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

[Agnostic75]

First and foremost, I have presented the fact to you that AIDS was exclusively a male homosexual disease as it out-broke within the U.S.A.

No, God created a precursor to the AIDS virus, which he caused to get transferred to monkeys, and monkeys transferred it to humans. If there were not any homosexuals in the world, AIDS would still have eventually been transferred from monkeys to heterosexuals.

Your own source, Dr. Curtis V. Smith, says:

The most commonly prescribed theory for the origin of HIV provided by most virologists is referred to as the natural transfer theory. The main thesis is that simian immunodeficiency viruses have for hundreds, if not thousands of years, “jumped the species barrier” setting up infections that led to new recombinant strains of simian viruses. These SIVs eventually mutated and become transmitted as lethal strains of human immunodeficiency viruses. This mode of transmission, involving natural movement of microbes from animals to humans by physical contact, is referred to as zoonosis. It is widely accepted in microbiology that human viruses originated in this manner over the last four million years of human evolution. Therefore, it was only “natural” that SIVs were purported to have “jumped the species barrier” to create a human immunodeficiency virus almost immediately after the AIDS virus was first isolated in 1983, and its nine genes RNA sequence analyzed in 1985. Immediately researchers went to Africa to find sources of HIV in monkeys when it was learned that at least seven different strains of HIV had emerged to cause a global human immunodeficiency disease pandemic.

A deeper inspection of the natural transfer theory for the origin of HIV maintains that SIVs in monkeys infected Homo sapiens for hundred’s if not thousand’s of years when they hunted, handled, butchered and ate “bush meat.” Immunological tests that measure the amount of antibody in human blood has shown that native Africans are exposed to a variety of SIVs through the consumption of bush meat in Africa. After prolonged exposure to different strains of SIV, it was only a matter of time before the virus recombined with other co-infecting SIVs, mutated to an extent necessary to adapt to being sexually transmitted between humans, and became established uniquely as HIV. The linchpin for the natural transfer theory specified that the critical threshold for SIV zoonosis was reached only in the 1970s when urbanization, travel, consumption of monkey meat, and prostitution reached their zenith.
There is certain agreement among all who investigate this topic that different strains of HIV originated from closely related strains of Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses found naturally in wild African chimpanzees. HIV is actually an umbrella term for two genetically distinct types of RNA viruses that contain two copies of nine genes: HIV-1 and HIV-2. HIV-1 embraces three genetically distinct groups of RNA viruses referred to as Clades M, N, and O. Of these distinct molecular groupings, Clade M is responsible for 99% of all of the deadly cases worldwide.

Yes, homosexuals have spread AIDS much faster than heterosexuals have, but they did not create the AIDS virus, God did, and there was no need for him to infect innocent monkeys with it.

At any rate, today, lots of homosexuals have never had and STDs, and thus have nothing to do with AIDS. You still do not have any valid secular options for those homosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

But I replied to that four days ago in my post #784, as follows:

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.

Of course, what you said does not apply to homosexuals who have never had any STDs, and there are plenty of them.

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

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

But I already replied to that in the same post four days ago, as follows:

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.

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.

Surely the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Heterosexual women are far more at risk from rape by heterosexual men than by gay men. Rape is a very serious problem in the U.S., not to mention sexual harassment at work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, heterosexuals are generally a good deal more monogamous than homosexuals are, but still, at least many thousands of homosexuals in the world have only one sex partner. The current world population is about 7 billion people. If at least 2% of the world population are homosexuals, that would be 140 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of them were monogamous, that would be 1.4 million monogamous homosexuals in the world. No research that you posted reasonably proves that not even 1% of homosexuals are monogamous.

Quite obviously, physical, and mental health are best judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. Millions of individual homosexuals in the world have reasonably good physical, and mental health, and the majority of them will not die from any STD. Many have Ph.D.s, many out earn the majority of heterosexuals, a good number of them won gold medals in the 2012 Olympics, and many of them will outlive many heterosexuals.

As far as STDs are concerned, the main issue is safe sex, not monogamy, although monogamous safe sex would be best as far as reducing the risks of STDs is concerned. Plenty of promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, and research has shown that many of them are happy, and content being promiscuous. What is wrong with promiscuous safe sex?

A documented research study in 21 American cities showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Whether or not they are monogamous, 80% of them did not have HIV.

Another documented research study showed that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have less risk than heterosexual males, and heterosexual females.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, not any STD, and heart disease is largely preventable. Heart disease is also the leading cause of death for heterosexuals.

Since sexual identity is not a choice, homosexuals did not ask for, or choose, which sexual urges would be predominant for them. They must simply play the cards that they were dealt. You have not provided any secular solutions for homosexuals, and why would any solutions be necessary at all for those who will never get any STDs?

From an entirely secular perspective, if they were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease would still be the leading cause of death, and cancer, and obesity would still be major problems, and so would global warming. Heart disease, and obesity, are frequently preventable. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than heart disease, and obesity.

 

[Ken Brown]

But I replied to that four days ago in my post #784, as follows:

Gay men eligible to donate blood - Winnipeg Free Press

Of course, what you said does not apply to homosexuals who have never had any STDs, and there are plenty of them.

But I already replied to that in the same post four days ago, as follows:

Surely the majority of homosexuals are not pedophiles.

Heterosexual women are far more at risk from rape by heterosexual men than by gay men. Rape is a very serious problem in the U.S., not to mention sexual harassment at work.

Sure, heterosexuals are generally a good deal more monogamous than homosexuals are, but still, at least many thousands of homosexuals in the world have only one sex partner. The current world population is about 7 billion people. If at least 2% of the world population are homosexuals, that would be 140 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of them were monogamous, that would be 1.4 million monogamous homosexuals in the world. No research that you posted reasonably proves that not even 1% of homosexuals are monogamous.

Quite obviously, physical, and mental health are best judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. Millions of individual homosexuals in the world have reasonably good physical, and mental health, and the majority of them will not die from any STD. Many have Ph.D.s, many out earn the majority of heterosexuals, a good number of them won gold medals in the 2012 Olympics, and many of them will outlive many heterosexuals.

As far as STDs are concerned, the main issue is safe sex, not monogamy, although monogamous safe sex would be best as far as reducing the risks of STDs is concerned. Plenty of promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, and research has shown that many of them are happy, and content being promiscuous. What is wrong with promiscuous safe sex?

A documented research study in 21 American cities showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. Whether or not they are monogamous, 80% of them did not have HIV.

Another documented research study showed that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have less risk than heterosexual males, and heterosexual females.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, not any STD, and heart disease is largely preventable. Heart disease is also the leading cause of death for heterosexuals.

Since sexual identity is not a choice, homosexuals did not ask for, or choose, which sexual urges would be predominant for them. They must simply play the cards that they were dealt. You have not provided any secular solutions for homosexuals, and why would any solutions be necessary at all for those who will never get any STDs?

From an entirely secular perspective, if they were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease would still be the leading cause of death, and cancer, and obesity would still be major problems, and so would global warming. Heart disease, and obesity, are frequently preventable. Cancer is often preventable, but less so than heart disease, and obesity.

Hi Agnostic, I don't know why I am wasting my time with you, you just don't get it. Men who have sex with men have blood that isn't wanted. The only change in the Canadian Health Care system for gays giving blood was that instead of going back indefinitely, they changed to going back 5 years for any sexual encounter of men having sex with men. The Red Cross of Ohio still has no sexual encounters back to 1977 for men having sex with men to qualify to give blood. This is a strong public secular argument AGAINST homosexuality. I don't know why you tried to twist that article to make it appear homosexuals could now just freely give blood. You need to be more honest about your arguments if you want me to continue debating with you.

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.

KB

 

[Agnostic75]

Hi Agnostic, I don't know why I am wasting my time with you, you just don't get it. Men who have sex with men have blood that isn't wanted. The only change in the Canadian Health Care system for gays giving blood was that instead of going back indefinitely, they changed to going back 5 years for any sexual encounter of men having sex with men. The Red Cross of Ohio still has no sexual encounters back to 1977 for men having sex with men to qualify to give blood. This is a strong public secular argument AGAINST homosexuality. I don't know why you tried to twist that article to make it appear homosexuals could now just freely give blood. You need to be more honest about your arguments if you want me to continue debating with you.

What about homosexuals who do not donate blood? What is wrong with them?

You do not have any evidence that the Canadian Health Care system is taking unnecessary risks.

What you need is valid secular arguments against all homosexuals, and you do not have any.

I showed you that 1) even if only 1% of homosexuals are monogamous, there would be 1.4 million monogamous homosexuals in the world, that 2) many promiscuous homosexuals do have HIV, that 3) 80% of homosexuals in the U.S. do not have HIV, that 4) lesbians whose only HIV risk factor is same-sex behavior (as opposed to risks from intravenous drug use) are lower than the risks of heterosexual males, and heterosexual females, that 5) the vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD, that 6) the leading cause of death for homosexuals (and for heterosexuals) is heart disease, not any STD, and that 7) even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease would still be the leading cause of death, and cancer, obesity, and global warming would still be big problems,

Regarding the risks of heart disease among heterosexuals, the biggest threat to heterosexuals is themselves, not homosexuals.

You mean well, but you are very misinformed.

 

[Philomath]

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

You can..forget whoever says you can't.

 

[1robin]

You can..forget whoever says you can't.

Now that is a just foundation, and argument, for moral insanity if ever there has been one. The only thing that is wrong is anyone declaring something wrong. Forget the fact that even monogamous homosexuality creates devastating medical problems and that homosexuality in general massively increases human suffering and death and costs even those that do not practice it billions, it must be right because we are told it is. That is as bad as the atheist position that there is no absolute truth except the statement there is no absolute truth. As Dostoevsky said: If there is no God then all things are permissible. The only necessity is to kill off that pesky God. However no matter how many times the atheistic utopias (like Stalin's USSR) or the great atheist heroes like Nietzsche pronounce God's funeral it is always the speaker that dies and God that just won't stay in the grave.

 

[Poeticus]

Now that is a just foundation, and argument, for moral insanity if ever there has been one. The only thing that is wrong is anyone declaring something wrong. Forget the fact that even monogamous homosexuality creates devastating medical problems and that homosexuality in general massively increases human suffering and death and costs even those that do not practice it billions, it must be right because we are told it is. That is as bad as the atheist position that there is no absolute truth except the statement there is no absolute truth. As Dostoevsky said: If there is no God then all things are permissible. The only necessity is to kill off that pesky God. However no matter how many times the atheistic utopias (like Stalin's USSR) or the great atheist heroes like Nietzsche pronounce God's funeral it is always the speaker that dies and God that just won't stay in the grave.

Namaste,

The Pope would disagree with you. The Scion of Christendom would disagree with you.

M.V.

EDIT: Oh, you are Baptist? Never mind.

 

[1robin]

Hi Agnostic, I don't know why I am wasting my time with you, you just don't get it. Men who have sex with men have blood that isn't wanted. The only change in the Canadian Health Care system for gays giving blood was that instead of going back indefinitely, they changed to going back 5 years for any sexual encounter of men having sex with men. The Red Cross of Ohio still has no sexual encounters back to 1977 for men having sex with men to qualify to give blood. This is a strong public secular argument AGAINST homosexuality. I don't know why you tried to twist that article to make it appear homosexuals could now just freely give blood. You need to be more honest about your arguments if you want me to continue debating with you.

KB

Ken I am at a loss concerning your salvation argument but your argumentation here is scholarly. I think though that the person you are in discussion with will win by exacerbation, sheer volume, or exhaustion and is immune to evidenced based discussions, though personally civil and polite. This argument can be settled by the first two claims I made 10,000 words ago.

1. The increase in suffering that homosexuality produces is massive and is in no way offset by a corresponding gain of any kind.
2. The same is true for it's monetary cost and in both cases even those who do not practice it bear both burdens.

The rest is commentary.

 

[1robin]

Namaste,

The Pope would disagree with you. The Scion of Christendom would disagree with you.

M.V.

EDIT: Oh, you are Baptist? Never mind.

Yep, we believe that what the Pope claims is good grounds for choosing the opposite. That is if they are not too busy excommunicating each other or in making mutually exclusive claims while in infallibility mode. What does Namaste mean?

 

[Poeticus]

Yep, we believe that what the Pope claims is good grounds for choosing the opposite. That is if they are not too busy excommunicating each other or in making mutually exclusive claims while in infallibility mode. What does Namaste mean?

Namaste,

"Namaste" means "not mine, but yours"...that is my take on it.

It means that I bow to the divine in you; I acknowledge the good in you, etc. It is a greeting, monsieur.

M.V.

 

[Philomath]

Now that is a just foundation, and argument, for moral insanity if ever there has been one. The only thing that is wrong is anyone declaring something wrong. Forget the fact that even monogamous homosexuality creates devastating medical problems and that homosexuality in general massively increases human suffering and death and costs even those that do not practice it billions, it must be right because we are told it is. That is as bad as the atheist position that there is no absolute truth except the statement there is no absolute truth. As Dostoevsky said: If there is no God then all things are permissible. The only necessity is to kill off that pesky God. However no matter how many times the atheistic utopias (like Stalin's USSR) or the great atheist heroes like Nietzsche pronounce God's funeral it is always the speaker that dies and God that just won't stay in the grave.

Do you have any facts to back up this?

even monogamous homosexuality creates devastating medical problems and that homosexuality in general massively increases human suffering and death and costs even those that do not practice it billions

Your ramblings about the "evils" of Atheism are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 

[1robin]

Do you have any facts to back up this?

Which claim?

Your ramblings about the "evils" of Atheism are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

Maybe, but they have a general relevance.

 

[Philomath]

Which claim?

This one that you made earlier.

the fact that even monogamous homosexuality creates devastating medical problems and that homosexuality in general massively increases human suffering and death and costs even those that do not practice it billions

 

[1robin]

Namaste,

"Namaste" means "not mine, but yours"...that is my take on it.

It means that I bow to the divine in you; I acknowledge the good in you, etc. It is a greeting, monsieur.

M.V.

If you are bowing to the divine in me can you tell me where it is? If to the good it will be a short bow. There is nothing IMO so obvious as our non-divinity. However I appreciate any display of humility as it is so rare.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I have transferred this post here from a non-relevant thread.

1. Prove that homosexuality is mandated by genetics?

Initial sexuality identity at puberty has to largely involve genetics. Dr. Bailey's twin study conclusively proves that, reference my post #19 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed-2.html. If sexual identity at puberty was caused mainly by environment, the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals would not turn out to be heterosexuals, which is the case. If a homosexual sexual identity is primarily caused by environment, which kinds of environment are you referring to?

Right up until they get aids and die, that is after their habits cost people who do not practice them lots of money. Drinking is no problem, even drinking and driving is no problem until you get liver disease or crash into a busload of children.

Far more homosexuals die from heart disease than from any STD. A large percentage of homosexuals do not die from any STD. In the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV, and a good many of them will never get HIV, or AIDS.

Research has shown that lesbians who do not have any HIV risk factors other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. Monogamous lesbians would have even lower risks. Lower risks obviously means less STDs, so it would not make any sense for you to recommend abstinence for lesbians whose only risk was same-sex behavior, and not also recommend abstinence for heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have HIV, or AIDS, ever could. That is primarily because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could reduce health care costs far more than homosexuals could if they all ate healthy foods, and got enough exercise.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I have transferred this post here from a non-relevant thread.

A Wikipedia article at Zoophilia and the law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows that zoophilia is legal in 17 countries all over the world. It is legal everywhere in 15 countries, and in parts of Australia, and in parts of the U.S.

Even if zoophilia was illegal in every country in the world, that would not have anything to do with homosexuality. Pedophilia is illegal in every state in the U.S., and that does not have anything to do with homosexuality either.

Most homosexuals have no interest in zoophilia, or pedophilia, and support laws against those things.

The American Psychiatric Association "recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Many homosexuals have little or no "distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Sexual pleasure has to be largely caused by genetics. Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

The legitimacy of having sex, whether among homosexuals, or among heterosexuals, would be determined by comparing the advantages with the disadvantages, and by considering the results of other options. Having sex has proven advantages. Long term abstinence has proven disadvantages. Research has shown that even a large percentage of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which is much more difficult. That means that non-religious homosexuals would have a much more difficult time trying to give up homosexuality, and a much more difficult time trying to change their sexual identity.

Far more homosexuals will die from heart disease than from any STD.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. Heart disease is often preventable. Health care costs for heart disease among heterosexuals are far greater than treating STDs among homosexuals could ever be. That is because heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are. Such being the case, if all heterosexuals accepted their responsibility to lower their risks of getting heart disease, far more money would be saved than if all homosexuals practiced abstinence, not to mention lengthening life, and having less suffering.

And that does not include obesity, and cancer, which are also frequently preventable.

Regarding homosexuals who already have STDs, practicing abstinence would limit further risks, but that would not do anything to get rid of the STDs that they already have, and medical costs would still be required.

Research has shown that lesbians who have no HIV risks other than same-sex behavior, such as intravenous drug use, have lower risks than heterosexual men, and heterosexual women. It would not be sensible for you to recommend that they practice abstinence since their risks are less than the risks of heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

 

[Me Myself]

If you are bowing to the divine in me can you tell me where it is? If to the good it will be a short bow. There is nothing IMO so obvious as our non-divinity. However I appreciate any display of humility as it is so rare.

Everywhere

:namaste

 

[Agnostic75]

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.......

Indeed, and that is exactly what the CDC says, and what I say.

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. Risk is risk regardless of a person's color. The color of a high risk person is irrelevant.

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.

So, in order to be consistent, you need to recommend that all black Americans, of both sexes, who live in black American communities practice abstinence, not because of their color, but because they are at risk. The same goes for all sub-Saharan black Africans of both sexes who live in high risk areas, which is in a lot of places in Africa.

 

[Agnostic75]

These official statements are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum. Let me frame the debate to make it more efficient.

Not a chance. When homosexuality was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, no Christian opponent of homosexuality would have claimed that political pressure, or liability were involved. If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them frequently. If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations who support it would be at risk, so your arguments are absurd.

No moral expert is going to put his own children at risk, or the health of homosexuals themselves, merely because of politics.

Prove that homosexuality is mandated by genetics?

I have never said, or implied that homosexuals are forced by genetics to engage in same-sex behavior. If free will exists, obviously, any homosexual can practice abstinence if he wants to, but at what cost? That is the main issue, just like stopping smoking cigarettes, or stopping drinking alcohol. Withdrawal from stopping smoking cigarettes, or from stopping drinking alcohol, can be very distressing, so distressing that even many smoking, and drinking addicts who are strongly committed to giving up their addictions find withdrawal symptoms too difficult to bear. It is worth trying to give up smoking, and drinking addictions since they always eventually destroys people's health, but homosexuality does not always eventually destroy homosexuals' health. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD.

Logically, physical and emotional health are best just individually, not collectively. While some homosexuals never give up practicing unsafe sex, other homosexuals never give up practicing safe sex. Based upon your post #304 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7-why-cant-we-have-relationship-other-31.html, it is no wonder that you believe so many lies about homosexuals. Much of that post is false, misleading, or poorly documented.

 

[Agnostic75]

Let me ask you this. There are people that have strong sexual attractions to animals. Is that biological as well?

I will answer your question, but let's start by trying to agree on why sexual behavior originally began among animals, and among humans. Pleasure had to be a large part of the reason why animals originally started to have sex, and genetics had to be largely responsible for that whether or not a God exists. Regarding humans, we know that today, having sex solely for pleasure, mostly because of genetics, is often very pleasing, and that millions of Christians sometimes have sex solely for pleasure.

So, we know that genetics has always been the primary reason why animals, and humans, often have sex entirely for pleasure. No other reason is possible. As far as why some humans prefer same-sex behavior is concerned, there is a lot of scientific evidence that genetics are largely involved, but even if sexual identity was caused 100% by environment, the facts remain that sexual identity can very rarely be changed, and that children have little control over their environment.

As far as why some people are sexually attracted to animals is concerned, I do not know, but that does not have anything to do with homosexuals, and I assume that very few homosexuals have sex with animals.

Wikipedia says:

"Zoophilia is placed in the classification "paraphilias not otherwise specified." in the DSM-III and IV. The World Health Organization takes the same position, listing a sexual preference for animals in its ICD -10 as "other disorder of sexual preference".[29] The DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) recommends that the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Should that be accepted?

There are many opinions about that. Zoophilia is legal in about twelve states. In the rest of the states, it is a misdemeanor, or a felony. Surprisingly, it is legal in Alabama, and is only a misdemeanor in Louisiana.

As far as I am concerned, I agree with the American Psychiatric Association that "the individual does not receive treatment of zoophilia, as with most other paraphilias, unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual."

Obviously, a great many homosexuals have no distress with their daily functioning, and thus have no reason to practice abstinence.