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

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

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

It's the interpretation of the data obtained by the CDC that I take issue with when it comes to your arguments. Earlier in the thread we went back and forth about source material and confirmation bias.

I think what counts is the reality of living with acceptance of one's orientation, and not repression and shame. I prefer not being suicidal living with the idea that my orientation was a sickness or that I was an abomination.

I can't tell what the motivation is to completely discount my experiences and the vast majority of queers that I know.

 

[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.

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 still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

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.

The same argument applies to cancer, and obesity, both of which are often preventable.

No compensatory gain justifies heterosexuals refusing to live up to their responsibility to reduce health care costs, and to take care of their bodies, especially since they could make a much bigger difference than homosexuals could.

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.

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

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

In your opinion, is sexual pleasure largely caused by genetics?

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

But the CDC would never say that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Health is best judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. The majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD, and many of them will outlive many heterosexuals. If only 1% of today's homosexuals in the world never get any STDs, that would be roughly 1.5 million homosexuals. You should be quite pleased that that many of them will beat the odds in spite of their disadvantages.

The CDC does not recommend that all black people who are at risk should practice abstinence, but according to your philosophy, that is what they should do, although you said that they should not do that since their risks are not due to their color. I never said that their risks are due to their color, and neither 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.

 

[1robin]

I never said otherwise.



And I provided you with reasonable arguments that you did not reply to.

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 still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

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.

The same argument applies to cancer, and obesity, both of which are often preventable.

No compensatory gain justifies heterosexuals refusing to live up to their responsibility to reduce health care costs, and to take care of their bodies, especially since they could make a much bigger difference than homosexuals could.

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.

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

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

In your opinion, is sexual pleasure largely caused by genetics?



But the CDC would never say that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Health is best judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis. The majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD, and many of them will outlive many heterosexuals. If only 1% of today's homosexuals in the world never get any STDs, that would be roughly 1.5 million homosexuals. You should be quite pleased that that many of them will beat the odds in spite of their disadvantages.

The CDC does not recommend that all black people who are at risk should practice abstinence, but according to your philosophy, that is what they should do, although you said that they should not do that since their risks are not due to their color. I never said that their risks are due to their color, and neither does the CDC.

Consider the following:

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



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.

Not one single thing here has any effective what so ever on what I claimed.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering.
2. It has no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost it produces.

Let me add an unnecessary (except apparently in your case) obvious factor.

If Homosexuals practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost. If heterosexuals practice abstinence the human race dies out all together. That is a compensating gain for the risk if you wish to know what one actually is.

Nothing about how bad obesity, random crimes, the presence of Christians, or black Africans has the slightest effect on those facts. Let me know when what you think what you posted does.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not one single thing here has any effective what so ever on what I claimed.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering.

2. It has no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost it produces.

But research has shown that lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense.

Homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years have adequately proven that they do not need to practice abstinence.

Let me add an unnecessary (except apparently in your case) obvious factor.

If Homosexuals practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

There are plenty of homosexuals who do not have any STDS, or will never get any STDs, or who have been monogamous for at least ten years. If those groups of homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do little to lower STD statistics, and would do next to nothing to influence homosexuals who practice unsafe sex.

Since having sex provides proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks, the risks versus reward ratio would not be favorable for those groups of homosexuals.

Even some conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which would be much more difficult.

If heterosexuals practice abstinence the human race dies out all together.

But you know that I have never suggested that all heterosexuals should practice abstinence.

Nothing about how bad obesity, random crimes, the presence of Christians, or black Africans has the slightest effect on those facts.

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 still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

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 ever could if they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise.

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs.

 

[1robin]

But research has shown that lesbians who do not have any risk factors other than same-sex behavior have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense.

Homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years have adequately proven that they do not need to practice abstinence.



There are plenty of homosexuals who do not have any STDS, or will never get any STDs, or who have been monogamous for at least ten years. If those groups of homosexuals practiced abstinence, that would do little to lower STD statistics, and would do next to nothing to influence homosexuals who practice unsafe sex.

Since having sex provides proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks, the risks versus reward ratio would not be favorable for those groups of homosexuals.

Even some conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to give up homosexuality, let alone change their sexual identity, which would be much more difficult.



But you know that I have never suggested that all heterosexuals should practice abstinence.



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 still exist even if there were only Christians in the world.

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 ever could if they accepted their responsibilities to eat healthy foods, and to get enough exercise.

Similar arguments can be made about cancer, and obesity.

There is no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost that heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity produce, especially since due to their much greater numbers, they are much more able to make a difference regarding lowering health care costs.

It is the same old story over and over. I give absolute arguments and you equivocate, obscure, compartmentalize, make comparisons that have no relevance, rationalize, point out worse things, point out special circumstances that are less detrimental, and never ever over come my primary claims. I do not see the purpose to this.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is the same old story over and over. I give absolute arguments and you equivocate, obscure, compartmentalize, make comparisons that have no relevance, rationalize, point out worse things, point out special circumstances that are less detrimental, and never ever over come my primary claims. I do not see the purpose to this.

Here is my recent reply to you in another thread. You can reply to it there, or here, or both, whichever you like.

I am not debating against Lesbians in certain categories you happen to mention. I am debating against a sexual preference in general. Your compartmentalizing and creating composition fallacies.

When [homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years] defines the entirety of the homosexuality community I might need to.

But risk applies to individuals, whether homosexual, heterosexual, male, or female, not to entire groups of people. If a man has had one glass of wine for over ten years, there are not any good reasons to assume that he will become an alcoholic. Surely, good health is best judged on an individual basis, not upon a collective basis.

Is murder ok if no left handed albino Eskimo murderers ever get caught? This is just silly.

That is a bad analogy since one party in a murder is always harmed. Safe sex among homosexuals is frequently safe, and beneficial for both parties.

Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Are you proposing that homosexuality should be illegal?

If every Lesbian who ever tried being gay received a million dollars and 10 extra years of life would that mean the tens of thousands that die of AIDS spread through homosexuality never got it?

I do not understand what you mean. Will you please explain what you said more simply?

As far as reality is concerned, lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior have lower risk than heterosexuals men and women do, and thus have no need to practice abstinence.

If all lesbians practiced abstinence, how would that lower the STD rates in the three other groups of people who have more risk, meaning gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Surely having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures, at least for people who are sexually active. Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with sexual pleasure?

Why do over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality, and why are all bonobo monkeys bi-sexual? Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with that?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Surely having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures, at least for people who are sexually active. Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with sexual pleasure?

Why do over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality, and why are all bonobo monkeys bi-sexual? Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with that?

It is the same old story over and over. I give absolute arguments and you equivocate, obscure, compartmentalize, make comparisons that have no relevance, rationalize, point out worse things, point out special circumstances that are less detrimental, and never ever over come my primary claims. I do not see the purpose to this.

I am not debating against Lesbians in certain categories you happen to mention. I am debating against a sexual preference in general. Your compartmentalizing and creating composition fallacies.

When [homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years] defines the entirety of the homosexuality community I might need to.

But risk applies to individuals, whether homosexual, heterosexual, male, or female, not to entire groups of people. Ten years of monogamy for homosexuals is sufficient reason for them not to practice abstinence.

Is murder ok if no left handed albino Eskimo murderers ever get caught? This is just silly.

That is a bad analogy since one party in a murder is always harmed. Safe sex among homosexuals is frequently safe, and beneficial for both parties.

Murder is illegal. Homosexuality is legal. Are you proposing that homosexuality should be illegal?

If every Lesbian who ever tried being gay received a million dollars and 10 extra years of life would that mean the tens of thousands that die of AIDS spread through homosexuality never got it?

I do not understand what you mean. Will you please explain what you said more simply?

As far as reality is concerned, lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior have lower risk than heterosexual men and women do, and thus have no need to practice abstinence.

If all lesbians practiced abstinence, that would not lower the STD rates in the three other groups of people who have more risk, meaning gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women.

 

[ignition]

It's immoral and sinful.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is the same old story over and over. I give absolute arguments and you equivocate, obscure, compartmentalize, make comparisons that have no relevance, rationalize, point out worse things, point out special circumstances that are less detrimental, and never ever over come my primary claims.

That is completely false. One web definition for the word "equivocate" is:

"Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself."

There is nothing ambiguous about my posts. I have directly answered all of your posts, and you have refused to reply to many of my arguments in my posts 863 through 867 since you know that many of then are good.

No reasonable person would ever claim that a lower risk group (lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior) should practice abstinence, and that higher risk groups (heterosexual men and women) should not practice it.

I am debating against a preference in general. Your compartmentalizing and creating composition fallacies.

But the CDC frequently compartmentalizes. For example, it says that black Americans have higher risks than any other group.

You have compartmentalized by separating heterosexual men, and heterosexual women, from lesbians.

If you said that promiscuous heterosexual men who practice unsafe sex should practice abstinence, which you would probably do, you would be compartmentalizing.

As far as composition fallacy is concerned, that is what you have done, not me. Wikipedia says:

"The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole......."

You said that African Americans do not need to practice abstinence since their risk is not due to their color. That is quite true, but I never said, or implied that their risk is due to their color. As the CDC shows, their risk is due to other factors. According to your philosophy, all people who are at risk should practice abstinence. Thus, you have refuted your own argument. If all people who are at risk should practice abstinence, that obviously includes black Americans of both sexes, and sub-Saharan black Africans of both sexes.

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Surely having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures, at least for most people who are sexually active. Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with sexual pleasure?

Why do over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality, and why are all bonobo monkeys bi-sexual? Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering.

Better stated, homosexuals who get, and spread STDs cause massive increases in human suffering. Lesbians, who are a very large percentage of homosexuals, have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense at all.

2. It has no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost it produces.

Better stated, it has no corresponding gain for the level of suffering and cost it produces among homosexuals who get, and spread STDs.

If Homosexuals practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

Better stated, if homosexuals who get, and spread STDs practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

If heterosexuals practice abstinence the human race dies out all together. That is a compensating gain for the risk if you wish to know what one actually is.

But abstinence by heterosexuals is only necessary for those who practice unsafe sex, not for all heterosexuals. The same goes for homosexuals.

You have accused me of using hypotheticals that cannot, and will not ever happen. So, let's discuss what will happen, not what you claim ought to happen. The majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. After they die, even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault regarding getting, and spreading STDs, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having and STDs, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

You have said that it is not up to you to provide solutions for homosexuality, but you provided abstinence as a solution.

Please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming justification for it in general.

You are not making any sense at all since I did not argue, and would never argue, that the safe sex of a low risk group justifies the unsafe sex of a high risk group. The CDC frequently does research on subsections since it is obviously very helpful to identity which subsections are most at risk. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the CDC to develop effective risk prevention programs. The CDC would never recommend abstinence for a low risk group as an effective means of lowing risk for a high risk group. Thus, the CDC would never recommend abstinence for lesbians as an effective means of lowering risk for gay men.

Would you say that low risk heterosexual groups are at fault? If not, why would you say that low risk homosexual groups are at fault? Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do.

You said:

"Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed."

That obviously does not apply to what I just said.

 

[payak]

everyone is saying depends on the religion, forget religion for a moment.

What has nature given us, as men and women.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Question_love_act]

What has nature given us, as men and women.

You mean multiple erogenous zones that can be stimulated in multiple ways? That's what nature gives us.

 

[Agnostic75]

Let me summarize these months’ worth of claims:

1. I have no need of a solution to claim something is wrong.

You do if you wish to claim that homosexuals have reasonable options. Is smoking cigarettes wrong? If so, why?

Why is "all" homosexuality wrong? Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do.

Is all heterosexuality right? No, since you would argue that homosexuals who practice unsafe sex should practice safe sex, or practice abstinence, in which case you would be refuting you own argument that I should not divide homosexuals into subsections since you would be dividing heterosexuals into subsections.

2.

Once you introduced that irrelevant issue I suggested that abstinence was possible and has been often enough to prove it could be done.

It has been done, but not enough to be a reasonable option for the vast majority of homosexuals since it has failed far more often than it has been successful, even among the majority of homosexuals who are religiously motivated. Even some Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that.

Research has shown that having sex has proven health benefits, and that long term abstinence has proven health risks. Considering those facts, there are not any good reasons why low risk groups should practice abstinence. Of the four groups 1) lesbians, 2) gay men, 3) heterosexual men, and 4) heterosexual women, lesbians have the lowest risk.

3.

Just to waste more time I will give you my official solution. God should be searched for by a homosexual or anyone who is doing what is wrong.

I am only interested in your secular objections to homosexuality. You said that you have religious, and secular objections to homosexuality, but you do not have any valid secular objections to it.

I also have an argument to your genetic rationalization. I just heard on the radio yesterday that of all things genetic causes for a woman’s likelihood of beating their children during hard economic times. No one would argue that is reason to allow it to occur and on that basis genetics is no argument that homosexuality should be accepted even if it was true. There are genetic factors associated with all kinds of behavior that is not acceptable.

But we have already been through this before in another thread regarding pedophilia. I told you that I disapprove of pedophilia. Pedophilia has been proven to be harmful to children in many cases. How is monogamous sex harmful to homosexuals, especially to monogamous lesbians?

Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering.

Better stated, homosexuals who get, and spread STDs cause massive increases in human suffering. Lesbians, who are a very large percentage of homosexuals, have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense at all.

2. It has no corresponding gain that compensates for the level of suffering and cost it produces.

Better stated, it has no corresponding gain for the level of suffering and cost it produces among homosexuals who get, and spread STDs.

If Homosexuals practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

Better stated, if homosexuals who get, and spread STDs practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

If heterosexuals practice abstinence the human race dies out all together. That is a compensating gain for the risk if you wish to know what one actually is.

But abstinence by heterosexuals is only necessary for those who practice unsafe sex, not for all heterosexuals. The same goes for homosexuals.

You have accused me of using hypotheticals that cannot, and will not ever happen. So, let's discuss what will happen, not what you claim ought to happen. The majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases. After they die, even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault regarding getting, and spreading STDs, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having and STDs, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

You have said that it is not up to you to provide solutions for homosexuality, but you provided abstinence as a solution.

Please stop pointing out a less dangerous subsection of homosexuality and claiming justification for it in general.

You are not making any sense at all since I did not argue, and would never argue, that the safe sex of a low risk group justifies the unsafe sex of a high risk group. The CDC frequently does research on subsections since it is obviously very helpful to identity which subsections are most at risk. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the CDC to develop effective risk prevention programs. The CDC would never recommend abstinence for a low risk group as an effective means of lowing risk for a high risk group. Thus, the CDC would never recommend abstinence for lesbians as an effective means of lowering risk for gay men.

Would you say that low risk heterosexual groups are at fault? If not, why would you say that low risk homosexual groups are at fault? Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do.

You said:

"Not one single thing here has any effective whatsoever on what I claimed."

That obviously does not apply to what I just said.

 

[1robin]

That is completely false. One web definition for the word "equivocate" is:

"Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself."

Is one of the words definitions the arbiter of any way I use the word. Is some equivocation over the word equivocation a denial of all the descriptors I used. Is this definitions not an accurate description of many of your comments: to avoid committing oneself in what one says. I read more than the first thing that popped up.

No reasonable person would ever claim that a lower risk group (lesbians whose only risk factor is same-sex behavior) should practice abstinence, and that higher risk groups (heterosexual men and women) should not practice it.

Nor have I. I have officially never given any treatment option nor have any need to beyond my theological opinion that has nothing to do with my primary claims and is an example of equivocating and several other words I used.

But the CDC frequently compartmentalizes. For example, it says that black Americans have higher risks than any other group.

For God sakes they gather statistics as a profession.

You have compartmentalized by separating heterosexual men, and heterosexual women, from lesbians.

No I have not or at least have made every attempt to resist your doing so in about a hundred posts.

If you said that promiscuous heterosexual men who practice unsafe sex should practice abstinence, which you would probably do, you would be compartmentalizing.

You above said I have stated this then you here stated I probably do. Which is it and why is this not equivocation?

You said that African Americans do not need to practice abstinence since their risk is not due to their color. That is quite true, but I never said, or implied that their risk is due to their color. As the CDC shows, their risk is due to other factors. According to your philosophy, all people who are at risk should practice abstinence. Thus, you have refuted your own argument. If all people who are at risk should practice abstinence, that obviously includes black Americans of both sexes, and sub-Saharan black Africans of both sexes.

I have never said that, nor even thought it. I said behavior that produces risks without compensating reasons for it's practice is not justified.
Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

Surely having sex with someone who you love is one of life's greatest pleasures, at least for most people who are sexually active.

Is pleasure just reason for the destruction of lives by the thousands. Especially since even that type of pleasure could be attained without the risk. Note the word type not equality.

Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with sexual pleasure?

Since genetics has something to do with humans I feel quite sure it does, I also feel this is a leading question and of no practical value.

Why do over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality, and why are all bonobo monkeys bi-sexual?

Nature is broken is just as good explanation as anything you can guess at.

Do you believe that genetics has anything to do with that?

Does genetic involvement equal moral permissibility on any planet?

 

[1robin]

Better stated, homosexuals who get, and spread STDs cause massive increases in human suffering. Lesbians, who are a very large percentage of homosexuals, have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, so you are not making any sense at all.

You can't use same these examples of compartmentalization and some how accuse me of doing so. I have and still resist any of these tactics. Driving drunk is not right even when you get home without plowing through a house.

Better stated, it has no corresponding gain for the level of suffering and cost it produces among homosexuals who get, and spread STDs.

No, that is not better. Sexuality spreads all or almost all STD's. Heterosexuality has a infinite reason or compensating factor for practicing. Homosexuality does not. That is the differentiating factor. You can't strip of that fact no matter how hard you try.

Better stated, if homosexuals who get, and spread STDs practice abstinence there is less disease, death, and cost.

That would be true but not what I have stated as my primary claims.

But abstinence by heterosexuals is only necessary for those who practice unsafe sex, not for all heterosexuals. The same goes for homosexuals.

I would be happy with that impossible compromise if it was even remotely possible on a secular basis. When you can claim all the drunk drivers will do so safely then maybe you will have a point.

You have accused me of using hypotheticals that cannot, and will not ever happen. So, let's discuss what will happen, not what you claim ought to happen. The majority of homosexuals will not practice abstinence, and certainly could not change their sexual identity even if they wanted to except in rare cases.

You are doing exactly what I stated above and you denied. You are cleverly trying to insist yet again and in yet again another form that I must provide a solution to state something is a problem. I don't, even though I have.

After they die, even if the majority of homosexuals will have been at fault regarding getting, and spreading STDs, at least millions of them will not have been at fault, at least from a secular perspective. Assuming that 2% of the people in the world are homosexuals, if only 1% of them will die without ever having and STDs, that would be 1.4 million homosexuals. You have said you do not have anything personal against such homosexuals since they have not caused you any harm.

I don't personally. Is that an argument for something? I have a theological objection and a secular argument against the behavior in general but no personal complaint if no harm is caused.

You have said that it is not up to you to provide solutions for homosexuality, but you provided abstinence as a solution.

Only after you insisted I must but not as an official burden. I still do and no for a fact it is possible as far more than enough have done so in both camps to prove it but that is not a primary claim nor a dependent issue and you are only lessening my willingness to respond by stating it over and over and over.

You are not making any sense at all since I did not argue, and would never argue, that the safe sex of a low risk group justifies the unsafe sex of a high risk group. The CDC frequently does research on subsections since it is obviously very helpful to identity which subsections are most at risk. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the CDC to develop effective risk prevention programs. The CDC would never recommend abstinence for a low risk group as an effective means of lowing risk for a high risk group. Thus, the CDC would never recommend abstinence for lesbians as an effective means of lowering risk for gay men.

Only when each group remains static is any argument concerning groups relevant.

Would you say that low risk heterosexual groups are at fault?

I never said that nor ever used similar words. That is not even coherent.

If not, why would you say that low risk homosexual groups are at fault? Lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do.

10 year olds have less risk of shooting themselves than 6 month olds. Lets give them all guns. It is no wonder I am bored with this. Not a single new thing appears in this post nor one I have not addressed including bi-sexual monkeys for crying out loud.

 

[1robin]

everyone is saying depends on the religion, forget religion for a moment.

What has nature given us, as men and women.

My primary claims have nothing at all to do with any religion. In fact I do not see any ones theological claims here.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering and expense.
2. It has no benefit which justifies it's practice.