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

[Monk Of Reason]

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

So rather than re-posting 2-3 links you would rather send me on a wild goose chase that will waste what looks to be possible hours of my time just to find out that your points still aren't valid?

I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase. I know the facts and I know that a lot of what you said is not only untrue but also totally based in a biased view that is clearly visible. So feel free to provide links for me in a response as it would have taken about....1/10 the time to find all those post numbers.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown, and HeatherAnn: Since sexual identity is not a choice, homosexuals did not choose their sexual identity. From a secular perspective, what do you recommend that homosexuals do about their homosexuality? Reparative therapy is a proven failure, long term abstinence has proven health risks, and sexual identity can almost never be changed.

It is certainly not gay men's fault that they have no sexual interest in women.

Many homosexuals are monogamous, and their physical, and emotional health is just as good as the physical and emotional health of many heterosexuals is. Why would health, monogamous homosexuals need to stop having sex?

Research has shown that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV, and that lesbians are less promiscuous than heterosexual men are, and are less promiscuous than heterosexual women are. Some homosexuals get Ph.D.s, win Olympic gold medals, or become heads of state, and many of them out earn heterosexuals.

 

[Ken Brown]

Message to Ken Brown, and HeatherAnn: Since sexual identity is not a choice, homosexuals did not choose their sexual identity. From a secular perspective, what do you recommend that homosexuals do about their homosexuality? Reparative therapy is a proven failure, long term abstinence has proven health risks, and sexual identity can almost never be changed.

It is certainly not gay men's fault that they have no sexual interest in women.

Many homosexuals are monogamous, and their physical, and emotional health is just as good as the physical and emotional health of many heterosexuals is. Why would health, monogamous homosexuals need to stop having sex?

Research has shown that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV, and that lesbians are less promiscuous than heterosexual men are, and are less promiscuous than heterosexual women are. Some homosexuals get Ph.D.s, win Olympic gold medals, or become heads of state, and many of them out earn heterosexuals.

Hi Agnostic, Democrats in CA tried to pass a bill that would forbid health counselors to attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change their behavior.

CA SB1172

Under the bill’s language, a mental health counselor could be sanctioned if there was an attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change his behavior or speak negatively about their behavior as it relates to sexuality.
The bill calls on states to prohibit efforts to change a minor’s sexual orientation, even if the minor requests it, saying that doing so is “dangerous and harmful.”
The text of the legislation doesn’t specifically ban “gay” conversion therapy. Instead, it prohibits attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation.

So I guess what this all leads to is me asking YOU what YOU would suggest we do in dealing with the sexual orientation of pedophilia? I'm certain that whatever you would suggest for that sexual orientation would work for the sexual orientation of homosexuality. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But even if that is true, today's homosexuals did not have anything to do with that.

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.

Gay men eligible to donate blood - Winnipeg Free Press

New rules that will let men who have sex with men donate blood under certain provisions, are being called a positive step forward.

New rules came into effect Monday. They allow men to donate blood as long as they haven't had sex with another man in the last five years. The previous rules, which were established in the 1980s, set that period of time as indefinite, meaning those men couldn't donate.

Health Canada approved the changes at the request of Canadian Blood Services.
Mindy Goldman, executive medical director at Canadian Blood Services, said the original rules were created around the time when HIV started spreading in North America.

CBS requested the change because modern medical procedures make screening blood for conditions such as HIV easier, she said.

"There's been tremendous progress in detection of HIV in blood since then, and tremendous progress in our processes," Goldman said.

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?

You are comparing two different things. Pedophilia frequently causes serious physical, and psychological problems for children. Children who are significantly harmed by pedophilia are frequently not normal in their daily functions.
Homosexuals who practice safe sex are frequently normal in their daily functions.

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.

The rarity of something does not determine whether or not it is healthy. Having an IQ of 160 is rare, but that is not unhealthy. All bonobo monkeys are
bi-sexual. Experts say that their bi-sexuality provides them with significant benefits. Bi-sexuality among an entire species of animals is very rare, but bonobo monkeys significantly benefit from it. Over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality. Except for bonobo monkeys, and perhaps a few other species of animals, animals practice it somewhat rarely, but good health is the main issue, not rarity. There is not any valid scientific evidence that homosexuality is generally harmful to the animals that practice it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, Democrats in CA tried to pass a bill that would forbid health counselors to attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change their behavior.

CA SB1172


So I guess what this all leads to is me asking YOU what YOU would suggest we do in dealing with the sexual orientation of pedophilia? I'm certain that whatever you would suggest for that sexual orientation would work for the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

The original purpose of the legislation was to protect homosexuals, not pedophiles. The vast majority of Democrats, and the vast majority of Democratic politicians, in all states, oppose pedophilia. Very few politicians of any party could get elected if they publically supported pedophilia. Even if all politicians in the U.S. were Democrats, pedophilia would not be legal in any city, or in any state.

Consider the following:

California Democrats Pass Bill That Protects Pedophiles

The law does not specifically mention pedophilia, but according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, "This language is so broad and vague, it could arguably include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia. It's not just the orientation that is protected - the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well."

No, it could not arguably include all forms of sexual orientation. If a judge ever ruled that the proposed law did protect, and endorse pedophilia, the law would be changed, and most Democrats would support the change. I do not know why Democrats in California did not want to exclude pedophilia from the bill, but I do know that most Democrats in every city in the U.S. oppose pedophilia. Surely a good percentage of homosexuals oppose pedophilia, and there is no doubt that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

By the way, the majority of Republicans in the U.S. support same-sex marriage.

So I guess what this all leads to is me asking YOU what YOU would suggest we do in dealing with the sexual orientation of pedophilia? I'm certain that whatever you would suggest for that sexual orientation would work for the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

I have not studied pedophilia very much, but there are plenty of Internet articles about it. As far as homosexuality is concerned, as far as I know, there are not any reliable ways to prevent it. Recent research in epigenetics has shown that epigenetic factors inside the womb are an important part of homosexuality. Some environmental factors outside of the womb probably also contribute to homosexuality, but even if those factors can be controlled, epigenetic factors inside of the womb cannot be controlled. No major medical organization claims that homosexuality is primarily caused by environmental factors outside of the womb.

 

[1robin]

Agnostic75, without promising to answer all these posts I have a question for you. Very little in evolution that is not actual lethal could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity (or inclination to do so) to breed. Why has evolution not weeded out homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But the first link does not show that, as you said, "it just isn't going to happen unless it is a forced/quarantined event." It says:

A long Gawker story last week explored this problem in greater detail. In the fight for marriage equality, the gay rights movement has put forth couples that look like straight ones, together forever, loyal, sharing assets. But what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm:

"The Gay Couples Study out of San Francisco State University—which, in following over 500 gay couples over many years is the largest on-going study of its kind—has found that about half of all couples have sex with someone other than their partner, with their partner knowing."

That does not agree with what you said.

Regarding "but what no one wants to talk about is that they don’t necessarily represent the norm," the Gawker story that was mentioned was written by a homosexual. Where do any major gay websites claim that true monogamy among homosexuals is normal?

Your second link says:

As other studies and reports have shown, even “monogamy” usually has a very different meaning for homosexuals. The loosest definition in the dictionary for monogamy is “the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time,” yet many homosexuals “redefine” monogamy to mean whatever provides them with the greatest emotional comfort: always coming home to the same person no matter how many others you have sex with elsewhere; only having sex with another person if your “partner” is present; always telling your partner about the other people you had sex with, etc.

One of those interviewed for this study affirmed this:

“When we started this study, we felt we didn’t know many people with open relationships, but now our friend set is much more diverse,” said Lowen, 57. “People we didn’t think were open turned out to be. It’s just not talked about that much.”

But what percentage of homosexuals is "many homosexuals"?

Ellis goes on to criticize same-sex marriage, but same-sex marriage does not interfere with the rights of homosexuals at all.

Generally, homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals are, but that is due to their sexual identity, which they did not choose. Many homosexuals simply do not enjoy being monogamous. Many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, and research has shown that many of them are healthy, happy, and well-adjusted.

 

[Agnostic75]

Agnostic75, without promising to answer all these posts I have a question for you. Very little in evolution that is not actually lethal could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity (or inclination to do so) to breed. Why has evolution not weeded out homosexuality?

From a theistic perspective, because God has not provided the means for evolution to weed it out.

From a naturalistic perspective, an article at https://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ provides some possibilities, but regardless of what explanations might be correct, if naturalism is true, it has allowed homosexuality to exist, and in fact, caused it to exist.

Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Experts say that their bi-sexuality provides them with some benefits. Why has evolution not weeded out bi-sexuality
among bonobo monkeys? From a theistic perspective, because God has not provided the means for evolution to weed it out. From a naturalistic perspective, regardless of what explanations might be correct, if naturalism is true, it has allowed homosexuality to exist, and in fact, caused it to exist."

Recent research in epigenetics shows, using mathematical models, that epigenetic factors inside the womb probably partly causes homosexuality.

Please provide evidence that supports your claim that genetics is not an important cause of homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

From a theistic perspective, because God has not provided the means for evolution to weed it out.

Why would you include a theistic-evolutionary comment and how do you know what you claim here?

From a naturalistic perspective, an article at https://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/ provides some possibilities, but regardless of what explanations might be correct, if naturalism is true, it has allowed homosexuality to exist, and in fact, caused it to exist.

You can't assume the premise is true. I read much of that article and it seems evolution is just about the most dynamic and capable concept even theoretically imaginable. It can do anything. If needed in order to defend it I bet someone would claim it can do my taxes. When something is pretty much capable of anything and even violating it's own governing dynamics it is hard to quantify and much harder to trust. I however will admit that that article did admit the speculative nature of what they claimed and admitted the relative mystery the issue still is but danged if evolution is not so certain that the theory its self evolves. It kind of reminds me or dark matter. Whatever actually turns out to be what generates the gravity regular matter can't will be dark matter. It and evolution are kind of place holders for whatever the truth is.

Almost all bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual. Experts say that their bi-sexuality provides them with some benefits. Why has evolution not weeded out bi-sexuality
among bonobo monkeys? From a theistic perspective, because God has not provided the means for evolution to weed it out. From a naturalistic perspective, regardless of what explanations might be correct, if naturalism is true, it has allowed homosexuality to exist, and in fact, caused it to exist."

Bisexuality is not at odds with evolution the way true homosexuality is so the dynamics is completely different in this context. I have not the slightest idea why you are positing theistic evolution.

Recent research in epigenetics shows, using mathematical models, that epigenetic factors inside the womb probably partly causes homosexuality.

That article said it this way. In the early 1990s, a geneticist at the National Institutes of Health led a study that reported the existence of a specific allele, Xq28, located on the X chromosome, that predicted gay-­versus-straight sexual orientation in men.
https://chronicle.com/article/The-Evolutionary-Mystery-of/135762/
Which is similar to what I said should be true and similar to what you have said yet in the next paragraph says this.

Subsequent research has been confusing, showing that the situation is at least considerably more complicated than had been hoped by some (notably, most gay-rights advocates) and feared by others (who insist that sexual orientation is entirely a "lifestyle choice").

Which undoes what it just claimed above. That is the kind of uncertainty that just leaves me tired when I hear claims that it is known that homosexuality is genetically mandated.

Please provide evidence that supports your claim that genetics is not an important cause of homosexuality.

Either I mistyped or you misread (I know which one is more likely) so let me state it again. I am sure genetics makes sexual preference more likely one way or the other. My claim is that sexual orientation is not mandated by genetics and has been completely switched by many based on preference. I believe we al have tendencies in both directions based on a ratios. Based on genetics the ratio may go up or down a bit and anyone can act on the lower ratio's impulses if they wish and behavior alters those ratios over time. The same is true with chemical abuse. Anyone can live a sober life and anyone can live an addicted life and anyone can change along the way even if most times they don't and at most times they do not even believe change is possible.

 

[Agnostic75]

Very little in evolution that is not actual lethal could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity (or inclination to do so) to breed. Why has evolution not weeded out homosexuality?

You are obviously leading up to a case for theism, and for Christianity, since you know that if naturalism is true, it has somehow caused homosexuality, and because all religions do not oppose homosexuality.

Why would you include a theistic-evolutionary comment and how do you know what you claim here?

If theistic evolution is true, God causes over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality, and causes all bonobo monkeys to practice bi-sexuality. Regarding humans, God has caused a situation where sexual identity usually cannot be changed, and where young people going through puberty have sexual urges that they do not choose. At puberty, sexual urges are usually moderately, or strongly heterosexual, or moderately, or strongly homosexual.

Some homosexuals who have unsuccessfully tried to change their sexual identity have said that is sexual identity was a choice, they would have chose to become heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution, and bigotry. Another good reason for people to choose heterosexuality if sexual identity could be chosen would be that homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do.

I am sure genetics makes sexual preference more likely one way or the other. My claim is that sexual orientation is not mandated by genetics and has been completely switched by many based on preference.

My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html that is titled "Can sexual identity be changed?" shows that you do not know what you are talking about. In part of that thread, I discuss the health risks of long term abstinence. There is a big difference between abstaining from having sex, and changing sexual identity.

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.

Consider the following from another thread:

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

Yes, but not personally. It did not hurt me in any way that I know of.

But when I quoted a study that showed that 80% of homosexuals in 21 American cities do not have HIV, you criticized those homosexuals. You have claimed on many occasions that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Many homosexuals who practice safe sex will die without ever harming anyone. The leading cause of death among homosexuals is heart disease, not any STD, or even if all STDs together were considered as a single cause of death.

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.

No, I made an excellent argument since black Americans who live in black American communities are not at high risk because of their color, but because of other factors. A CDC article at CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS gives the reasons. According to your philosophy, any high risk group of people should practice abstinence. That would obviously include black Americans who live in black American communities.

Would you like to make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151188-does-christian-god-have-free-will.html. It is titled "Does the Christian God have free will?"

 

[1robin]

If theistic evolution is true, God causes over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality, and causes all bonobo monkeys to practice bi-sexuality. Regarding humans, God has caused a situation where sexual identity usually cannot be changed, and where young people going through puberty have sexual urges that they do not choose.

This is why I objected because you do not understand what you claimed. No it is not the case that if God exists this has occurred. God can exist and have left evolution to operate without the supervision he originally intended or a hundred other scenarios. Instead of contriving charges in order to indicate God I would prefer you either ask me what is the theory within at least Christianity or list your comments on theism without bringing my God along for the ride. Neither me or you could say what is true of evolution within a generic theistic framework so why bother?

My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html that is titled "Can sexual identity be changed?" shows that you do not know what you are talking about. In part of that thread, I discuss the health risks of long term abstinence. There is a big difference between abstaining from having sex, and changing sexual identity.

You have not the slightest idea if I am wrong even if I was. Unless you have the capacity and opportunity to dissect every person who claims to have left homosexuality or heterosexuality behind you nor anyone else can't possibly know this. I know what the tactic is here. Anyone and everyone who claims that they have left behind a former sexual orientation is denied to have ever had that original orientation by those who have no way of knowing of ever having that orientation. It is a bizarre reverse Scotsman argument or something just as silly. Even if you could know you still wouldn't. You can have faith that is true if you wish but do not insist you are operating on proven fact.

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.

Let's see here.

1. You gave a bunch of stats here that even if true have not the slightest effect on whether something is wrong or right or even whether it produces vast suffering or not. I do not have to solve a problem to recognize it is problematic. What is this bizarre argument that you keep using: I do not care how many people suffer for this they can't stop it and so even those who do not do it must pay a price for those that do? Why should I and the 90% of us don't do this pay for others to do it in medical premiums and tax dollars.
2. Then you predict that many won't spread disease so we should tolerate those that do.

This is just a repeat of excuses you have used before. Rationalization is not a reason. There is no argument that a practice that produces massive suffering and cost that has no correlating benefit that sufficient justifies it's practice should be allowed. Not whatever the answer might be, not your predictions about the monogamy of millions of people, not that other things are wrong to, not that practices are very attractive, nothing so far justifies what I stated here and it seems we just go around in the same circles. The only argument that even has the potential for affecting the issue is genetics and I have no ability to decide or even evaluate how to resolve that even if what you state was perfectly true in that regard.

Consider the following from another thread:





But when I quoted a study that showed that 80% of homosexuals in 21 American cities do not have HIV, you criticized those homosexuals. You have claimed on many occasions that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Many homosexuals who practice safe sex will die without ever harming anyone. The leading cause of death among homosexuals is heart disease, not any STD, or even if all STDs together were considered as a single cause of death.

Saying sometimes IED's did not hurt anyone is not an argument they are ok. The entire dynamic is invalid.


[/quote]No, I made an excellent argument since black Americans who live in black American communities are not at high risk because of their color, but because of other factors. A CDC article at CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS gives the reasons. According to your philosophy, any high risk group of people should practice abstinence. That would obviously include black Americans who live in black American communities. [/quote]Anything that produces vast increases in suffering with no corresponding gain that can be changed (not that are easily changed, and history shows homosexuality can be not practiced at least on any comparable scale) should, even if it is societal issues relating to race. I do not claim KKK membership is based on valid grounds even though 99% of them never hurt anyone and it was originally founded to stop northern reorganization using violence on southerners. If only those that do X suffered for doing it, it might be different. As it is, it costs all of us billions and billions even if none of the thousands who died, actually did. The crusades were wrong, the inquisition was wrong, the conquests were wrong and they were Christian or claimed to be. I remain or try to remain consistent only your side uses arguments about how many crusaders actually killed anyone.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am sure genetics makes sexual preference more likely one way or the other. My claim is that sexual orientation is not

mandated by genetics and has been completely switched by many based on preference.

My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html that is titled "Can sexual identity be changed?" shows that you do not know what you are talking about. In part of that thread, I discuss the health risks of long term abstinence. There is a big difference between abstaining from having sex, and changing sexual identity.

You have not the slightest idea if I am wrong even if I was. Unless you have the capacity and opportunity to dissect every person who claims to have left homosexuality or heterosexuality behind you nor anyone else can't possibly know this.

Let's discuss this in my relevant thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. I have a lot of evidence there that adequately refutes your arguments.

I know what the tactic is here. Anyone and everyone who claims that they have left behind a former sexual orientation is denied to have ever had that original orientation by those who have no way of knowing of ever having that orientation.

Some people use that approach, but I do not need to use it. Even if bi-sexuality did not exist, that does not change the fact that same-sex attraction can seldom be completely eliminated, only diminished by varying, often minimal degrees. Many people who have given up same-sex behavior have said that they still have strong, frustrating same-sex attractions.

 

[Agnostic75]

Anything that produces vast increases in suffering with no corresponding gain that can be changed (not that are easily changed, and history shows homosexuality can be not practiced at least on any comparable scale) should, even if it is societal issues relating to race.

Are you saying that black Americans who live in black American communities should, or should not practice abstinence?

A Wikipedia at says that "the 19 countries worldwide with the highest prevalence of reported [HIV] infections are all African countries."

Do you recommend that everyone in those countries practice abstinence, meaning heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bi-sexuals?

In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV/AIDS are quite common among heterosexuals. Consider the following:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8420583

As the epidemic of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in sub-Saharan Africa enters its second decade, much has been learned about the distribution and determinants of the disease and its causative agent, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Over 6 million people, or 2.5% of the adult population, are thought to be infected with HIV. The distribution of HIV is largely determined by sexual behavior; as for other sexually transmitted diseases, the characteristics of sexual networks determine the extent and rate of spread of HIV. Female sex workers and their male clients are at high risk for HIV and have been important in initiating the epidemic in many African countries. The dynamics of HIV in the rest of the population are complex; men with multiple sexual partners are largely responsible for transmission of HIV to women in the general population. Other sexually transmitted diseases and lack of male circumcision may increase the probability of transmission of HIV during sexual intercourse and probably are partially responsible for the rapid diffusion of HIV in Africa. Interventions among high-risk groups are needed, but they must be accompanied by attempts to induce behavior change among men and women in the general population. Epidemiologic studies of the determinants of sexual behavior and sexual contact patterns, as well the design and evaluation of interventions, are urgently needed. Key areas for development are the study of behavioral exposures and outcomes, the evaluation of interventions, developing new methods for conducting interventions in resource-poor environments, and increasing the number of African scientists with the skills and resources to conduct epidemiologic studies.

How does monogamous homosexuality produce vast increases in suffering? Having safe sex provides physical, and emotional benefits. Long term abstinence often causes serious physical, and emotional problems. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Agnostic75, without promising to answer all these posts I have a question for you. Very little in evolution that is not actually lethal could be less conducive to survival than the incapacity (or inclination to do so) to breed. Why has evolution not weeded out homosexuality?

If naturalism is true, it somehow caused homosexuality to exist among humans, and among over 1500 species of animals, and birds. If theism is true, we do not know what God's opinion is of homosexuality. Even if a God inspired the original Bible, no one knows how much of it he preserved.

Why would a moral God want happy, healthy monogamous homosexuals to practice abstinence for life, and risk developing serious physical, and emotional problems as a result?

From an entirely secular perspective, surely many monogamous homosexuals would be much better off continuing their sexual relationships than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence.

Some monogamous homosexuals who died lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals. Do you object to those homosexuals?

Yes, but not personally. It did not hurt me in any way that I know of.

But when I quoted a study that showed that 80% of homosexuals in 21 American cities do not have HIV, you criticized those homosexuals. You have claimed on many occasions that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Many homosexuals who practice safe sex will die without ever harming anyone. The leading cause of death among homosexuals is heart disease, not any STD, or even if all STDs together were considered as a single cause of death.

Saying sometimes IED's did not hurt anyone is not an argument they are ok. The entire dynamic is invalid.

Are you referring to intermittent explosive disorder, reference a Wikipedia article at Intermittent explosive disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia? If so, what does that have to do with homosexuality?

You said that you did not personally object to homosexuals who died, and lived their entire lives as monogamous homosexuals, and that they did not hurt you I any way that you know of? Have you changed your mind? Some of the 80% of homosexuals who do not have HIV will continue to practice safe sex for the rest of their lives, and will never harm anyone.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have lower HIV rates than heterosexual women do. Why would lesbians need to practice abstinence?


You have no case at all against non-religious, monogamous homosexuals since it is well-known that the vast majority of people who give up homosexual behavior are religiously motivated, and that even religiously motivated homosexuals often fail to give up homosexuality.

From a secular perspective, what harm does monogamous homosexuality cause?

Please reply to my previous post.

In the U.S., about 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. If the figure was 95%, would you still object to homosexuality? How about 99%?

Please reply to my previous post.

Would you like to make a post in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151188-does-christian-god-have-free-will.html?

 

[Ken Brown]

So rather than re-posting 2-3 links you would rather send me on a wild goose chase that will waste what looks to be possible hours of my time just to find out that your points still aren't valid?

I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase. I know the facts and I know that a lot of what you said is not only untrue but also totally based in a biased view that is clearly visible. So feel free to provide links for me in a response as it would have taken about....1/10 the time to find all those post numbers.

Hi Monk Of Reason, I underlined the posts that had active links. The first two 132, and 143, dealt with how the diseases associated with men having sex with men witnesses AGAINST the lifestyle of homosexuality as devastating to that way of disobedience.

The posts 356, 359, 362, 369, and 374 all deal with showing how the outbreak of the epidemic is related to the tainted Hep B vaccine that was administered to those male homosexuals in New York City in the mid 70's. 362 and 369 relate specifically to a gay statistician (Tom Keske) who with having no agenda, flat out shows that the tainted Hep B vaccine was the catalyst for the AIDS epidemic. The last highlighted post 374 has a link from a professor that lists the various 6 theories for the origin of AIDS and concludes, "The tainted HBV (Hep B vaccine) theory appears as the best, albeit untested, scientifically based idea for the origin of HIV." Hopefully, this narrows it down for you to get the answers you were looking for. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Monk Of Reason, I underlined the posts that had active links. The first two 132, and 143, dealt with how the diseases associated with men having sex with men witnesses AGAINST the lifestyle of homosexuality as devastating to that way of disobedience.

The posts 356, 359, 362, 369, and 374 all deal with showing how the outbreak of the epidemic is related to the tainted Hep B vaccine that was administered to those male homosexuals in New York City in the mid 70's. 362 and 369 relate specifically to a gay statistician (Tom Keske) who with having no agenda, flat out shows that the tainted Hep B vaccine was the catalyst for the AIDS epidemic. The last highlighted post 374 has a link from a professor that lists the various 6 theories for the origin of AIDS and concludes, "The tainted HBV (Hep B vaccine) theory appears as the best, albeit untested, scientifically based idea for the origin of HIV." Hopefully, this narrows it down for you to get the answers you were looking for.

But I have already told you that even if you are right, today's homosexuals are not responsible for the origin of AIDS.

Some homosexuals have always practiced safe sex, and have never gotten any STD.

In the U.S. 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have lower HIV rates than heterosexual women do.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, not AIDS. It is also the leading cause of death for heterosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable. If you are concerned with people's health, you should get involved with the prevention of heart disease. And don't forget about obesity. Some experts have predicted that by 2030, which is only 17 years from now, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add 500 billion dollars to health care costs. Obesity is often preventable.

What solution do you recommend for homosexuals?

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, Democrats in CA tried to pass a bill that would forbid health counselors to attempt to get a pedophile or gay individual to change their behavior.

CA SB1172


So I guess what this all leads to is me asking YOU what YOU would suggest we do in dealing with the sexual orientation of pedophilia? I'm certain that whatever you would suggest for that sexual orientation would work for the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

The original purpose of the legislation was to protect homosexuals, not pedophiles. The vast majority of Democrats, and the vast majority of Democratic politicians, in all states, oppose pedophilia. Very few politicians of any party could get elected if they publically supported pedophilia. Even if all politicians in the U.S. were Democrats, pedophilia would not be legal in any city, or in any state.

The law does not specifically mention pedophilia, but according to Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, "This language is so broad and vague, it could arguably include all forms of sexual orientation, including pedophilia. It's not just the orientation that is protected - the conduct associated with the orientation is protected as well."

No, it could not arguably include all forms of sexual orientation. If a judge ever ruled that the proposed law did protect, and endorse pedophilia, the law would quickly be changed, and most Democrats would support the change. I do not know why Democrats in California did not want to exclude pedophilia from the bill, but I do know that most Democrats in every city in the U.S. oppose pedophilia. Surely a good percentage of homosexuals oppose pedophilia, and there is no doubt that the vast majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

By the way, the majority of Republicans in the U.S. support same-sex marriage.

So I guess what this all leads to is me asking YOU what YOU would suggest we do in dealing with the sexual orientation of pedophilia? I'm certain that whatever you would suggest for that sexual orientation would work for the sexual orientation of homosexuality.

I have not studied pedophilia very much, but there are plenty of Internet articles about it. As far as homosexuality is concerned, as far as I know, there are not any reliable ways to prevent it. Recent research in epigenetics has shown that epigenetic factors inside the womb are an important part of homosexuality. Some environmental factors outside of the womb probably also contribute to homosexuality, but even if those factors can be controlled, epigenetic factors inside of the womb cannot be controlled. No major medical organization claims that homosexuality is primarily caused by environmental factors outside of the womb.

Plenty of homosexuals practice safe sex, as proven by the facts that 80% of them do not have HIV, and almost everyone knows at least one healthy homosexual.

A major reason why homosexuality is much different than pedophilia is that safe sex among homosexuals does not have near the health risks for participants that pedophilic behavior does.

 

[Agnostic75]

The last highlighted post 374 has a link from a professor that lists the various 6 theories for the origin of AIDS and concludes, "The tainted HBV (Hep B vaccine) theory appears as the best, albeit untested, scientifically based idea for the origin of HIV."

But the best idea is not necessarily the correct idea.

Consider the following from the article that you mentioned:

Curtis V. Smith Ph.D.
Professor of Biological Sciences
Kansas City Kansas Community College

"The tainted HBV theory appears as the best, albeit untested, scientifically based idea for the origin of HIV. If proven, the punctuated origin of eleven strains of Clade M HIV-1 based on the accidental pooling of hundreds of samples of SIV in four stages of serial passage in the 1970s SVCP program, would go far to explain how eleven different subtypes of SIV suddenly were concentrated, mutated and all at once jumped the species barrier from chimpanzees to humans in a fast replicating form with large enough output to be transmitted easily between humans by sexual contact.......While great advancements have been made in better understanding the virology and immunology of HIV, scientists are a long way from agreeing on the origin of this terrible virus and from finding a vaccine to end the most horrendous pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1918-1922."

Please note "If proven, the punctuated origin of eleven strains of Clade M HIV-1 based on the accidental pooling of hundreds of samples of SIV.......'

Did I miss something, or did Dr. Smith say that the origin of HIV might have been an accident?

As Dr. Smith said, he wants to find out what caused AIDS because finding the cause makes finding a cure much easier. He was not trying to find ways to blame homosexuals at all in any of the article. What you have done is an example of quote mining. Wikipedia says that quote mining "is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."

You quoted Dr. Smith in a way that removed what you quoted from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort what he was trying to accomplish.

Quote mining is not a reputable thing to do. If someone did that with something that you wrote, you would object to that.

There is a long, technical article about the origin of AIDS by a prestigious expert at http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.htm. The author of the article is Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H. He agrees with you that AIDS was caused by humans, but like Dr. Smith, he does not attack homosexuals at all, and like Dr. Smith, he wants to find out what caused AIDS since that would make finding a cure much easier.


Consider the following excerpts from the article:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"This documented science virtually proves, through the process of elimination and a review of the most updated evidence, the origin of HIV/AIDS as an iatrogenic (i.e., man-made) outcome of specific vaccination experiments.......[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]this AIDS science, along with the sociopolitical correlates and antecedents of this current catastrophe, reveals the likelihood that myriad other immune dysfunctions, autoimmune diseases, and cancers, including leukemias, lymphomas, sarcomas, and other ailments linked to viral infections, have resulted from previously engineered microbes that have by accident or intent found their way from cancer virus laboratories into humanity’s bloodstream by way of the most trusted public health preventative—vaccinations." [/FONT]

[/FONT]