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

[Agnostic75]

With God homosexuality is a crime against the stated purpose of human sexuality.......

More accurately, some religions oppose homosexuality, not all religions.

.......however even without God it is no less wrong but takes more words to illustrate.

In this thread, you have definitely not provided reasonable secular evidence that all homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and unhealthy, for participants, and for society.

I debate mostly religious issues and have gained some competence and familiarity with both positions on most issues.

It is amusing that you believe that you have a good deal of competence regarding debating religious issues, but that is understandable due to your inexperience, and lack of formal religious education. If you spent a few months debating at the Biblical Criticism and History Forum at the FRDB (Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Boards), you would embarrass yourself. Some members there are professionals, and many are close to professionals, and most have read hundreds of books that are pertinent to the discussions there. Many of the members are fluent, or nearly fluent, with New Testament Greek, and a few are familiar with Old Testament Hebrew.

Please do spend at least a little time there, even if just as a spectator, and you will seen how poorly prepared you are to debate biblical criticism and history.

Moral relativists, evolutionists, materialists and subjectivists make the same type of claim concerning morality.

90% say morality is determined by human flourishing (that is ridiculous but that is another subject), the more realistic 10% say morality is an illusion without God. They say evolution produces the desirability or undesirability of an act but there is no moral dimension to it. The 10% are more logical than the 90% but either position suggests homosexuality is either immoral or un desirable. It increases the total human suffering of humanity without a corresponding gain that justifies it. In either system it is not justifiable.

How is monogamous same-sex behavior not justifiable? How does it cause human suffering?

In the U.S., about half of homosexuals are monogamous, and about 80% do not have HIV.

Talk about against human flourishing, if every one was a homosexual there would be no humans after a generation or two. Even if you could prove God does not exist and prove that morals are an illusion it still would not be justified.

That is typical of the many absurd arguments that you have made in this thread. The only way that what you said could become a threat to population would be if 1) sexual identity was a choice, which it isn't, and if 2) a large percentage of people chose to have a homosexual sexual identity.

Since overpopulation is what we have in much of the world, if everyone in the world was heterosexual, overpopulation would be much worse than it is. Overpopulation means more pollution, more global warming, and more need for food, water, and housing.

If you conduct some research on overpopulation, you will find that it is a very big problems in some countries, and that under population is a problem in only a few countries.

Over 1500 species of animals, and birds practice homosexuality, and virtually all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. How does same-sex behavior harm animals, and birds?

By 2030, 70% of the people in the world might have cancer, and 50% of Americans might be obese. In 2030, if 50% of Americans are obese, that would all 500 million dollars to medical costs in the U.S. alone. Would you like to make a case that everyone who has a preventable serious medical problem is immoral? If it were true that everyone who has a serious preventable medical problem is immoral, that would mean that none of those people would be in a position to criticize homosexuals from a medical perspective.

If you hang around this thread for a few more weeks, or months, you will eventually see that none of your secular arguments work against the millions of homosexuals who are monogamous.

At another forum, you restated some of your arguments from this thread about abstinence for life as a solution for homosexuality. That is interesting since I thoroughly discredited those arguments in this thread, and you did not reply to what I said. As I recall, in this thread, you said that billions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life. That claim is false, and I request that you provide statistics regarding abstinence for life. As I showed in my post #688, which you refused to reply to, there is no need for monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence for life.

Many researchers know that the best "success" with abstinence for life by far is among strongly religiously motivated people, that "success" is far less with other people, and that the failure rate is high even among strongly religiously motivated people.

 

[1robin]

Agnostic75;3334155][/font][/color]
More accurately, some religions oppose homosexuality, not all religions.

How in the world did I get into a homosexual debate with you again? This is like that old tar baby story. I'm stuck. I have a few minutes so I will answer what I can but did not intend to open up a whole new debate. I meant God as in my belief system. Historically most societies of any type have opposed homosexuality. It is one of the most prominent taboos in human history but that is not the point I was making.

In this thread, you have definitely not provided reasonable secular evidence that all homosexuality is wrong, immoral, and unhealthy, for participants, and for society.

From the little I remember I think I provided evidence and undeniable extrapolations of that evidence. Doing a destructive practice on some theoretical claim that you can do it and always will do it safely is not even an argument. Try using that defense if you are ever pulled over for a DUI.

It is amusing that you believe that you have a good deal of competence regarding debating religious issues, but that is understandable due to your inexperience, and lack of formal religious education. If you spent a few months debating at the Biblical Criticism and History Forum at the FRDB (Free thought and Rationalism Discussion Boards), you would embarrass yourself. Some members there are professionals, and many are close to professionals, and most have read hundreds of books that are pertinent to the discussions there. Many of the members are fluent, or nearly fluent, with New Testament Greek, and a few are familiar with Old Testament Hebrew.
Please do spend at least a little time there, even if just as a spectator, and you will see how poorly prepared you are to debate biblical criticism and history.

I do not know what this is or why it is relevant. It is also far too personal, trivial, and inaccurate on many levels so I will ignore it. All though I have spent a great deal of time studying the greatest theological scholars in history and know very well what is competence and what is not.

How is monogamous same-sex behavior not justifiable? How does it cause human suffering?

The same way that a drunk who hit nothing on the way driving home was doing wrong and the simple fact no one died does not mean that next decision to drive was not made easier by this successful one but will eventually cause much harm to both him and many others. I believe we have beat this non-issue to death. Wrong is not right if you get away with it. That is a child's logic. Until you could guarantee that the same behavior will never be practiced in a non-safe way the issue is not even open to discuss. On hit of ecstasy may have absolutely no harmful effect and the next one may kill you but the fact that any use makes future use easier even in an unsafe manner is the real issue. The theological argument would be that God has said if you keep heading in the wrong direction with pride and arrogance and against his efforts to turn you around he will eventually abandon us to the corrupting desires of our rebellious heart even unto out destruction. That's all the time I have.

 

[Skeptisch]

People who practice homosexuality have higher rates of:
Alcohol abuse
Drug abuse
Nicotine dependence
Depression
Suicide
Domestic violence (20 times more common than among heterosexuals)
Higher rates of child molestation*
(Nearly 1/3 of the child abuse cases are homosexual in nature, and homosexuals are only 3% of the population.)
Daughters of lesbian "parents" are more likely to engage in risky sexual behavior and experience the consequences of that behavior.
In areas in which homosexual marriage has become accepted (The Netherlands and areas of Scandinavia, for example), the fundamental building block of society--the family--has fallen apart. In some of these areas as many as 80% of the children are born outside of a family.
Children of homosexual "parents" do the worst in 9 of 13 acedemic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples.

Homosexuals prey on children.
* 33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7)
* There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association ( NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is "SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE."
* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molester (19)
* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9)
* Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality" (22)
* Because homosexuals can't reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting "TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT" in their homosexual parades. A group called the "Lesbian Avengers" prides itself on trying to recruit young girls.

Homosexuality Harms Society
* One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime
* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7)
* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior" (16)
* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population

What a disgraceful exhibition of ignorance, from someone claiming to have a PhD.
Not surprising though considering where his or her moral guidance seem to come from:

Leviticus
20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

 

[Rocky S]

Hmm this is a loaded question and can be a bit complicated and controversial to answer. There is prohibition in the bible against homosexuality and lesbianism, this is quite clear from scripture. As well any sexual relationship outside of marriage. This is something you may have to discuss with your pastor or minister . Especially if you have certain proclivities towards being attractive to the same sex.

 

[Philomath]

I've always wondered why the god found in various religions would care so much about a person's sex life. I mean there are far more things to be concerned about than what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom.

 

[Agnostic75]

How in the world did I get into a homosexual debate with you again?

Because you started to make invalid arguments about homosexuality again in another thread. I did not bring up homosexuality, you did, and now you are complaining because I replied to arguments that you made.

This is like that old tar baby story. I'm stuck. I have a few minutes so I will answer what I can but did not intend to open up a whole new debate. I meant God as in my belief system.

But earlier in this thread, you said that most of your arguments up to that time had been secular arguments. At the beginning of this thread, I knew that you would eventually have to resort to using more religious arguments since there are not any valid secular arguments against all monogamous homosexuals. You have not provided any secular arguments why all monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life, a "solution" that no major professional medical organization recommends.

Historically most societies of any type have opposed homosexuality. It is one of the most prominent taboos in human history but that is not the point I was making.

That is a ridiculous argument since colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women used to be popular among many, if not the majority of Christians. What used to be popular, or unpopular, in antiquity, or even several hundred years ago, is not going to provide sufficient evidence that all monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence for life today. Much of what people used to do was wrong, including opposition to homosexuality. As recently as 100 years ago, there was a widespread taboo against wearing bikinis at the beach. The majority of people considered that to be immoral.

The majority of Americans approve of allowing openly homosexual people to join the military, and dozens of countries allow openly homosexual people to join the military, including Israel, and Britain. The Prime Minister of Iceland is an open lesbian. So is one of the provincial governors in Canada. So are a number of U.S. politicians. As I showed in one of my posts, generally, the people who oppose homosexuality the most in the world are Muslims, and Christian Africans who often have poor education, and low incomes.

Here is the map again. The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights.

How is monogamous homosexuality harmful?

From the little I remember I think I provided evidence and undeniable extrapolations of that evidence. Doing a destructive practice on some theoretical claim that you can do it and always will do it safely is not even an argument. Try using that defense if you are ever pulled over for a DUI.

The same way that a drunk who hit nothing on the way driving home was doing wrong and the simple fact no one died does not mean that next decision to drive was not made easier by this successful one but will eventually cause much harm to both him and many others.

I believe we have beat this non-issue to death. Wrong is not right if you get away with it. That is a child's logic. Until you could guarantee that the same behavior will never be practiced in a non-safe way the issue is not even open to discuss. On hit of ecstasy may have absolutely no harmful effect and the next one may kill you but the fact that any use makes future use easier even in an unsafe manner is the real issue.

But I have already adequately refuted those kinds of arguments before. The following is from my post #688 in the thread on homosexuality, which I have asked you to reply to a number of times, but you have refused to do so because you know that I made lots of good arguments in that post. Consider the following from my post #688.

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.

That 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 because 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.

Regarding your drunk driving comments, is your solution to drunk driving that drunk drivers should abstain from driving for life since they could not guarantee that they would never driver while drunk again? No, you would recommend that they practice safe driving, so why don't you recommend safe sex for homosexuals, just as you would probably recommend safe sex for promiscuous heterosexuals, not abstinence for life?

Your arguments about abstinence are so absurd, and have so little support among professionals that with your permission, I will start a new thread on abstinence, and quote some of what you have said about abstinence in this thread, including your wild, undocumented, utterly absurd claim that billions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life.

You have not provided any valid secular arguments that all homosexuals should practice abstinence for life. Since even many religiously motivated homosexuals have unsuccessfully attempted to practice abstinence for life, It is preposterous that you demand that even all non-religious homosexuals practice abstinence for life. Most experts know that the best approach to promiscuity by far, for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, is to practice safe sex. If a minority of homosexuals are able to successfully practice abstinence for life, that is fine, but it is unreasonable for you to recommend that all homosexuals practice abstinence for life, even the ones who have been monogamous for decades.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Regarding your deplorable post #304, someone criticized it, and following is your reply:

"If I find a person honest enough to not claim every source of facts that are inconvenient for them allowable I will declare a holiday. When you ask for facts and they are provided and you claim them biased it just looks desperate. Even if half of them were inaccurate (which is not the case) the conclusion would be exactly the same. When facts are not allowed how can any issue be resolved? It is in the best interest of polling firms to be accurate. They do not get business from making stuff up. I am not saying they are perfect but denying that much information is lunacy."

You are just believing what you want to believe. You are only willing to accept statistics that make homosexuals look bad. I am sure that the majority of experts will disagree with much of your post #304. There is no way, for example, that over 30% of homosexuals are alcoholics. An article at http://www.royy.com/pap.html says:

"There is a good deal of alcoholism and addiction in the gay community, but newer studies suggest that the incidence among younger homosexuals may be no greater than in the population at large. This article suggests that gay liberation in the 1970's may have spared male homosexuals now under 30 some of the misunderstanding, discrimination and hatred that drove older homosexuals to drink and drugs. It also suggests that older homosexuals may abuse drink and drugs to dull the pain of aging in an especially youth-oriented, beauty-driven homosexual culture. This article discusses some of the treatment issues specific to homosexuals who abuse alcohol and drugs, and suggests the use of gay special-interest 12-Step groups to assist in treating internalized homophobia and in making some of the lifestyle changes beneficial to homosexuals in recovery."

And, there is documented evidence that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, and that the vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV. What you need are credible sources, such as the CDC, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association, but you will not use those sources since they all support homosexuals, and they would never post trash like your post #304. Some of that post is true, but much of it is not true. How can Christian sources be wrong? Well, how can Christians lie, and steal, and commit murder. It happens every day all over the world. No source is automatically right just because it agrees with your religious predispositions. One of the sources for that post is Dr. Paul Cameron, a conservative Christian who was thrown out of the American Psychological Association. You once posted evidence that homosexuals have shorter lifespans than heterosexuals do. The evidence appears to be valid, but is including all homosexuals. If the research only applied to monogamous homosexuals, the lifespans would have been longer.

Homosexuals do generally have higher elevated levels of stress than heterosexuals do, but not nearly as much as some conservative Christian extremists claim. If you took a lot of time to check out the sources in your post #304, and compares them with sources that are favorable to homosexuals, you will find that many of your sources are not reliable.

Anyway, there are many homosexuals to whom none of that post applies, and you even disapprove of them.

As I showed in my post #688, you cannot provide evidence to support your false claim that homosexuality is caused by environment although you claimed that you could provide the evidence is necessary. I asked for the evidence, but you refused to provide it. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, then the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would turn out to be homosexuals, but the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals. In addition, when one identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin would be a homosexual since it is well-known that identical twins have more similar environments than non-twin siblings do, but the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. You really have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

 

[StarryNightshade]

There is no reason why one can't be in a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex, regardless of ones religion. As long as one is a good person, I highly doubt the creator of the universe (or universes if one subscribes to multi-verse theory) really cares what people do in bed.

 

[Skeptisch]

Anyway, there are many homosexuals to whom none of that post applies, and you even disapprove of them.

You are trying to reason with someone who has very little intellectual integrity. There are wonderful people of faith all over the world but it is obvious that s/he is not part of that community. S/he seems to be a misguided sad sack unable to enjoy the magic of reality and disinterested in finding out what is really true.

The opposite of intellectual integrity is intellectual hypocrisy, a state of mind unconcerned with genuine integrity. It is often marked by deep-seated contradictions and inconsistencies. Hypocrisy is often implicit in the thinking and action behind human behaviour as a function of natural egocentric thinking.

 

[InChrist]

There is no reason why one can't be in a monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex, regardless of ones religion. As long as one is a good person, I highly doubt the creator of the universe (or universes if one subscribes to multi-verse theory) really cares what people do in bed.

I believe God the Creator does care because "man' was made in the image of God and "man" consists not in male alone, nor female alone , but in the union of male and female to represent God's image and fulfill His purposes on this earth.

... so God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female. Genesis 1:27

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe God the Creator does care because "man' was made in the image of God and "man" consists not in male alone, nor female alone, but in the union of male and female to represent God's image and fulfill His purposes on this earth.

... so God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female. Genesis 1:27

But you cannot provide reasonable proof that God inspired that Scripture. It is well-known that the Bible contains some interpolations, and those are only the obvious ones.

It would be odd if God opposes homosexuality since over 1500 species of animals, and birds, practice it, and all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Why did God do that? How does same-sex behavior harm animals, and birds? Scientific research has shown that same-sex behavior among bonobos provides them with a number of benefits.

Please do not claim that homosexuality among animals, and birds, is due to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Animals preceded humans by millions of years, and they were killing each other long before the existence of humans, and the also practiced homosexuality long before the existence of humans. There was no perfect world before the existence of humans. Prehistoric animals killing each other proves that. It would ridiculous for anyone to claim that animals killed each other prior to the existence of Adam and Eve, and then stopped killing each other until Adam and Eve sinned, and then started to kill each other again. Not only that, but the story of Adam and Eve is very probably false since the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, accept macro evolution.

I am not recommending that humans do everything that animals do, but neither would I recommend that animals do everything that humans do, such as possibly eventually destroying life on earth with global warming. It all gets down to which actions are beneficial for animals, and for humans.

At any rate, in the U.S., there is a separation of church and state, which partly means that religious people are not allowed to dominate society by forcing other people to agree with their religious beliefs.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I believe God the Creator does care because "man' was made in the image of God and "man" consists not in male alone, nor female alone , but in the union of male and female to represent God's image and fulfill His purposes on this earth.

... so God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female. Genesis 1:27

Not everyone believes in that kind of God. I certainly don't.

 

[Titanic]

I just do not see any problem's in being gay.

 

[InChrist]

But you cannot provide reasonable proof that God inspired that Scripture. It is well-known that the Bible contains some interpolations, and those are only the obvious ones.

Well, there are endless threads on the subject of whether or not the scriptures are truly inspired by God, but this is not the place to get into it. I believe there is more than enough reasonable proof to the point that I accept the scriptures as inspired by God “without plenty of interpolations”. So this impacts my worldview. But I understand that since you don’t accept the scriptures as true, then your worldview is different.

It would be odd if God opposes homosexuality since over 1500 species of animals, and birds, practice it, and all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Why did God do that? How does same-sex behavior harm animals, and birds? Scientific research has shown that same-sex behavior among bonobos provides them with a number of benefits.

Please do not claim that homosexuality among animals, and birds, is due to the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. Animals preceded humans by millions of years, and they were killing each other long before the existence of humans, and the also practiced homosexuality long before the existence of humans. There was no perfect world before the existence of humans. Prehistoric animals killing each other proves that. It would ridiculous for anyone to claim that animals killed each other prior to the existence of Adam and Eve, and then stopped killing each other until Adam and Eve sinned, and then started to kill each other again. Not only that, but the story of Adam and Eve is very probably false since the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, accept macro evolution.

I don’t know why there is homosexuality among some animals and I have not researched this in depth, but it could be because of the fall, IMO. I don’t think this is the thread to get into a discussion about macro evolution verses Biblical creation, either. Bottom line for me is that I see the scriptures differentiate between humans and animals.

I am not recommending that humans do everything that animals do, but neither would I recommend that animals do everything that humans do, such as possibly eventually destroying life on earth with global warming. It all gets down to which actions are beneficial for animals, and for humans.

You seem concerned about actions which are harmful with the possibility of bringing destruction to life on earth. From my perspective I believe homosexuality is destructive because it brings confusion and violates God’s design and plan for humans.


“That's because the Pentateuch defines holiness teleologically. For Moses, the author of the Pentateuch, holiness consists of living out the telos (i.e., the design) God has sovereignly ordained for every phenomenon that comprises existence; and, correspondingly, sin consists of violating that telos - of overstepping the bounds it defines.”

‘The prohibition against homosexuality is grounded here as well. A man's physical sexuality finds its consummation in a woman, not another man. That specific expectation is integrated into the telos God has assigned him. Likewise, a woman's physical sexuality finds its consummation in a man, not another women. Put a little differently: God has designed men sexually for women and, likewise, women are designed sexually for men. Homosexuality is, therefore, contrary to God's design - and reflects a high-handed disregard of God's sovereignty. It leads to confusion and, hence, is contrary to holiness.
Sin, then, finds its roots in confusion - which occurs whenever the distinction that contrasts one telos from another is either overlooked or intentionally breached”
Excerpts from:Home

At any rate, in the U.S., there is a separation of church and state, which partly means that religious people are not allowed to dominate society by forcing other people to agree with their religious beliefs.

[/quote]

True and I don’t think anyone should be forced to agree with a religious belief. Believing in God and His design and plan for humanity can only come about freely and personally in one’s heart by sincerely seeking the truth from God.

 

[InChrist]

Not everyone believes in that kind of God. I certainly don't.

Thank you for your thoughts.

I realize that not everyone believes in the biblical God. Yet, if the kind of God described in the Bible is the God that exists and is the Creator who created human beings in His image, then our beliefs really wouldn't change that reality, would it?

 

[Agnostic75]

I don’t know why there is homosexuality among some animals and I have not researched this in depth, but it could be because of the fall, IMO.

No, lots of scientific evidence shows that animals were killing each other long before humans existed, so it did not take the fall of man for animals to kill each other. If animals were killing each other long before the supposed fall of man, why wouldn't they also have practiced homosexuality long before the fall of man.

Anyway, I have been asking 1robin for weeks to provide valid secular evidence that all homosexuals, even monogamous homosexuals, should practice abstinence for life as he claims, but he has not provided any valid arguments.

Even many conservative Christians scholars know that the Bible contains at least some interpolations.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Anyway, I have been asking 1robin for weeks to provide valid secular evidence that all homosexuals, even monogamous homosexuals, should practice abstinence for life as he claims, but he has not provided any valid arguments.

.

Did he happen to post the stats that demonstrate just how rare "monogamy" really is that community? He also provided plenty of evidence that suggests the behavior in question is not nearly as healthy or "normal" as advocates like to portray but you rejected it as lies, based on what I have no idea. Granted I haven't spent too much time reading this thread. What more is he supposed to say to someone like that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Did he happen to post the stats that demonstrate just how rare "monogamy" really is in that community?

No, since about half of homosexuals are monogamous. There is some documented research in an article at http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...s-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1 that supports my position. Please provide documented evidence of your own. The article shows a very high percentage of committed relationships among lesbians, and that homosexuals have been becoming more involved in committed relationships.

He also provided plenty of evidence that suggests the behavior in question is not nearly as healthy or "normal" as advocates like to portray but you rejected it as lies, based on what I have no idea. Granted I haven't spent too much time reading this thread. What more is he supposed to say to someone like that?

Are you suggesting that all research that criticizes homosexuals should automatically be accepted, or that each claim should be thoroughly investigated on its own? Since you believe that homosexuals are much worse off than is claimed, please provide some documented research that backs up your claim. I already know that homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but the issue is, to what extent?

I will help you and tell that there is an article at The myth of male homosexual monogamy | ADvindicate that criticizes homosexuality, and it apparently has some documented research, which we need to check out, but the article also says:

"Lesbians exhibit radically different behavior patterns than male homosexuals. Lesbians tend to have about the same number of sexual partners as heterosexual women, which is very few. Lesbians are like other women in craving the security of a relationship; in fact, they seem even more anxious to be in a relationship than straight women."

So even an article that supposedly has a lot of documented evidence against male homosexuals admits that promiscuity is not generally a problem among lesbians.

Some of the research is the article not current, meaning within the last ten years.

If you wish, I can post evidence from the CDC that shows that in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. I can also post research that shows that nowhere near the majority of homosexuals are alcoholics, and that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

What do you suggest that homosexuals do about their homosexuality, including monogamous homosexuals?

Some medical experts have predicted that by 2030, 70% of the people in the world will have cancer, and that in the U.S., 50% of Americans will be obese, that that obesity will add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Would you like to claim that any heterosexual who has a serious preventable medical problem is immoral? How about all Christians who have been divorced, and were not involved with adultery? Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Do you realize that some of the info these websites often use to argue that homosexuality is harmful come from sources that would be considered "pro-gay"? The stuff on promiscuity especially.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Thank you for your thoughts.

I realize that not everyone believes in the biblical God. Yet, if the kind of God described in the Bible is the God that exists and is the Creator who created human beings in His image, then our beliefs really wouldn't change that reality, would it?

Likewise, if that God doesn't exist, then your beliefs (or anyone's for that matter) wouldn't change anything, either.