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

[1robin]

Yeah, and bravery too. It's sickening how people behave bravely, knowing that their odds of injury and death skyrocket. And that their family and friends will suffer for it. Those firemen who climbed the World Trade Center stairs... what the heck would drive them to such perverted behavior!

Yep. The brave and the homosexuals, two peas in a (twisted) pod.

Ok now this is too bizarre for even you. What in the heck does this mean and why did you you post it in response to me? I almost hate to even ask but this is one for the books here.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ok now this is too bizarre for even you. What in the heck does this mean and why did you you post it in response to me? I almost hate to even ask but this is one for the books here.

Analogies can be useful tools for presenting ideas in a variety of contexts so that one can communicate with different audiences and/or highlight different perspectives on aspects of an idea. People who intelligently communicate often use them to reveal holes and weaknesses in an argument or position. I'd highly suggest that anyone who wants to be able to engage in meaningful and effective dialogue should learn how to both identify and use these useful language devices.

 

[tumbleweed41]

How in the heck can you get that out of my statement? I said modern politically correct thought is tending in the direction where traditional morals are taboos and taboos are now moral. You can't get what you did from that...

No, you said;

I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything....

That is how I get what I did.

 

[Walkntune]

When I was trying to fight, cure, pray away, submit to "God", all my orientation for decades....never was I so full of depression and anxiety.

I believe the key to what you are saying lies in whos effort you were in.When we try to battle and resist storms in ourselves, this resistance only causes more persistance from what we battle.

 

[1robin]

No, you said;



That is how I get what I did.

I do not see the difference. I said as you posted:

I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything....

You conclude from this that I think an atheist can't act morally without God. How did you get that? I do not believe it, I have said the opposite many times, specifically because of this false appeal to sympathy. I believe what I said in my response to this conclusion and am usually very careful about it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything. I have become weary with people insisting any claims that are inconvenient for them are biased. I myself have almost never used that argument unless I could prove it. I never dismissed Islamic sites (for example) without providing sufficient and specific justification. It is a non-argument, only a place holder for one. The majority of stats come from insurance and medical studies and they do not have the luxury of making up stuff. If all inconvenient data is biased why is the first question when giving blood, Are you a homosexual? In fact why is that a primary concern in all of medicine and health? What is killing homosexuals at a much higher rate than the rest of us, bias? I do not think denials, dismissals, and hand waving at well-established fact a persuasive argument.

First, read the literature of what the Red Cross sees as what meets the requirement for deferral. Every country is different, but specifically in the U.S., only men who ever had sexual contact with another man since 1977 is automatically deferred for one year, including any female sex partners of men who have had sex with other men.

They do not ask, "Are you a homosexual?" (men can have sexual contact with other men without identifying themselves as homosexual)

They do not restrict lesbian women who have only had sex with other women.

.

.

.

Second, the only reason you believe the lies that are presented about the queer community (notably, about homosexual men - interesting, eh?), is because it suits your bias against homosexuality from of a few lines of religious doctrine. That is called confirmation bias, and your arguments have been a remarkable example of it throughout the thread.

 

[1robin]

I believe the key to what you are saying lies in whos effort you were in.When we try to battle and resist storms in ourselves, this resistance only causes more persistance from what we battle.

I would add that it also is crucial to what we have allegence to. Until you are a born again believer you have no access to God and prayer is not effective. Until you chose Christ as savior you have another and unacceptable allegance by default that negates the promises given to believers. This gets very complex and this is not a theological thread so I will not add anything in addition to saying that faith is the currency of prayer.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I believe the key to what you are saying lies in whos effort you were in.When we try to battle and resist storms in ourselves, this resistance only causes more persistance from what we battle.

True that.

Thank The Ultimate Reality that I stopped listening to homophobic garbage, stopped believing all that was preached, and started accepting who I am. My efforts then changed from trying to fit a mold based on what doctrine I was being fed to being honest with myself about what is really harmful and what is really compassionate.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I would add that it also is crucial to what we have allegence to. Until you are a born again believer you have no access to God and prayer is not effective. Until you chose Christ as savior you have another and unacceptable allegance by default that negates the promises given to believers. This gets very complex and this is not a theological thread so I will not add anything in addition to saying that faith is the currency of prayer.

Horse hockey.

I was raised Christian, received sacraments in the RCC, and then joined Campus Crusade for Christ in college after I was born again. I only left the Christian community right before I graduated from college at age 22.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I would add that it also is crucial to what we have allegence to. Until you are a born again believer you have no access to God and prayer is not effective. Until you chose Christ as savior you have another and unacceptable allegance by default that negates the promises given to believers. This gets very complex and this is not a theological thread so I will not add anything in addition to saying that faith is the currency of prayer.

It doesn't get as complex as all the manifestations and levels of cognitive bias.

 

[1robin]

First, read the literature of what the Red Cross sees as what meets the requirement for deferral. Every country is different, but specifically in the U.S., only men who ever had sexual contact with another man since 1977 is automatically deferred for one year, including any female sex partners of men who have had sex with other men.

I have a very poor friend who sells plasma. Every single clinic there is will ask you up front about your homosexuality. The details are not important, the fact that grave health risks are involved that require this kind of inconvenient action is indicative of the magnitude of the devastating sexually related health problems that homosexuals have at a much higher rate than homosexuals.

They do not ask, "Are you a homosexual?" (men can have sexual contact with other men without identifying themselves as homosexual)
They do not restrict lesbian women who have only had sex with other women.

The UK has a gay ban, the US has had a gay ban but like everything else it is currently being challenged, China has a gay ban but is re-evaluating the lesbian issue....On and On. Please pay attention to this. The prohibition concerning homosexuality or its constituent activities and health related issues like organ donors and a thousand other issues is well established fact. The extremely high STD and STI rates in the gay community are well known issues. They are just a few of the countless things indicative of the fact that homosexuality increases suffering significantly. Trying to cloud one aspect of one issue and then conclude that the practice should be accepted does nothing for the argument or the credibility of the one making it. You are literally looking for some way to obscure or cloud an issue in an effort to justify an action that kills millions, even people who do not practice the lifestyle. Hundreds of health workers and prison employees have been infected by diseases that are spread infinitely faster through homosexual activity. I work with a former prison guard and a guy who's best friend was a Navy doctor. I could tell you stories involving health related issues that homosexuals have that would terrify you but it isn't necessary. The facts are well known. I can't stop you nor do I feel it is my job to do so, I will not even judge you personally but defending a behavior that kills others at an insane rate and demanding my tax money cover the billions in health costs that come from the lifestyle is truly abhorrent. There is no and can be no justification of a cost so great for an unnecessary act that has no corresponding positive effect that can even begin to offset the cost.

Second, the only reason you believe the lies that are presented about the queer community (notably, about homosexual men - interesting, eh?), is because it suits your bias against homosexuality from of a few lines of religious doctrine. That is called confirmation bias, and your arguments have been a remarkable example of it throughout the thread.

I have not mentioned a religious argument above and barely mentioned it at all (so get off the soap box) and will no longer respond to false appeals to injustice or sympathy regarding sources. The effects are well known facts of reality. Most come from studies done by people who can't afford to be biased, as billions are at stake and the argument everyone is lying is too absurd to address further. Ridiculous insinuations that practicing a selfish act of lust that kills millions of innocent people and costs us all billions in taxes as being the moral high ground and the position chosen by people of faith who have built hundreds of hospitals and donated millions to treat the people who do these acts as the low ground is as schizophrenic as it is incoherent.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Hey, look at me, I have facts, numbers, and sources to support my hate and bigotry. So, it's okay.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I have a very poor friend who sells plasma. Every single clinic there is will ask you up front about your homosexuality. The details are not important, the fact that grave health risks are involved that require this kind of inconvenient action is indicative of the magnitude of the devastating sexually related health problems that homosexuals have at a much higher rate than homosexuals.
The UK has a gay ban, the US has had a gay ban but like everything else it is currently being challenged, China has a gay ban but is re-evaluating the lesbian issue....On and On. Please pay attention to this. The prohibition concerning homosexuality or its constituent activities and health related issues like organ donors and a thousand other issues is well established fact. The extremely high STD and STI rates in the gay community are well known issues. They are just a few of the countless things indicative of the fact that homosexuality increases suffering significantly. Trying to cloud one aspect of one issue and then conclude that the practice should be accepted does nothing for the argument or the credibility of the one making it. You are literally looking for some way to obscure or cloud an issue in an effort to justify an action that kills millions, even people who do not practice the lifestyle. Hundreds of health workers and prison employees have been infected by diseases that are spread infinitely faster through homosexual activity. I work with a former prison guard and a guy who's best friend was a Navy doctor. I could tell you stories involving health related issues that homosexuals have that would terrify you but it isn't necessary. The facts are well known. I can't stop you nor do I feel it is my job to do so, I will not even judge you personally but defending a behavior that kills others at an insane rate and demanding my tax money cover the billions in health costs that come from the lifestyle is truly abhorrent. There is no and can be no justification of a cost so great for an unnecessary act that has no corresponding positive effect that can even begin to offset the cost.
I have not mentioned a religious argument above and barely mentioned it at all (so get off the soap box) and will no longer respond to false appeals to injustice or sympathy regarding sources. The effects are well known facts of reality. Most come from studies done by people who can't afford to be biased, as billions are at stake and the argument everyone is lying is too absurd to address further. Ridiculous insinuations that practicing a selfish act of lust that kills millions of innocent people and costs us all billions in taxes as being the moral high ground and the position chosen by people of faith who have built hundreds of hospitals and donated millions to treat the people who do these acts as the low ground is as schizophrenic as it is incoherent.

You have not provided a single valid source for your arguments. None have stood up to peer review. All your sources are easily debunked, but say the exact same things you are right now.

The UK has a one year deferral for MSM blood donor applicants. Not a "gay ban." Get your facts straight.

Say it with me....con-fir-ma-tion bi-as! :cheer:

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything.

The fact that you even present such a ridiculous straw man reveals that you haven't been listening to what people have been explaining to you, and if you're not listening to people in the thread then you really have no business participating in the thread.

No, "liberal moralists" do believe in ethics and and accountability, but they believe that it should be based on evidence, logic, and compassion rather than on arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated superstition.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think the modern tendency of liberal moralists is all in favor of the politically correct view that traditional morality is bad and no one is accountable for anything.

Codswallop. I despise the concept of political correctness, and I don't consider traditional morality to be automatically bad. However, aspects of it are bad, such as the ones that are based on someone's comfort level rather than actual harm done.

 

[Walkntune]

True that.

Thank The Ultimate Reality that I stopped listening to homophobic garbage, stopped believing all that was preached, and started accepting who I am. My efforts then changed from trying to fit a mold based on what doctrine I was being fed to being honest with myself about what is really harmful and what is really compassionate.

I do sympathize with how you feel.There are many churches (especially in America) that walk by a self serving plan of salvation and have created a very self righteous environment that can make anyone stuggle under condemnation and guilt from sin(this we all have).This is not the Gospel or what true Christianity is supposed to be.
Jesus is someone all can come to inspite of their sins like the women who had an issue of blood. It was against the law for her to be in public with her uncleaness much less touch someone yet she reached out in faith and touched the hem of Christs garment.God does not want you to be afraid to come to him even when you are unclean. When people come to church they should feel love and acceptance no matter what sins they have. They should not feel as though they have to get right first to recieve from Christ. If they feel condemned then the message being preached is not the gospel.It is only goodness of God that leads one to repentance and not judgement of man.Church is the last place a person should feel judged.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

It is absolutely perfect logic if heterosexuality had much lower numbers. If I was to say that stealing a candy bar was wrong but buying one was right. Does that statement change if only 20% of the thefts are punished.

I do not understand what you mean. Thieves harm other people. Who do millions of healthy homosexuals harm?

Homosexuality adds greatly to suffering.

How do healthy homosexuals harm anyone?

It kills and harms millions, costs billions, and even hurts ones who do not do it and does not have any corresponding gain to even begin of justify it.

There is gain for homosexuals to have sex if they have tried reparative therapy, and abstinence, and ended up worse off than they were before, thereby creating a need for large medical bills to treat their physical and emotional problems that were brought about by reparative therapy, and abstinence.

That is true even if only 20% of them have a disease. This is quite absurd. It is as if you have thought up some arbitrary percentage that determines that anything less makes it moral and anything more simply means you must find another way to justify it. This is why I was saying these are the worst arguments I have seen for anything, ever.

Are you saying that percentages do not matter? If only 1% of homosexuals had HIV, would that make any difference to you compared with 20%? You must have some arbitary percentage of your own in mind or you would never have brought up statistics in the first place. You object to 20%. What percentage would you not object to? The correct answer is that if there were only one homosexual couple in the world, and they enjoyed excellent health, you would object to that. If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would you criticize all Muslims? If 20% of Buddhists were thieves, would you criticize all Buddhists?

If a medical problem does not have a solution, then no one is to blame. People who eat a lot of greasy foods increase their risks for heart disease. There is a simple solution, they can eat less greasy food, and their health will improve. On the other hand, when homosexuals try to give up having sex by trying reparative therapy, and/or abstinence, their physical and emotional health often get worse.

Health experts are of course concerned with all health problems, including health problems that homosexuals have. Whatever medical problem that you wish to mention that some homosexuals have, health experts will try to find solutions, not merely continue to state the obvious as you do. Well of course some homosexuals have medical problems, but what should be done about the medical problems? The practical thing to do is to state a problem, and then try to find solutions to the problem. 20% of homosexuals in 21 large cities in the U.S. have HIV. What should be done about that? What are the options? Quite obviously, some of the best solutions are to 1) try to find a cure for HIV, and to 2) encourage homosexuals to practice safe sex. In other words, the best ways to deal with HIV among homosexuals are the same as among heterosexuals.

One study showed that by 2030, half of Americans might be obese, which would add over one half of a trillion dollars to medical costs just from obesity. When we add to that the medical costs of heart disease, and many other largely preventable health problems, that is problably over two trillion dollars, maybe three or four trillion dollars. If global warming gets a lot worse, it will cause the largest worldwide depression in history by far, and might destroy all human life on earth. So, whatever threat homosexuality is to the world, it is just one of many threats, and by no means the biggest threat.

 

[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.

Cannibalism never works well for any of the people who are eaten. Homosexuality frequently works well for homosexuals, especially for monogamous homosexuals. Most sex among homosexuals is consensual. Cannibalism is seldom if ever consensual. Cannibalism is illegal in most places in the world. Homosexuality is legal in the vast majority of countries in the world. Few people would ever make an analogy comparing homosexuality to cannibalism.

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? If that was the case, 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.

It is important to note that almost all of the countries that allow gays in the military are predominantly Christian, with the only probable exception being Israel, which of course is predominantly Jewish.

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.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......I do not think the problem a biological issue in the first place.

I refer you to my new thread that is titled "What causes homosexuality?"

 

[Latuwr]

Hi 1robin,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
It looks to me that you have many against your ideas. A while back you posted Paul's observations about the practice of homosexuality in Romans chapter 1. Please allow me to expand that posting just a little:
Romans 1:22-28
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible ELOHIM into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore ELOHIM also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of ELOHIM into a (THE) lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause ELOHIM gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain ELOHIM in knowledge, ELOHIM gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
The practice of homosexuality and its approval according to both the Old and New Testaments comes about because of rejected intellectual reasoning. Practicing homosexuals like to debate with you about their practice without considering what ELOHIM has commanded about their activity; therefore, they turn the debate to their own wisdom. They desire that you debate about their physical, scientific facts.
Here is a scientific fact:
All practicing homosexuals grow older, and they all eventually die. Why? If the practice of homosexuality is ok with ELOHIM, why do all practicing homosexuals die?
1robin, please notice above that I have inserted the definite article with respect to (the) Lie. The definite article exists in the Greek. Do you have any idea about the nature of THE Lie? Who is the father of THE Lie?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr