• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to 1robin: What advice do you have for homosexuals who are not religious since you know that the vast majority of homosexuals who successfully practice abstinence for life are strongly religiously motivated? It is well-known that often, even religiously motivated homosexuals are not able to give up homosexuality. Surely a great many attempts at long term abstinence by priests, and many other people, often fail. Now why is that? Well, quite obviously, because having sex is normal, and long term abstinence is abnormal. However humans came about, they were not designed to practice abstinence for life, and neither were any other animals. The Bible says to go forth and multiply, not go forth and practice abstinence. Sure, some people who practice long term abstinence are healthy, and happy, but for every one of such people that exist, surely a far greater number became so frustrated that they quit practicing abstinence.

Please reply to my previous post.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

Message to 1robin: You have claimed that long term abstinence does not cause any serious problems, but there is no doubt that it often does, and there is no doubt that sex provides many physical, and emotional benefits. Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:
Sexual abstinence diminishes the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases but prevents one from obtaining the health benefits of sex.

Queen's University Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal found that "men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards". The report also cited other studies to show that having sex even a few times a week may be associated with the following: improved sense of smell; reduced risk of heart disease; weight loss and overall fitness; reduced depression; the relief or lessening of pain; less frequent colds and flu; better bladder control; and better teeth. The report cited a study published by the British Journal of Urology International which indicated that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.

There have been numerous studies indicating that excessive repression of the sexual instinct leads to an increase in the overall level of aggression in a given society. Societies forbidding premarital sex are plagued by acts of rage and tend to have higher rates of crime and violence. There may be a link between sexual repression and aggression, insensitivity, criminal behaviour, and a greater likelihood of killing and torturing enemies.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

psyplexus.com said:
PSYPLEXUS - a portal for mental health professionals

If we confine ourselves to modern times and to fairly precise medical statements, we find in Schurig's Spermatologia (1720, pp. 274 et seq.), not only a discussion of the advantages of moderate sexual intercourse in a number of disorders, as witnessed by famous authorities, but also a list of results—including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death—which were believed to have been due to sexual abstinence. This extreme view of the possible evils of sexual abstinence seems to have been part of the Renaissance traditions of medicine stiffened by a certain opposition between religion and science. It was still rigorously stated by Lallemand early in the nineteenth century. Subsequently, the medical statements of the evil results of sexual abstinence became more temperate and measured, though still often pronounced. Thus Gyurkovechky believes that these results may be as serious as those of sexual excess. Krafft-Ebing showed that sexual abstinence could produce a state of general nervous excitement (Jahrbuch für Psychiatrie, Bd. viii, Heft 1 and 2). Schrenck-Notzing regards sexual abstinence as a cause of extreme sexual hyperæsthesia and of various perversions (in a chapter on sexual abstinence in his Kriminalpsychologische und Psychopathologische Studien, 1902, pp. 174-178).

Pearce Gould, it may be added, finds that "excessive ungratified sexual desire" is one of the causes of acute orchitis. Remondino ("Some Observations on Continence as a Factor in Health and Disease," Pacific Medical Journal, Jan., 1900) records the case of a gentleman of nearly seventy who, during the prolonged illness of his wife, suffered from frequent and extreme priapism, causing insomnia. He was very certain that his troubles were not due to his continence, but all treatment failed and there were no spontaneous emissions. At last Remondino advised him to, as he expresses it, "imitate Solomon." He did so, and all the symptoms at once disappeared. This case is of special interest, because the symptoms were not accompanied by any conscious sexual desire.

The whole subject of sexual abstinence has been discussed at length by Nyström, of Stockholm, in Das Geschlechtsleben und seine Gesetze, Ch. III. He concludes that it is desirable that continence should be preserved as long as possible in order to strengthen the physical health and to develop the intelligence and character. The doctrine of permanent sexual abstinence, however, he regards as entirely false, except in the case of a small number of religious or philosophic persons. "Complete abstinence during a long period of years cannot be borne without producing serious results both on the body and the mind.......

Many advocates of sexual abstinence have attached importance to the fact that men of great genius have apparently been completely continent throughout life. This is certainly true (see ante, p. 173). But this fact can scarcely be invoked as an argument in favor of the advantages of sexual abstinence among the ordinary population. J. F. Scott selects Jesus, Newton, Beethoven, and Kant as "men of vigor and mental acumen who have lived chastely as bachelors." It cannot, however, be said that Dr. Scott has been happy in the four figures whom he has been able to select from the whole history of human genius as examples of life-long sexual abstinence. We know little with absolute certainty of Jesus, and even if we reject the diagnosis which Professor Binet-Sanglé (in his Folie de Jesus) has built up from a minute study of the Gospels, there are many reasons why we should refrain from emphasizing the example of his sexual abstinence; Newton, apart from his stupendous genius in a special field, was an incomplete and unsatisfactory human being who ultimately reached a condition very like insanity; Beethoven was a thoroughly morbid and diseased man, who led an intensely unhappy existence; Kant, from first to last, was a feeble valetudinarian. It would probably be difficult to find a healthy normal man who would voluntarily accept the life led by any of these four, even as the price of their fame. J. A. Godfrey (Science of Sex, pp. 139-147) discusses at length the question whether sexual abstinence is favorable to ordinary intellectual vigor, deciding that it is not, and that we cannot argue from the occasional sexual abstinence of men of genius, who are often abnormally constituted, and physically below the average, to the normally developed man. Sexual abstinence, it may be added, is by no means always a favorable sign, even in men who stand intellectually above the average.

Numerous distinguished gynæcologists have recorded their belief that sexual excitement is a remedy for various disorders of the sexual system in women, and that abstinence is a cause of such disorders.


Frequent ejaculation may protect against cancer - 06 April 2004 - New Scientist

newscientist.com said:
Frequent sexual intercourse and masturbation protects men against a common form of cancer, suggests the largest study of the issue to date yet.


The US study, which followed nearly 30,000 men over eight years, showed that those that ejaculated most frequently were significantly less likely to get prostate cancer. The results back the findings of a smaller Australian study revealed by New Scientist in July 2003 that asserted that masturbation was good for men.

As far as Roman Catholic priests are concerned, it is impossible to know how many of them have sex with men, or women, how many of them practice masturbation, and how many of them that never have sex, and never practice masturbation, are extremely frustrated, but will not admit it. Regarding masturbation, if God strongly opposes homosexuality, and sexual lust, he also strongly opposes masturbation by homosexuals. If the God of the Bible exists, homosexuals who practice masturbation might risk eternal punishment, at least from a conservative Christian perspective. So, total abstinence would solve almost any problems regarding getting STDs, but that would still leave a big possible problem for priests who masturbate.

Please reply to my post #760.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Message to 1robin: This is from another thread. I am transferring it here in order to try to reduce the number of threads where we are discussing homosexuality.

Agnostic75 said:
I am a he, and yes, I did say that, and it is true that the vast majority of homosexuals who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, which leaves you with no valid secular arguments against homosexuals who are not religious, especially monogamous homosexuals, who have no need of practicing abstinence.


1robin said:
I applaud your honesty and memory here. Your stock went up a few points.......

I am blushing. Thank you.

1robin said:
However this is a genetic fallacy. It does not matter why they gave it up, they did so. If it can be given up for any reason then it is not genetically mandated.

It definitely matters "how" they gave it up. If religion is not the primary motivation, the odds of success are greatly diminished. Even with religious motivation, the majority of attempts of long term abstinence fail. Thus, you do not have any valid options for homosexuals who are not religious.

What in the world does "not genetically mandated" have to do with the fact that religious motivation is the primary motivation for people who successfully give up homosexuality? Even if homosexuality is caused 100% by genetics, my argument that "the vast majority of homosexuals who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, which leaves you with no valid secular arguments against homosexuals who are not religious" would still be valid.

Your education about homosexuality is continuing. Eventually, you will have no choice except to rely solely on religious arguments since there are not any secular arguments that work against the majority of monogamous homosexuals.

In my post #760, I said:

"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, and do not have any STDs (there are plenty of them), 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."

In the U.S., there is a significant trend towards monogamy, including by homosexuals. Consider the following:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/09/06/312127/gay-straight-couples-becoming-more-monogamous-2/

thinkprogress.org said:
A study published this month shows that couples — both same-sex and opposite-sex — were significantly more monogamous in 2000 than they were in 1975. The number of people indicating they’d had sex outside their committed relationship declined for all groups, including heterosexual men (10 percent, down from 28 percent), heterosexual women (14 percent, down from 23 percent), gay men (59 percent, down from 83 percent), and lesbians (8 percent, down from 28 percent).

Lesbians had the lowest promiscuity of any group. Gay men had the greatest improvement of any group. Lesbians had the second greatest improvement of any group. Quite obviously, it would be absurd for anyone to claim that lesbians, with the lowest rate of promiscuity of any group, should practice abstinence. In 1975, lesbians were slightly more promiscuous than heterosexual women were. Now, they are a good deal less promiscuous (6%) than heterosexual women are.

These trends add support to my arguments about monogamous homosexuals.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I just made this post in another thread.



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.
Hold the phone. I am under no contractual obligation to discuss that issue at all. As far priority versus time goes it is about the last topic on my list and you post so much on it that if answered would take almost all my available time. I do not guarantee any response to those issues.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
I am under no contractual obligation to discuss that issue at all. As far priority versus time goes it is about the last topic on my list and you post so much on it that if answered would take almost all my available time. I do not guarantee any response to those issues.

You are not making any sense. Obviously, no one is ever obligated to reply to any post. If you do not wish to discuss homosexuality any more, just say so, and I will not address any more of my posts about that subject to you. Over the past few months, you have discussed homosexuality on many occasions, with a number of people, in at least three different threads. You are now aware that you are not able to successfully refute a number of my arguments. If you believed that you had the advantage, it is reasonable to assume that you would be willing to reply to my most recent posts in this thread, and that you would be willing to participate in my new thread that is titled "Can sexual identity be changed?"

I believe that your excuses are inaccurate. If I had used my best recent arguments in this thread when it began, including my arguments from my thread that is titled "Can sexual identity be changed?," there is little doubt that you would not have spent nearly as much time debating homosexuality as you have in at least three threads. Earlier in this thread, you said that you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, but you have not provided any valid secular arguments that all monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence, that sexual identity can be changed, and that genetics are not an important part of homosexuality.

All major medical associations disagree with many of your arguments, as does common sense. You are intelligent, and you are educated, but you have shown that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality, but not just you, the same goes for all other opponents of homosexuality as far as secular arguments are concerned.

Homosexuals do generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but not to the extent that you believe they do. For example, many if not the majority of non-monogamous homosexuals do not have HIV. That is obviously because even though they are not monogamous, they practice safe sex. As I showed in one of my previous posts, there is a trend in the U.S. towards monogamy, with the greatest increases coming from gay men, and lesbians are less promiscuous than heterosexual men are, and are less promiscuous than heterosexual women are.
 
Last edited:

HeatherAnn

Active Member
I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

The bible states that it is wrong. That doesn't mean it is, so let's consider more secular reasoning...

You are attracted to people who look like you do in the mirror.
Your genital part doesn't match up with one identical to yours.
You will never be able to have true sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.
The only way you may express sensual feelings of affection is through the use of substitutes - fetishes - like anal sex.
Making love - is about love - striving for what is best for someone we care about - and expressing that.
Is anal sex - best?
The anus is the way that poop is excreted out of our bodies.
It is not meant to be an entrance. When the anus is used as an entrance anyway, there are risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.
Also, according to the US CDC, those who practice homosexual fetishes are much more likely to suffer from STDs, AIDs, and mental illness.

Is the bible correct, or not?
You can either consider the consequences logically, or live and learn the hard way.
Ex homosexual and ex "gay rights" leader, Michael Glatz said, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."
 
Last edited:

HeatherAnn

Active Member
Agnostic,
What is so special about homosexual fetishes? One could get off on all kinds of substitutes for sex (fetishes). What exactly makes homosexual fetishes better, more worthy of special legal treatment than other fetishes?

Why would you want to support something that statistically proves to be harmful, as the practice of homosexual fetishes does ? (According to the US CDC) And even in 2 healthy males, there are risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection. Why doesn't homosexual fetish propaganda inform people of this important information? Some would consider this a form of malpractice.

Why would you want to legally deny a child the right to be raised by the 2 complimentary genders that created him or her - a mother and father?
Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage
Child of lesbian couple speaks out against gay marriage | Denny Burk
Do you think mothers are not necessary? Do you think that fathers are not necessary?

"Children Need Both A Mother And A Father" Dr. A. Dean Byrd
Children Need Both A Mother And A Father

"Why Children need both Mother-Love and Father-Love" Glenn T. Stanton
http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArch ... I0804G.pdf

"Mothers' and Fathers' Socializing Behaviors in Three Contexts: Links with Children's Peer Competence"
Pettit, Gregory S.; Brown, Elizabeth Glyn; Mize, Jacquelyn; Lindsey, Eric
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/se ... o=EJ563106

"Why Children Need a Mother and a Father" Bill Muehlenberg
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2010/10/ ... -a-father/

The homosexual agenda attempts to convince people of lies - that one is born gay or that there is a gay gene - when both have been thoroughly scientifically proved wrong...
What Causes Homosexuality: http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L41.pdf

People Can Change, Survey on Root Causes/Homosexuality Consquences
Common factors among men who had or have homosexual fetishes:
-Father-Son Relationship Problems
-Conflict with Male Peers
-Mother-son relationship - smothering
-Sexual Abuse
-Other Sexual Experiences
-Personality Traits
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php


If you need more secular reasons why marriage should not be redefined to include homosexual fetishes, read the following...
A Secular Case Against Gay Marriage? · Secular Right
 
Last edited:

HeatherAnn

Active Member
These trends add support to my arguments about monogamous homosexuals.
It's nice to find illusions to match our own illusions, but if you're interested in reality, you might read a little more...

"A 2001 National Center for Health Statistics study on marriage and divorce statistics reported that 66 percent of first marriages last ten years or longer, with fifty percent lasting twenty years or longer.[2]

A 2002 U.S. Census Bureau study reported similar results, with 70.7 percent of women married between 1970 and 1974 reaching their tenth anniversary and 57.7 percent staying married for twenty years or longer

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages."
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
The bible states that it is wrong. That doesn't mean it is, so let's consider more secular reasoning...
I wish we could take all arguments in this way. I applaud you for admitting this and taking on a secular argument. I see some problems with your arguments and I"ll address them also in a secular factual manner.
You are attracted to people who look like you do in the mirror.
Your genital part doesn't match up with one identical to yours.
This confuses me greatly. Can you explain what you mean here? Unless your talking twincest your partner will never be identical.
You will never be able to have true sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex.
this is only if we consider vaginal sex to be the only true sexual intercourse. However sexual experiences can be found in several ways. So for you to discount all sexual experiences other than vaginal you must then provide a case to substantiate this claim as its not self evident.
The only way you may express sensual feelings of affection is through the use of substitutes - fetishes - like anal sex.
Fetishes and sexuality are two different things. Albeit interconnected but not synonymous. So I re-direct you to the above response.
Making love - is about love - striving for what is best for someone we care about - and expressing that.
I agree. So do homosexuals.
Is anal sex - best?
The anus is the way that poop is excreted out of our bodies.
It is not meant to be an entrance. When the anus is used as an entrance anyway, there are risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture and bacterial infection.
Anal sex is pretty awesome and done by many heterosexual couples. So that argument isn't exactly valid.

Also our hands are not meant to be sexual devices but I gurantee everyone on this forum has used it.

Our mouths are used as devices to eat and consume products. When we slap saliva we can spread diseases. Vaginal sex also has problems with all of the mentioned problems. Women who have partners that are....gifted can have several problems with the uterus. Women who are gang-raped can have terrible problems.

Other things cause cancer. Not just anal sex. I'm sure there are a high number of heterosexual homophobic individuals who smoke. Are you just as against this?
Also, according to the US CDC, those who practice homosexual fetishes are much more likely to suffer from STDs, AIDs, and mental illness.
Link. Its already been countered in another argument that monogamous homosexuals are no more likely to have STD's or AIDS. Only promiscuous homosexuals are more likely to have STD's or AIDS. Also I would like to ask again for a link that would link homosexuality with mental illness. I have a feeling any link provided I can show you why it is false. There have been dozens of studies trying to do that but they did not find any legitimate evidence to support those claims.
Is the bible correct, or not?
You can either consider the consequences logically, or live and learn the hard way.
Ex homosexual and ex "gay rights" leader, Michael Glatz said, "Homosexuality is death and I choose life."
Well there are several parts of the bible that are blatantly wrong so....
There are no consequences that apply to homosexuality that cannot be found in heterosexuality.

There is no such thing as an Ex gay. There are simply gay people who repress their sexuality which CAN lead to mental illness.
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Hi Agnostic75, you have recently stated this to 1robin:

Originally Posted by Agnostic75
You have shown that you are poorly prepared to debate homosexuality, but not just you, the same goes for all other opponents of homosexuality as far as secular arguments are concerned.
You see Agnostic, you have such biased opinions that anything anyone would tell you would go in one ear and out the other. I have given you many secular arguments against the lifestyle of homosexuality, along with many Scriptural reasons.

First and foremost, I have presented the fact to you that AIDS was excusively a male homosexual disease as it out-broke within the U.S.A. As these infected male homosexuals had sex with anything and everything that consented to have sex with them, the AIDS epidemic gradually spread to the heterosexual community. This all started because of the epidemic of the Hep B virus within the male homosexual community, and the vaccine that was given to a select group of male homosexuals in the mid 70's. For anyone to deny the origin of AIDS within the U.S.A. not beginning with the male homosexual community is like denying the Holocaust. But in Africa, AIDS started with the poor sanitized villages in central Africa that received that same Hep B vaccine that was cultured in serum developed from Chimpanzees. If the U.S.A. did not have the infectious Hep B virus transmitted by the lifestyle of men having sex with men, this vaccine may have never been developed, thus AIDS may have never been awakened, and this makes a very strong secular argument against homosexuality.

Secondly, here is one of the guidelines used for blood donation by the Red Cross, please read it and understand the ramifications:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Quoted from the Red Cross:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Blood Donation Eligibility Guidelines
According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if: you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once; [/FONT]
Do you see that Agnostic? Even ONCE of men having sex with men since 1977 puts you at an increased risk. This is a very strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality.

Thirdly, you always bring up about "monogamous" homosexual sex. I would present to you that would be like "monogamous" dog sex, it just isn't going to happen unless it is a forced/quarantined event. Here are several articles informing us about gay "monogamous" sex:

Most gay couples aren't monogamous: Will straight couples go monogamish?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/san-francisco-study-monogamy-rare-in-homosexual-relationships/

According to these studies, most gays look at being monogamous as:

1. Always coming home to the same person no matter how many others you have sex with elsewhere.
2. Only having sex with another person if your “partner” is present.
3. Always telling your "partner" about the other people you had sex with.

This redefining of what it means to be "monogamous" is at the core of how rampant multiple partners are in gay monogamy, thus presenting another strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality, and it's lifestyle.

Fourth and finally, until 1973 homosexuality was classified as a "mental" disorder, and was re-classified "ego-dystonic homosexuality," but in 1986 that was removed from the DSM IV as a mental disorder because homosexuality did not interfere with daily functions. For homosexuality to be officially classified as a mental disorder, daily functions would have to be affected by the disorder.

The DSM IV still considers pedophilia as a mental disorder, but I would maintain that pedophilia does not interfere with daily functions. Why is homosexuality de-classifed, and pedophilia not? Both are argued that they cannot help their sexual preferences, and both appear to be "normal" in their "daily functions," so why not de-classify pedophiles also? This de-classifying homosexuality to make it appear a "normal" lifestyle is at the core of secular arguments, and just because a homosexual can maintain their "daily functions," should not make this a "normal" lifestyle, as the animal kingdom's rarity of homosexuality within it suggests. You should consider that within ALL of the created creatures in our world, there is just a small infinitesimal spec of those creatures that engage in homosexual intercourse. Nature tells us that of the billions upon billions of sexual intercourse taking place, it is between a male and female of their species, not same sex intercourse.

So Agnostic, you should re-evaluate your position because your secular arguments do not hold up under logical and factual scrutiny. KB
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Hi Agnostic75, you have recently stated this to 1robin:

You see Agnostic, you have such biased opinions that anything anyone would tell you would go in one ear and out the other. I have given you many secular arguments against the lifestyle of homosexuality, along with many Scriptural reasons.

First and foremost, I have presented the fact to you that AIDS was excusively a male homosexual disease as it out-broke within the U.S.A. As these infected male homosexuals had sex with anything and everything that consented to have sex with them, the AIDS epidemic gradually spread to the heterosexual community. This all started because of the epidemic of the Hep B virus within the male homosexual community, and the vaccine that was given to a select group of male homosexuals in the mid 70's. For anyone to deny the origin of AIDS within the U.S.A. not beginning with the male homosexual community is like denying the Holocaust. But in Africa, AIDS started with the poor sanitized villages in central Africa that received that same Hep B vaccine that was cultured in serum developed from Chimpanzees. If the U.S.A. did not have the infectious Hep B virus transmitted by the lifestyle of men having sex with men, this vaccine may have never been developed, thus AIDS may have never been awakened, and this makes a very strong secular argument against homosexuality.

Secondly, here is one of the guidelines used for blood donation by the Red Cross, please read it and understand the ramifications:

Do you see that Agnostic? Even ONCE of men having sex with men since 1977 puts you at an increased risk. This is a very strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality.

Thirdly, you always bring up about "monogamous" homosexual sex. I would present to you that would be like "monogamous" dog sex, it just isn't going to happen unless it is a forced/quarantined event. Here are several articles informing us about gay "monogamous" sex:

Most gay couples aren't monogamous: Will straight couples go monogamish?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/07/san-francisco-study-monogamy-rare-in-homosexual-relationships/

According to these studies, most gays look at being monogamous as:

1. Always coming home to the same person no matter how many others you have sex with elsewhere.
2. Only having sex with another person if your “partner” is present.
3. Always telling your "partner" about the other people you had sex with.

This redefining of what it means to be "monogamous" is at the core of how rampant multiple partners are in gay monogamy, thus presenting another strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality, and it's lifestyle.

Fourth and finally, until 1973 homosexuality was classified as a "mental" disorder, and was re-classified "ego-dystonic homosexuality," but in 1986 that was removed from the DSM IV as a mental disorder because homosexuality did not interfere with daily functions. For homosexuality to be officially classified as a mental disorder, daily functions would have to be affected by the disorder.

The DSM IV still considers pedophilia as a mental disorder, but I would maintain that pedophilia does not interfere with daily functions. Why is homosexuality de-classifed, and pedophilia not? Both are argued that they cannot help their sexual preferences, and both appear to be "normal" in their "daily functions," so why not de-classify pedophiles also? This de-classifying homosexuality to make it appear a "normal" lifestyle is at the core of secular arguments, and just because a homosexual can maintain their "daily functions," should not make this a "normal" lifestyle, as the animal kingdom's rarity of homosexuality within it suggests. You should consider that within ALL of the created creatures in our world, there is just a small infinitesimal spec of those creatures that engage in homosexual intercourse. Nature tells us that of the billions upon billions of sexual intercourse taking place, it is between a male and female of their species, not same sex intercourse.

So Agnostic, you should re-evaluate your position because your secular arguments do not hold up under logical and factual scrutiny. KB

There are several things wrong with your post but 2 things I'd like to ask before we go further.

African Americans have a significantly higher rate of HIV and AIDS. Do you propose they abstain from having sex? Also HIV also originated in Africa and Africa has had far higher HIV rates than America has ever had and their toleration of homosexuality is one of the worst in the world. Its also one of the most Christian nations in the world. So by extension can I make an argument against Christian sex or African sex?

Setting aside your obvious bigotry and overly offensive statements that don't have any basis in fact I feel that by your set parameters I am well within reason to make the above arguments.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
It's nice to be acknowledged, but can't you think of anything more substantial to add to the discussion, or did you earn all of your awards through posting off topic?

I slept my way to the top, if you must know. [/sarcasm]

I recommend google scholar for statistical analysis of data obtained from same sex couples indicators of health, security, and wellness. I also recommend the same search engine for statistical analysis on the health, security, and wellness of children who were raised by same sex couples.
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
There are several things wrong with your post but 2 things I'd like to ask before we go further.

African Americans have a significantly higher rate of HIV and AIDS. Do you propose they abstain from having sex? Also HIV also originated in Africa and Africa has had far higher HIV rates than America has ever had and their toleration of homosexuality is one of the worst in the world. Its also one of the most Christian nations in the world. So by extension can I make an argument against Christian sex or African sex?

Setting aside your obvious bigotry and overly offensive statements that don't have any basis in fact I feel that by your set parameters I am well within reason to make the above arguments.

Hi Monk of Reason, you missed my whole point concerning the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it was a result of the vaccine produced to fight the men having sex with men Heb B virus outbreak. Giving this vaccine to heterosexual villagers in Central Africa was just a by-product of trying to fight the Hep B virus with homosexuals. Do you realize that Hep B virus is caused by human feces, and the male homosexual is covered with human feces when men have sex with men? You need to become educated concerning these things, then you would not say what you have said.

African Americans suseptiblity to HIV is the result of their promiscuity, just as it was with male homosexuals, but the point should be made that the AIDS virus would not have been created if not for the male homosexual's need to have a vaccine against Hep B and the feces virus. KB
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Hi Monk of Reason, you missed my whole point concerning the AIDS epidemic in Africa, it was a result of the vaccine produced to fight the men having sex with men Heb B virus outbreak. Giving this vaccine to heterosexual villagers in Central Africa was just a by-product of trying to fight the Hep B virus with homosexuals. Do you realize that Hep B virus is caused by human feces, and the male homosexual is covered with human feces when men have sex with men? You need to become educated concerning these things, then you would not say what you have said.

African Americans suseptiblity to HIV is the result of their promiscuity, just as it was with male homosexuals, but the point should be made that the AIDS virus would not have been created if not for the male homosexual's need to have a vaccine against Hep B and the feces virus. KB

Please provide evidnece of your claim that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was caused by a Vaccine.

As expalined here, we know that it most likely originated in Africa and its why 69% of all HIV is found in Africa.

Actually Hep B is transferred by fluids in general. Not specifically feces.

And again please provide information that supports your theory that AIDS would not exist except for Hep B vaccines. I have had a Hep B vaccine because I worked in the Health Care industry for the past 6 years.
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Please provide evidnece of your claim that the AIDS epidemic in Africa was caused by a Vaccine.

As expalined here, we know that it most likely originated in Africa and its why 69% of all HIV is found in Africa.

Actually Hep B is transferred by fluids in general. Not specifically feces.

And again please provide information that supports your theory that AIDS would not exist except for Hep B vaccines. I have had a Hep B vaccine because I worked in the Health Care industry for the past 6 years.

Hi Monk Of Reason, here are a number of posts on this thread that will answer all of your questions. The highlighted with an underline will have active links and be the ones you should read for the sources, if you don't want to read them all:

Post #, 119, 122, 124, 129, 132, 143, 150, 152, 170, 171, 187, 195, 199, 318, 320, 348, 350, 356, 359, 362, 365, 367, 369, 371, 374, 375, 393, 412, 420, 422, 427, 430, 435, 441, 444, 445, 449, 477, 478, 481, 492, 496, 498, 500, 502, 504, 507, 510, 518, 519, 576, 582, and 676.

KB
 
Last edited:
Top