, then let's dismiss reparative therapy as a viable option for homosexuals.

A large percentage of criminals become repeat offenders. Is that an argument for declaring what they do a necessary allowance that must be granted? I truly no not get your reasoning at all.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about, and what is has to do with homosexuals.

Again not an argument. Many killers are happy, many child molesters are happy, many thieves are ecstatic by your reasoning then they are all legitimate practices that must be allowed.

That does not make any sense at all. Homosexuality is legal. Murder is illegal. Child molestation is illegal. Theft is illegal.

I have never said, or implied, that any practice is legitimate as long as it makes a person happy. What I did say is that many homosexuals are healthy and happy. Do you have any scientific evidence to the contrary?

You certainly cannot provide reasonable evidence that the vast majority of homosexuals would be healthier, and happier if they tried reparative therapy, or abstinence for life.

All that you really have are religious arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

But you have not provided any scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful. It is quite obvious that in many cases, same-sex behavior is not harmful, and is beneficial. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not alcoholics, and are not pedophiles.

Yes I did, I provided three studies one by the CDC.

What studies were those?

Is claiming that not every murder is punished an argument for murder? I do not get your reasoning.

Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. The intent of murder is usually to do harm. The intent of same-sex behavior is usually to have pleasure.

The vast majority of experts would agree with me that the majority of homosexuals who engage in safe same-sex behavior would be better off continuing to engage in same-sex behavior than trying reparative therapy, or abstinence for life. You can bet that the CDC does not recommend reparative therapy, or abstinence, as reliable cures for homosexuality. An article by the CDC at http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/stigma-and-discrimination.htm speaks out against people like you.

All of your secular arguments are miserable failures, and lack support from the majority of experts.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75, to stop sinning. That's my recommendation

But homosexuality is not sinful.

What's yours?

To do that which is kind, and loving.

Let me ask you a question. What would you tell a person that habitually lies in everything they say? I remember a laborer who used to work around us carpenters and almost everything that came out of his mouth was a lie. He couldn't help himself and his brother would let us know about his lying. Most would just let him go on lying and telling his stories because he was happy and not hurting anyone, but what would you say to him? Would you tell him it is OK to keep lying? As long as he is safe about lying and not hurting or harming anyone, would you say it's alright?

During the Second World War, some Germans hid Jews in their houses in order to prevent them from being killed, and told lies that they were not harboring Jews in their houses. Was that wrong?

I think you get the message, which is that some lies are helpful, and some lies are harmful. I do not have any idea what your question has to do with homosexuality.

You are a nice person. I compliment you on your good manners.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

And that is your counter to the fact that over 30 countries have successfully allowed openly gay people to join the military for many years, including Israel for 20 years? You will never get very far with an argument like that. Most of those countries are predominantly Christian. You just do not want to admit that allowing openly gay people to join the military has worked very well in many countries. Religion has a lot to do with it since many polls have shown that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious people. Most, or all of those countries have higher percentages of liberal Christians than the U.S. does.

Unless you were in the military during this time frame you will not understand the arguments I would make.

But the new policy has only been in effect since September, 2011. The research that was done prior to the new policy addressed “current” attitudes at that time. During the past 10 years, acceptance of homosexuality in the U.S. has increased dramatically. By September, 2011, acceptance of homosexuality would have been much more than it was in say 2006, which was five years earlier.

The research that was done prior to the new policy covered far more data, and from all four services, than your own personal experiences could provide.

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

I was in the Army, and served in the Vietnam War.

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.

If that is true, I assume that the primary reason is misplaced religious bigotry towards homosexuals, not because homosexual servicemen are not able to do their jobs well.

What the letter did not tell was the large amount of religious bigotry by the vast majority of people who signed it. There is most certainly no reliable evidence that homosexual servicemen are not able to perform their jobs well.

It would be wrong for homosexuals to be held hostage by religious bigotry.

Read more at

‘Gays’ in the military: Bad idea then, bad idea now, and at
[URL]http://dbp.idebate.org/en/index.php/Argument:_Gays_in_the_military_undermine_unit_cohesion_and_morale[/URL]

I beg your pardon? Both articles were written before the new policy began, and thus cannot be successfully be used as evidence about how the new policy has worked.

 

[1robin]

By definition? What do you mean?

This thread is going so fast I went back 4 pages and did not see my original statement and have forgotten. Sorry.

Just like there are theists out there who are emotion and preference driven, who think that everyone should believe in their god(s), and that try to spread their beliefs through any means necessary.

In that case I would resist his right to evangelize. This attitude described here is by far the minority within my Christian experience. However hostility in atheist debate circles is quite prolific. When you said evangelism I took it to mean classic unimpassioned preaching or teaching (which is the norm) outside a church. If it will end this contention I reject any efforts based in emotion in the majority and only would allow well-reasoned and civil discourse for either side acceptable. Good enough?

But if there are problems related to Christianity then there is reason to attack it.

There are problems with everything however I welcome any contention rooted in fact or evidence and devoid of meritless emotion driven contention.

Actually, those kinds of books were not made for debate. A debate would require multiple persons exposing their opposing views.

They exist on shelves with exactly that.

What is so negative about these books, in your opinion?

They are not fact driven, they are agenda driven that use some facts and a lot of conjecture to justify the conclusion which was held before that facts were known. They contain terrible reasoning. As I have stated Dawkins said that the claim that God created the universe was invalid until his existence was explained. That is a philosophical 101 error. However he has credibility in another area that is smuggled into this new arena and poor gullible people are swayed by this potentially to their ultimate ruin. I only personally insist that competence and emotionally driven conclusions have a net negative effect on the issues.

What is this 'traditional morality'?

Christian derived, for the US and most of Europe. I tell you what if we can adopt any moral system that would reproduce the civility, clarity, and fortitude of the 1950's in the US with the exception of racism I will take it no matter where it came from. Modern moral views are ripping this country apart. It is often claimed that western civilization has three pillars Jerusalem (morality), Athens (democracy), and Rome (administration). There is much truth in that.

Would you include slavery as permissible in this 'traditional morality'?

Nope and if the Bible was followed it would have never existed. Christians who did not follow the bible allowed it to exist. Christians who did help bring it down. I never claimed traditional morality was perfect. Anything with people in it will be flawed. I would say but it would be hard to prove there is more suffering today (morally related) than there was even with slavery. However do not for one second misconstrue that as an argument for slavery.

Probably because Christianity is far more relevant in the country he lives in.

It is not Christians that are crashing planes into buildings and plotting attack after attack on England or the US. IOW Islam causes more acute suffering in these countries even though it is not as prominent. When we all live in a caliphate and will be put on trial for practicing a non-Islamic faith remind me to thank you and him.

Before determining whether we are headed towards the direction we should go, we have to first and foremost determine what is the direction we should go. I think the ideal direction would be the one that leads us to the utmost well-being in this world. Considering humans beings are highly individualistic and/or tribalistic beings, I wonder if it would be possible to choose any better direction than the current one.

If this is the best you can expect, you can keep it. You are telling me you can't even think of anything that can be prohibited that would improve things.

You made quite an assumption in that sentence. Why would God be the only justification for human worth? Or better yet, how does God serve as a justification for human worth?

Worth and value are objective values if they are true in any meaningful sense. If aliens showed up and declared we are now their food source you could resist but you could not prove resistance was right without worth that you can't justify. When 300,000 white men in the North were asked to go and die to set another group of people free without God how could they have ever justified the action. That is why in trying circumstances absolute right and wrong are always dusted off from being where ever the relativists have hid them. As I and someone here said when Jefferson (no Christian of any kind) was asked to justify rights he knew very well it had to be our maker.

Why do you say that?

Actually that is more or less a personal observation. I am quite sure it is true as I have hardly ever seen an exception but it is not something I know can be proven. The fact that hostility has the opposite effect from what a sincere debater would desire is one indicator. The fact that hostility is universally associated with irrationality is another. Muhammad Ali was asked why he irritated Frazier so much. He said when he got him mad he lost all his sense.

Don't you even try to understand why the person is mad in the first place?
Perhaps that would be quite enlightening.

I pay a lot of attention to vocabulary choice and body language. I also believe the dynamics associated with spiritual issues given in the Bible. I am sure I am wrong occasionally but I have gotten pretty good at understanding motives quickly.

So you were talking about Pascal's wager?

I do not like Pascal’s wager in the context it is given in. I use a much different version of it.

Why do you dismiss the possibility of another god out there that might send you to eternal suffering if you believe in any gods ( including the Christian God ) but him?

When a Christian discusses something with an atheist, what the common ground is sometimes is hard to keep in mind. Since you ask me personally I will answer it personally but in a debate I would answer differently. I believe these facts as strongly as possible. I followed the Biblical road map to a point where doing exactly what it required I experienced God in a profound and unmistakable manner. For about a thousand reasons that settled issues of other God's with me. I will illustrate it a little differently. When Christ was resurrected it was a validation of his teachings. Jesus claimed x, y and z. Others said x, y, and z were wrong. God solved the dilemma by resurrecting Jesus but not them nor anyone else. I would also add in there are countless ways that are academic to believe in one God as well. Occam’s razor demands we do not multiply entities beyond necessity, the description of God in the Bible would make any other deity either subordinate or redundant, the absence of comparable evidence of any other deity etc...It would take me a hundred forums to illustrate all the reason I believe any certain thing. I hope this was enough.

 

[1robin]

And there is plenty of evidence where reparative therapy failed even for religiously motivated homosexuals, and is much less effective for homosexuals who are not religious.

It is really hard to understand what point you are making. This is once again an argument about a particular solution and has no connection to whether something is wrong or not. You indicate yet again that God makes the difference in most case. The same God said the act was wrong. I am sure that faith fails many times but that does not suggest God did a single time. Why are we debating treatment methods at all? Is the moral nature of meth determined by the effectiveness of drug therapy?

Some proponents of reparative therapy have admitted that it only works well about 30% of the time.

Then improve the method. What was this supposed to mean? Unless an act is 100% curable it must be allowed to be practiced and declared morally right.

That is simply absurd. You are proposing abstinence "for life," not for a limited time. There is no science that says that the vast majority of people would be able to function well by practicing abstinence for life. Not only that, but abstinence is usually easier for religious people. What about not-religious people?

I did not propose any treatment. I said what is possible and has occurred millions of times. I am no psychologist nor if I was one would I have an answer. I do not have to. Murder is wrong even if everyone did it and it was incurable etc....

What married, healthy, sexually functional heterosexual couple would ever consider practicing abstinence for life?

Actually many have but that is not the point. There is no reason they should and even less reason the issue is relevant. You have brought up every point under the sun except a single reason to conclude homosexuality is morally ok. Almost none.

Why? Quite obviously, because the vast majority of humans find sex to be very pleasing, and an important part of life.

We also find morphine very pleasing. Shall we all be allowed to plant poppy gardens? I have nothing against you but you are running in circles. If you can't actually even make an argument that indicates the practice is morally sound I can't justify these peripheral issues.

No, it is you who are the very strange bird, not me. You miss the obvious. If the God of the Bible does not exist, and a Christian homosexual believes that he exists, and that he opposes homosexuality, and will help him overcome his homosexuality, it is quite obvious that it will generally be much easier for him to overcome homosexuality than it would be for non-religious homosexuals.

All my original arguments had nothing to do with God. They were strictly medical and social based. That of course could not be allowed to indicate that someone must practice self-control so an incidental motivation and a revisionist view of facts were searched for which it was mistakenly thought to solve anything. There is no argument that can make homosexuality a socially net positive on society God or no God. The irrational denial of God will not help you. I am well aware that relativists have attempted to remove the entire issue of accountability and have exhausted the entire range of intellectual gymnastics in the attempt, Nature will not allow it. Nature recoils at the practice.

Ok, then let's dismiss reparative therapy as a viable option for homosexuals.

No, it has nothing to do with me. I never even heard of it before and made no unsolicited claim about it.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about, and what is has to do with homosexuals.

You made some strange argument that if the practice of homosexuality cannot be completely cured it must be right or allowed. I illustrated why that was ridiculous.

That does not make any sense at all. Homosexuality is legal. Murder is illegal. Child molestation is illegal. Theft is illegal.

The legality of something has no ability to make it wrong or right. If you will research the Latin concepts of:
MALUM IN SE. Evil in itself.
2. An offence malum in se is one which is naturally evil, as murder, theft, and the like; offences at common law are generally mala in sese.
3. An offence malum prohibitum, on the contrary, is not naturally an evil, but becomes so in consequence of its being forbidden; as playing at games, which being innocent before, have become unlawful in consequence of being forbidden. Vide Bac. Ab. Assumpsit, A, note; 2 Rolle's Ab. 355.
Homosexuality greatly increases human suffering without justification. That is wrong. I do not care if it is legal. I have never even claimed anything about the legality of anything.

I have never said, or implied, that any practice is legitimate as long as it makes a person happy. What I did say is that many homosexuals are healthy and happy. Do you have any scientific evidence to the contrary?

Do I need any? Can you explain why this has any application or relevance to anything? I have never seen this type or argumentation in my life.

You certainly cannot provide reasonable evidence that the vast majority of homosexuals would be healthier, and happier if they tried reparative therapy, or abstinence for life.

Probably because I have never claimed anything like that. If you claimed cows existed would you think an argument that you can't provide pictures of dinosaurs an effective rebuttal.

All that you really have are religious arguments.

That plus reality in the form of insurance statistical data, CDC data, and professional poll data etc... is way more than needed. This is nuts. Unless you can pick up the relevance of your arguments I just can't do this much longer.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi AmbiguousGuy, didn't G-d make us ALL sinners?

No, He didn't. In my opinion that's a contorted and unhealthy theology.

Then if we use your reasoning, it can't be wrong to be a murderer, liar, rapist, pedophile, or anything else that is naturally followed by our flesh.

No, those are all behaviors which harm others unnecessarily. But homosexuality harms no one, so it is perfectly moral and right.

Anyway, those are just words. Killing other humans isn't always wrong. But the word 'murder' means 'wrongfully killing.' So you argue that it's wrong to kill wrongfully, which in my view is a confusion of thought.

All flesh was consigned to sin, so by your standards, all sinners are perfectly right and natural in following after their sin. See I don't buy that.

Except homosexuality isn't a sin. You seem confused about that.

I believe that even though G-d created us all with natural tendencies to sin, He wants us ALL to overcome and change from how we were created.

I agree. I think God wants everyone to overcome the natural bigotry toward those who differ from themselves. It causes terrible harm and is very sinful.

It's all about Him teaching us how NOT TO BE, so that we can learn how to exist and live forever.

I don't share your theology. As I say, it seems very confused.

If everyone was homosexual, and followed that practice, it would lead to the destruction and demise of mankind.

Sure. And if everyone were an English major, all of man's machines would fall into disrepair and society would collapse. Thank goodness everyone is not an English major or a homosexual!

Nature tells us that for a species to exist, there has to be male to female sex (this is the natural or normal process, and you can always find abnormalities). So why can't everyone listen to the natural, or the normal side of nature? KB

Nature tells us that 100 is the natural and normal IQ score. But some people have abnormal IQ scores. I wonder why everyone can't listen to the natural or normal side of nature?

Just kidding. I don't actually wonder that at all. I love the diversity of nature.

 

[Agnostic75]

I did not propose any treatment.

Does that imply that from a secular perspective you do not find fault with homosexuals for practicing homosexuality?

Do you have any good secular reasons why homosexuals should not practice homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

That plus reality in the form of insurance statistical data, CDC data, and professional poll data etc... is way more than needed.

Way more than is needed to prove what? What are you trying to prove. You said that homosexuality is harmful. How often? In what ways? What about the many homosexuals who are healthy as defined by any commonly accepted definition of healthy? Please give your definition of the word "healthy."

Research has proven that in some cases, it has been harmful for homosexuals to try reparative therapy since they ended up much worse off than there were before. Logically, no one should seek therapy that is harmful to them. Trying abstinence is also harmful for some people.

So, your claim that homosexuality is harmful would have been much better stated as follows:

"Homosexuality is only harmful in cases where reparative therapy, or abstinence, were not tried, but would have been successful if they had been tried."

What three studies were you referring to?

Most experts already agree that generally, homosexuals have more elevated levels of stress than heterosexuals do, so you are just stating the obvious. Beyond stating the obvious, what else do you have to offer that is useful?