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

[PastorClark]

Look, there is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

How i see it, if God didn't want anyone of us to be LGBT. Then he shouldn't have made us that way. Now when most people say LGBT is a sin or its a choice or people choose to be LGBT. let me give you something to think about.

Was it your choice to be straight, was it your choice to have a penis or vagina, Did you choose your race. No you don't, you can't choose your race nor gender.

So how can most people sit there and say, LGBT is a choice and that you're not born with. Now you can choose to accept that your LGBT. But you cannot choose to be LGBT your only born with it. I was born bisexual and i found that out really fast. When i started looking at men the same way as i look at women

And before you go on to say that you will grow out of it because you know its just a fad. I'm 22 and i still feel the same way to both sex.

That is my take on being LGBT and i'm also a believer in God again

.

 

[4YAH80]

I agree with one of the other posters, The Most High does not approve of this.There are few religions that have this view I believe.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Look, there is nothing wrong with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

How i see it, if God didn't want anyone of us to be LGBT. Then he shouldn't have made us that way. Now when most people say LGBT is a sin or its a choice or people choose to be LGBT. let me give you something to think about.

Was it your choice to be straight, was it your choice to have a penis or vagina, Did you choose your race. No you don't, you can't choose your race nor gender.

So how can most people sit there and say, LGBT is a choice and that you're not born with. Now you can choose to accept that your LGBT. But you cannot choose to be LGBT your only born with it. I was born bisexual and i found that out really fast. When i started looking at men the same way as i look at women

And before you go on to say that you will grow out of it because you know its just a fad. I'm 22 and i still feel the same way to both sex.

That is my take on being LGBT and i'm also a believer in God again

.

Bi-Proud here too. :highfive: :foryou:

I found out really quickly too. I saw when people would talk about how cute it was when I said I was in love with Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, but suddenly everybody got really quiet when I said I was in love with beauty pagaent contestants and would want to marry them. It just wasn't considered worthy of any kind of attention, and I found out very quickly that I was expected to hide those feelings. I wouldn't cognitively say to myself, "Oh, look. This is not culturally accepted to like women too, so I will keep this to myself." I as a child felt ashamed and simply put all attraction to women in the "disgusting" category of my brain.

You're absolutely right. One never grows out of it. One just chooses to honor the attraction or not. I became a much happier person once I began honoring same sex attraction as much as I honored opposite sex attraction. I became much more relaxed, vulnerable, loving, and a better friend.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #706, and #707.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure there is a reasonable solution for people who suffer from same sex attraction apart from the power of God. To me the sex drive is too powerful to manage on one's own strength. I've seen enough in my life to say that I confidently believe that by the power of God people can do anything, even live celebate but apart from him they can do nothing.

Do you have any specific examples of people overcoming their sex drive with prayer? Cuz what I've gleaned from the news in the last decade or so, the absolute LAST person you want to leave your kids alone with is a "celibate" man of God.

 

[1robin]

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.

I was joking but this is very low on my priority list and apprently at the top of yours.

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.

The medical associations are not in the buisness of making moral determinations. They do however ask about your homosexuality before accepting blood. I made all kinds of secular arguments that condemn homosexuality and gave the data supporting them. I do not kno what your refering to. I was forced to engage in a context by others and but did not spend much time arguing from it.

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.

That probably explains why said specifically that was not the argument I was making.

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.

If you are going to condemn arguments from majority of history you can't turn around and make them your self.

Here is the map again. The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg
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.

They way you copy posts erases the links so I can't easily go back and see what your talking about and I am only replying as a courtesy and my interest in this issue does not justify my combing through old posts. What is the point of your map. It appears the Christian nations on your map are also tolerant so I do not get your point.

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?

Oh come on. Intentionally missing the point only harms your credability. There is no way you did not understand what I said. I would suggest they quit drinking and driving, not stop driving. However you would argue that if any drunk ever made it home without killing anyone then the habit is permissible and anyone who is against drunk driving is intolerant. This was beneath you. There is no safe drunk driving and there is no perfectly safe sex as the statistics overwhelmingly prove. I am still shocked that anyone would argue for a practice that kills millions is good because it is possible that some doing it a certain way are not hurting anyone at that specific time.

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.

I do not remember claiming billions have been abstinent. Post number please. Wrong does not become right because it is difficult to resist. Crack may become the most important thing to a person and more valuable than food, is it therefor moral?

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.

You have basically three arguments and are all invalid. You simply restate them a thousand ways.

1. Anything that can ever been done without harm for a period (even though you simply assume that it will never be done in an unsafe manner at any time by certain people) is there for moral.
2. Many people do it and many people do not think it wrong therefor it is moral.
3. It does not matter that the practice if stopped would save millions of lives and billions of dollars and there is no necessity for it everyone else should just suffer the consequences whether they do (or agree with it) it or not.

You can’t make right wrong even by figuring out a way to do it where no one dies (and that is not the case). Arguing that something that if strictly practiced universally would wipe out the human race is moral or good is just weird.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Here is your post #304. I will comment on it in my next post.

People who practice homosexuality experience higher rates of many diseases, including:
Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
Hepatitis A, B and C
Gonorrhea
Syphilis
Gay Bowel syndrome
HIV/AIDS
Bacterial vaginosis
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 academic categories when compared with both married heterosexual couples and cohabitating couples.
Homosexual behavior is linked with higher rates of promiscuity, physical disease, mental illness, substance abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic violence--all things that impact society negatively. Don't try to say homosexual behavior doesn't hurt society--it is a major force that tears down society and harms children.
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
* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27)
* 73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13)
* 25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11)
* Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands)
* 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20)
* Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, "Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities" (10)
* Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals" (10)
* 50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10)
* Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, "Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person" (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality
* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10)
* Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population
* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8)
* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8)
* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8)
* Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8)
* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8)
* Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide 21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8)
About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12).
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 molester, 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. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts

I will not comment further on this it has made me sick. I have never seen more lewd and grotesque displays than at a gay parade. Many are not content to quietly practice it they wish to rebelliously flaunt it and do so in disgusting ways. Since there are over 3 million sites that contain the problems of homosexuality I can't fathom why the question was asked.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Would you like to discuss your post #304 in detail? Much of it is false, misleading, or not properly documented. The simple truth is that you cannot provide reasonable documentation that the majority of homosexuals have any major health problem, and I can provide reasonable documentation that about half of homosexuals are monogamous, that lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are, that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, and that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

One claim from your post said that the lifespan for homosexuals is 42, but you refuted your own argument in another post by posting an article at http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract, that is a legitimate article, that says the following:

"In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

In the U.S., the life expectancy for men is 76 years. 20 years less than that is 56 years, not 42 years.

The false 42 year life expectancy statistic comes from a Dr. E. Fields. There is a blog post about him at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5054621 that shows that people should not trust much of what they read at anti-gay websites. You simply believe what you want to believe, not what credible research shows. All major medical associations, and the American Anthropological Association, and the American Sociological Association, support homosexuals, and approve of allowing homosexuals to adopt children. If valid, documented research showed that homosexuals were anywhere near as bad as the article that you posted claimed they are, there is no way that those organizations would not be aware of it, and there is no way that they would support homosexuals. Logic, and a good deal of research indicates that while homosexuals generally do have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, those problems are nowhere near what people like you claim they are.

It is important to note that the statistics would have been much higher for homosexuals who are monogamous. About half of homosexuals are monogamous.

In some predominantly Christian countries in Africa, the life expectancy is less than 50 years. Obviously, just being a Christian does not guarantee anyone, or any country, that they will have good health, education, and income.

Actually, you did not post that article, but the article that you posted referred to the same study by the International Journal of Epidemiology.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Message to 1robin: Would you like to discuss your post #304 in detail? Much of it is false, misleading, or not properly documented. The simple truth is that you cannot provide reasonable documentation that the majority of homosexuals have any major health problem, and I can provide reasonable documentation that about half of homosexuals are monogamous, that lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are, that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles, and that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

He also tends to forget that there are actual queers he has talked with, right here in these forums, and has failed to actually ask one what life and relationships are like.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is no safe drunk driving and there is no perfectly safe sex as the statistics overwhelmingly prove.

What statistics are you referring to?

Sex among monogamous homosexuals is just as safe as sex among monogamous heterosexuals. It is quite obvious that if two monogamous, uninfected homosexuals have sex, they cannot contract an STD from each other.

Statistics show that in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

You have basically three arguments and are all invalid. 1. Anything that can ever been done without harm for a period (even though you simply assume that it will never be done in an unsafe manner at any time by certain people) is therefore moral.

From a secular perspective, safe sex is moral. About half of homosexuals are monogamous. It is just as safe for monogamous, uninfected homosexuals to have sex as it is for monogamous, uninfected heterosexuals to have sex.

2. Many people do it and many people do not think it wrong therefore it is moral.

I have never said anything that is remotely close to the following:

1. Homosexuality is ok because lots of people do it.

2. Homosexuality is ok because lots of people believe that it is ok.

3. It does not matter that the practice if stopped would save millions of lives and billions of dollars and there is no necessity for it everyone else should just suffer the consequences whether they do (or agree with it) it or not.

But there are not any harmful consequences from having safe sex, whether homosexual sex, or heterosexual sex.

You can’t make right wrong even by figuring out a way to do it where no one dies (and that is not the case).

Research has shown that lesbians are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are. Why should monogamous lesbians practice abstinence for life? No reasonable person would recommend such a thing.

Why should gay men who have been monogamous for decades start practicing abstinence for life? No reasonable person would recommend such a thing.

Arguing that something that if strictly practiced universally would wipe out the human race is moral or good is just weird.

Only about 4% of people practice homosexuality. How could that ever wipe out the human race? Overpopulation is a big problem in a number of countries, but Japan is the only relatively large country that I know of that is losing population.

I have never heard anyone but you suggest that from a secular perspective, all homosexuals in the world should practice abstinence for life, even those who have practiced abstinence for decades, and even lesbians, who are slightly less promiscuous that heterosexual women are. That is just plain crazy.

Simple logic, and just plain old common sense indicate that if all monogamous homosexuals started to practice abstinence, that would do very little to influence homosexuals who practice unsafe sex to practice abstinence for life. Since homosexuals who practice unsafe sex are not even interested in having safe sex, they would quite naturally be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. Therefore, there is no need for all monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence. Rather, what is needed is for all homosexuals, and all heterosexuals to practice safe sex.

Earlier in this thread, you claimed that homosexuality is caused by environment, and that you would provide documentation if necessary. I asked you for the documentation, but you did not provide it. Please provide it. You have really missed the boat regarding this issue. 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.

You missed my point about the chart that shows which countries oppose homosexuality the most. Generally, it is countries that have less education, and less income. Prosperous countries tend to support homosexuals more than less prosperous countries do, such as the over 20 countries that allow gays in the military, including Britain, and Israel.

Less education, and less income, are also generally correlated with acceptance of creationism. The evidence is the second chart at a web site at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation.

Cancer, obesity, and heart disease are largely preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity. Some experts have predicted that by 2030, 70% of the people in the world will have cancer, and that 50% of Americans will be obese, and that by 2030, obesity will add 500 million dollars to health care costs. From a secular perspective, no one who has a serious, preventable medical problem is in a position to recommend abstinence for life for all homosexuals.

And those problems pale by comparison with the possible consequences of global warming, which some experts have said might wipe out the human race as an ice age follows the melting of the ice caps by global warming.

 

[Agnostic75]

The following is from another thread. 1robin gave me permission to quote him.

The millions of monogamous homosexuals in the world probably compare very favorably health wise with heterosexuals since promiscuous homosexuals spread STD's far more than monogamous homosexuals do. Even if we lump all homosexuals in the U.S. together, 80% of them do not have HIV.

Is 20% of unnecessary HIV cases ok? Let me ask you this, at what level of increased suffering is something prohibitive? What amount of money is too much to spend on an unnecessary practice that over 95% of us do not practice? You seem to just invent arbitrary thresholds as need to get what you want.

This is amazing, I asked you the same kind of question in another thread (What percentage would satisfy you?), and you refused to answer the question because you know that you would still oppose homosexuality no matter what statistics said.

Any percentage at all is a good enough reason for promiscuous homosexuals who get HIV, or other STD's to practice abstinence, but millions of homosexuals are monogamous, and do not have any STDs, and thus have no reason to practice abstinence since it is primarily promiscuous homosexuals who are spreading STDs.

I answered your question. Now please answer mine, what percentage of healthy homosexuals would convince you to stop complaining about the high rate of STDs among homosexuals?

When you can guarantee that only monogamous homosexuality will be practiced that might matter. I have addressed this many times as well. No wonder your posts are so long, half of them are redundant.

Do you have any documented statistics that show that monogamous homosexuals are a good deal more likely to give up monogamy than monogamous heterosexuals are? I asked you that question in another thread, and you did not answer it. Therefore, I am not being redundant since I already replied to that argument in another thread.

Lesbians as a whole are slightly less promiscuous than heterosexual women are, and monogamous lesbians even less so. Thus, monogamous lesbians obviously have no need of practicing abstinence for life. As far as STDs are concerned, I assume that monogamous lesbians compare favorably with monogamous heterosexual women, and have lower rates of STDs than heterosexual men do, especially heterosexual African American men, and heterosexual Hispanic men, who have the highest HIV rates in the U.S.

Monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least 20 years obviously have no need of practicing abstinence for life.

Many long term monogamous homosexuals have died while they were still monogamous. What objections do you have regarding those homosexuals?

Is something ok because something else is worse? I have already stated several times that gluttony is as morally wrong as homosexuality.......

Fine, but no one who has a preventable health problem, or is making unnecessary contributions to global warming, is in any position to claim that homosexuality is immoral. That would make the number of legitimate opponents of homosexuality smaller by many millions of people, possibly hundreds of millions of people. Some experts have predicted that in 2030, which is only 17 years from now, half of Americans will be obese, and that that would add 500 million dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable, as is heart disease. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than obesity, and heart disease.

It is quite obvious that you will never get anywhere by using secular arguments against homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

What is going on here? I came here for a second to see if anyone else was debating you to find I have been even though I have not posted here in weeks. What are you up to?

 

[1robin]

He also tends to forget that there are actual queers he has talked with, right here in these forums, and has failed to actually ask one what life and relationships are like.

Do I not have to be in a thread to be referred to? What are you people doing? I am joking mostly. I think Agnostic transfers everything I say in threads on NOT homosexuality to ones on it. It is a debate by proxy I guess. At least you cracked me up for a bit. Agnostic is a trip.

 

[Agnostic75]

I just made this post in another thread.

Agnostic your busted. I have checked and apparently you are posting the same post in several threads to me. You also seem to post everything I say in one thread to one I am not. You are arguing by proxy. Apparently I am winning debates in threads where I am not even debating. I am joking but what are you doing with my limited time? I know why it's limited now. You. I am gone have a good weekend.

This is all your fault because you left the original thread about homosexuality months ago. I had no choice except to bring it up in other threads where you were making posts. Quite naturally, the original thread would be the best place for us to discuss homosexuality, so from now on, let's limit our discussions on homosexuality to that thread. I will soon make a post in that thread, and you can reply to it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I thought of a type of data that I can trust. If they can use their studies to predict with 90% plus accuracy who will be gay given genetics alone (before birth) I might consider that telling.

I do not know about that, but there is not any credible scientific evidence at all that environmental factors alone determine sexual orientation, and there is definitely a lot of evidence that shows that epigenetics factors inside of the womb are an important part of homosexuality.

Consider the following:

Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic

Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we're born.

Epigenetic mechanisms can be seen as an added layer of information that clings to our DNA. Epi-marks regulate the expression of genes according to the strength of external cues. Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.

Moreover, epi-marks are usually produced from scratch with each generation — but new evidence is showing that they can sometimes carryover from parent to child. It's this phenomenon that gives the impression of having shared genes with relatives.

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development.

This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability.

Please note "Their [mathematical] model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability."

The mathematical model could not have successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality if homosexuality was primarily caused by environmental factors outside of the womb.

Months ago, in another thread, you said "I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality." By all means, please provide whatever scientific evidence you have regarding the causes of sexual orientation. All of the major medical organizations disagree with you.

If you would like to discuss this with some experts, I can put you in touch with some. How about it? That way, you could demonstrate how much you know about epigenetics and homosexuality, and you could discuss your "research" with them regarding what you think causes homosexuality.

African American-ness is not possible to stop for those that are that. It is not an action it is a quality. I see you have dusted off some of your very worst arguments here.

Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans face a number of challenges that contribute to the higher rates of HIV infection.

The greater number of people living with HIV (prevalence) in African American communities and the fact that African Americans tend to have sex with partners of the same race/ethnicity means that they face a greater risk of HIV infection with each new sexual encounter.

African American communities continue to experience higher rates of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with other racial/ethnic communities in the United States. Having an STI can significantly increase the chance of getting or transmitting HIV.

The poverty rate is higher among African Americans—28%—than for any other race. The socioeconomic issues associated with poverty—including limited access to high-quality health care, housing, and HIV prevention education—directly and indirectly increase the risk for HIV infection, and affect the health of people living with and at risk for HIV infection.

African Americans are at risk largely for the reasons that the CDC mentioned. Later in the article, the CDC tells about its prevention programs for black Americans, but those programs will take years, and will have varying degrees of success. According to your philosophy, pending the outcomes of the CDC's prevention programs, and other prevention programs, black American males who live in black American communities should practice abstinence, not because they are black, but because of the risk factors that they have. If they were able to become Caucasians, they would still have the same risk factors, and should still practice abstinence according to your philosophy pending the outcomes of prevention programs.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

That would only apply if the behavior was equally damaging and had equally good reasons to be practiced anyway.

I do not have any idea what that means. Can you state it more simply?

Some excellent reasons why monogamous homosexuals should have sex are that 1) having sex provides proven health benefits, 2) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 3) having sex is normal, 4) long term abstinence is abnormal, and 5) homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades would have greater risks practicing long term abstinence than when they successfully lived monogamously for decades.

Quite obviously, monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades have a much better chance of staying monogamous than monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for only one year.

It is important to note that many homosexuals who are not monogamous practice safe sex. That has to be true since a documented research study in about 21 American cities showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. About half of homosexuals are monogamous, so about 30% of the 100% are not monogamous, and do not have HIV.

You need to provide statistics regarding the percentage of people who try long term abstinence and are successful, and do not develop any serious physical, and emotional problems. To be sure, if all monogamous, healthy homosexuals forced themselves bear the frustrations of abstinence, and the health risks, many of them would sooner or later develop serious physical, and emotional problems, and would put financial burdens on the health care system that did not exist when they were having sex. It will not do you any good to try to minimize the risks of long term abstinence since experts know that the risks exist. Even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals are not able to practice long term abstinence. Quite obviously, what a moderate number of people can endure, [abstinence] a much larger number of people cannot endure. That is because the desire to have sex among humans is typically strong, and is normal.

I think that it is amazing that many homosexuals do as well as they do with the difficult hand of cards that they have been dealt. Homosexuals by nature are more promiscuous, and less monogamous, than heterosexuals are, and in spite of that, a great many of them overcome the odds, and practice monogamy, or practice safe sex in non-monogamous relationships.

However I think even homosexuals admit their "marriages last less than others do".......

Evidence please.

.......but do not claim to know that.......

Then you have no evidence to back up your assumption.

.......nor that it has anything to do with my claims at all.

It has everything to do with your claim that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence. The only way that your claim would be valid would be if you provided documented evidence that monogamous homosexuals give up being monogamous a good deal more than monogamous heterosexuals do.

What percentage of heterosexuals would have to have HIV for you to recommend that all heterosexuals practice abstinence?

No major medical association agrees with you about long term abstinence for homosexuals.

You know that all of, or even ten per cent of monogamous homosexuals will never practice long term abstinence, and that no major medical organization approves of that. What will happen is that a good percentage of monogamous homosexuals who do not have any STDs will stay monogamous for the rest of their lives, and that a good percentage of non-monogamous homosexuals who practice safe sex (there are plenty of them), and do not have any STDs, will never get HIV, or any other STD. That pretty large number of homosexuals, who you criticize for not practicing abstinence, will never get any STDs, and you do not have any valid arguments against them.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...s-more-monogamous-than-in-the-past/50267258/1

9/9/2011

Cheaters may get more attention, but couples of all types are more monogamous than they used to be, finds research on more than 6,800 people in heterosexual, gay and lesbian relationships.

"Our findings reveal a marked movement toward monogamy over time," says the study in the September issue of the journal Family Process, online now.

The study of 6,864 men and women — responses were collected from 6,082 individuals in 1975 and from 782 in 2000 — examines differences on a variety of issues, including monogamy.

"There's dramatically less extra-relational sexual behavior in the year 2000 than in the year 1975 for all couple types," says researcher Robert-Jay Green, a psychology professor at Alliant International University in San Francisco.

Although the most recent data are from 2000, Green says it allowed for a direct comparison because the questions posed were the same used in 1975.

The percentage of heterosexual men who reported having sex with someone other than their wife dropped to 10% in 2000 from 28% in 1975; among married women, it declined to 14% from 23%. Among gay men, the percentage who cheated on a partner they lived with dropped to 59% from 83%; for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%. Half the gays and lesbians in the study were in civil unions, half were living together in committed relationships, the researchers say.

The authors "speculate that awareness of HIV/AIDS and other STDs has led couples to be more cautious and more conservative about sex outside their relationships over the last 25 years."

But Green says it's also a result of greater acceptance of same-sex relationships.

Emily Hecht-McGowan of the non-profit Family Equality Council, which works toward equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families, agrees. "As public opinion has shifted about gay people and the LGBT community overall, I think same-sex couples are more comfortable living openly in their communities and building families," she says.

"Some might expect monogamy is not something that typifies same-sex couples, but clearly the trend is in the opposite direction," says psychologist Glenn Roisman of the University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign. He hasn't seen the research but has studied committed relationships.

Roisman says his research about relationship satisfaction, relationship quality and commitment among same-sex and opposite-sex couples published in 2008 and 2009 found that past perceptions about same-sex couples are "not always aligned with the reality."
"What we found surprised some — that they had relationships of about the same quality" as heterosexual couples, he says.

Please note that for lesbians it declined to 8% from 28%. That is 2% less than the rate for heterosexual men, and 6% less than the rate for married heterosexual women.

The "worst" group, gay men, dropped dramatically from 83% to 59%, and was the largest percentage drop of any group.

"Gay couples aren't monogamous"? People saying this have no idea what they are talking about.

How different are gay and straight couples? Probably different but not that different. Data on straight monogamy are all over the map. One report suggests 70 percent of married men cheat. (OK, that was a Fox News report, but shouldn’t that skew toward idealizing heterosexuality?) A nationally representative survey of 884 men put the number at only 23 percent. A much bigger but unrepresentative MSNBC survey found that nearly half of adults cheat—exactly the same percentage as the San Francisco study found with gay men. Other reports have found the same—that 50 percent of married men cheat—and one also found that the vast majority will not admit to it, perhaps even on surveys. This is another critical point: The gay male culture of nonmonogamy, rooted in gay liberation (and again, not all gay men are part of it), is likely to encourage both nonmonogamy and honest reporting of it, a key difference from the norms and expectations of the heterosexual mainstream. How much stock, that is, should we even put in surveys of straight cheating?

Of course, legal gay marriage might provide the cultural and legal encouragement for monogamy that the gay community has been missing. This is another reason that looking at stats of gay couples before they could marry is an unfair comparison to straight couples who can: As Andrew Sullivan has long argued, if gay male couples are—or historically have been—somewhat more promiscuous, the missing societal support for monogamy could be an important reason why. As could the fact that they are men.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[cbartlett16]

It is because of the bigoted ideals of hatred the founders of many major religions held. Don't feel bad because of a book. Your sexual orientation is part of you. It is not wrong and it is naturally occuring. Anyone that bothers you about it needs to get their heads out of their butts and face reality. It is not wrong. Things like this just drag us farther apart.

 

[Agnostic75]

I thought of a type of data that I can trust. If they can use their studies to predict with 90% plus accuracy who will be gay given genetics alone (before birth) I might consider that telling.

I do not know about that, but there is not any credible scientific evidence at all that environmental factors primarily determine sexual orientation, and there is definitely a lot of evidence that shows that epigenetics factors inside of the womb are an important part of homosexuality.

Consider the following:

Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic

Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we're born.

Epigenetic mechanisms can be seen as an added layer of information that clings to our DNA. Epi-marks regulate the expression of genes according to the strength of external cues. Genes are basically the instruction book, while epi-marks direct how those instructions get carried out. For example, they can determine when, where, and how much of a gene gets expressed.

Moreover, epi-marks are usually produced from scratch with each generation — but new evidence is showing that they can sometimes carryover from parent to child. It's this phenomenon that gives the impression of having shared genes with relatives.

To reach this conclusion, Rice and Friberg created a biological and mathematical model that charted the role of epigenetics in homosexuality. They did so by applying evolutionary theory to recent advances in the molecular regulation of gene expression and androgen-dependent sexual development.

This data was integrated with recent findings from the epigenetic control of gene expression, especially in embryonic stem cells. This allowed the researchers to develop and empirically support a mathematical model of epigenetic-based canalization of sexual development, or the tendency of heredity to restrict the development of some characteristics to just one or a few traits. Their model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability.

Please note "Their [mathematical] model successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality in both sexes when canalizing epi-marks carry over across generations with nonzero probability."

The mathematical model could not have successfully predicted the evolution of homosexuality if homosexuality was primarily caused by environmental factors outside of the womb.

Months ago, in another thread, you said "I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality." By all means, please provide whatever scientific evidence you have regarding the causes of sexual orientation. All of the major medical organizations disagree with you.

If you would like to discuss this with some experts, I can put you in touch with some. How about it? That way, you could demonstrate how much you know about epigenetics and homosexuality, and you could discuss your "research" with them regarding what you think causes homosexuality. It is reasonable to assume that you do not know enough about epigenetics to question its influence on sexual identity.

African American-ness is not possible to stop for those that are that. It is not an action it is a quality. I see you have dusted off some of your very worst arguments here.

Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans face a number of challenges that contribute to the higher rates of HIV infection.

The greater number of people living with HIV (prevalence) in African American communities and the fact that African Americans tend to have sex with partners of the same race/ethnicity means that they face a greater risk of HIV infection with each new sexual encounter.

African American communities continue to experience higher rates of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with other racial/ethnic communities in the United States. Having an STI can significantly increase the chance of getting or transmitting HIV.

The poverty rate is higher among African Americans—28%—than for any other race. The socioeconomic issues associated with poverty—including limited access to high-quality health care, housing, and HIV prevention education—directly and indirectly increase the risk for HIV infection, and affect the health of people living with and at risk for HIV infection.

African Americans are at risk largely for the reasons that the CDC mentioned. Later in the article, the CDC tells about its prevention programs for black Americans, but those programs will take years, and will have varying degrees of success. According to your philosophy, pending the outcomes of the CDC's prevention programs, and other prevention programs, black American males who live in black American communities should practice abstinence, not because they are black, but because of the risk factors that they have. If they were able to become Caucasians, they would still have the same risk factors, and should still practice abstinence according to your philosophy pending the outcomes of prevention programs.

Can you reasonably prove that monogamous heterosexuals remain monogamous a good deal longer than monogamous homosexuals do?

That would only apply if the behavior was equally damaging and had equally good reasons to be practiced anyway.

I do not have any idea what that means. Can you state it more simply?

Some excellent reasons why monogamous homosexuals should have sex are that 1) having sex provides proven health benefits, 2) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 3) having sex is normal, 4) long term abstinence is abnormal, and 5) homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades would have greater risks practicing long term abstinence than when they successfully lived monogamously for decades.

Quite obviously, monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for decades have a much better chance of staying monogamous than monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for only one year.

It is important to note that many homosexuals who are not monogamous practice safe sex. That is probable since a documented research study in about 21 American cities showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Since about half of homosexuals are monogamous, a good percentage of the homosexuals in the study must have been non-monogamous, and practiced safe sex.

You need to provide statistics regarding the percentage of people who try long term abstinence and are successful, and do not develop any serious physical, and emotional problems. To be sure, if all monogamous, healthy homosexuals forced themselves bear the frustrations of abstinence, and the health risks, many of them would sooner or later develop serious physical, and emotional problems, and would put financial burdens on the health care system that did not exist when they were having sex. It will not do you any good to try to minimize the risks of long term abstinence since experts know that the risks exist. Even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals are not able to practice long term abstinence. Quite obviously, what a moderate number of people can endure, [abstinence] a much larger number of people cannot endure. That is because the desire to have sex among humans is typically strong, and is normal.

I think that it is amazing that many homosexuals do as well as they do with the difficult hand of cards that they have been dealt. Homosexuals by nature are more promiscuous, and less monogamous, than heterosexuals are, and in spite of that, a great many of them overcome the odds, and practice monogamy, or practice safe sex in non-monogamous relationships.

However I think even homosexuals admit their "marriages last less than others do".......

Evidence please.

.......but do not claim to know that.......

Then you have no evidence to back up your assumption.

.......nor that it has anything to do with my claims at all.

It has everything to do with your claim that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence. The only way that your claim would be valid would be if you provided documented evidence that monogamous homosexuals give up being monogamous a good deal more than monogamous heterosexuals do.

What percentage of heterosexuals would have to have HIV for you to recommend that all heterosexuals practice abstinence?

You know that all of, or even ten per cent of monogamous homosexuals will never practice long term abstinence, and that no major medical organization approves of that. What will happen is that a good percentage of monogamous homosexuals who do not have any STDs will stay monogamous for the rest of their lives, and that a good percentage of non-monogamous homosexuals who practice safe sex (there are plenty of them), and do not have any STDs, will never get HIV, or any other STD. That pretty large number of homosexuals, who you criticize for not practicing abstinence, will never get any STDs, and you do not have any valid arguments against them.