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

[1robin]

Do you have a recommended solution to the problem? If not, what is your purpose of stating the problem?

I can suggest things but whether I could or could not has no effect on whether they are wrong or right. First can you tell me why this question is meaningfull.

My personal suggestions:
1. No gay traditional marriage.
2. No gays in the military.
3. Education based in fact not political correctness.
4. Some system that funds or suggests religous education for any one that desires it.

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 some truth to that. I am dealing with perception of a problem not teh application of a solution but it is immoral that I must pay for surgery and treatment for anyone practicing what has been devient behavior after a certain point. The fact is that paying for things that are the natural consequence of immoral acts will eventually break the system. I work with a guy who is friends with a Navy doctor and I will not repeat the problems but the military is now sattled with paying for some of the most bizarre and unnecessary surgeries and procedures imaginable that are the result of homosexuality. We do not say well people will drink and drive simply deal with nor should we do so with this.

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

I believe there is but I do not think the problem a bilogical issue in the first place.

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

I have no intention of judging individuals just actions. Yes they are wrong. It is no more right in this case than a theft if the thief could pay the person back for the item. The absence of fallout does not make an action right.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

This can all be circumvented by aswering my questions.

Again simply tell me what is needed.

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.

What makes claims valid are if they stand to be falsified, rather than slant toward a confirmation bias. Claims have no ego, therefore, if a study or test can be replicated under various circumstances, across cultures, and is evaluated by a peer reviewed board by experts in related disciplines, then it has better chances of acceptability throughout the entire academic community.

For instance, one might be able to claim that homosexuality causes harm to society, but that is a very bold claim that necessitates tremendous evidence to point to a validation across all the social sciences who study human behavior, psychology, and populations. If it doesn't stand to peer review across discplines, the claim is considered false.

The claim must be testable, replicable, and falsifiable in order to be considered valid. It is why claims of ESP, ghosts, UFO's, etc are not considered valid under this method. Otherwise, if we were to accept these claims as true simply because of anecdotal evidence and positive findings under only specific circumstances, AND because it happened only once but never replicated....then we would only be accepting something at face value just because somebody told us about it.

I recommend looking for studies that have been published in academic journals. There are excellent resources for finding research that have been reviewed by an entire panel of experts who had nothing to do with their testing or hypotheses on the claims. Book reviews are excellent resources as well.

Here is a list of a database of more reputable sources.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

Do you have a recommended solution to the problem? If not, what is your purpose of stating the problem?

I can suggest things but whether I could or could not has no effect on whether they are wrong or right.

If you mean wrong from a moral perspective, do you mean religious morals, or secular morals? If you mean religious morals, all religions do not oppose homosexuality. If you mean secular morals, the majority of secular people in Western countries do not object to homosexuality.

From a secular medical perspective, if a problem has no solution, no one is at fault. Homosexuals have only two choices, to engage in same-sex behavior, or to not engage is same-sex behavior. If homosexuals try reparative therapy, and abstinence, and end up worse off than they were before, and many do, they should continue to engage in same-sex behavior. I assume that you believe that homosexuals should tolerate abstinence for their own sake, and for humanity's sake, but nothing qualifies you to make such a judgment. You would get nowhere nationally by saying that all homosexuals who are not able to change their sexual identity should practice abstinence for life, or they are immoral.

.......it is immoral that I must pay for surgery and treatment for anyone practicing what has been devient behavior after a certain point. The fact is that paying for things that are the natural consequence of immoral acts will eventually break the system. I work with a guy who is friends with a Navy doctor and I will not repeat the problems but the military is now sattled with paying for some of the most bizarre and unnecessary surgeries and procedures imaginable that are the result of homosexuality. We do not say well people will drink and drive simply deal with nor should we do so with this.

But the biggest medical problems in the U.S. as far as I know are heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity. Many of the harmful effects of those things can easily be prevented, but heterosexuals by the millions run up their, and everyone else's insurance rates by living improper lifestyles, and not getting enough exercise.

Many healthy homosexuals do not run up your insurance rates.

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "deviant" as "deviating especially from an accepted norm." Most experts accept safe same-sex behavior among homosexuals. If unsafe sex among homosexuals is deviant behavior, then so is unsafe sex among heterosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have no intention of judging individuals just actions. Yes they are wrong. It is no more right in this case than a theft if the thief could pay the person back for the item. The absence of fallout does not make an action right.

Why are the sexual actions of healthy, monogamous homosexuals wrong?

Many homosexuals are much healthier than many heterosexuals are who have poor dietary habits, and do not get enough exercise.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Generally I only scan messages in my active threads unless they are written directly to me. Those I study more closely.

You know the word 'contempt' is a strong one. When you say you have contempt for homosexuality, most people will interpret you as saying that you hate gays. Maybe you were just using the word in a different way than I think most people view it.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Because it would be an excuse not to think.

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.

Your opinion. I've seen pictures of them, and I say FLY THAT FLAG HIGH AND PROUD!!

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.

I'll have you know, Robin, that I do not enjoy this thread at all. I'm not the one on the offensive.

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.

Because it's a minority that has it. Most gay people are otherwise exactly like you and me.

It's basically like saying that because a lot of Christians are bigots and haters that Christianity is wrong.

Besides, no good reason has been given as to why it's wrong; all the health-related reasons have frequently been determined to be non-applicable to homosexuals in general. Therefore, what reason is there to think it wrong?

 

[Riverwolf]

I have no intention of judging individuals just actions. Yes they are wrong. It is no more right in this case than a theft if the thief could pay the person back for the item. The absence of fallout does not make an action right.

How are homosexuals and thieves even remotely similar?

 

[tumbleweed41]

My personal suggestions:
1. No gay traditional marriage.
2. No gays in the military.
3. Education based in fact not political correctness.
4. Some system that funds or suggests religous education for any one that desires it.

I have a few suggestions of my own;

1. Legalized marriage of two consenting adults, no matter the gender.
2. Fully integrated military.
3. Education based on fact, not religious dogma.
4. A system for funding and providing post-secondary education for all those who wish to continue their education.

You see, when religious dogma is removed from public policy, equality seems a bit easier to reach.

 

[Penumbra]

I have a few suggestions of my own;

1. Legalized marriage of two consenting adults, no matter the gender.
2. Fully integrated military.
3. Education based on fact, not religious dogma.
4. A system for funding and providing post-secondary education for all those who wish to continue their education.

You see, when religious dogma is removed from public policy, equality seems a bit easier to reach.

^Those four suggestions make sense, imo.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

I believe there is but I do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place.

If you are suggesting that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, the vast majority of experts do not believe that. A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is not likely that homosexuality is caused 100'% by environment since the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexual. In addition, when one identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. Identical twins typically have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. Such being the case, if homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, we would expect to find more cases where both identical twins are homosexuals.

Some homosexuals have claimed that they have successfully changed their sexual identity, but as many researchers have noted, studies regarding supposed successes are full of problems. Supposed successes are much less frequent among non-religiously motivated homosexuals, and reparative therapy often fails even among religiously motivated homosexuals. The only other option that I know of is abstinence, and it also often fails to produce favorable results.

Would you like to make a case that homosexuality among animals is caused 100% by enrivonment? Virtually all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. How did they get that way? From a religious perspective, God must have made them that way. As some researchers have noted, bi-sexuality provides many benefits for bonobo monkeys.

There are slim intellectual pickins here bouts. Did you understand the argument others keep making that unless all gays get AIDS it is therefore ok? I do not get it.

Hypothetically, if 99% of homosexuals do not get AIDS, would same-sex behavior be ok?

Hypothetically, if 60% of homosexuals get AIDS, is it wrong for the other 40% of homosexuals to continue engaging in same-sex behavior?

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not even need the Bible to make the case and 95% of my posts here have had nothing to do with religion. It seems you
are a religious bigot or at least resent the source of any rules that would either make you accountable or request you to practice self-discipline.

By self-discipline do you mean abstinence for life?

As far as accountability is concerned, are you proposing that homosexuality should be made illegal?

Many homosexuals are monogamous, and are healthy as judged by any widely accepted definition of the word "healthy." Why should they practice abstinence?

 

[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 unit cohesion. Rather, they look for "evidence" of a lack of unit 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, he has a problem since 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 admit that religion is the main bias against gays in the military 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 fewer problems there will be with gays in the military. Few people are questioning the ability of gay soldiers to do their jobs well.

As a practical matter, in the U.S., openly homosexual people are allowed to serve in the military, at least through President Obama's second term. That is not going to change. Acceptance of homosexuality is moving quickly forward in the U.S., and in many other Western countries. Ten countries have legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Over 30 countries allow openly gay people to join the military. The prime minsiter of Iceland is an open lesbian, and the prime minister of Ontario is also an open lesbian. The U.S. has several openly gay congressmen. I think that the Senate has one open lesbian. Maryland, Delaware, and Washington State recent legalized same-sex marriage by public referendum. About five other states legalized it by court order. A growing number of Republicans are supporting gay rights, including John McCain's daughter, and Clint Eastwood. 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.

You can of course claim that growing public acceptance does not make homosexuality right, but if you are trying to change, or limit legal rights for homosexuals, you will not get anywhere. Support for homosexuals continues to rapidly grow in the Western world, and that is not going to change.

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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have a few suggestions of my own;

1. Legalized marriage of two consenting adults, no matter the gender.
2. Fully integrated military.
3. Education based on fact, not religious dogma.
4. A system for funding and providing post-secondary education for all those who wish to continue their education.

I would change your #1 to "Legalized marriage of two or more consenting adults, no matter the gender."

But I've never considered or debated all the possible estate issues and other legal consequences.

 

[Agnostic75]

M
essage to 1robin: For your convenience, I will combine all of my most recent posts in this post.

Do you have a recommended solution to the problem? If not, what is your purpose of stating the problem?

I can suggest things but whether I could or could not has no effect on whether they are wrong or right.

From a medical perspective, if a problem has no solution, no one is at fault. Homosexuals have only two choices, to engage in same-sex behavior, or to not engage is same-sex behavior. If homosexuals try reparative therapy, and abstinence, and end up worse off than they were before, and many do, they should continue to engage in same-sex behavior. I assume that you believe that homosexuals should tolerate abstinence for life for their own sake, and for humanity's sake, but nothing qualifies you to make such a judgment.

.......it is immoral that I must pay for surgery and treatment for anyone practicing what has been deviant behavior after a certain point. The fact is that paying for things that are the natural consequence of immoral acts will eventually break the system. I work with a guy who is friends with a Navy doctor and I will not repeat the problems but the military is now saddled with paying for some of the most bizarre and unnecessary surgeries and procedures imaginable that are the result of homosexuality. We do not say well people will drink and drive simply deal with nor should we do so with this.

But the biggest medical problems in the U.S. as far as I know are heart disease, cigarette smoking, and obesity. Many of the harmful effects of those things can easily be prevented, but heterosexuals by the millions run up their, and everyone else's insurance rates by living improper lifestyles, and not getting enough exercise.

Many healthy homosexuals do not run up your insurance rates.

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "deviant" as "deviating especially from an accepted norm." The majority of experts accept safe same-sex behavior among homosexuals. If unsafe sex among homosexuals is deviant behavior, then so is unsafe sex among heterosexuals.

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

I believe there is but I do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place.

If you are suggesting that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, the vast majority of experts do not believe that. A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors. It is not likely that homosexuality is caused 100'% by environment since the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexual. In addition, when one identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. Identical twins typically have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. Such being the case, if homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, we would expect to find more cases where both identical twins are homosexuals.

Even if homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, that would not on its own mean that all homosexuality is wrong, and immoral.

What possible cure are you referring to?

Some homosexuals have claimed that they have successfully changed their sexual identity, but as many researchers have noted, studies regarding supposed successes are full of problems. Supposed successes are much less frequent among non-religiously motivated homosexuals, and reparative therapy often fails even among religiously motivated homosexuals. The only other option that I know of is abstinence, and it also often fails to produce favorable results.

Would you like to make a case that homosexuality among animals is caused 100% by enrvironment? Virtually all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. How did they get that way? From a religious perspective, God must have made them that way. As some researchers have noted, bi-sexuality provides many benefits for bonobo monkeys.

There are slim intellectual pickins here bouts. Did you understand the argument others keep making that unless all gays get AIDS it is therefore ok? I do not get it.

Hypothetically, if 99% of homosexuals do not get AIDS, would same-sex behavior be ok?

Hypothetically, if 60% of homosexuals get AIDS, is it wrong for the other 40% of homosexuals to continue engaging in same-sex behavior?

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.

Cannibalism does not work well for any of the participants who are eaten. Homosexuality frequently works well for the participants, at the very least in monogamous relationships.

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 unit cohesion. Rather, they look for "evidence" of a lack of unit 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, he has a problem since 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 religion is the main bias against gays in the military 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 fewer problems there will be with gays in the military. Few people are questioning the ability of gay soldiers to do their jobs well.

Will you admit that allowing gays in the military has worked well in many countries? There are not any good reasons why it wouldn't in countries that generally have much less opposition to homosexuality than the U.S. does.

As a practical matter, in the U.S., openly homosexual people are allowed to serve in the military, at least through President Obama's second term. That is not going to change. Acceptance of homosexuality is moving quickly forward in the U.S., and in many other Western countries. Ten countries have legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Over 30 countries allow openly gay people to join the military. The prime minister of Iceland is an open lesbian, and the prime minister of Ontario is also an open lesbian. The U.S. has several openly gay congressmen. I think that the Senate has one open lesbian. Maryland, Delaware, and Washington State recent legalized same-sex marriage by public referendum. About five other states legalized it by court order. A growing number of Republicans are supporting gay rights, including John McCain's daughter, and Clint Eastwood. By the end of President Obama's second term, I think that even if the next president is a Republican, 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.

You can of course claim that growing public acceptance does not make homosexuality right, but if you are trying to change, or limit legal rights for homosexuals, you will not get anywhere. Support for homosexuals continues to grow rapidly in the Western world, and that is not going to change.

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.

It seems you are a religious bigot or at least resent the source of any rules that would either make you accountable or request you to practice self-discipline.

By self-discipline do you mean abstinence for life?

As far as accountability is concerned, are you proposing that homosexuality should be made illegal?

Many homosexuals are monogamous, and are healthy as judged by any widely accepted definition of the word "healthy." Why should they practice abstinence? How are their sexual actions wrong?

 

[Agnostic75]

There are slim intellectual pickins here bouts. Did you [AmbiguousGuy] understand the argument others keep making that unless all gays get AIDS it is therefore ok? I do not get it.

I find your question to be quite odd. Consider the following:

1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in U.S. cities has HIV | Reuters

10/23/10

Nearly one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major U.S. cities are infected with HIV, and nearly half of them do not know it, U.S. health officials said on Thursday.

If one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major cities have HIV, that means that 80% do not have HIV. So what you are implying is that homosexuality is not ok because 20% of gay and bisexual men in 21 major cities have HIV. That does not make any sense.

That research deals with major cities. Statistics in many rural areas would probably show that over 80% of gay and bisexual men, maybe over 85%, do not have HIV since generally, fewer partners are available.

Even if a cure was found for AIDS, you would still oppose homosexuality, so your primary bias must be religious, not scientific. In addition, AIDS is a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality anytime in history.

You are upset about a 20% statistic. What about a 50% forecast about obesity? Consider the following:

Fat and getting fatter: U.S. obesity rates to soar by 2030 | Reuters

9/18/12

Using a model of population and other trends, a new report released on Tuesday by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation projects that half of U.S. adults will be obese by 2030 unless Americans change their ways.

.......for the first time, the report builds on state-by-state data from the CDC to project obesity rates. In every state, that rate will reach at least 44 percent by 2030. In 13, that number would exceed 60 percent.

Obesity raises the risk of numerous diseases, from type 2 diabetes to endometrial cancer, meaning more sick people and higher medical costs in the future, the report said.

It projects as many as 7.9 million new cases of diabetes a year, compared with 1.9 million new cases in recent years. There could also be 6.8 million new cases of chronic heart disease and stroke every year, compared with 1.3 million new cases a year now.

The increasing burden of illness will go right to the bottom line, adding $66 billion in annual obesity-related medical costs over and above today's $147 billion to $210 billion. Total U.S. healthcare spending is estimated at $2.7 trillion.

That projection supports a study published earlier this year in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine that found that by 2030, 42 percent of U.S. adults could be obese, adding $550 billion to healthcare costs over that period.

That is over one half of a trillion dollars in possible if not probable increased healthcare costs by 2030 just for obesity.

What do you recommend for homosexuals who are alcoholics? Would you recommend the same medical treatments that heterosexuals use, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? What would you recommend for homosexuals who have AIDS, the same treatments that heterosexuals use, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? What would you recommend for homosexuals as the best way to avoid getting sexually transmitted diseases, the same way that sensible heterosexuals use, which is to practice safe sex, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? Abstinence would be safe as far as far as getting sexually transmitted diseases is concerned, but it frequently would not be safe as far as getting increased physical and emotional problems are concerned, problems that frequently need medical treatment.

You once mentioned that prisioners go for years without having sex, and that their lives do not fall apart as a result. That was a very poor, and unscientific argument. First of all, many sexually frustrated prisoners do engage in same-sex behavior, some of whom thought that they were heterosexuals. Second, and very importantly, abstinence by choice is much different than forced abstinence. Any psychiatrist, or psychologist would know that, as well as most laymen. Common sense should tell you that forced abstinence would frequently cause far more physical and psychological problems than abstinece by choice would cause. Of course, even abstinence by choice has not been effective for many people who have unsuccessfully tried it.

How many married servicemen who were overseas have had sex with prostitutes? Quite a few, including many who would not have had sex with prostitutes if they had been home with their wives. I do not approve of having sex with prostitutes, but I just wanted to let you know that the desire to have sex is very strong in the majority of humans, and that many people have a lot of trouble not having sex for just one week, let alone for the rest of their lives.

Proverbs 5:19 says "let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love." That verse makes a good case that having sex is typically a very enjoyable experience for the majority of humans.

 

[Ken Brown]

So supporting the idea of a rapist marrying his victim, then?

And you suggest *I* need to use a little common sense?

Hi MysticSang'ha, I see you as having two choices. Either the "rapist" really wasn't raping the unbetroth virgin (a coercing of the virgin, or strong manipulation), or the Ruler and Creator of the Universe thinks that a virgin who has lost their virginity to someone should stay with that individual. Your choice. KB

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hi MysticSang'ha, I see you as having two choices. Either the "rapist" really wasn't raping the unbetroth virgin (a coercing of the virgin, or strong manipulation), or the Ruler and Creator of the Universe thinks that a virgin who has lost their virginity to someone should stay with that individual. Your choice. KB

In my opinion, both choices are misogynistic nonsense.
Third choice, the rapist is prosecuted and removed from the general society, and the victim is given the support and comfort of the community.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi MysticSang'ha, I see you as having two choices. Either the "rapist" really wasn't raping the unbetroth virgin (a coercing of the virgin, or strong manipulation), or the Ruler and Creator of the Universe thinks that a virgin who has lost their virginity to someone should stay with that individual. Your choice. KB

I deny any god who would be so naive and disconnected from the world, creator and king of the universe or not.

 

[Agnostic75]

A frequent criticism among opponents of homosexuality is the high rate of alcoholism among homosexuals. The following article discusses that issue:

Just a Sip? Gay Men and Alcoholism

The following is from PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589133

Homosexual men and women have been described as at high risk for alcohol and drug abuse, due to psychosocial variables such as stress levels or the cultural importance of bar settings. However, there are few actual data in this regard. This paper presents the findings of a large (n = 3400) survey of a homosexual population regarding population characteristics and patterns of alcohol and drug use. Psychosocial variables that may account for substance use patterns both generally and in this population are discussed in an accompanying paper. Substantially higher proportions of the homosexual sample used alcohol, marijuana, or cocaine than was the case in the general population. Contrary to other reports, this was not accompanied by higher rates of heavy use, although homosexuals did show higher rates of alcohol problems. In the general population women consume less drugs and alcohol than do men, and substance use substantially declines with age. Neither of these patterns were found for the homosexual sample, thus creating overall higher rates of substance abuse. This may reflect differences between homosexuals and the general population in their adherence to sex-role stereotypes and age-related social role changes, as well as culturally specific stressors and vulnerability to substance use.

 

[Agnostic75]

I find your question to be quite odd. Consider the following:

1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in U.S. cities has HIV | Reuters

If one in five gay and bisexual men in 21 major cities have HIV, that means that 80% do not have HIV. So what you are implying is that homosexuality is not ok because 20% of gay and bisexual men in 21 major cities have HIV. That does not make any sense.

That research deals with major cities. Statistics in many rural areas would probably show that over 80% of gay and bisexual men, maybe over 85%, do not have HIV since generally, fewer partners are available.

Even if a cure was found for AIDS, you would still oppose homosexuality, so your primary bias must be religious, not scientific. In addition, AIDS is a modern disease, and you object to all homosexuality anytime in history.

You are upset about a 20% statistic. What about a 50% forecast about obesity? Consider the following:

Fat and getting fatter: U.S. obesity rates to soar by 2030 | Reuters

That is over one half of a trillion dollars in possible if not probable increased healthcare costs by 2030 just for obesity.

What do you recommend for homosexuals who are alcoholics? Would you recommend the same medical treatments that heterosexuals use, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? What would you recommend for homosexuals who have AIDS, the same treatments that heterosexuals use, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? What would you recommend for homosexuals as the best way to avoid getting sexually transmitted diseases, the same way that sensible heterosexuals use, which is to practice safe sex, or reparative therapy, or abstinence? Abstinence would be safe as far as far as getting sexually transmitted diseases is concerned, but it frequently would not be safe as far as getting increased physical and emotional problems are concerned, problems that frequently need medical treatment.

You once mentioned that prisioners go for years without having sex, and that their lives do not fall apart as a result. That was a very poor, and unscientific argument. First of all, many sexually frustrated prisoners do engage in same-sex behavior, some of whom thought that they were heterosexuals. Second, and very importantly, abstinence by choice is much different than forced abstinence. Any psychiatrist, or psychologist would know that, as well as most laymen. Common sense should tell you that forced abstinence would frequently cause far more physical and psychological problems than abstinece by choice would cause. Of course, even abstinence by choice has not been effective for many people who have unsuccessfully tried it.

How many married servicemen who were overseas have had sex with prostitutes? Quite a few, including many who would not have had sex with prostitutes if they had been home with their wives. I do not approve of having sex with prostitutes, but I just wanted to let you know that the desire to have sex is very strong in the majority of humans, and that many people have a lot of trouble not having sex for just one week, let alone for the rest of their lives.