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

[1robin]

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.

I agree with the sentaments but when moral issues are discussed it is about the only comparison available. However I will comply even if it means I can not reply.

 

[Agnostic75]

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of all new HIV infections, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 3% of new infections. That same year, young MSM accounted for 69% of new HIV infections among persons aged 13–29 and 44% of infections among all MSM. At the end of 2009, an estimated 441,669 (56%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the US were MSM or MSM-IDU.

That does not show that homosexuality is harmful, only that unsafe sex is harmful. The proof is that the majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, and that many homosexuals are monogamous, and are very unlikely to get AIDS if they do not already have it.

Obviously, unsafe sex is also harmful for heterosexuals.

What you said is not nearly as significant as the harmful effects of heart disease, smoking cigarettes, and being obese. Many cases of those things are preventable. There is not any reasonable evidence that a homosexual sexual identity is preventable.

 

[dgirl1986]

]Homosexuality greatly increases human suffering without justification.

Say what now?

 

[1robin]

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

No it stems from the fact that I am not qualified and do not want the responsability. I would suggest that any who have faith go that route but I am not called to execute any individual judgement or restoration not asked for. I find no more fault with their practice than my individual sins besides the fact it results in greater damage even to people who do not commit them. I try and judge issues not people.

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

I have said several times that the data indicates inescapably that the practice results in a net negative effect in many ways and to a large degree without any possible justification for the practice inspite of its effects. I think you asked which studies. Just back up a ways and you will find two in one post and one in a following one. They are not hard to find. It took me five minutes. I think I will bail on the thread since it was indicated that it may be approaching an offensive character.

 

[dgirl1986]

Hi Agnostic75, why would I need any? KB

I think it is important to consider reasons outside of faith/spirituality/religion.

 

[1robin]

Say what now?

I have indicated I am bailing on this thread but I will answer you. This issue has been suffeciently covered earlier. This thread is moving fast but if you back up a ways you will find my sources and comments about their accuracy and reasoning. There is no doubt the practice increases health related suffering and other aspects related to it. The data is easy to find. The CDC was one of my sources if you wish to look.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

My position is that since there are not any viable options for homosexuals that usually work well, they are not at fault for engaging in same-sex behavior. Sexual identity is not a choice. If sexual actions are a choice, each individual homosexual should make the best choice that is available to him as an individual. Different people respond differently to different therapies, and to abstinence. Some homosexuals get very poor results with reparative therapy, or abstinence, and end up worse off than they were before. For them, it is harmful to try those things. It is not logical to do harmful things.

 

[1robin]

My position is that since there are not any viable options for homosexuals that usually work well, they are not at fault for engaging in same-sex behavior. Sexual identity is not a choice. If sexual actions are a choice, each individual homosexual should make the best choice that is available to him as an individual. Different people respond differently to different therapies, and to abstinence. Some homosexuals get very poor results with reparative therapy, or abstinence, and end up worse off than they were before. For them, it is harmful to try those things. It is not logical to do harmful things.

I disagree with everything above but have appreciated the debate some what and will leave you with it. Have a good one.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have said several times that the data indicates inescapably that the practice results in a net negative effect in many ways and to a large degree without any possible justification for the practice in spite of its effects.

Homosexuals have mostly three choices, 1) to keep engaging in same-sex behavior, 2) to try reparative therapy, or 3) to try abstinence. It is well-known that in many cases, homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, or abstinence, ended up much worse off than they were before. Regarding those homosexuals, quite obviously, the justification for continuing to engage in same-sex behavior is that it is less harmful than reparative therapy, or abstinence.

Many homosexuals are healthy according to any widely accepted definition of healthy that you wish to use. Most people know at least one apparently healthy homosexual. In the recent London olympics, known gay athletes won seven medals, including four gold medals. Many homosexuals have doctorate degrees, and make a lot more money than many homosexuals do. There is no data from a leading medical institution that makes the claim that homosexuality is harmful. Those are your words, which are a misinterpreation of the evidence.

If you encountered a room full of 100 alcoholics, who you did not know anything about, you would not be able to know which ones were homosexuals unless they were effeminate, and even then, some heterosexuals are effeminate. In addition, if you found out which alcoholics were homosexuals, you would not be able to reasonably prove that their alcoholism was due to their sexual preferences. Thus, your claim that homosexuality is harmful is patently absurd.

Please provide your definition of the word "healthy."

No data that you can provide can reasonably prove that say 60% of homosexuals are not able to perform important daily tasks of living.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Attempts to argue against homosexuality from logic or reason, display both a disrespect for, as well as a lack of understanding of, logic and reason. Just as attempts to argue against it from morality also display a disrespect for, as well as a lack of understanding of, morality.

Of course, those who persist in such flawed and misguided arguments display a lack of concern for either respect or understanding, so are perpetually doomed to repeat their faulty arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

I disagree with everything above but have appreciated the debate somewhat and will leave you with it. Have a good one.

That is fine since every major medical association, including the CDC, disagrees with your false claim that homosexuality is harmful. If homosexuality was harmful, the majority of homosexuals would be alcoholics, or drug abusers, or pedophiles, or have HIV, or AIDS, but they don't.

Your arguments about gay servicemen were false, and illogical, and failed to realize that over 30 countries have successfully allowed openly gay servicemen in their militaries for many years, including 20 years in Israel. How could you know more than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps? Most of all, how do you know more than the many heterosexual servicemen who are happy with the new policy?

In the deadly game of war, it’s dangerously irresponsible to place extreme social ideology above national security.

On the contrary, it is irresponsible to place extreme religious ideology above national security, and to hold gay servicemen hostage to religious bigotry. You have missed the obvious, which is that servicemen who are not religious tend to accept homosexuals much more than servicemen who are religious. That accounts for why other countries who have more liberal Christians than the U.S. does allowed openly gay people to join their militaries years before the U.S. did. Many polls show that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I agree with the sentaments but when moral issues are discussed it is about the only comparison available. However I will comply even if it means I can not reply.

Thanks, 1robin.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have said several times that the data indicates inescapably that the practice results in a net negative effect in many ways and to a large degree without any possible justification for the practice in spite of its effects.

You have failed to understand simple logic. Homosexuals have mostly three choices, 1) to keep engaging in same-sex behavior, 2) to try reparative therapy, or 3) to try abstinence. It is well-known that in many cases, homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, or abstinence, ended up much worse off than they were before. Regarding those homosexuals, quite obviously, the justification for continuing to engage in same-sex behavior is that it is less harmful than reparative therapy, or abstinence.


Many homosexuals are healthy according to any widely accepted definition of healthy that you wish to use. Most people know at least one apparently healthy homosexual. In the recent London olympics, known gay athletes won seven medals, including four gold medals. Many homosexuals have doctorate degrees, and make a lot more money than many homosexuals do. There is no data from a leading medical institution that makes the claim that homosexuality is harmful. Those are your words, which are a misinterpreation of the evidence.


If you encountered a room full of 100 alcoholics, who you did not know anything about, you would not be able to know which ones were homosexuals unless they were effeminate, and even then, some heterosexuals are effeminate. In addition, if you found out which alcoholics were homosexuals, you would not be able to reasonably prove that their alcoholism was due to their sexual preferences. Thus, your claim that homosexuality is harmful is patently absurd.


Please provide your definition of the word "healthy."


No data that you can provide can reasonably prove that say 60% of homosexuals are not able to perform important daily tasks of living. From a secular perspective, you have not provided anything useful in this thread because you did not provide any valid ways to deal with homosexuality. You have merely stated the obvious by saying that homosexuals generally have more problems than heterosexuals do since most experts have already agreed with that for many years. The major debates among professionals today are about what causes homosexuality, and what should be done about it. Those are practical issues. Merely identifying a problem is not practical unless there is a better way. When experts discuss health problems, sooner or later, they will discuss possible solutions. If possible solutions to problems are never discussed, or never attempted, it is quite obvious that that is not the best way to try to solve the problems. The logical process is to 1) identify the problem, and then to 2) try to solve the problem.

 

[1robin]

Thanks, 1robin.

You bet.

 

[1robin]

You have failed to understand simple logic. Homosexuals have mostly three choices, 1) to keep engaging in same-sex behavior, 2) to try reparative therapy, or 3) to try abstinence. It is well-known that in many cases, homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, or abstinence, ended up much worse off than they were before. Regarding those homosexuals, quite obviously, the justification for continuing to engage in same-sex behavior is that it is less harmful than reparative therapy, or abstinence.


Many homosexuals are healthy according to any widely accepted definition of healthy that you wish to use. Most people know at least one apparently healthy homosexual. In the recent London olympics, known gay athletes won seven medals, including four gold medals. Many homosexuals have doctorate degrees, and make a lot more money than many homosexuals do. There is no data from a leading medical institution that makes the claim that homosexuality is harmful. Those are your words, which are a misinterpreation of the evidence.


If you encountered a room full of 100 alcoholics, who you did not know anything about, you would not be able to know which ones were homosexuals unless they were effeminate, and even then, some heterosexuals are effeminate. In addition, if you found out which alcoholics were homosexuals, you would not be able to reasonably prove that their alcoholism was due to their sexual preferences. Thus, your claim that homosexuality is harmful is patently absurd.


Please provide your definition of the word "healthy."


No data that you can provide can reasonably prove that say 60% of homosexuals are not able to perform important daily tasks of living. From a secular perspective, you have not provided anything useful in this thread because you did not provide any valid ways to deal with homosexuality. You have merely stated the obvious by saying that homosexuals generally have more problems than heterosexuals do since most experts have already agreed with that for many years. The major debates among professionals today are about what causes homosexuality, and what should be done about it. Those are practical issues. Merely identifying a problem is not practical unless there is a better way. When experts discuss health problems, sooner or later, they will discuss possible solutions. If possible solutions to problems are never discussed, or never attempted, it is quite obvious that that is not the best way to try to solve the problems. The logical process is to 1) identify the problem, and then to 2) try to solve the problem.

Please review my sources and my statements that I am out of the thread for a while anyway. I have too many irons in the fire and this one has grown cold.

 

[tumbleweed41]

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

Does this mean we will not be seeing you at the next PRIDE PARADE?

 

[Ken Brown]

Originally Posted by Agnostic75:
But homosexuality is not sinful.

Originally Posted by AmbiguousGuy
Except homosexuality isn't a sin. You seem confused about that.

Hi Ag & Am, so you both feel homosexuality is not a sin. But, you both feel that calling a homosexual a sinner, is in reality a sin? Do either of you have a definition for sin? Or is it what you imagine in your minds as something you don't like, that you would define as sin? Do you have a list of things you have determined that would be sin? Obviously, you reject and ignore what G-d has deemed as sin? Why is that? KB

 

[Ken Brown]

Does this mean we will not be seeing you at the next PRIDE PARADE?

Hi tumbleweed41, you are very perceptive. KB :drool:

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Perhaps it would be easier if we started all over. I will start the conversation, and you can continue.

1robin: Homosexuality is harmful.

Agnostic75: What do you recommend to make it less harmful? If your answser is that you do not have any recommendations, then the following comments that you made did not make any sense:

I have said several times that the data indicates inescapably that the practice results in a net negative effect in many ways and to a large degree without any possible justification for the practice in spite of its effects.

If there is not any possible justification for engaging in same-sex behavior, that is an implied recommendation not to engage in same-sex behavior. That is not sensible for many homosexuals. Homosexuals have mostly three choices, 1) to keep engaging in same-sex behavior, 2) to try reparative therapy, or 3) to try abstinence. It is well-known that in many cases, homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, or abstinence, ended up much worse off than they were before. Regarding those homosexuals, quite obviously, the justification for continuing to engage in same-sex behavior is that it is less harmful than reparative therapy, or abstinence.

No major medical organization, including the CDC, recommends reparative therapy or abstinence as an effective way to deal with homosexuality. Without such support, you have no chance to win any debates as far as the general public is concerned, and certainly not as far as the medical community is concerned.

Homosexuals are not to blame for their sexual identities since sexual identity is not a choice, nor are homosexuals to blame who unsuccessfully tried reparative therapy, and abstinence.

You must have some recommendations, but don't want to state them because you know that you would not be able to adequately defend them. If you had a son who turned out to be a homosexual, it is probable that you would somehow try to get him to give up the practice. I suspect that what you hope for the most is a cure, or prevention, for homosexuality, but don't want to say it because you know that such a statement would be very unpopular. I think that you are hoping to make homosexuality look so bad that a lot of people will end up supporting trying to find a cure, or prevention. I cannot think of any other secular reason why you would consistently try to make homosexuality look so bad. There is no way that you want people to simply ignore the statistics that you mentioned.

By the way, the militaries of over 30 countries, including the U.S., disagree with your opinions about gays in the military, not to mention the majority of Americans. There is no doubt that the main reason for the controversy is religious conservatism.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Ag & Am, so you both feel homosexuality is not a sin.

That is correct.

But, you both feel that calling a homosexual a sinner, is in reality a sin?

I don't, I just claim that homosexuality it is not a sin because there is not any reasonable evidence that a particular God opposes it.

Do either of you have a definition for sin?

If a God exists, and opposes homosexuality, it would be a sin to be a homosexual in God's opinion, and in the opinions of his followers, but not necessarily in the opinions of anyone else.

You have not provided reasonable evidence that God is the God of the Bible. I am not going to spend weeks debating the existence of the God of the Bible.