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

[Agnostic75]

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?

Some religions object to homosexuality, but not all religions. 1robin has said that his objections to homosexuality are religious, and scientific. I am limiting my discussions to scientific issues since I do not believe that a secular, scientific case can be made that all homosexuals are at fault for practicing homosexuality.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Agnostic75,
Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!
I reject the practice of homosexuality based upon my religious beliefs. The practice is unseemly as Paul does say. Even so, you are quite free to argue according to your wisdom. I prefer to argue according to the word of ELOHIM! This means, according to your stated limitation, that we really have nothing to discuss, do we?
Thanking you in advance should you be moved not to reply, I am,
Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic75,

I prefer to argue according to the word of ELOHIM! This means, according to your stated limitation, that we really have nothing to discuss, do we?

That is correct, we do not.

 

[Agnostic75]

Are you 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? Theft is seldom consensual for both parties. Homosexuality is usually consensual for both parties. Theft is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Are you suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal?

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 foods, 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. By 2030, the total percentage of people in the world who have preventable health problems will probably be over 70%, and their medical costs will be trillions of 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.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Aren't you arguing that homosexuality is wrong because it is destructive? A sizable percentage of homosexuals come to harm. This destructiveness of homosexuality makes you sick to your stomach, as you peruse the statistics and realize how nature rejects and abhors homosexuality.

Isn't that the shape of your argument?

Well, it's even worse for bravery. Bravery is terribly destructive. I read the other day about two men who drowned while trying to save a woman's dog. Do those repulsive, destructive, perverted people make you sick to your stomach, in the same way that destructive homosexuality makes you sick? Obviously nature rejects and abhors bravery.

If you reject homosexuality on the grounds that it is destructive, then you also reject bravery... yes?

Or is there some other reason behind your opposition to homosexuality?

 

[tumbleweed41]

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



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.

You brought accountability into the debate.

Accountable to whom and who is advocating this belief that no one is accountable to anyone?

 

[1robin]

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.

Even if true that has absolutely no impact on my statement what so ever. I did not say anything about you specifically so my statement is not wrong if you are an exception. That was a sweeping generalised statement and it is a general fact.

 

[1robin]

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.

One of my sources was the CDC and another was a paper signed by 1000 high ranking military officers. Is the CDC and the military that recently welcomed gays after you as well? Even if this is true and my statement inaccurate how in the holy heck does a one year ban make the activity right. I think you are wrong but I could have used what you gave as just as much proof as what I did. The fact is that there was a Gay ban in the UK from the 80's until 2011. It was recently relaxed but still makes sure that no practicing gay males give blood. How is this any better for your case?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310
Unless you think England and one of the most respected news programs in the world is after you as well. Anyone who thinks a ban against people who have practiced a certain behavior in the last year is an argument for the behavior has cognitive dissonance squared.
[/quote]Say it with me....con-fir-ma-tion bi-as! [/quote]An emoticon will not make an argument you couldn't. I told you that I am not chasing this ridiculous red herring you love so much, the facts are very well known. I will tell you what, If I provide a respected source like the CDC for example that indicates that homosexuality increases human misery significantly will you drop all claims about sources. If you are honest you should. Unless you can agree I am done.

 

[Agnostic75]

Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

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.

What are you talking about? It is about as well-known as anything these days that in Europe and the US our traditional Christian values are being eroded by secular, relative, and subjective moralists. All of those come under the heading of liberal. Liberal literally means not absolute and more open to change. This has led to millions of babies killed as a form of birth control, school shootings, mass shootings in general, homosexuality and the horror, misery, and death it causes even to people who do not practice it and about a thousand other diabolic results and effects and some call this garbage progress. If you are saying you are not among them then since I never said you were that may be a fact. If you are saying this is not going on in general you are simply wrong.

No, "liberal moralists" do believe in ethics and accountability, but they believe that it should be based on evidence, logic, and compassion rather than on arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated superstition. I prefer using my brain to blindly adhering to the savage culture and primitive mindset of ancient goat herders (you know, the guys who authored that wacky book of yours.)

I never said they do not. I said they uncouple morals from the only possible sufficient justification for them. They still have them or think they do but they are no longer moral. They are arbitrary ethics based on preference and opinion. Morals are opinions without a transcendent standard and if history is anything it is a long sad tale of man's opinions resulting in inhumanity, poverty, and misery on unimaginable scales. Stalin Got rid of God completely and by so doing got rid of the only possible justification to claim anything about the sanctity of life. Stalin declared humans are a biological anomalies and their death is of no special significance and killed 20 million plus. Faith in my whacky book has been shared by people who created most of the actual fields of science, gave more to charity than any other group on Earth, built hospitals by the hundreds that treat the messes liberal morality creates, began many public school systems and contains the most profound, benevolent, and influential human being in history. You statements do reveal the inherent hostility and moral schizophrenia your side thrives on but you are so far from any truth in this rant I doubt a discussion is justified in your case. Here is one of the world most respected and degreed philosophers presenting a poem on modern morality and it is infinitely more accurate than anything you said:

“Creed” on the World


We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin

We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: For your convenience, I will include my most recent posts in this post.

.......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?" In the opening post, I showed that it is very unlikely that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

Are you 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? Theft is seldom consensual for both parties.

Homosexuality is usually consensual for both parties. Theft is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Are you suggesting that homosexuality should be illegal?

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 foods, 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. I am sure that the CDC agrees with that, and that they do not recommend reparative therapy, or abstinence, as effective ways to deal with homosexuality.

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. By 2030, the total percentage of people in the world who have preventable health problems will probably be over 70%, and their medical costs will be trillions of 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.

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. A list of 1,000 signatures that claim that gays in the military harms unit cohesion does not appeal to science, and to sociology. 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. Personal bigotry is no substitute for science, and sociology.

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.

 

[1robin]

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

The fact that there are healthy homosexuals in spite of there being hundreds of thousands of deathly sick ones does not make their actions any more right than the fact that many thieves do not actually harm anyone make theft ok. I have repeatedly asked for anyone to explain why anyone would think this kind of question makes any sense at all. No one ever has they just repeat the claim. I give up and will no longer point out the simple and obvious flaws with these strange idea.

How do healthy homosexuals harm anyone?

Why do you think that a healthy homosexual makes homosexuality ok?

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.

This is simply rationalizing something desired in an effort to make it look unavoidable. There have been tens of millions (probably) billions that resisted these same urges that had no ill effects. Not that even ill effects justifies practicing something that kills even people innocent of the practice. Rarely do I come across an issue so clear and easy to conclude. It is matched only by the absurd reasons to disallow any conclusion. These are the worst arguments for any position given anywhere in my considerable debate experience.

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 arbitrary 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?

Im am saying that your claims about only 20% have no meaning, application, or relevance to anything. I am not discussing 1% because that is not the case. The case is millions suffer so others can fulfill their lust.

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.

I deny it is a medical problem. I also deny that even with a medical problem there exists no reasonable choice. Having any sex at all is a choice made by countless people. Once again that is an absurd rationalization for what has no rationalization. The same could be said for pre-marital sex. I have given in to that temptation when I was younger but I would never say anything as absurd as that I had no choice. That is just ridiculous.

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.

If I was a medical professional I would discuss that side of things. I am not and the issue is irrelevant to the morality of the practice.

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 probably 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.

As I said I believe gluttony is morally wrong and money wise might have an even worse impact. I am consistent. If I was a health professional I would elaborate. I am not so I will not comment beyond morality and effects.

I have nothing against you. In spite of being emotionally disposed to your side you have been mostly civil but we are going in circles. I just do not have time to do this kind of thing when no resolution is possible. I reserve the right to bail out if the argumentation is not picked up and unlike last time I will not respond to you in other threads. No hard feelings, simple time constraints.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: If I may get off-topic for just a moment, are you a creationist, or a theistic evolutionist? If you are a theistic evolutionist, that is fine, but if you are a creationist, I respectfully ask why are you are creationist?

 

[1robin]

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

As I said I normally debate theological issues alone. This was a side track for me and I will not go further off my beaten path. I do not regard Psychology as an actual science, so all your studies (if you have them) would not have any effect and I could find studies that say the opposite but they would mean nothing either. You can think me ideological if you want but I am not wasting hours to prove otherwise, because my status with an anonymous poster is not that important to me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

One of my sources was the CDC and another was a paper signed by 1000 high ranking military officers. Is the CDC and the military that recently welcomed gays after you as well? Even if this is true and my statement inaccurate how in the holy heck does a one year ban make the activity right. I think you are wrong but I could have used what you gave as just as much proof as what I did. The fact is that there was a Gay ban in the UK from the 80's until 2011. It was recently relaxed but still makes sure that no practicing gay males give blood. How is this any better for your case?

Out to get me? What the...:areyoucra LOL

Your obsession with blood donation as proof of your claim of how horrid homosexuality is - it's certainly odd. But a one year deferral is given to other activities like:

Getting a tattoo
Receiving a blood donation due to surgery
Body piercing
Hepatitis exposure
Pregnancy

There's a list of reasons why a blood drive will restrict donors. Your argument against ALL homosexuality in society because of MSM one year restrictions - which doesn't even address the complete lack of restrictions for sexually active FSF women - doesn't qualify.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14824310
Unless you think England and one of the most respected news programs in the world is after you as well. Anyone who thinks a ban against people who have practiced a certain behavior in the last year is an argument for the behavior has cognitive dissonance squared.
Say it with me....con-fir-ma-tion bi-as!

An emoticon will not make an argument you couldn't. I told you that I am not chasing this ridiculous red herring you love so much, the facts are very well known. I will tell you what, If I provide a respected source like the CDC for example that indicates that homosexuality increases human misery significantly will you drop all claims about sources. If you are honest you should. Unless you can agree I am done.

I put in emoticons to lighten the mood. Too bad not everybody has a sense of humor around here....

No single source will suffice, 1robin. Anybody can cherry pick to their hearts delight. Provide a list of peer-reviewed studies across all disciplines....health care, sociology, anthropology, child psychology, etc......that shows your claim that homosexuality increases human misery significantly. I'll read it.

But first, they must all be peer-reviewed and follow the scientific method.

Second, they must be pulled from various social and biological sciences.

The burden is on you to show it, since a cursory glance through Google Scholar and JSTOR typically provides countless arguments on the contrary - that homosexuality is not a disease, it is not a mental disorder, that it does not cause misery and suffering, and that if any suffering exists it does so at the hands of social prejudice and discrimination.

Saying you'll pull data from the CDC all by itself doesn't provide anything other than data and information. Utilize context, environmental factors, socio-economic factors, etc. and we might get somewhere.

Tell YOU what, 1robin. Show me how homosexuality all by iteslf is a cause of human suffering worse than poverty and war, and I will happily concede.

 

[Riverwolf]

Even if true that has absolutely no impact on my statement what so ever. I did not say anything about you specifically so my statement is not wrong if you are an exception. That was a sweeping generalised statement and it is a general fact.

Oh? Demonstrate, 'cause from what I've seen, political correctness seems equally prevalent among all political viewpoints.

 

[Riverwolf]

What are you talking about? It is about as well-known as anything these days that in Europe and the US our traditional Christian values are being eroded by secular, relative, and subjective moralists. All of those come under the heading of liberal. Liberal literally means not absolute and more open to change. This has led to millions of babies killed as a form of birth control, school shootings, mass shootings in general, homosexuality and the horror, misery, and death it causes even to people who do not practice it and about a thousand other diabolic results and effects and some call this garbage progress. If you are saying you are not among them then since I never said you were that may be a fact. If you are saying this is not going on in general you are simply wrong.

It is going on, at lesser rates than it used to. Having done the research, overall crime rates are actually lower nowadays.

During the times of these "traditional Christian values", there was mass persecution and even killing of anyone simply for daring to think differently.

Besides, none of those are equal. Homosexuality is not on the same level as school shootings in any way. It's not even apples and oranges; it's apples and plastic.

It's already been demonstrated that the majority of homosexuals are healthy, and thus not miserable or living in horror except from those who persecute them. And how in the world does it harm those who don't practice it?

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: If I may get off-topic for just a moment, are you a creationist, or a theistic evolutionist? If you are a theistic evolutionist, that is fine, but if you are a creationist, I respectfully ask why are you are creationist?

I do not know that there is a term for me. My view is so complex and incomplete I can't explain it in a post. I will give you a few beliefs I have and all are scientifically valid. I believe God began the "Big Bang" as the latest cosmology shows: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. The universe is not eternal. Space time and matter began to exist approx. 15 billion years ago. That means that whatever created it must be timeless, non-material, omnipotent, omniscient and personal. God is the only candidate. Time could not be eternal because it would be impossible to cross an infinite amount of seconds to arrive at this one. The same for matter and past events.
I believe God created life. There is no known exception to abiogenesis known. There is also no known even theory as to what produced the first higher than equilibrium organism that could convert energy into complexity. I believe things evolve but have boundaries. The Bible says that "Kind" is the boundary but does not say what kind means. I think it is species (species cannot cross breed). I do not think (and many evolutionists as well) that the slow increasing complexity model is correct. The Cambrian saw all major body types appear with no history and in a geological instant. Why are the earliest eyes the most complex? Why are extremely old body types unchanged? I believe Adam was the first homo sapien with a soul but possible not the first homo sapien. I do not believe the days in genesis are literal days but reserve the right to change my mind. In short natural law does govern uninterrupted most of the time but without an additional input (by God) natural law simply can't produce what we find in reality alone. Where one stops and the other begins is debatable but the fact that both exist seems to be unchallengeable and is exactly what the Bible predicts. I have a math degree and am able to understand most of the science involved and it's extreme limits at times. If I have confused you enough I will stop here but my beliefs are far more in depth and detailed than I can possibly post here. Was there a specific question?

The laws of thermodynamics and cause and effect leave no room for an eternal universe, a universe without a suffecient and effecient cause, or life that arrived by chance or information that arrived without intelligence.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why do you think that a healthy homosexual makes homosexuality ok?

Better stated, why do you think that homosexuality is not appropriate for healthy, monogamous homosexuals?

How in the world do healthy, monogamous homosexuals harm anyone? How is any action not appropriate if it does not harm anyone?

If an individual homosexual is monogamous, and healthy, he is not wrong, or immoral since he is not harming anyone. If anything, he is setting a good example for other homosexuals. Why should such homosexuals practice abstinence for life?

If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would you criticize all Muslims? If 20% of Buddhists
were thieves, would you criticize all Buddhists?

There have been tens of millions (probably) billions that resisted these same urges that had no ill effects.

Please post evidence that supports that claim. I think that you are way off.

Regarding people who have practiced abstinence for life, the vast majority of them probably did so for religious reasons. That means that you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals. It is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, and often fails even for them.

It is often very difficult to accurately assess the physical and emotional health of people who practice abstinence for life. Surely many such people had a very hard time practicing abstinence for life.

Common sense indicates that what some people can endure, many other people cannot without having serious physical, and emotional consequences. You are not in a position to judge what every homosexual should endure.

I deny it is a medical problem. If I was a medical professional I would discuss that side of things. I am not.......

But if only experts made posts at these forums, there would hardly be anyone here. I believe that you are avoiding quoting experts since you know that it would be difficult for you to provide reasonable proof that homosexuality is caused 100% by environmnent. As far as spiritual problems are concerned, science does not deal with spiritual problems. In additions, some religions do not oppose homosexuality.

.......and the issue is irrelevant to the morality of the practice.

Whose morality? From what source? How can any action be immoral that does not harm other people? Who do healthy, monogamous homosexuals harm? Why should they practice abstinence, which would offer no possible benefits, and many possible physical and emotional problems?

Having any sex at all is a choice made by countless people. Once again that is an absurd rationalization for what has no rationalization. The same could be said for pre-marital sex. I have given in to that temptation when I was younger but I would never say anything as absurd as that I had no choice. That is just ridiculous.

But pre-marital sex cannot be compared with abstinence for life, and never knowing the joys of having sex with someone who you love, and kissing them, and gently touching them, and having someone to live with, and share your hopes and dreams with.

I speculate that less than 1% of humans have practiced abstinence for life, and that the vast majority of people who did did so for religious reasons, and that a lot of them suffered a good deal from sexual frustration. The CDC, and all other major medical organizations, and the majority of people in the Western world, do not believe that abstinence for life is a reasonable thing to demand for homosexuals.

I think that the wackiest claim that you have made in this thread was your claim that since homosexuals who have certain health problems are immoral, all homosexuals are immoral. That is really wacky, just as wacky as saying that if 20% of Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are immoral.

 

[Agnostic75]

I do not know that there is a term for me. My view is so complex and incomplete I can't explain it in a post. I will give you a few beliefs I have and all are scientifically valid. I believe God began the "Big Bang" as the latest cosmology shows: Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe. The universe is not eternal. Space time and matter began to exist approx. 15 billion years ago. That means that whatever created it must be timeless, non-material, omnipotent, omniscient and personal. God is the only candidate. Time could not be eternal because it would be impossible to cross an infinite amount of seconds to arrive at this one. The same for matter and past events.

I believe God created life. There is no known exception to abiogenesis known. There is also no known even theory as to what produced the first higher than equilibrium organism that could convert energy into complexity. I believe things evolve but have boundaries. The Bible says that "Kind" is the boundary but does not say what kind means. I think it is species (species cannot cross breed). I do not think (and many evolutionists as well) that the slow increasing complexity model is correct. The Cambrian saw all major body types appear with no history and in a geological instant. Why are the earliest eyes the most complex? Why are extremely old body types unchanged? I believe Adam was the first homo sapien with a soul but possible not the first homo sapien. I do not believe the days in genesis are literal days but reserve the right to change my mind. In short natural law does govern uninterrupted most of the time but without an additional input (by God) natural law simply can't produce what we find in reality alone. Where one stops and the other begins is debatable but the fact that both exist seems to be unchallengeable and is exactly what the Bible predicts. I have a math degree and am able to understand most of the science involved and it's extreme limits at times. If I have confused you enough I will stop here but my beliefs are far more in depth and detailed than I can possibly post here. Was there a specific question?

I am mainly interested in whether or not you accept macro evolution, and the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Most experts accept those two claims, including the vast majority of Christian experts.

Do you believe that the flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity?