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

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic 75, see above for my comments.

Which comments are you referring to?

I adequately refuted your arguments in my post #810, which you did not reply to.

AIDS could just have easily started with heterosexuals since Dr. Hilleman later treated some heterosexual intravenous drug users, and would eventually have done that even if there were not any homosexuals in the world.

What are your recommended solutions for homosexuals, many of whom are healthy, and practice safe sex?

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."

Is that not true?

 

[Agnostic75]

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

But your post 819 is not a reply to anything that I said. It is only quoting what I said. You have not replied to my post #810.

You certainly have not offered any reasonable options for all homosexuals.

 

[Ken Brown]

But your post 819 is not a reply to anything that I said. It is only quoting what I said. You have not replied to my post #810.

You certainly have not offered any reasonable options for all homosexuals.

H Agnostic 75, just because you don't like my answers to your questions, don't think I did not answer you. I did answer your questions, just not in a way that you wanted me to. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic 75, just because you don't like my answers to your questions, don't think I did not answer you. I did answer your questions, just not in a way that you wanted me to.

What solutions have you offered homosexuals? I am not aware that you made any. If you did, please restate them. You do not need to quote them exactly.

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic 75, just because you don't like my answers to your questions, don't think I did not answer you. I did answer your questions, just not in a way that you wanted me to.

Well, let's go back and see what happened. Here is my post #810 in its entirety.

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.

Here is everything that you said to anyone after I made that post.

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.

Your post #819 was merely quoting what I said. You did not offer any of your own comments.

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

Hi Agnostic 75, just because you don't like my answers to your questions, don't think I did not answer you. I did answer your questions, just not in a way that you wanted me to.

That is everything that you said to anyone after I made my post #810. That is proof that you did not reply to my post #810.

It is quite obvious that homosexuals living today who have never had any STDs had nothing to do with origin of AIDS.

It is also quite obvious that AIDS would have happened even if there were not any homosexuals in the world. That is because soon after Dr. Hilleman treated some homosexuals, he treated some heterosexual intravenous drug users who also had Hepatitis B.

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."

Is that not true?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown:

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.

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.

But you did not answer my question. What is your answer? My answer is the same answer that all major medical organizations give, which is that people of all sexual orientations should practice safe sex. Many homosexuals practice safe sex, do not have any STDs, and are healthy as judged by any widely accepted methods of evaluating physical, and mental health.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown: Consider the following:

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

Leonard G. Horowitz, D.M.D., M.A., M.P.H.

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.


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.

[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.”[/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, fulfilling the “starburst phylogeny” antecedents advanced by Myers et al.[/FONT]

If that is true, then AIDS got to humans through primates. How did some primates get the virus? Well, if a God inspired the Bible, he created AIDS since he must have created a virus that infected some primates, which accidently got transferred to humans.

 

[Ken Brown]

Which about comments are you referring to? I adequately refuted your arguments in my post #810, which you did not reply to.

AIDS could just have easily started with heterosexuals since Dr. Hilleman later treated some heterosexual intravenous drug users, and would eventually have done that even if there were not any homosexuals in the world.

What are your recommended solutions for homosexuals, many of whom are healthy, and practice safe sex?

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."

Is that not true?

Hi Agnostic, please respond to my comments in red which I am re-posting from 819 in response to your 810 post. Have you not seen this:

Originally Posted by Agnostic75
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.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown: You said that your main desire for homosexuals is not that they practice abstinence, but that they change their sexual identity to heterosexual. My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html shows that sexual identity can rarely be changed. Therefore, you do not have any valid secular arguments against homosexuals, especially those who are healthy, and happy, and practice safe sex.

Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex are quite content with having multiple sex partners.

Homosexuals who do not have any STDs did not have anything to do with the origin of AIDS.

Your own source, Dr. Curtis Smith, said that AIDS originated in primates. Dr. Smith also said that Dr. Hilleman inadvertently used some infected (from African primates) greens from Africa to make a Hepatis B vaccine to test on some homosexuals. Later, Dr. Hilleman used the tainted vaccine on some heterosexuals who had Hepatitis B, so AIDS would have still have started soon through some heterosexuals.

Many other viruses that humans have originated in animals.

If a God inspired the Bible, he created the AIDS virus that primates transferred to humans. Either Dr. Smith, or Dr. Horowitz, who Dr. Smith likes, said that many viruses that humans have originated in animals.

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.

Bi-sexuals frequently produce life. Lesbians can have babies via in vitro fertilization.

Many children who are in foster homes need adoptive parents, especially those who are beyond a few years of age.

A good number of homosexuals have adopted hard to place children who have physical deformities, or mental problems.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

Bi-sexuals frequently produce life. Lesbians can have babies via in vitro fertilization.

Many children who are in foster homes need adoptive parents, especially those who are beyond a few years of age.

A good number of homosexuals have adopted hard to place children who have physical deformities, or mental problems.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can

You can have relationships with other men. You can have father son relationships. You can have teacher student relationships, you can have brotherly relationships. You can have sexual relationships. You can have romantic relationships. You can have watch the Superbowl pass the chips you ·$%$! kind of relationships. You can have geeky games relationships, business relationships, BDSM relationships.

Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can Yes you can yes you can yes you can yes you can


YOU CAN AND DO HAVE RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER MEN. THE QUESTION IS WROOOOOOOONG

*insane panting*

Okay, I think I got that out of my system. I makycome back and post something similar again after I have seen the same question in the top discussed for too long without saying it.

Peace out [/neurotic Catartic explosion ]

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown: You said that your main desire for homosexuals is not that they practice abstinence, but that they change their sexual identity to heterosexual. My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html shows that sexual identity can rarely be changed. Therefore, you do not have any valid secular arguments against homosexuals, especially those who are healthy, and happy, and practice safe sex.

Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex are quite content with having multiple sex partners.

Homosexuals who do not have any STDs did not have anything to do with the origin of AIDS.

Your own source, Dr. Curtis Smith, said that AIDS originated in primates. Dr. Smith also said that Dr. Hilleman inadvertently used some infected (from African primates) greens from Africa to make a Hepatis B vaccine to test on some homosexuals. Later, Dr. Hilleman used the tainted vaccine on some heterosexuals who had Hepatitis B, so AIDS would have still have started soon through some heterosexuals.

Many other viruses that humans have originated in animals.

If a God inspired the Bible, he created the AIDS virus that primates transferred to humans. Either Dr. Smith, or Dr. Horowitz, who Dr. Smith likes, said that many viruses that humans have originated in animals.

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.

Sexual identity can rarely be changed. Even many religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is far more difficult.

Bi-sexuals frequently produce life. Lesbians can have babies via in vitro fertilization.

Many children who are in foster homes need adoptive parents, especially those who are beyond a few years of age.

A good number of homosexuals have adopted hard to place children who have physical deformities, or mental problems.

In the U.S., since openly opposing homosexuality has become a political liability for political candidates, the more that Republican politician openly oppose homosexuality, the more elections they will lose, especially in blue, and swing states. No presidential candidate can win an election without substantial support from swing states. The only chance that Republicans who oppose homosexuality will have in state elections in swing states will be to refuse to discuss homosexuality, and try to divert attention to other issues. The smart ones have already done that. It is important to note that a slight majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

You have yet to show a shred of evidence. Take your conspiracy theory agenda where people will fall for your lies. Or better yet just post it where people won't. At least you won't be infecting anyone with your dishonesty.

 

[Ken Brown]

Message to Ken Brown: You said that your main desire for homosexuals is not that they practice abstinence, but that they change their sexual identity to heterosexual. My thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html shows that sexual identity can rarely be changed. Therefore, you do not have any valid secular arguments against homosexuals, especially those who are healthy, and happy, and practice safe sex.

Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex are quite content with having multiple sex partners.

Homosexuals who do not have any STDs did not have anything to do with the origin of AIDS.

Your own source, Dr. Curtis Smith, said that AIDS originated in primates. Dr. Smith also said that Dr. Hilleman inadvertently used some infected (from African primates) greens from Africa to make a Hepatis B vaccine to test on some homosexuals. Later, Dr. Hilleman used the tainted vaccine on some heterosexuals who had Hepatitis B, so AIDS would have still have started soon through some heterosexuals.

Many other viruses that humans have originated in animals.

If a God inspired the Bible, he created the AIDS virus that primates transferred to humans. Either Dr. Smith, or Dr. Horowitz, who Dr. Smith likes, said that many viruses that humans have originated in animals.

Sexual identity can rarely be changed. Even many religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is far more difficult.

Bi-sexuals frequently produce life. Lesbians can have babies via in vitro fertilization.

Many children who are in foster homes need adoptive parents, especially those who are beyond a few years of age.

A good number of homosexuals have adopted hard to place children who have physical deformities, or mental problems.

In the U.S., since openly opposing homosexuality has become a political liability for political candidates, the more that Republican politician openly oppose homosexuality, the more elections they will lose, especially in blue, and swing states. No presidential candidate can win an election without substantial support from swing states. The only chance that Republicans who oppose homosexuality will have in state elections in swing states will be to refuse to discuss homosexuality, and try to divert attention to other issues. The smart ones have already done that. It is important to note that a slight majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage.

Hi Agnostic, traditional christianity has a very limited success in transforming sinners away from their sin, because they believe in a false gospel, and really do not understand the Power of the Cross.

Properly understanding that everyone's sin is what placed Yeshua up on the Cross to suffer unbearably, is the catalyst to remove the sin in our lives. Who would rationally want to continue in their sin so that they would be unmercifully placing Yeshua back up on the Cross to suffer so? There is a lot of power to help a sinner overcome once they come to the knowledge of the truth concerning what their sin did and does. So converting a homosexual from their sin can and will be accomplished once they realize what their sin did and does.

Look if you had a loved one who you did not want to hurt, but inadvertently, every time you let your dog out of the house they go and bite that loved one, wouldn't you start placing that dog on a leash so that the biting would not occur? KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, traditional christianity has a very limited success in transforming sinners away from their sin, because they believe in a false gospel, and really do not understand the Power of the Cross.

Properly understanding that everyone's sin is what placed Yeshua up on the Cross to suffer unbearably, is the catalyst to remove the sin in our lives. Who would rationally want to continue in their sin so that they would be unmercifully placing Yeshua back up on the Cross to suffer so? There is a lot of power to help a sinner overcome once they come to the knowledge of the truth concerning what their sin did and does.

Look if you had a loved one who you did not want to hurt, but inadvertently, every time you let your dog out of the house they go and bite that loved one, wouldn't you start placing that dog on a leash so that the biting would not occur?

But you said that you have some valid secular arguments against homosexuality, and you have not provided any.

So converting a homosexual from their sin can and will be accomplished once they realize what their sin did and does.

A good number of homosexuals have given up same-sex behavior, but very few no longer have any strong same-sex attractions. Alan Chambers, the former president of recently disbanded Exodus International, admitted that, and said that 99.9% of the homosexuals that came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity. That proves that you are wrong since the vast majority of homosexuals who went to Exodus International for help were Christians, and wanted to change their sexual identity. Exodus International was the largest organization of its kind by far in the world, so their poor success would be representative of most other such organizations in the world.

 

[Ken Brown]

But you said that you have some valid secular arguments against homosexuality, and you have not provided any.

A good number of homosexuals have given up same-sex behavior, but very few no longer have any strong same-sex attractions. Alan Chambers, the former president of recently disbanded Exodus International, admitted that, and said that 99.9% of the homosexuals that came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity. That proves that you are wrong since the vast majority of homosexuals who went to Exodus International for help were Christians, and wanted to change their sexual identity. Exodus International was the largest organization of its kind by far in the world, so their poor success would be representative of most other such organizations in the world.

Hi Agnostic, you are the one who brought religion into it by claiming:

Originally Posted by Agnostic75
Even many religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality,

I was just addressing the lack of power religious institutions such as "Exodus International" have in TURNING homosexuals from their sin. When and if the One True Gospel is used, there is POWER to overcome and defeat the sin that entangles sinners. You are the one that is bringing up the failed success of religion in changing homosexuals, and I am just agreeing with you that traditional christianity has failed in their attempt. But I do attest to you that all manner of sin can be overcome, it's just a matter of coming to a knowledge of the truth. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, you are the one who brought religion into it.......

Yes, but you said that you had some valid secular arguments against homosexuality, and you have not provided any.

I was just addressing the lack of power religious institutions such as "Exodus International" have in TURNING homosexuals from their sin. When and if the One True Gospel is used, there is POWER to overcome and defeat the sin that entangles sinners. You are the one that is bringing up the failed success of religion in changing homosexuals, and I am just agreeing with you that traditional Christianity has failed in their attempt. But I do attest to you that all manner of sin can be overcome, it's just a matter of coming to a knowledge of the truth. KB

But that is not a secular argument. We could debate the existence of the God of the Bible for years and never get anywhere, but we can get somewhere debating secular arguments against homosexuality, and I have gotten somewhere since you have not provided any good secular reasons why all homosexuals should give up homosexuality.

Who are you to judge the intentions of homosexual Christians who were strongly motivated to change their sexual identity, but were not able to do so?

I do not need to refer to Exodus International since many homosexual Christians have unsuccessfully tried on their own to change their sexual identity.

What is your approach to changing sexual identity? Why don't you set up a clinic to help homosexuals change their sexual identity?

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. There are not any secular arguments that show that divorce is never good except in cases of adultery. Similarly, there are not any secular arguments that show that all homosexuals should give up homosexuality.

Some time ago, in this thread, or in some other thread, you made an issue out of the fact that you had been sticking to secular arguments. I knew that that would not last since every Christian who I have debated about homosexuality for many years eventually had no choice except to exclusively use religious arguments against homosexuality.

You certainly have no secular solutions for all homosexuals, and you certainly do not have any secular solutions for non-religious homosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to Ken Brown. This is from another thread.

Hi Agnostic75, the science of showing that homosexuals are generally non-monogamous, and at least 50% of male couples in a study showed they agreed to have an "open" relationship. So trying to give the false impression that for the most part homosexuals desire and maintain monogamous relationships is like trying to say that rabbits don't multiply. When you couple in the fact of how deadly and costly this lifestyle is to society, what other conclusion can we come to but that it is wrong and harmful?

I have never said that "for the most part homosexuals desire and maintain monogamous relationships." All that I have said is that about half of them are monogamous.

By your own admission, about half of homosexuals couples are not promiscuous, but safe sex is the main issue, not monogamy since research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, and are very happy being promiscuous. From a secular perspective, if there were not any STDs, what would be wrong with promiscuity?

From a biblical perspective, what is wrong with polygamy? The New Testament does not require that all men have only one wife, and it does not deny church membership to men who have more than one wife. The requirement that church elders have one only wife was probably because unmarried church elders would have more time to devote to their jobs. Paul said that being single was better than being married, implying that unmarried Christians would have more time to devote to evangelizing, but he did not oppose marriage.

 

[Ken Brown]

Message to Ken Brown. This is from another thread.

I have never said that "for the most part homosexuals desire and maintain monogamous relationships." All that I have said is that about half of them are monogamous. But then I gave you links which show that homosexual's monogamous relationships are much different to them than how we would traditionally look at monogamy.

By your own admission, about half of homosexuals couples are not promiscuous, (I don't recall admitting that), but safe sex is the main issue, not monogamy since research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, and are very happy being promiscuous. From a secular perspective, if there were not any STDs, what would be wrong with promiscuity? Look, promiscuous homosexuals practicing safe sex is like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic handgun.

From a biblical perspective, what is wrong with polygamy? Nothing, Elohim married two sisters. The New Testament does not require that all men have only one wife, and it does not deny church membership to men who have more than one wife. True The requirement that church elders have one only wife (multiple wives would require more time than just a single wife, thus taking away from the elders responsibility to the flock) was probably because unmarried church elders would have more time to devote to their jobs. Paul said that being single was better than being married, implying that unmarried Christians would have more time to devote to evangelizing, but he did not oppose marriage.

Hi Agnostic, (see above in red)...I really don't think we are making much headway. Maybe you don't recall it, but I gave you a post that had very good secular arguments against homosexuality, but you started countering those arguments with religious logic (why would "God" create the virus in the first place to where the men having sex with men needed the tainted vaccine derived from monkeys?) That was not my secular argument, it wasn't about where the virus originated, my point was that the AIDS epidemic was spread like wildfire through the men having sex with men community, and their voracious appetite for sex allowed it to be transmitted into the heterosexual community. That was THEN, but I think that if the mainstream media would be honest about how these men having sex with men were the catalyst for introducing AIDS to the American heterosexual community, there might not be as an "open" acceptance towards homosexuality as there is in our culture today, thus, giving a strong secular argument against homosexuality. KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, (see above in red)...I really don't think we are making much headway. Maybe you don't recall it, but I gave you a post that had very good secular arguments against homosexuality, but you started countering those arguments with religious logic (why would "God" create the virus in the first place to where the men having sex with men needed the tainted vaccine derived from monkeys?) That was not my secular argument, it wasn't about where the virus originated, my point was that the AIDS epidemic was spread like wildfire through the men having sex with men community, and their voracious appetite for sex allowed it to be transmitted into the heterosexual community.

But I have told you many times that many homosexuals have never had any STDS, and never had anything to do with the spread of any STDS.

That was THEN, but I think that if the mainstream media would be honest about how these men having sex with men were the catalyst for introducing AIDS to the American heterosexual community, there might not be as an "open" acceptance towards homosexuality as there is in our culture today, thus, giving a strong secular argument against homosexuality.

And yet again, what you said does not apply to the many homosexuals have never had any STDS, and never had anything to do with the spread of any STDS.

Now i have to go back and find replies that I made to you that you did not reply to, or did not understand. I have already replied to all of your major arguments, and you keep using arguments that I have already adequately refuted.