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

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin:

In my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html, I showed that sexual identity can only rarely be changed. A change in sexual identity by a gay man would be indicated if he no longer had moderate, or strong same-sex attractions to men. That rarely happens, partly because Alan Chambers, the founder and former president of the recently disbanded Exodus International, said that 99.9% of the time, homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. He also admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity.

In that same thread, I provided conclusive evidence, partly by referring to a
well-known gay twin study by Dr. Bailey, that genetics play an important role in sexual identity. If genetics did not partly account for the origin of homosexuality, why did it first originate? It had to have originated among humans for the same reason that it originated among animals, which was that participants derived pleasure from it. Sometimes, animals engage in homosexuality as dominance behavior, but other times, they enjoy it entirely as sexual pleasure that is enjoyed by both animals. All bonobo monkeys are bi-sexual, and experts say that their bi-sexuality provides them with important benefits. A good deal of same-sex behavior among bonobo monkeys is definitely not dominance behavior.

When I told you that lots of homosexuals do not have any STDs, and will never have any STDs, you said that they have other problems that are too awful for you to talk about. I told you that unless you state what the problems are, you cannot use them as evidence.

When you said that monogamous homosexuals cannot guarantee that they will stay monogamous, I told you that you did not have any evidence that monogamous homosexuals give up monogamy a good deal more than monogamous heterosexuals do. Even if they did, having safe sex is the main issue, not monogamy. Many promiscuous homosexuals practice safe sex, as evidenced by a documented research study in 21 American cities that showed that 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV.

Research has shown that many promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex are happy, and content with their promiscuity. And, promiscuity is common among many animals, so promiscuity is natural since it frequently occurs in nature. What
frequently occurs in nature is not necessarily beneficial, but neither is what frequently occurs among humans, such as wars, and murder. It all gets down to whether an individual practice by an animal, or by a human, is beneficial as compared with the consequences of not doing the action. Having sex has proven benefits. Long term abstinence has proven risks. Having sex is normal. Long term abstinence is abnormal.

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.

In one of my threads, I showed that Dr. Bailey, who conducted the well-known gay twin study, said that proponents of the predominantly environment theory regarding what causes homosexuality could have a chance to easily prove their theory if they provided him with adequate funding since he has scientific ways to conclusively settle the issue even to the satisfaction of people who support the predominantly environment theory.

Regardless of what causes homosexuality, 1) sexual identity can rarely be changed, 2) having sex provides significant benefits, 3) long term abstinence has proven health risks, 4) there is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence, 5) having sex is normal, 6) long term abstinence is abnormal, 6) the majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD, and 7) many homosexuals will never get an STD.

Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of the homosexuals in the world were monogamous, there would be about 1.4 million monogamous homosexuals in the world.

Some of the biggest health problems are heart disease, which is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals, cancer, and obesity. Heart disease, and obesity, are often preventable. Cancer is sometimes preventable, but less so than heart disease, and obesity. If there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, and obesity would still be major problems. In addition, so would global warming, which might one day cause the biggest financial depression in history by far, and might eventually kill most of, or all of, the people in the world.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: 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.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. I will summarize what I believe are my best arguments in order to try to save us some time. You can reply to my arguments a few at a time if you wish. Due to the size of this post, I will need to post it in parts.

Argument #1

I once asked you if you object to homosexuals who died, and never had any STDs. You said that you do object, but not personally since they did not harm you. Well, as a practical matter, you know that very few homosexuals are going to practice abstinence for the rest of their lives. Surely, many of them will never have any STDs, and far more of them will die from heart disease than will die from any STD. There are about 7 billion people in the world today. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them are monogamous, 1.4 million homosexuals in the world are monogamous, and that does not include promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex, and there are plenty of them. Lots of homosexuals will die without having any STDs. By your own admission, you do not object to them personally since they did not harm you. You have some valid objections to homosexuals who have, and spread, STDs, but not to homosexuals who do not have any STDs.

Argument #2

You said that homosexuals have serious problems other than STDs, but that you did not want to talk about those problems since they are so awful. Well, you cannot use unstated problems as evidence.

Argument #3

Regarding your post #304, some of it is true, but some of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. I would like to discuss that post with you in detail.

Argument #4

What do you believe causes initial sexual identity?

Argument #5

You have said that sexual identity can be changed. A change of a homosexual sexual identity would be indicated if the homosexual no longer had any moderate, or strong same-sex attractions. That seldom happens. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, much less change their sexual identity, which obviously would be much more difficult.

Argument #6

Many heterosexuals sometimes have sex entirely for pleasure. Do you object to that? Surely many heterosexuals sometimes have sex entirely for pleasure primarily because of genetics.

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #7

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven risks. Consider the following:

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

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

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

In the US study, the group with the highest lifetime average of ejaculation - 21 times per month - were a third less likely to develop the cancer than the reference group, who ejaculated four to seven times a month.

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

PSYPLEXUS - a portal for mental health professionals

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #8


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 is same-sex behavior.

Argument #9

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 accepted their responsibility to be healthy, and ate healthy foods, and got enough exercise.

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

Simply stated, if all heterosexuals accepted their responsibility to be healthy, that would save far more money in health care costs than if all homosexuals practiced abstinence. In addition, if all homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would limit future risks, but would do nothing to reduce current financial costs for treating STDs that homosexuals already have.

Argument #10

A well-known homosexual twin study by Dr. J. Michael Bailey leaves no doubt that genetics is a major cause of sexual identity.

Argument #11

How could naturalistic evolution allow homosexuality? Currently, we do not know, but many experts have come up with some possibilities. If a God exists, he certainly created homosexuality among over 1500 species of animals and birds, and did so long before humans existed, and he has caused all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual.

Why do you suppose that the first homosexual act between humans took place? Why do you suppose that the first homosexual act between animals took place? Was genetics largely involved?

Argument #12

I asked you if you recommended that black American men, and women, should practice abstinence. You said no since their risk factors are not due to their color. Well, I agree, and so does the CDC. Consider the following:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/CDC-HIV-AA-508.pdf

African Americans face a higher risk of being exposed to HIV infection with each sexual encounter than do other racial/ethnic groups. This is because the burden of HIV is greater in African American communities than in any other racial/ethnic group, and because African Americans are likely to have sexual relations with other African Americans. Therefore, even with levels of individual risk behaviors (e.g., unprotected sex, multiple partners) that are comparable to other races/ethnicities, African Americans face a higher risk of infection.

The stigma associated with HIV and homosexuality, prevalent in many communities, may help to spread HIV in African American communities. Fear of disclosing risk behavior or sexual orientation may prevent African Americans from seeking testing, prevention and treatment services, and support from friends and family. As a result, too many African Americans lack critical information about how to prevent infection.

The social and economic realities of some African Americans’ lives can increase HIV risk. These include higher levels of poverty, racial discrimination, lack of access to healthcare, and higher rates of incarceration which disrupt social and sexual networks. Studies have shown, for example, that poverty is associated with a higher risk of HIV
infection among African Americans, even among those who do not have high-risk behaviors.

Black Africans who live in sub-Saharan countries are the highest risk group in Africa.

So, according to your philosophy, all black Americans, of both genders, and all black Africans, of both genders, who live in sub-Saharan countries should practice abstinence, not because of their color, but because they are at risk.

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #13

These official statements [about zoophilia from the American Psychiatric Association] 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.

What criteria are you referring to? Are you suggesting that you do not have any criteria?

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.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it belonged there.

That is debatable, but that is another issue. You changed the subject since you know that I made a good argument. We were not discussing anything at all about whether or not homosexuality originally belonged in the DSM.

Regarding liability, if homosexuality was nearly as harmful as you claim it is, the APA would be far more liable endorsing it than they would be opposing it, so what you said does not make any sense at all.

As far as political pressure is concerned, when homosexuality was originally included in the DSM, there is no doubt that political pressure from religious conservatives was largely involved. Today, the chief group that opposes homosexuality politically is conservative Christians, and the chief supporters of Proposition 8 in California were the Roman Catholic church, and the Mormon church, so your arguments about political pressure are ridiculous.

How can a democratic country be run without politics? What is wrong with politics? You certainly approve of it when it goes your way. Conservative Christians have many political organizations.

Argument #14

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.

I probably would but I would have entertained the comments I made if you had made them instead.

I do not understand what you mean. What comments did you make that you would have made if I have made them instead?

If homosexuality was still in the DSM, would you still have said “These official statements from the American Psychiatric Association] 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.”?

Still won't change the fact that anything that is a political hot button I just can't trust studies on it. Especially something studied for such a short period of time.

But you admitted that if all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them frequently. Today, if all major medical organizations reversed their positions, and opposed homosexuality, that would be very political, but you would definitely approve of it. It all gets down to science, not politics. The same is true regarding the Dover trial. It was very political, but science was the main issue. If the Dover trial had gone your way, you definitely would have approved of the results even though it was very political.

What exactly are you implying? Are you implying that any scientist who disagrees with you about anything falsifies scientific research? If so, please provide evidence that supports your claim.

What scientific evidence do you have that homosexuality belonged in the DSM in the first place?

Homosexuality is innocent unless proven guilty. It is up to you to provide reasonable proof that all homosexuals would be better off practicing abstinence, or trying to change their sexual identity. You will have no choice except to use research that supports your arguments, and I will ask you why people should trust research that was politically, and/or religiously motivated.

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #15

You tried to compare homosexuality with zoophilia, but they are much different. 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". 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."

Regarding “unless it is accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the individual,” that obviously does not apply to homosexuals whose sexual activities cause them distress or interfere with their normal functions.

Zoophilia is legal in about 16 countries, and in about 13 states in the U.S.

Is it right?

Opinions obviously vary.

Argument #16

You said that monogamous homosexuals should practice abstinence unless they could guarantee that they would stay monogamous. That is not good argument. I already told you the following:

“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 is same-sex behavior.”

I have also told you that there is no need for homosexuals who have practiced safe sex for at lest ten years to practice abstinence. In addition, the same would be even more true regarding homosexuals who have practiced safe sex for over twenty years.

Argument #17

Did evolution make heroine feel good.......?

Why does having sex feel good? Does genetics have anything to do with that?

Why are all bonobo monkeys bi-sexual?

Argument #18

I asked you if you object that over 20 countries allow openly homosexual people to join the military. You said that medical treatment for homosexuals would increase the defense budgets of those countries. That is true, but if those servicemen had been civilians, they would generally have been more likely to need civilian medical treatment since those countries’ militaries probably routinely screen for HIV/AIDS like the U.S. military does. Many civilians are not aware that they have HIV/AIDS, so allowing homosexuals to join the military increases the chances that homosexuals will know when the have HIV/AIDS.

Argument #19

It is well-known that a number of diseases that humans have were originally transferred from animals to humans. That would have happened even if there were not any homosexuals in the world. Many experts believe that a precursor of the AIDS virus was transmitted from monkeys to humans. As you know, many diseases are not transmitted through sexual contact.

The Irish Potato Famine killed hundreds of thousands of people, and the Bubonic Plague killed millions of people. Homosexuals had very little, if anything to do with those deaths.

In the early part of the second century A.D., Trajan went to Palestine to put down a Jewish uprising, and killed 500,000 Jews. Homosexuals did not have anything to do with those deaths.

Global warming is the greatest threat to humans in history by far, and homosexuals are not primarily responsible for it.

Argument #20

Some other relevant threads are at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html, at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/150708-homosexuality-genetics.html, and at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...nence-life-all-homosexuals-good-solution.html.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my previous five posts.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Wow this thread has grown a lot since I left. My last post was I think #102. Now there are close to 900 posts!

 

[Agnostic75]

Wow this thread has grown a lot since I left. My last post was I think #102. Now there are close to 900 posts!

Indeed, it has grown a lot. I have done a lot of additional research since you were here, and I have come up with some new arguments of my own. Welcome back.

 

[1robin]

Indeed, it has grown a lot. I have done a lot of additional research since you were here, and I have come up with some new arguments of my own. Welcome back.

850 of the 900 posts must be Agnostics alone and only 300 of them are unique. Just kidding, mostly. Until my simple argument can be overcome there exists no other that is relevant.

Homosexuality massive increases human suffering (monetarily and physically) without a corresponding gain that justifies it's practice. As long as that stands no need to debate rationalizations for the practice are needed.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

850 of the 900 posts must be Agnostics alone and only 300 of them are unique. Just kidding, mostly. Until my simple argument can be overcome there exists no other that is relevant.

Homosexuality massive increases human suffering (monetarily and physically) without a corresponding gain that justifies it's practice. As long as that stands no need to debate rationalizations for the practice are needed.

Not my experience, nor the experience of the vast majority of GLBTQs I know.

 

[Agnostic75]

850 of the 900 posts must be Agnostics alone and only 300 of them are unique. Just kidding, mostly. Until my simple argument can be overcome there exists no other that is relevant.

Homosexuality massive increases human suffering (monetarily and physically) without a corresponding gain that justifies it's practice. As long as that stands no need to debate rationalizations for the practice are needed.

Starting with my post #863, I made five consecutive posts, with a total of 20 numbered arguments. I easily refuted your arguments in those post. Since I saved those arguments as a Microsoft Word file, it will be easy for me to cut and paste them. Here are a few of them.

Argument #1

I once asked you if you object to homosexuals who died, and never had any STDs. You said that you do object, but not personally since they did not harm you. Well, as a practical matter, you know that very few homosexuals are going to practice abstinence for the rest of their lives. Surely, many of them will never have any STDs, and far more of them will die from heart disease than will die from any STD. There are about 7 billion people in the world today. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them are monogamous, 1.4 million homosexuals in the world are monogamous, and that does not include promiscuous homosexuals who practice safe sex, and there are plenty of them. Lots of homosexuals will die without having any STDs. By your own admission, you do not object to them personally since they did not harm you. You have some valid objections to homosexuals who have, and spread, STDs, but not to homosexuals who do not have any STDs.

Argument #2

You said that homosexuals have serious problems other than STDs, but that you did not want to talk about those problems since they are so awful. Well, you cannot use unstated problems as evidence.

Argument #3

Regarding your post #304, some of it is true, but some of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. I would like to discuss that post with you in detail.

Argument #4

What do you believe causes initial sexual identity?

Argument #5

You have said that sexual identity can be changed. A change of a homosexual sexual identity would be indicated if the homosexual no longer had any moderate, or strong same-sex attractions. That seldom happens. Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, much less change their sexual identity, which obviously would be much more difficult.

 

[1robin]

Not my experience, nor the experience of the vast majority of GLBTQs I know.

Well it is in the experience of the CDC and they are who count.

 

[1robin]

Starting with my post #863, I made five consecutive posts, with a total of 20 numbered arguments. I easily refuted your arguments in those post. Since I saved those arguments as a Microsoft Word file, it will be easy for me to cut and paste them. Here are a few of them.

Hold on there. You have already conceded those two simple points based on evidence from the CDC. On what basis are you resending that? I have no doubt you have everything saved in word.

 

[Agnostic75]

Homosexuality massive increases human suffering (monetarily and physically) without a corresponding gain that justifies it's practice. As long as that stands no need to debate rationalizations for the practice are needed.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Logically, there would be no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, much less change their sexual identity, which obviously would be much more difficult.

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 is same-sex behavior.

Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs 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 accepted their responsibility to be healthy, and ate healthy foods, and got enough exercise.

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would essentially be the same even if there were only Christians in the world.

You said that homosexuals have serious problems other than STDs, but that you did not want to talk about those problems since they are so awful. Well, you cannot use unstated problems as evidence.

Regarding your post #304, some of it is true, but some of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. I would like to discuss that post with you in detail.


If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would limit future risks, but would do nothing to reduce current financial costs for treating STDs that homosexuals already have.

A well-known homosexual twin study by Dr. J. Michael Bailey leaves no doubt that genetics is a major cause of sexual identity.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I personally believe that most religious founders who forbade homosexuality were most likely raging homosexuals themselves in denial . Just an assumption but no different then political discourses on the same subjects

 

[1robin]

I personally believe that most religious founders who forbade homosexuality were most likely raging homosexuals themselves in denial . Just an assumption but no different then political discourses on the same subjects

I do not agree with the pervasiveness you suggest but I would like to expand your concept as I have noticed it true in many cases. Those who rage most against a behavior in many cases practice it for some reason. Thieves are always afraid of theft, violent people always suspect others, conspirators are always convinced of conspiracy. That principle and the liberal tactic of assuming moral high ground that their position betrays are some of the most consistent I know of.

 

[1robin]

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Logically, there would be no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years to practice abstinence.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, much less change their sexual identity, which obviously would be much more difficult.

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 is same-sex behavior.

Heterosexuals who get heart disease, which is often preventable, cause far more medical bills than homosexuals who have STDs 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 accepted their responsibility to be healthy, and ate healthy foods, and got enough exercise.

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, and natural disasters would essentially be the same, and those things are far bigger problems than homosexuality could ever be. Those problems would essentially be the same even if there were only Christians in the world.

You said that homosexuals have serious problems other than STDs, but that you did not want to talk about those problems since they are so awful. Well, you cannot use unstated problems as evidence.

Regarding your post #304, some of it is true, but some of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. I would like to discuss that post with you in detail.


If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would limit future risks, but would do nothing to reduce current financial costs for treating STDs that homosexuals already have.

A well-known homosexual twin study by Dr. J. Michael Bailey leaves no doubt that genetics is a major cause of sexual identity.

Please reply to my previous post.

I am out of time. I never said homosexuality does not have possible benefit. I said it has no compensatory gain to justify it's cost. You have posted at least a hundred pages on homosexuality but have only made maybe 6 individual points. What is so danged important to you about it? Do you run some organization or something? You ever heard of NAMBLA BTW? Not connecting it with you, just curious.

 

[Agnostic75]

I never said homosexuality does not have possible benefit.

I never said otherwise.

I said it has no compensatory gain to justify it's cost.

And I provided you with reasonable arguments that you did not reply to. Not only that, but I have given some other examples of where you made some bad arguments. I will repost some of them tomorrow.