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

[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 Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS:. 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.

[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]


Please note "this documented science virtually proves.......the origin of HIV/AIDS as.......man-made.......by accident or intent.......

Early Hepatitis B research was done by Dr. Maurice Hilleman at Merck. He was not only trying to invent a vaccine for gay men, but also for intravenous drug users, so you can't just blame homosexuals.

Consider some more from Dr. Horowitz:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is historic precedence for this precise HB thesis. According to Beale, the risk of HB viruses contaminating human blood serum and subsequent vaccinations was determined as early as 1942. Then, more than 62 deaths and 28,500 cases resulted from serum HB contaminated yellow fever vaccines.31 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]According to Hilleman, early yellow fever vaccines also delivered leukemic retroviruses to human populations due to caged animal and laboratory contaminations and concomitant vaccine transmissions.13 [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dr. Hilleman additionally reinforced this “punctuated origin” thesis by describing the risks he encountered by importing contaminated African sub-human primates for vaccine research and development at the Merck pharmaceutical company. Between the late 1950s through the 1970s, Dr. Hilleman told Harvard medical historian Edward Shorter in 1987, “I brought African greens in. I didn’t know we were importing AIDS virus at the time.”13[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given these statements of fact, it is reasonable to suggest, as stated above, the earliest HB vaccine pilot studies may have activated an endogenous or exogenous HIV-related retroviral gene in one or more of the primates,24 fulfilling the “starburst phylogeny” antecedents advanced by Myers et al.10

[/FONT]

So it might have been Dr. Hilleman who inadvertently imported some greens from Africa, and used the greens to start HIV in humans.

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.

What are your solutions for homosexuality?

 

[1robin]

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.

Your constant redirection of posts and threads is self prohibitive. I have spent a solid 5 hours just catching up in the half dozen or so threads I already am in. I just can't add more.

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.

If just one single person was actually gay and then left it behind and became heterosexual (your terms used as I do not grant they both exist as brute facts) is that not enough to prove that either one of two things or both is true.

1. God exists and can change anything.
2. It is not mandated by genetics.

 

[1robin]

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

Where did that come from? How did abstinence get into that discussion. I think the problems that do exist in black communities or any other racial community are social and should be changed by that group of people and are not genetic. By the way if you think homosexuality is genetic would that not open the door to racism as well. If one is genetic why can't others be.

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

Ok

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

Not exactly, I recommend that any practice that creates significantly more aids cases without corroborating good reasons to allow should be stopped.

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

AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa: the epidemiology of... [Epidemiology. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

Even if I just grant what your saying stopping heterosexual activity stops humanity from surviving. Stopping homosexuality only stops a far smaller amount of people from gratifying sexual lust, it doesn't end the species. Do you still not understand my argument after all this time?

How does monogamous homosexuality produce vast increases in suffering?

I see you have forgotten the dozen times I have addressed this. You can't guarantee the monogamist ones will remain that way. However even if you could there are still massive problems outside actual STDs that occur. Many so grotesque I will not even discuss them. If the gay world only had two static classes with no interchange you might have a small point about one aspect of the cost but that is not what we have. People who drink in safe environments have a far bigger chance of doing so in unsafe environments. The same dynamic exists in homosexuality.

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.

None of that has any effect on what I said above and none of it justifies the cost when those same people are not monogamous and the majority of them are not during their lives.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In another thread, you said:

"Even you have used every argument under the sun to attempt to excuse a practice that increases suffering on a vast scale without any compensating good."

That obviously does not include homosexuals who have died who died from causes other than STDs, and never had any STDs, and were not pedophiles, drug abusers, or alcoholics. The leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, is heart disease, and it is often preventable.

A few years ago, the HIV/AIDS rate in Australia, and New Zealand, was one sixth of the rate in the U.S. My case regarding abstinence is obviously much stronger regarding homosexuals who live in those countries.

The U.S. military regularly tests for HIV/AIDS. Most gay men pass the tests, and lesbians even more so. If homosexuals in the military were not able to perform their tasks well, they would be fired from the military. Most do not get fired. Gay men in the military generally have higher rates of HIV/AIDS than heterosexual men do, but still, the vast majority of gay men in the military do not have HIV/AIDS.

One study showed that in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Obviously, since the military frequently screens for HIV, far more than 80% of gay men in the military do not have HIV, probably at least 97%.

Please reply to my previous posts.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Ken Brown]

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 Early Hepatitis B Vaccines and the “Man-Made” Origin of HIV/AIDS:. 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.

[/size][/font]


Please note "this documented science virtually proves.......the origin of HIV/AIDS as.......man-made.......by accident or intent.......

Early Hepatitis B research was done by Dr. Maurice Hilleman at Merck. He was not only trying to invent a vaccine for gay men, but also for intravenous drug users, so you can't just blame homosexuals.

Consider some more from Dr. Horowitz:

[/size][/font]

So it might have been Dr. Hilleman who inadvertently imported some greens from Africa, and used the greens to start HIV in humans.



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.



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.



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.

What are your solutions for homosexuality?

Hi Agnostic, well it looks like you are possibly agreeing that the Hep B vaccine that was administered to the group of gay men in NYC in the mid 70's was the man made event that triggered the outbreak of AIDS in the U.S.A. That is a very good start for you. Now, all you need to do is put 2 + 2 together, and properly reason that AIDS started in the U.S.A. as a result of men having sex with men, and needing this Hep B vaccine that was tainted. And then you need to take it a little further. You need to realize that as ONLY men having sex with men were the FIRST to acquire AIDS in the U.S.A. and they in return, infected heterosexuals. It's just simple math Agnostic and a little proper reasoning which makes a very strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, well it looks like you are possibly agreeing that the Hep B vaccine that was administered to the group of gay men in NYC in the mid 70's was the man made event that triggered the outbreak of AIDS in the U.S.A.

Yes, that is a reasonable possibility. However, as I told you, Dr. Hilleman's goal in trying to develop a cure for Hepatitis B was to help not only homosexuals, but also intravenous drug users, many of whom were heterosexuals, so even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, Dr. Hilleman would probably still have tried to find a cure for Hepatitis B.

Obviously, what you said does not apply to the many homosexuals who have never had any STDs, and had nothing to do with the origin of AIDS. In the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk factors than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Thus, there is no need for lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior to practice abstinence.

You need to realize that as ONLY men having sex with men were the FIRST to acquire AIDS in the U.S.A. and they in return, infected heterosexuals. It's just simple math Agnostic and a little proper reasoning which makes a very strong secular argument AGAINST homosexuality.

But soon after Dr. Hilleman tested some homosexuals with the new drug, he tested some heterosexual intravenous drug users, and AIDS would still have spread, but much less quickly. The only homosexuals who you have valid secular arguments against are those who practice unsafe sex, and get STDs, and spread STDs. The leading cause of death for homosexuals is heart disease, not AIDS. The same goes for heterosexuals.

Some day, there might be a new virus that is far more dangerous than the AIDS virus, and might be initially spread by heterosexuals. If that happens, you will not make a case that heterosexuals should not have sex. You would make a case that heterosexuals should have safe sex. The same applies to homosexuals. You should not make a case that they should not have sex. You should make a case that they should have safe sex, and many do, and that is what the CDC recommends for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals.

If global warming one day destroys all human life, or causes the worst economic depression in history by far, it will be heterosexuals who are most responsible for that because of their much greater numbers, not homosexuals. If either or both of those things happen, that would cause far more harm than AIDS has caused.

Heart disease kills far more people than AIDS does, burdens the health care system far more than AIDS does, and is often preventable by doing no more than making a few dietary changes, and getting more exercise. The same goes for obesity. Some experts have predicted that by the year 2030, which is only 17 years from now, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add 500 billion dollars to health care costs, not to mention physical, and emotional suffering. Obesity is often preventable.

And, cancer is at epidemic levels in much of the world, and experts predict that it will get much worse. Cancer is often preventable.

 

[Agnostic75]

How does monogamous homosexuality produce vast increases in suffering?

I see you have forgotten the dozen times I have addressed this.

Not at all, I have replied to that argument in two or three different threads, including this thread.

You can't guarantee the monogamist ones will remain that way.

I basically told you that you do not have any valid statistics that show that many homosexuals do not practice long monogamy. I also told you that many homosexuals have practiced monogamy for decades, and would thus not need to practice abstinence.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk factors than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. If we only considered monogamous lesbians, the risk factors would be even lower since research was done on monogamous, and promiscuous lesbians. Thus, there is no need for lesbians to practice abstinence.

However even if you could there are still massive problems outside actual STDs that occur. Many so grotesque I will not even discuss them.

If you will not state what the problems are, you cannot use them as evidence.

If the gay world only had two static classes with no interchange you might have a small point about one aspect of the cost but that is not what we have. People who drink in safe environments have a far bigger chance of doing so in unsafe environments. The same dynamic exists in homosexuality.

Life is lived individually, not collectively. What one person does cannot force another person to do the same thing. If some monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, many more would not.

The main issue is what homosexual individuals should do about their homosexuality in order to maximize their physical, and emotional health. Obviously, risks would vary greatly by group. A reasonable case could be made that homosexuals, or even heterosexuals, who are promiscuous, and practice unsafe sex, should practice abstinence. That obviously also applies to black Americans of both genders who live in black American communities, and to sub-Saharan black Africans of both genders.

A reasonable case for abstinence cannot be made for homosexuals, or for heterosexuals, who have practiced safe sex for at least ten years, and have no STDs.

A reasonable case for abstinence cannot be made for reasons that I have previously stated.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that some healthy homosexuals who practice safe sex, both monogamous homosexuals, and non-monogamous homosexuals who practice safe sex, would be much better off continuing to have sex than they would be practicing long term abstinence. If you wish, I can provide you with evidence that shows the risks of long term abstinence. Risks obviously vary greatly since no two people are the same. Long term abstinence is experienced very differently by many people who try it. Generally, the less religious a person is, the less success they have with it. Therefore, you do not have any valid secular alternatives for non-religious homosexuals.

One of your main problems is that you believe that the general state of health regarding say 70% of homosexuals is much worse that it is. A good example is your post #304. A good deal of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. I would like to go over that post with you, one claim at a time. Even true statistics can sometimes be misleading. For example, hypothetically, a research study showed that 10% of the heterosexuals in the study were alcoholics, and the 25% of the homosexuals were alcoholics. If the study only used people who were alcoholics, obviously, the results did not apply to anywhere near all heterosexuals, and all homosexuals. All that the study would have shown is that among people who are alcoholics, a much higher percentage of them are homosexual than heterosexual. That could be true but only apply to 5% of homosexuals. Even if ten times the percentage of homosexuals were pedophiles as compared to heterosexuals, the truth is that over 90% of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Regarding that hypothetical study, it is important to note that although 25% of the homosexuals were alcoholics, only 15% of them were alcoholics "because" they were homosexuals since 10% of them would have been alcoholics if they had been heterosexuals. So, a more fair, and more logical comparison would have been to compare 10% to 15%.

In another thread, you said:

.......the genetic mandate for homosexuality conflicts with natural selection. I was not even using it as an argument. I was just venting frustration over a theory so elastic it can do anything.

If theistic evolution is true, there is no conflict with homosexuality and natural selection since God has caused homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and has caused all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual, thereby giving many people the impression that homosexuality is a natural variation among animals, and among humans.

If naturalism is true, you have no argument at all since if it is true, it obviously somehow created, and maintained homosexuality. If you are making a case that theism is true because natural selection would not allow homosexuality, you are missing an obvious probability, which is that naturalistic natural selection is not always perfect.

If naturalism is true, quite obviously, it can do anything that it has done.

In another thread, you said:

"Even you have used every argument under the sun to attempt to excuse a practice that increases suffering on a vast scale without any compensating good."

That obviously does not include homosexuals who have died who died from causes other than STDs, and never had any STDs, and were not pedophiles, drug abusers, or alcoholics. The leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals, is heart disease, and it is often preventable.

A few years ago, the HIV/AIDS rate in Australia, and New Zealand, was one sixth of the rate in the U.S. My case regarding abstinence is obviously much stronger regarding homosexuals who live in those countries.

The U.S. military regularly tests for HIV/AIDS. Most gay men pass the tests, and lesbians even more so. If homosexuals in the military were not able to perform their tasks well, they would be fired from the military. Most do not get fired. Gay men in the military generally have higher rates of HIV/AIDS than heterosexual men do, but still, the vast majority of gay men in the military do not have HIV/AIDS.

One study showed that in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Obviously, since the military frequently screens for HIV, far more than 80% of gay men in the military do not have HIV, probably at least 95%.

 

[Agnostic75]

How does monogamous homosexuality produce vast increases in suffering?

I see you have forgotten the dozen times I have addressed this.

Not at all, I have replied to that argument in two or three different threads, including this thread.

You can't guarantee the monogamist ones will remain that way.

I basically told you that you do not have any valid statistics that show that many homosexuals do not practice long monogamy. I also told you that many homosexuals have practiced monogamy for decades, and would thus not need to practice abstinence.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk factors than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. If we only considered monogamous lesbians, the risk factors would be even lower since research was done on monogamous, and promiscuous lesbians. Thus, there is no need for lesbians to practice abstinence.

However even if you could there are still massive problems outside actual STDs that occur. Many so grotesque I will not even discuss them.

If you will not state what the problems are, you cannot use them as evidence.

If the gay world only had two static classes with no interchange you might have a small point about one aspect of the cost but that is not what we have. People who drink in safe environments have a far bigger chance of doing so in unsafe environments. The same dynamic exists in homosexuality.

Life is lived individually, not collectively. What one person does cannot force another person to do the same thing. If some monogamous homosexuals practiced abstinence, many more would not.

The main issue is what homosexual individuals should do about their homosexuality in order to maximize their physical, and emotional health. Obviously, risks would vary greatly by group. A reasonable case could be made that homosexuals, or even heterosexuals, who are promiscuous, and practice unsafe sex, should practice abstinence. That obviously also applies to black Americans of both genders who live in black American communities, and to sub-Saharan black Africans of both genders.

A reasonable case for abstinence cannot be made for homosexuals, or for heterosexuals, who have practiced safe sex for at least ten years, and have no STDs.

A reasonable case for abstinence cannot be made for reasons that I have previously stated.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that some healthy homosexuals who practice safe sex, both monogamous homosexuals, and non-monogamous homosexuals who practice safe sex, would be much better off continuing to have sex than they would be practicing long term abstinence. If you wish, I can provide you with evidence that shows the risks of long term abstinence. Risks obviously vary greatly since no two people are the same. Long term abstinence is experienced very differently by many people who try it. Generally, the less religious a person is, the less success they have with it. Therefore, you do not have any valid secular alternatives for non-religious homosexuals.

Your constant redirection of posts and threads is self prohibitive. I have spent a solid 5 hours just catching up in the half dozen or so threads I already am in. I just can't add more.

Well, you said that sexual identity can be changed, so I started a new thread at that topic at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. It does not take any more of your time to make a post in that thread than it does to make a post in this thread.

In that thread, I showed where the former founder, and president, and supposedly ex-gay president of the recently disbanded Exodus International said that he had lied about his own change of sexual identity, and that in 99% of the cases, homosexual identity was not changed. Exodus International was the largest ex-gay organization of its kind in the world. Thus being the case, there are not any good reasons to assume that there had been a good deal more success in very many other places in the world.

In another thread, you said that there are many successful ex-gay clinics all over the world. Where are these clinics?

If just one single person was actually gay and then left it behind and became heterosexual (your terms used as I do not grant they both exist as brute facts) is that not enough to prove that either one of two things or both is true.

1. God exists and can change anything.
2. It is not mandated by genetics.

Are you implying that bi-sexuality does or does not exist?

You previously said that you had religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality. You have not provided any valid secular arguments that all monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Most people who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated. Therefore, you have nothing useful to offer non-religious homosexuals, especially since, as I showed in the other thread, even a large percentage of religiously motivated homosexuals are not able to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is much more difficult than practicing abstinence.

There would be no need for happy, healthy, monogamous homosexual couples to practice abstinence and risk developing serious health problems, as some have. Regarding those who have tried abstinence, and developed serious physical, and emotional health problems as a result, what would be wrong with them resuming same-sex behavior?

God can heal multiple sclerosis, but he seldom does, at least he seldom heals serious cases of it.

You will eventually have no choice except to rely solely upon religious arguments.

Homosexuality is probably caused by a combination of genetics, and environment. Whatever influences environmental factors outside of the womb have, there is not any valid scientific evidence that they can usually, or even frequently be manipulated to cause a heterosexual sexual identity at puberty. The same is true of heterosexuality. The vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexual in spite of growing up in a home where homosexuality is consider to be appropriate.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown: Please reply to my post #810.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Again i'm not going on a wild goose chase to read your unsubstanciated claims.

And no the HIV is not scientifically accepted to have derived from a tainted HBV.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicatedpost.

 

[Agnostic75]

However even if you could there are still massive problems outside actual STDs that occur. Many so grotesque I will not even discuss them.

If you will not state what the problems are, you cannot use them as evidence. I am sure that you are partly referring to your post #304. If what you quoted was true, your would have some good arguments, but much of what you quoted is not true, or is poorly documented, or is misleading.

Where did that come from? How did abstinence get into that discussion?

Quite obviously, because you recommended abstinence as the best solution for homosexuality.

I think the problems that do exist in black communities or any other racial community are social and should be changed by that group of people.......

How should the problems be changed? According the you, abstinence would be one of the solutions. Have you changed your mind about abstinence?

.......and are not genetic.

But the best solutions for high risk behavior would be the same no matter what causes homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is caused 100% by environment, you would still recommend abstinence as a solution. You conveniently tried to change the subject because you know that you are in trouble.

Genetic and environmental factors are both important, but genetics does not have anything to do with whether or not people of any race, or gender, who are at high risk, should practice abstinence. Quite obviously, risk is risk regardless of a person's race, or gender. You have said on many occasions that abstinence is the best way to reduce risk, so I am merely addressing your recommended solution to the problem of risk. Black Americans, of both genders, who live in black American communities in the U.S. are the highest risk groups in the U.S. As the CDC has said, they are at risk because of factors other than their color. According to your recommended solution, they should practice abstinence since they have the highest risk in the U.S. Their color does not exempt them from their responsibility of limiting their risks, and you have recommend that anyone at risk should practice abstinence.

You have implied that black American homosexuals living anywhere in the U.S. should practice abstinence. Well, some of them live in black American communities, which are the highest risk areas in the U.S. You must believe that black American homosexuals who live in black American communities should practice abstinence. Why don't you also recommend that black American heterosexuals who live in black American communities practice abstinence since their risk is also very high.

Why did you recommend that lesbians should practice abstinence since lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior (for example, no intravenous drug use) have lowers risk than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women?

Why should monogamous gay men who have been living monogamously for at least ten years practice abstinence?

My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html provides lots of evidence that shows that changing sexual identity is not nearly as prevalent as you claim it is. This was admitted by none other than the founder, and former supposedly ex-gay president of Exodus International, which was, according to Wikipedia, "by far the largest ex-gay organization that has existed."

Consider the following:

http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/12/32488/

In September, I stood with a handful of protesters outside Sunrise Community Church on the outskirts of Sacramento. We were demonstrating against a new “ex-gay” organization, the Restored Hope Network. This radical group was comprised of Exodus International defectors who were staging a mutiny because Alan Chambers, the president of Exodus, had recently denounced reparative therapy and claimed that 99.9% of clients didn’t transform from gay to straight.

So even if genetics did not have anything to do with homosexuality, it is a fact that sexual identity is very difficult to change. Many if not the majority of homosexuals who have given up same-sex behavior has admitted that they still have some strong, and very frustrating same-sex desires.

Having sex has proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven risks. Surely some homosexuals should practice abstinence, but the same is true of some heterosexuals. It is a person's risk factors that make the most difference, not their sexual preference. Some homosexuals have no more risk factors than the average heterosexual does, especially lesbians, and healthy gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

 

[Ken Brown]

And no the HIV is not scientifically accepted to have derived from a tainted HBV.

Hi Monk Of Reason, usually, it is either ignorance or an agenda that keeps the truth from being accepted. I'm sure we will talk again someday. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Monk Of Reason, usually, it is either ignorance or an agenda that keeps the truth from being accepted. I'm sure we will talk again someday.

But as I showed in my post #810, which you did not reply to, I agree with you that it is a reasonable possibility that Dr. Hilleman administering an AIDS vaccine to some homosexuals might have started AIDS in the U.S., but I also showed that even if that is true, you do not have any valid arguments against healthy homosexuals today, hone of whom had anything to do with the origin of AIDS. I also told you that Dr. Hilleman was not only trying to help people who got AIDS from having sex, but also people who got AIDS from intravenous drug use, many of whom were heterosexuals, so AIDS would have started even if there were not any homosexuals in the world. Dr. Hilleman could just as easily have initially experimented with some heterosexual intravenous drugs users. If he had done that, then heterosexuals would have started AIDS.

Consider the following from my post #810:

"Some day, there might be a new virus that is far more dangerous than the AIDS virus, and might be initially spread by heterosexuals. If that happens, you will not make a case that heterosexuals should not have sex. You would make a case that heterosexuals should have safe sex. The same applies to homosexuals. You should not make a case that they should not have sex. You should make a case that they should have safe sex, and many do, and that is what the CDC recommends for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals."

 

[Ken Brown]

Yes, that is a reasonable possibility. However, as I told you, Dr. Hilleman's goal in trying to develop a cure for Hepatitis B was to help not only homosexuals, but also intravenous drug users, many of whom were heterosexuals, so even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, Dr. Hilleman would probably still have tried to find a cure for Hepatitis B. The OUTBREAK of AIDS was ONLY through men having sex with men in the U.S.A., not intravenous drug use, just as it was not through heterosexual sex, but ONLY homosexual sex. To be sure, as AIDS was transmitted by those men having sex with men through their voracious sexual appetite into the straight community, heterosexual's became infected, and other avenues of transmission increased. But the catalyst for originally spreading the AIDS virus in the U.S.A. was men having sex with men, and the community that is STILL most at risk in the whole world, is the community which allows for men having sex with men.

Obviously, what you said does not apply to the many homosexuals who have never had any STDs, and had nothing to do with the origin of AIDS. In the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Look, a sledge hammer was leveled upon homosexuality when the OUTBREAK of AIDS occurred. Back at that time, there was just an all out frenzy to have as many partners as possible, with no effort at all to refrain their voracious sexual appetites, and they paid a tremendous price.

Lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risk factors than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Thus, there is no need for lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior to practice abstinence. You misunderstand my approach. My desire is not for homosexuals to practice abstinence, my desire is that they be TURNED or CHANGED from that way of death, to where they could practice safe, monogamous, heterosexual sex, and enter into a way of producing life.

But soon after Dr. Hilleman tested some homosexuals with the new drug, he tested some heterosexual intravenous drug users, and AIDS would still have spread, but much less quickly. The only homosexuals who you have valid secular arguments against are those who practice unsafe sex, and get STDs, and spread STDs. The leading cause of death for homosexuals is heart disease, not AIDS. The same goes for heterosexuals. The spread of AIDS in the men having sex with men community was like a wild fire with strong winds blowing against it, and I appreciate you acknowledging the above statement.

Some day, there might be a new virus that is far more dangerous than the AIDS virus, and might be initially spread by heterosexuals. If that happens, you will not make a case that heterosexuals should not have sex. You would make a case that heterosexuals should have safe sex. The same applies to homosexuals. You should not make a case that they should not have sex. You should make a case that they should have safe sex, and many do, and that is what the CDC recommends for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Again, I do not recommend that homosexuals abstain from sex. I recommend that they CONVERT to having sex with a monogamous, opposite sex spouse.

If global warming one day destroys all human life, or causes the worst economic depression in history by far, it will be heterosexuals who are most responsible for that because of their much greater numbers, not homosexuals. If either or both of those things happen, that would cause far more harm than AIDS has caused. I really don't think you should be too worried about global warming destroying all human life. If you really wanted to worry about all human life being destroyed by fire, you probably need to look towards the sun or a possible asteroid/meteor strike.

Heart disease kills far more people than AIDS does, burdens the health care system far more than AIDS does, and is often preventable by doing no more than making a few dietary changes, and getting more exercise. The same goes for obesity. Some experts have predicted that by the year 2030, which is only 17 years from now, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add 500 billion dollars to health care costs, not to mention physical, and emotional suffering. Obesity is often preventable. To be sure, all sin is preventable, which gluttony is one, just as is homosexuality, and steps should be taken to come out of those practices. It only makes sense. Why keep doing things that causes harm?

And, cancer is at epidemic levels in much of the world, and experts predict that it will get much worse. Cancer is often preventable. Just as is homosexuality.

Hi Agnostic 75, see above for my comments. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

But as I showed in my post #810, which you did not reply to, I agree with you that it is a reasonable possibility that Dr. Hilleman administering an AIDS vaccine to some homosexuals might have started AIDS in the U.S., but I also showed that even if that is true, you do not have any valid arguments against healthy homosexuals today, hone of whom had anything to do with the origin of AIDS. I also told you that Dr. Hilleman was not only trying to help people who got AIDS from having sex, but also people who got AIDS from intravenous drug use, many of whom were heterosexuals, so AIDS would have started even if there were not any homosexuals in the world. Dr. Hilleman could just as easily have initially experimented with some heterosexual intravenous drugs users. If he had done that, then heterosexuals would have started AIDS.

Consider the following from my post #810:

"Some day, there might be a new virus that is far more dangerous than the AIDS virus, and might be initially spread by heterosexuals. If that happens, you will not make a case that heterosexuals should not have sex. You would make a case that heterosexuals should have safe sex. The same applies to homosexuals. You should not make a case that they should not have sex. You should make a case that they should have safe sex, and many do, and that is what the CDC recommends for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals."

Hi Agnostic 75, I was responding to your post 810 while you were writing this post. See my post 819. KB