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

[AmbiguousGuy]

My contempt for homosexuality is based on it producing a large increase in suffering even for people who do not practice it.

So then you also have contempt for primitive coal miners? Not only do they suffer disease themselves, but they bring the dust home to sicken their families. And they often die during their work, bringing horrible suffering to their friends and families.

So you have contempt for prmitive coal miners?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here is the APA web summary of it's stance on homosexuality:

....lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Both have been documented in many different cultures and historical eras. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Therefore, these mainstream organizations long ago abandoned classifications of homosexuality as a mental disorder.

From wikipedia on history of violence against GLBTQs:

April, 2011 - Kevin Pennington, a gay 28-year-old male, was kidnapped and severely beaten in a Kentucky park by two men shouting anti gay epithets. David Jason Jenkins and Anthony Ray Jenkins face possible life sentences for anti gay hate crime.[134] On March 15, 2012, the Kentucky State Police assisted the FBI in arresting David Jenkins, Anthony Jenkins, Mable Jenkins, and Alexis Jenkins of Partridge, KY for the beating of Kevin Pennington during a late-night attack in April 2011 at Kingdom Come State Park[135][136], near Cumberland. The push came from the gay-rights group Kentucky Equality Federation, whose president, Jordan Palmer, began lobbying the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky In August 2011[137] to prosecute after stating he had no confidence in the Harlan County Commonwealth's Attorney to act.[138]. "I think the case's notoriety may have derived in large part from the Kentucky Equality Federation efforts," said Harvey, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky.[139] Mable Jenkins, and Alexis Jenkins plead guilty.[140]
April 22, 2011 - Chrissy Lee Polis,[141] a 22-year-old trans woman, was beaten in a violent struggle by two African-American women for entering the women's bathroom in Baltimore County, Maryland, which triggered her to have a seizure. A McDonald's employee, who was later fired, filmed the encounter and released the film on the internet; it since went viral. Teonna Monae Brown, 19, pleaded guilty to first-degree assault and a hate crime in the beating, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison, plus three years of supervised probation. The other woman was charged as a juvenile and committed to a juvenile detention facility.[142] See: 2011 Rosedale, Maryland beating
June 2011 - Rosita Hernandez, a Cuban trans woman, was stabbed to death in Miami.[143]
July 20, 2011 - Lashai Mclean, a 23-year-old African American trans woman, was shot to death in Northeast Washington DC.[144]
August 11, 2011 - Camila Guzman, a Latina transgender woman, was found murdered in her apartment in East Harlem, Manhattan.[145]
September 8, 2011 - Cameron Nelson, a 32-year-old gay man, was attacked at his place of employment in Utah.[146]
October 11, 2011 - Shelley Hilliard, a black transgender teen who had been reported missing, had her burnt torso identified by police in Detroit.[147] Her killer, 30-year-old Qasim Raqib, was sentenced on March 6, 2012 to 25–40 years in jail.[148]
November 15, 2011 - Danny Vega, a 58-year-old Asian-American gay man who worked as a hairdresser in Rainier Valley, Seattle was beaten and robbed as he was taking a walk. The beating left Vega in a coma from which he later died.[149]
November 17, 2011 - Cassidy Nathan Vickers, a 32-year-old black transgender woman, died from a fatal gunshot wound to the chest in Hollywood. Her killer, who is still unidentified, is suspected of also attempting to rob and non-fatally shoot another black transgender woman on the same day.[150]
December 17, 2011 - Charlie Hernandez, a 26-year-old who was openly gay, was stabbed to death following a brawl that included anti-gay slurs that occurred with two men after he accidentally stepped on some sunglasses.[151]
December 24, 2011 - Dee Dee Pearson, a 31-year-old transgender woman, died from bullet wounds in Kansas City, Missouri. Kenyan L. Jones was charged with second-degree murder and armed criminal action. Jones told police he paid to have sexual relations with Ms Pearson, believing her to be a cisgender woman, but hours after having sex with her, discovered she was not.[152] Angered by what he considered to be a deception, he got a 9mm-caliber handgun, found Ms Pearson, and killed her.[153] Kenyan L. Jones was arrested on suspicion of her murder.[154]
December 29, 2011 - The body of Githe Goines, a black 23-year-old trans woman[155] who had been reported missing 2 weeks beforehand, was found in a scrapheap. An autopsy set that the time of her death as much as 2 days before her body was discovered, and that she had been strangled[156] .
January 21, 2012 - Crain Conaway, a black 47-year-old trans woman, was found dead in her home in Oceanside, California.[157] Tyree Paschall Monday was arrested in connection with her murder.[158]
February 2, 2012 - JaParker "Deoni" Jones, a 23-year-old black trans woman, was stabbed in the head while waiting at a Metro bus stop in Washington DC.[159]
February 2012 - Cody Rogers, an 18-year-old teenager, was brutally assaulted and targeted with homophobic slurs at a party after defending a female friend who was also attacked.[160]
March 24, 2012 - Several transgender and crossdressing people were shot at and robbed in Florida by a man, suspected to be De Los Santos. 23-year-old Tyrell Jackson was fatally wounded in the shooting, which also injured 20-year-old Michael Hunter.[161]
April 3, 2012 - Coko Williams, a black trans woman, was found murdered in East Detroit, Michigan. The homicide may have been related to Coko's involvement in sex work.[162]
April 16, 2012 - Paige Clay, 23, a black trans woman, was found dead, with a bullet wound to her face in West Garfield Park, Chicago. The death was ruled as a homicide.[163]
April 21, 2012 - Eric Unger, a 23-year-old gay man living in Illinois, was attacked by a group of men on the way home from a party, while they shouted anti-gay epithets at him. The investigation is ongoing.[164]

Let me say that it is still dangerous living openly queer, but it is not the "lifestyle" itself that causes the rape, assaults, and murder against homosexuals, but the pervasive hatred and prejudice that still surrounds the culture. These are prejudices spread by misinformation, and people unfortunately turn a blind eye to the result of hatred against GLBTQs.

Kids are beaten by their parents, or forced out of their houses. They commit suicide because they see no way out. They are silenced by propaganda about a "lifestyle choice." They have been subjected to shock therapy, degradation, and isolation by communities that tell them they "love them."

It Gets Better is a campaign in the efforts to let gay youth that if you can make it past high school, that adulthood really does get better. And the reason is this: being an adult doesn't trap you entirely in a single household, a single school, a single religious institution, or even a single city, county, or state. You have more freedom to move to a community where you don't have to fear for your safety or your life. When gay youth feels trapped into a world filled with fear and abuse, the rates of school dropouts, runaways, depression and suicide skyrocket.

I'm protecting our children from abuse, too. ALL of them. And there are countless sources showing hate crimes against youth because they are openly gay - or even if they are PERCEIVED as being gay.

It's the prejudice and the hate crimes that must stop. Not homosexuals wanting to live with the same protections and opportunities that straights have.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Let me say that it is still dangerous living openly queer, but it is not the "lifestyle" itself that causes the rape, assaults, and murder against homosexuals, but the pervasive hatred and prejudice that still surrounds the culture. These are prejudices spread by misinformation, and people unfortunately turn a blind eye to the result of hatred against GLBTQs.

My extended family is Christian fundamentalist but I have a cousin who lives with a same-sex partner in a distant city. I rarely get to see him because he never attends family reunions.

At the last reunion, I engaged his brother, telling him of my disappointment in never seeing his brother, and I tried to express that I have no problem at all with those who live differently. He shrugged and turned up his nose and I'm pretty sure I heard the word 'Bible' under his breath. But I tried again, saying that I hoped his brother might attend the next reunion.

"You know," he said, "my brother and that guy he lives with must know they're doing wrong. They don't come to the reunions because they know it's a sin and they're ashamed of themselves."

And I stood there thinking, "Well, I know that homosexuality is perfectly moral, but I don't believe I'd come to this reunion either if I were gay."

So much pain in the world just because people fear what is different.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My extended family is Christian fundamentalist but I have a cousin who lives with a same-sex partner in a distant city. I rarely get to see him because he never attends family reunions.

At the last reunion, I engaged his brother, telling him of my disappointment in never seeing his brother, and I tried to express that I have no problem at all with those who live differently. He shrugged and turned up his nose and I'm pretty sure I heard the word 'Bible' under his breath. But I tried again, saying that I hoped his brother might attend the next reunion.

"You know," he said, "my brother and that guy he lives with must know they're doing wrong. They don't come to the reunions because they know it's a sin and they're ashamed of themselves."

And I stood there thinking, "Well, I know that homosexuality is perfectly moral, but I don't believe I'd come to this reunion either if I were gay."

So much pain in the world just because people fear what is different.

That's sad.

I imagine all your cousin and his partner would want is to enjoy the food; catch up with relatives on school, jobs, and travel; maybe share pictures; engage in some games played....but everyone will want to talk about their sex life and how morally wrong they are.

 

[1robin]

No, but you are spreading a lot of lies about the supposed "dangers" of homosexuality. I have no problem pointing out that they are, in fact, lies.

I think after decades of being in the company of many gays, lesbians, bisexuals (being one myself), and transgendered, that I'd see firsthand all this horror that you accuse us of. Nope. Not one. And my rebuttals are not based off opinion or emotion, but real life.

And I know a LOT of people. :yes:

Is I know a lot of people an argument? I served 9 years in the Navy I know people from just about every nation on earth but that is not an argument. Before I waste my time posting sources. Just how many sources are necessary? I have given three (one being the CDC) and others have provided additional undeniable mountains of data. How much will do it? The data about this issue is some of the most solid for anything. The entities interested in this issue are statistical masters (medical and insurance). They can't fudge things or risk inaccuracy; there are billions on the line. When you walk into a blood clinic why is one of the first questions you are asked, are you a homosexual if there are no insanely serious health risks involved? BTW if you wish to discuss anything with me you will not insinuate I am lying. I find that dishonorable, deplorable, offensive, and impossible for you to know even if true. I may make a mistake; I have no need to lie. If you want to debate you will not do so again.

 

[1robin]

So then you also have contempt for primitive coal miners? Not only do they suffer disease themselves, but they bring the dust home to sicken their families. And they often die during their work, bringing horrible suffering to their friends and families.

What? Coal miners have a justifiable reason that offsets the danger to people. I never said that any practice that has any negative aspect is wrong. Regardless the total good produced by mining energy resources is virtually infinate compared to the deaths it caused, but that is not the subject. It is the most abundent energy resource on an energy starved planet. That justifies risk. However certain elements of the practice have been out lawed and certain methods stopped. They have minimized the risk to it's lowest pratical level at the cost of billions. Comparing two things that are unequal is a waste of time. Coal mining has a justifiable reason why the risks are accetable. The concept of getting minerals from the ground is not the result of a moral decision it is a matter of necessity. I debate all the time, I have watched every debate I can find. Mainly on only religous issues and a few others. I can safely say I have never seen argumentation for anything as ineffectual and weak as for this one. Half the stuff has no relevance at all, and the rest is either wrong or impotent. BTW How many coal miner family members were killed by their husbands job? That is not a point and has no relevance, I was just curious. Is coal mining actually the kind of stuff you use to rationalise homosexuality? I saw you posted some stuff about violence against gays. I do not support it, nor do it, have no need to respond to it and have no idea why it is relevant, if it was meant for me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is I know a lot of people an argument? I served 9 years in the Navy I know people from just about every nation on earth but that is not an argument. Before I waste my time posting sources. Just how many sources are necessary? I have given three (one being the CDC) and others have provided additional undeniable mountains of data. How much will do it? The data about this issue is some of the most solid for anything. The entities interested in this issue are statistical masters (medical and insurance). They can't fudge things or risk inaccuracy; there are billions on the line. When you walk into a blood clinic why is one of the first questions you are asked, are you a homosexual if there are no insanely serious health risks involved? BTW if you wish to discuss anything with me you will not insinuate I am lying. I find that dishonorable, deplorable, offensive, and impossible for you to know even if true. I may make a mistake; I have no need to lie. If you want to debate you will not do so again.

Get a grip. I said you are spreading lies. I did not say that YOU are a liar. It's possible to unintentionally post studies that provide false information without you knowing it.

I'm going back to your post where you cited from Catholic's international. I'll pull it up again. And I will also counter from numerous scholarly studies that counter your argument about the "horrors" that queers inflict on society.

 

[Riverwolf]

By the way, a paragraph from that CDC article:

Sexual risk behaviors account for most HIV infections in MSM. Unprotected receptive anal sex is the sexual behavior that carries the highest risk for HIV acquisition. For sexually active MSM, the most effective ways to prevent HIV and many other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are to avoid anal sex, or for MSM who do have anal sex, to always use condoms. MSM are at increased risk for syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia, and CDC recommends that all sexually active MSM be tested annually for these STIs.

Notice that it says that homosexuality itself isn't the cause, but "sexually risky behaviors". The behaviors it cites are possible, and common to an extent, with heterosexuals, as well. It also provides advice for sexually active homosexuals to avoid STIs.

Therefore, the CDC doesn't support the concept that homosexuality is, inherently, dangerous and damaging. It's essentially incidental that homosexuals account for the majority of HIV infections.

In addition, it doesn't say anything about whether the majority of homosexuals are infected.

 

[1robin]

Get a grip. I said you are spreading lies. I did not say that YOU are a liar. It's possible to unintentionally post studies that provide false information without you knowing it.

I will accept that, but lying is a type of accusation that I will not tolerate and people on the no-God side of issues use it constantly in arguments with people of faith all the time. Consider the objection withdrawn in this case.

I'm going back to your post where you cited from Catholic's international. I'll pull it up again. And I will also counter from numerous scholarly studies that counter your argument about the "horrors" that queers inflict on society.

Is there some reason Catholic equals wrong. It would not matter anyway because I gave others including the CDC. Did I actually say "horrors". It is accurate but does not sound like me. I asked you how many sources are enough. Apparently your response is that if a catholic source is ever cited then all statistics are wrong with every source given that has data that is inconvenient. Again how many sources are necessary and you might as well tell me up front what sources are automatically wrong to you whether you can show that or not? I do not like Islam and debate it quite often yet I have never once have said that because a source is Islamic it is invalid.

 

[1robin]

By the way, a paragraph from that CDC article:

Notice that it says that homosexuality itself isn't the cause, but "sexually risky behaviors". The behaviors it cites are possible, and common to an extent, with heterosexuals, as well. It also provides advice for sexually active homosexuals to avoid STIs.

Therefore, the CDC doesn't support the concept that homosexuality is, inherently, dangerous and damaging. It's essentially incidental that homosexuals account for the majority of HIV infections.

In addition, it doesn't say anything about whether the majority of homosexuals are infected.

I do not get this. I never said homosexuality created aids. I said the practice increases it's spreading substantially and the risk of being infected. The last I heard aids came from monkey blood that was infected but immune to aids, used as a base for polio shots but have no idea if that is true. That second conclusion is just simply wrong. If it increases the number of people who have the disease the practice is not in any way incidental. I have never seen argumentation this bizarre for anything ever. Can someone please explain why the folks arguing for homosexuality think the fact that not every single gay person has a disease is meaningfull? I hear it so often that I have to know what you think that proves. Not every drunk crashes into someone, does that make drunk driving ok.

 

[Riverwolf]

I do not get this. I never said homosexuality created aids. I said the practice increases it's spreading substantially and the risk of being infected. The last I heard aids came from monkey blood that was infected but immune to aids, used as a base for polio shots but have no idea if that is true. That second conclusion is just simply wrong. If it increases the number of people who have the disease the practice is not in any way incidental. I have never seen argumentation this bizarre for anything ever. Can someone please explain why the folks arguing for homosexuality think the fact that not every single gay person has a disease is meaningfull? I hear it so often that I have to know what you think that proves. Not every drunk crashes into someone, does that make drunk driving ok.

But, again, it's not homosexuality that's causing it. Promiscuity is.

You can't compare this to drunk drivers, because that's actually dangerous to themselves and others, and the vast majority of drunk drivers do get into accidents. The exact opposite is the case with homosexuals infected with HIV.

Since you don't want to bring religion into it, remove that for a moment, and say if you'd support homosexual monogamy, since that's not dangerous at all. Leave religion and children out of it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What? Coal miners have a justifiable reason that offsets the danger to people.

Ah. So earlier you actually meant to say something like this: My comtempt for homosexuality is based on it producing suffering even for others, without there being a sufficient offsetting justification (in 1robin's personal opinion).

I see. Me, I feel the same way about Southern engineers who have served in the navy. My contempt for them is based on their activities producing suffering for themselves and others without sufficient offsetting justification.

Just joshing you, bud. Just trying to help you understand what your attitude sounds like to those of us who love people more than we love holy words.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I will accept that, but lying is a type of accusation that I will not tolerate and people on the no-God side of issues use it constantly in arguments with people of faith all the time. Consider the objection withdrawn in this case.

Is there some reason Catholic equals wrong. It would not matter anyway because I gave others including the CDC. Did I actually say "horrors". It is accurate but does not sound like me. I asked you how many sources are enough. Apparently your response is that if a catholic source is ever cited then all statistics are wrong with every source given that has data that is inconvenient. Again how many sources are necessary and you might as well tell me up front what sources are automatically wrong to you whether you can show that or not? I do not like Islam and debate it quite often yet I have never once have said that because a source is Islamic it is invalid.

If a Catholic organization does not offer up its studies, theories, and conclusions to be reviews by peers for cross-examination, then it is not valid. Not because it is Catholic, but because their claims have not been validated by experts in related fields.

And your other source you offered, "Facts About Youth"....which provided a CDC link.....is nicely masked as an organization that offers up programs for reparative therapy for homosexuals. It's a phony organization that is chock full of distortions, from Dr. Collins and Robert Spitzer both maintaining that your source had distorted their research.

It mentions "Gay Bowel Syndrome". That term doesn't even exist.

Let's start with the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Against the claim that pedophilia rates are higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals:

THE FACTS
According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation's leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because "he often finds adults of either sex repulsive" and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may "regress" to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite the American College of Pediatricians' opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners "hold true to the group's core beliefs ... [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children." The group's 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association as non-factual. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said Facts misrepresented their findings. "It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality," he wrote. "The information they present is misleading and incorrect."

 

[1robin]

Ah. So earlier you actually meant to say something like this: My contempt for homosexuality is based on it producing suffering even for others, without there being a sufficient offsetting justification (in 1robin's personal opinion).

That is close to what is applicable for my arguments in this thread. Is there anything unreasonable about the statement?

I see. Me, I feel the same way about Southern engineers who have served in the navy. My contempt for them is based on their activities producing suffering for themselves and others without sufficient offsetting justification.

That was so strange it took me five minutes to figure it out. I do not care if you resent me or us but using it for an argument requires reasons why. Heck maybe I am a menace to society, no one would know until you provide data to back the claim as I did. As a Christian I am quite used to being resented by others less restrained by any concept of accountability or objective right and wrong. I signed up for it so I expect it. They killed the most benevolent example of honor and love in human history why should I escape?

Just joshing you, bud. Just trying to help you understand what your attitude sounds like to those of us who love people more than we love holy words.

I never said I did not love homosexuals. I hate acts, not people. I resent the insinuation I do. It is a common tactic when someone claims to not approve of something another wishes to practice, to use terrible analogies like this, worse argumentation like others have, and worst of all false moral high ground claims. The practice I do not like kills millions yet you insist the high ground is to permit this action which has no sufficient justification (besides lust) given its destructive effect is higher moral ground. This is absurd and so is the claim I hate any particular group of people. One of my best friends at my last job was flamingly (if that term is still used) gay. I am so naive and unconcerned with gay people I did not even realize until he told me and it changed nothing about our relationship. I even helped him get a new job when he got popped on a drug test. Your moral high ground is not moral or high nor will I be accused onto a false lower moral high ground. It is a diversionary tactic based in deceit. Revelations has never been more right than when it said that in these last days wrong will become right and right become wrong. We are living it. BTW my complaints about false moral high ground were in general. I do not think you are that deviously sophisticated you just happen to do it by accident. It is pretty sad indeed when the ambiguous guy makes a bad argument yet it is the best in the thread in a while. There are slim intellectual pickins here bouts. Did you understand the argument others keep making that unless all gays get aids it is there for ok? I do not get it.

 

[Riverwolf]

others less restrained by any concept of accountability

Do not make the mistake of thinking that non-Christians are less willing to take responsibility for their actions. Every single non-Christian adult that I've interacted with is just as capable of taking personal responsibility for their actions as all the Christians I've interacted with.

I alone am responsible for grievances I've caused(and I have done plenty that I'm not proud of). No external force, no Devil or Demon is responsible, nobody "made me do it."

 

[1robin]

If a Catholic organization does not offer up its studies, theories, and conclusions to be reviews by peers for cross-examination, then it is not valid. Not because it is Catholic, but because their claims have not been validated by experts in related fields.

This can all be circumvented by aswering my questions.

And your other source you offered, "Facts About Youth"....which provided a CDC link.....is nicely masked as an organization that offers up programs for reparative therapy for homosexuals. It's a phony organization that is chock full of distortions, from Dr. Collins and Robert Spitzer both maintaining that your source had distorted their research.

Again simply tell me what is needed.

It mentions "Gay Bowel Syndrome". That term doesn't even exist.

Let's start with the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Against the claim that pedophilia rates are higher among homosexuals than among heterosexuals:

I do not want to spend hours examining claims made yesterday. If you honestly feel they were bogus fine I accept that. I never even looked at the source. I did not look for anything in particular and know that there are plenty where they came from and since you feel qualified to examine their merit I will make sure to only use valid sources assuming they were not. By the way I assume the third source being the CDC was not overruled by you. If they are out no one is in and truth is whatever you claim it to be. Again tell me how many reasonable sources are needed and who you are going to rule out outright (rightly or wrongly) so I don't waste our time. BTW I am just about out of time until Monday, but do not get depressed I will be back. BTW this is the first time in this entire debate anyone has said anything that has any impact on the issue. Yes data and how it is obtained is important and no not every gay person having aids is not. Finally.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

From google scholar, a piece that challenges the myth that all cultures everywhere have all felt hostility toward homosexuality:

Accurate in both its scientific conceptions and its cultural and historical material, the book gives examples ranging from ancient Greece and feudal China and Japan to the developing countries and contemporary society. For all of these peoples, homoerotic relations emerge as part of their culture. In many of these groups, loving or engaging in homosexual relations is found to be the very basis of the local cultural theory of "human nature" and the mythological basis for the cosmos and the creation of society.
The author contends that modern western culture is mistaken in continuing the legislation of prejudice against lesbians and gays. He shows us that gay and lesbian practice is treated as an acceptable, natural expression of human nature in most other cultures, from ancient to contemporary times. What emerges from Herdt's observations of love and sex in other cultures is a documentation of homoerotic relations as part of the fabric of any culture, not as a separate, deviant lifestyle. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Citation: Same sex, different cultures: Gays and lesbians across cultures.
Herdt, Gilbert H.
Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press. (1997). xix 204 pp.

.

.

.

The American Academy of Pediatrics supports the legalization of same sex marriage for the security and well being of children:

Children who are born to or adopted by 1 member of a same-sex couple deserve the security of 2 legally recognized parents. Therefore, the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legislative and legal efforts to provide the possibility of adoption of the child by the second parent or coparent in these families.

 

[1robin]

Do not make the mistake of thinking that non-Christians are less willing to take responsibility for their actions. Every single non-Christian adult that I've interacted with is just as capable of taking personal responsibility for their actions as all the Christians I've interacted with.

I alone am responsible for grievances I've caused(and I have done plenty that I'm not proud of). No external force, no Devil or Demon is responsible, nobody "made me do it."

I do not know if that is true or not from experience the sample size is too small. However just think about it. We all have the same common reasons for doing x or not doing y. The Christian however adds an additional and far more profound reason to the mix. I do not see how having additional accountability would lower the standards of your moral compass. I would bet you anything however that if we went to a gay pride parade and a march for God event they would be moral polar opposites. Gay pride parades are the vilest public displays I have ever seen. Anyway I have no idea why you posted what you did here but responded anyway with random stuff that might actually be true in the former case and is in the latter. I am gone soon so get any parting shots in you have need for. Will someone ever explain to me what the argument that since not every gay person has a disease then it is ok means? I have seen it over and over from several people and jsut do not get it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I said there is no corresponding justification that merits it's practice that outweighs the harm caused by its practice.

Do you have a recommended solution to the problem? If not, what is your purpose of stating the problem? You must have some kind of wish, or desire regarding a solution to the problem. If a given problem has no solution, then obviously, no one is at fault.

If you are suggesting that if everyone was heterosexual, there would be fewer medical problems in the world, I agree, but that is not the way that things are. We must work with what we have.

There is no cure for homosexuality. If there was, some homosexuals have said that they would take it for various reasons.




Do you find fault with homosexuals who are monogamous, and healthy?

 

[Agnostic75]

I was saying that the claim that anything that works in one nation is valid for all nations is as invalid an argument as saying that since cannibalism worked somewhere it is valid everywhere.

You are partly right. The majority of Americans approve of allowing gays in the military, but what if 90% of Americans were staunch religious conservatives, and strongly opposed allowing gays in the military? You would have a reasonable argument about unit cohesion, but such is not the case in the U.S.

Scientific and sociological research have shown that the new policy works reasonably well. Scientific and sociological researchers are not impressed or influenced merely by "claims" of a lack of of unit cohesion. Rather, they look for "evidence" of a lack of cohesion. As an example, if a heterosexual soldier named John Smith told some researchers that gays in the military harms unit cohesion, the researchers might ask John for specific evidence that he is right. Once John has to produce specific evidence that backs up his claim, then John gets into trouble. A mere declaration by John would only prove that he does not like to be around gay people, not that his unit was less effective at doing their jobs well. An article at What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center backs up what I said.

Will you admit that allowing gays in the military has worked well in many countries? Will you also admit that religion is the main issue in the U.S., or anywhere else? Numerous polls have shown that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuals by far are religious conservatives. That would make it axiomatic that the fewer religious conservatives there are in a country, the less problems there would be with gays in the military. Few people are questioning the ability of gay soldiers to do their jobs well.

We could debate about gays in the military at length, but as a practical matter, in the U.S., openly homosexual people are allowed to serve in the military, as least through President Obama's second term. That is not going to change. Since acceptance of homosexuality is moving quickly forward in the U.S., by the end of President Obama's second term, I think that even if the next president is a Repbulican, and opposes gays in the military, he will not try to change the policy because of even more widespread support for homosexuals than there is today, both among the American public, and in the military.

I am interested in any documented research that you have that shows that gays in the U.S. military has not generally worked well. I am not interested in anecdotal evidence since such arguments are a dime a dozen, cannot be reasonably verified, and do not represent anywhere near the entire military.