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

[1robin]

Umm... huh? Why would it be a good thing to save cowards?

Are you argueing that cowards have no value? Fortunately my God founds the sancity of all life so one group (like your arbitrary one) cannot say another group is not worth protecting. That is what Hitler and Stalin claimed. I would even fight to keep the homosexuals from being killed. (Heck, I have indirectly anyway and so have countless soldiers who homosexuals have insulted directly). Unfortunately they are killing themselves and I can't attack a person to protect him from himself. I see you are in full ambiguous mode again.

Actually there is more justifiable reason for homosexuality than for bravery.

Nope, unless selfishness and lust is the only criteria.

It has worked just fine to demonstrate that you do not really oppose homosexuality on the grounds of the damage it causes. If you did, you would also oppose bravery.

I have already said that about 10 times. I oppose it because I think it wrong theologically. That is indicated, in that nature seems to condemn it as well. It is wrong because it is harmfull because it has no merit to justify it's practice in the face of the misery it causes. Bravery does, no matter what you claim here.

I'm showing that your real reasons for opposing homosexuality have very little to do with secular matters.

It is for both and I have said so many times. Do you guys think I am ashamed or afraid to claim I dissagree with it for theological reasons among others or something? Good Lord man, I have said so many times and argue for God in this forum constantly Sherlock. I agree with God. Satasfied.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Argument #1

I think [that same-sex behavior is] wrong [even] if no one died from AIDS.] The fact that homosexuals have a significantly lower life span is indicative of this.

Quote:

International Journal of Epidemiology

"The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday."

Gay life expectancy revisited

That was a pro gay study. Are they prejudiced as well? Factor in the other diseases along the way and there is no counter argument.

The study is not prejudiced. It is from a very reputable organization.

As the study showed, half of homosexuals do not have a significantly reduced lifespan.

You conveniently did not quote the paragraph before the paragraph that you quoted, which is as follows:

"Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s.1 From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being."

The journal knows that the main issue is, as they said, "promoting their health and well being." You do not have a reasonable plan for promoting the health and well being of homosexuals.

The article also said:

"Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia."

Argument #2

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV. The statistic would only have been noticeably lower if the 20% of homosexuals who have HIV had practiced abstinence. Since most of the 20% are not interested in monogamy (although about half of homosexuals are), they quite naturally would be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life than practicing monogamy. Since the 20% are much less likely to practice abstinence for life than to practice monogamy, it is quite obvious that the 80% would have even less of a chance to influence the 20% to practice abstinence for life than to influence them to practice monogamy. Thus, logically, it would be better for the 80% to try to use monogamy to influence the 20% than abstinence for life. As far as HIV is concerned, two uninfected monogamous homosexuals have almost no risk of getting AIDS from each other.

Just think what would happen if the Bible's prohibition against homosexuality and promiscuity were both followed.

What kinds of laws and penalties are you proposing?

Just think what would happen if Jesus' prohibition of divorce except in cases of adultery was followed. For many couples, it would be a disaster.

Argument #3

This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous.

About half of homosexuals are monogamous, and among those who are not monogamous, some practice safe sex. As far as I know, there is not any documented scientific research that shows that monogamous homosexuals are much more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals.

Following your same line of reasoning, since older homosexuals have higher rates of alcoholism than older heterosexuals do, all older homosexuals should give up drinking alcohol. You might as well claim that if a minority of homosexuals had more car accidents than heterosexuals do, all homosexuals should not drive cars.

Argument #4

It is also a little silly to suggest that for example that murder would be ok as long as only bad people were killed.

That is a bad analogy. When monogamous gay couples who do not have any STD's have sex, there is no injured party, the sex frequently provides great physical, and emotional pleasure, and the sex does not harm the participants, or anyone else. When a murder is committed, there is always an injured party.

Argument #5

.......there have been countless people who practice abstinence.

Many people have practiced abstinence for life, but what percentage, in say the U.S., practiced abstinence for life during the past 200 years, what percentage tried and gave up, and what percentage were religiously motivated? If you do not have all of that information, you do not have an argument.

It is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, regardless of the religion, and that it often fails even for religiously motivated people. Such being the case, it is reasonable to assume that abstinence for life would generally work better by far for religiously motivated people than for less religious homosexuals, and for atheists, agnostics, and deists, and that is would frequently fail even for religiously motivated people. You can bet that a large number of Roman Catholic priests and nuns have sex, and/or masturbate, and that many would be priests and nuns did not become priests and nuns because they were not able to practice abstinence.

Reparative therapy, and abstinence have caused many medical problems for many homosexuals.

Argument #6

By this strange argument we should not deny people the pleasure of blissful contentment that heroin provides. Claiming it feels good so it is right is about the worst argument in a long line of bad arguments for your side.

Quite obviously, the merit of any action depends upon the results. The eventual results of the frequent use of heroin are always bad. The eventual results of monogamous homosexuality are good much of the time.

There is much more to monogamous heterosexual relationships than just having sex, such as going to a movie together, having dinner together, kissing each other, and sharing life together in many other ways. Most humans are not at their best living alone, and practicing abstinence.

I am not required to have a solution to claim a problem is a problem.

But your stated solution is abstinence for life.

Logically, if a problem has no solution, no one is at fault. Fortunately, there is a solution for preventing STD's, and it is the same for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, which is to practice safe sex.

Argument #7

You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

I do not agree and can provide sources if needed.......

What sources? Surely none of the following organizations:

American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Medical Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Anthropological Association
American Sociological Association

In debates, it is customary to provide sources, not boast about them without quoting them, or mentioning their names. What sources are you talking about?

The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. How do you explain that? If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. That is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

When one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do. That also is not complicated, and it is easy to understand.

Why don't you ask your sources to comment on the two arguments that I just used and post their replies?

A growing number of experts believe that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetics and environment.

 

[Agnostic75]

They were not bigots they were high ranking professional’s whose lives were pledged to give you the right to talk this trash about them and depend on these issues. I resent this garbage characterization of them. I remember why I got out of this thread now. I will not continue a discussion if this type of rabid nonsense is used. Not because it is offensive but because it is absurd. In spite of your ridiculous obfuscation their letter was better than science it was absolute fact. Even if they were bigot's which is stupid it shows undeniably that unit cohesion was affected. It is a fact and all the nonsense you use as truth filter will not change it. I was there. I saw countless good soldiers take early retirement when these liberal issues started to surface when Clinton was in office. When people are dying we do not want to have to worry about who is looking at us in the shower. It is no time for experiments and political correctness when a several hundred thousand tons of extremely lethal ships are heading at us.

What do you mean about political correctness?

It is time for experiments since gay rights should not be held hostage to religious beliefs.

Unfortunately, you do not know how scientists and sociologists conduct research about gays in the military. Your comment that "their letter was better than science it was absolute fact" is not reasonable proof of harm to unit cohesion that resulted in unfavorable results during military actions, only reasonable proof that some heterosexual servicemen do not like to be around gay people. Many military people who originally opposed gays in the military changed their minds after reading some research, including the commandant of the Marine Corps.

In an article at What Does the Empirical Research Say about the Impact of Openly Gay Service on the Military? | Palm Center, Dr. Nathaniel Frank discusses how empirical research has showed that the new policy has generally worked well.

Dr. Frank would tell you that there is a big difference between "asserting" that gays in the military harms unit cohesion, and providing empirical "evidence" that it harms unit cohesion.

A number of polls have shown that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious conservatives. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the fewer religious conservatives there are in a country, the less resistance there is to gays in the military. That explains why over 30 countries have successfully allowed gays in their militaries for years, including Israel for over 20 years.

Few people have questioned the ability of gay servicemen to perform their jobs well. Rather, the main problem is that some heterosexual servicemen who are religious conservatives believe that God strongly opposes homosexuality. Religious beliefs that do not have any support from secular evidence should not be used to limit the civil rights of other groups of people. Conservative Muslims are strongly opposed to eating pork. Should that belief be used to limit the civil rights of people who eat pork?

 

[Agnostic75]

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV.

This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous.

As far as I know, there is not any documented scientific research that shows that monogamous homosexuals are a good deal more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals.

It would be ridiculous to suggest that monogamous homosexual couples who have been monogamous for decades should practice abstinence beccause there is no guarantee that they will stay monogamous.

Which would you recommend to heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex, that they practice monogamy, or that they practice abstinence for life?

Since most homosexuals who have HIV, and/or other STD's, are not interested in monogamy, it is quite obvious that they would be much less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, your plan would do very little to lower the rate of HIV, and other STD's. The majority of medical professionals believe that the best approach is to deal directly with homosexuals, and heterosexuals for that matter, who have medical problems, not to deal with healthy homosexuals, and healthy heterosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin:

The more repressive a country is, the less likely they are to provide legal rights for homosexuals. Islamic republics are a good example. A Wikipedia article at LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows gay rights by country.

Consider the following chart that is provided:







The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights. and are generally not an admirable group of countries. On the other hand, some of the countries that have a good deal of gay rights are Canada, Britain, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

So what? I think Islam is evil (not all Muslims though) so why do I care what they do in this context?

It is not just Muslims. Some countries that oppress homosexuals a lot are predominantly Christian.

As a whole, countries that are more prosperous, free, and educated tend to support gay rights more than other countries do, such as Canada, Britain, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, which I mentioned previously, and all of whom are predominantly Christian.

 

[Agnostic75]

I oppose it because I think it wrong theologically. That is indicated, in that nature seems to condemn it as well.

How does nature condemn homosexuality? Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. All bonobo monkeys are bisexual, and experts have said that they derive some benefits from their bisexuality.

Why are all bonobo monkeys bisexual?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Are you argueing that cowards have no value? Fortunately my God founds the sancity of all life so one group (like your arbitrary one) cannot say another group is not worth protecting. That is what Hitler and Stalin claimed.

So you're saying that our heroic young men should not sacrifice their life and limb to save Hitler and Stalin? The group containing Hitler and Stalin is not worth protecting?

Well, OK. To me, your thought seems pretty strange and contradictory, but whatever.

I would even fight to keep the homosexuals from being killed. (Heck, I have indirectly anyway and so have countless soldiers who homosexuals have insulted directly).

Countless soldiers whom homosexuals have insulted? What are you talking about? Did the homosexuals insult the homosexual soldiers along with the heterosexual soldiers? Please explain. I want to hear the story.

Unfortunately they are killing themselves and I can't attack a person to protect him from himself.

Right. If our heroes insist upon following their perverted lifestyle of bravery, it would be wrong of you to attack them and try to change their ways. Men who live risky lifestyles are beyond our help. Let them swim out to save drowning dogs. They make their own twisted choices.

I see you are in full ambiguous mode again.

Thanks. It really is the only true path to wisdom, I'm pretty sure.

Nope, unless selfishness and lust is the only criteria.

Yes. The brave only persue their perverted behaviors out of lust for personal glory. I love them and I would fight to protect their lifestyle choices, but let us at least be honest about what God thinks of them.

I oppose it because I think it wrong theologically.That is indicated, in that nature seems to condemn it as well.

Right. Just as nature condemns bravery and coal-mining. Both of those behaviors obviously are condemned by nature.

It is for both and I have said so many times. Do you guys think I am ashamed or afraid to claim I dissagree with it for theological reasons among others or something?

I don't know anything about what 'those guys' think. I'm not even sure who they are. But I'm pretty sure that you'd prefer not to focus on your theological reasons for opposing homosexuality. After all, you only have your personal, fallible interpretation of the garbled words of an ancient primitive people -- assumed by you to be somehow magically delivered and preserved by God -- to support you in your theological opposition to gayness. If I were in such a position, I think even I might try to distract the argument from such a shaky foundation.

Nah. Not really. That was just a bit of fun exaggeration.

Good Lord man, I have said so many times and argue for God in this forum constantly Sherlock. I agree with God.

I'm afraid I disagree. To me it seems that I agree with God but that you have become confused as to His true Will. I mean, you actually seem to think that God opposes homosexuality!

 

[Agnostic75]

Heck, I have indirectly anyway and so have countless soldiers who homosexuals have insulted directly.

"Who homosexuals have insulted directly?" My gracious, what hypocrisy. Any informed person who reads your post #304 will easily see that that post is very insulting to homosexuals, that some of it is false, and that some of it is misleading.

You even insult monogamous homosexuals who have lived monogamously for decades by claiming that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Sure, some homosexuals are wrongly rude, but so are many Christians. Years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized to black people for racial bigotry among many Southern Baptists. It is well-known that Republicans have resisted advances in civil rights for black people far more than Democrats have, and that there is generally more racial bigotry today in Southern Bible belt states than there is in most, or all other states.

Is it not insulting for homosexuality to be illegal? Until the court case "Lawrence versus Texas," which was in 2003, homosexuality was illegal in Texas, and in twelve other states, most of which are Southern Bible Belt states. Two gay men were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. They were not making any loud noises, and they were not bothering anyone.

 

[Agnostic75]

I wish to correct an error that I made in my post #665. I said that Sweden is predominantly Christian, but it is not predominantly Christian, it is predominantly skeptic.

 

[dgirl1986]

"Who homosexuals have insulted directly?" My gracious, what hypocrisy. Any informed person who reads your post #304 will easily see that that post is very insulting to homosexuals, that some of it is false, and that some of it is misleading.

You even insult monogamous homosexuals who have lived monogamously for decades by claiming that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Sure, some homosexuals are wrongly rude, but so are many Christians. Years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention apologized to black people for racial bigotry among many Southern Baptists. It is well-known that Republicans have resisted advances in civil rights for black people far more than Democrats have, and that there is generally more racial bigotry today in Southern Bible belt states than there is in most, or all other states.

Is it not insulting for homosexuality to be illegal? Until the court case "Lawrence versus Texas," which was in 2003, homosexuality was illegal in Texas, and in twelve other states, most of which are Southern Bible Belt states. Two gay men were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. They were not making any loud noises, and they were not bothering anyone.

To be honest, I stopped fully reading the long lengthy posts and instead skimmed through them (with different statements being made about homosexuals), most of what I did read was rather insulting.

You actually make some really good points that I think are being overlooked by a few.

 

[Agnostic75]

To be honest, I stopped fully reading the long lengthy posts and instead skimmed through them (with different statements being made about homosexuals), most of what I did read was rather insulting.

You actually make some really good points that I think are being overlooked by a few.

Thanks.

 

[Searching For Truth]

For the believers who think God is condemning homosexuals to hell. This is my question for you.

If we are to love our neighbor what happens if our neighbor is a homosexual? If you really think that they are an abomination to God, then wouldn't loving them make you a hypocrite? And give them the false impression that what they are doing is O.K. If your willing to love them, then why wouldn't God love and forgive them?

 

[ateapotist]

Because Abrahamic religions were invented in a time where there were many homophobes around. Naturally, all these religions reflect homophobia. If indeed you refer to one of these religions.

 

[mayuboar]

If you all get to heaven and find god, is neither male nor female, but interchanchanging and fully engaging in sex with both sexes, you are in for quite a shock people.

but would it change god, or who god is, ask yourself that of man to.

 

[1robin]

If you all get to heaven and find god, is neither male nor female, but interchanchanging and fully engaging in sex with both sexes, you are in for quite a shock people.

but would it change god, or who god is, ask yourself that of man to.

The argumentation in this thread is deplorable. If God is both sexes and engaging in sex both ways with what exactly you do not say, then that is not heaven and I do not want any if it was. My God transcends these base issues and conduct designed for procreation of biological life which he has no need of will not exist in a spiritual kingdom. What does "ask yourself that of man to" even mean. It is not coherent but most of these arguemnts aren't anyway.

 

[Ken Brown]

The argumentation in this thread is deplorable. If God is both sexes and engaging in sex both ways with what exactly you do not say, then that is not heaven and I do not want any if it was. My God transcends these base issues and conduct designed for procreation of biological life which he has no need of will not exist in a spiritual kingdom. What does "ask yourself that of man to" even mean. It is not coherent but most of these arguemnts aren't anyway.

Hi 1robin, hear, hear! KB

 

[Agnostic75]

The argumentation in this thread is deplorable. If God is both sexes and engaging in sex both ways with what exactly you do not say, then that is not heaven and I do not want any if it was. My God transcends these base issues and conduct designed for procreation of biological life which he has no need of will not exist in a spiritual kingdom. What does "ask yourself that of man to" even mean. It is not coherent but most of these arguments aren't anyway.

That addresses what another poster said, not what I said. You have not replied to six of my previous seven posts. Please reply to those posts. If you are evasive, and refuse to reply to my posts, then I will know that you know that you cannot adequately refute my arguments. You cannot honestly claim that you have already addressed all of my arguments since you know that you haven't.

 

[heksesang]

The argumentation in this thread is deplorable. If God is both sexes and engaging in sex both ways with what exactly you do not say, then that is not heaven and I do not want any if it was. My God transcends these base issues and conduct designed for procreation of biological life which he has no need of will not exist in a spiritual kingdom. What does "ask yourself that of man to" even mean. It is not coherent but most of these arguemnts aren't anyway.

So you only want God if he is what you want him to be? Saying "My God is this or does that" makes it sound like you are trying to define God yourself.

God created man in his image, he created them man and woman. That is what the Bible says. If that is really true, that means God is both man and woman, because both man and woman is an image of God.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

God created man in his image, he created them man and woman. That is what the Bible says. If that is really true, that means God is both man and woman, because both man and woman is an image of God.

Yikes. I'm a little uncomfortable with the image conjured up by that description.

Not saying there's anything wrong with hermaphrodites... just more detail than I care to imagine.

 

[1robin]

So you only want God if he is what you want him to be? Saying "My God is this or does that" makes it sound like you are trying to define God yourself.

That is not accurate or logical. If Satan turns out to be God then I do not want to be where he is. If God is a base idiot ruled by primal natural lusts the same is true. No I did not invent God. I found a candidate description of God in the most cherished book in human history and after years of research have concluded it to be accurate. I have even experienced that God by following the instructions found in the same book. Most other God's are logically incoherent and undesirable even if true.

God created man in his image, he created them man and woman. That is what the Bible says. If that is really true, that means God is both man and woman, because both man and woman is an image of God.

That is a severe distortion of that spiritual doctrine. He did not create us to look like him. God must by necessity be non-material, outside time, and outside space. We do not look like that. He made us in his image when he made us logical, rational, morally sensitive, and with an immortal soul and spirit. We do not look like my God and God has no need of a partner to procreate with. If you believe in a God that has this need then he is less that God. See great making properties and modes of being for the philosophical explanation of this. Your God sounds like he was made in the image of man.