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

[1robin]

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

What is the point to this?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

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 consider the CDC to be a trusted source. A CDC article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS shows that among almost 250,000 women who had HIV regarding a research study, less than 1% of them were lesbians. An article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain shows that less than 1% of lesbians have AIDS. The article quotes some other research from the CDC.

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.

You do not need to provide a solution if you are not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but you have said that it is wrong. From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong that does not have reasonable solutions.

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 know that the vast majority of homosexuals will never practice long term abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity, and that what will happen is that many homosexuals will die who never had, or spread any STDs. It is those homosexuals who I am defending, and there are lots of them. The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals.

Would you like to discuss your post #304 in detail?

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

If I had made what?

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.

You said:

"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."

You have refuted your own argument since when homosexuality was first included in the DSM, far less was known about it than when it was removed from it years later.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. If those same experts accepted creationism, you would surely use that as evidence in debates. You merely use science as a convenience when it agrees with you. At least some conservative Christian experts are honest enough to admit their religious bias. Henry Morris, Ph.d., Institute for Creation Research, was an inerrantist. He said that “the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.” (Henry Morris, ‘Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science,’ 1970, p. 32-33. Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph: "Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

You consider the CDC to be a trusted source. A CDC article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS shows that among almost 250,000 women who had HIV regarding a research study, less than 1% of them were lesbians. An article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain shows that less than 1% of lesbians have AIDS. The article quotes some other research from the CDC.

How in the world did you make three duplicate posts that needed to be deleted in a row? I have covered why posting statistics about subsections of a behavior is irrelevant about a dozen times so far. I do not want to be forced into ignoring much of what you posted but I have no choice. I am not saying the same thing dozens of times just because you do.

You do not need to provide a solution if you are not saying that homosexuality is wrong,

I do not need to say it is either.

From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong that does not have reasonable solutions.

That would be an example of why secularism is morally bankrupt (but I do not think it even true in the first place). Is cancer ok until it has a cure? Is alcoholism less wrong than shoplifting because it is harder to resist?

You know that the vast majority of homosexuals will never practice long term abstinence, or try to change their sexual identity, and that what will happen is that many homosexuals will die who never had, or spread any STDs.

I do not believe (actually I do) you made the same point in the post twice in succession. How many people have to quit something for quitting to be possible? How many have to be cured from drug abuse for a cure to be the preferred option. Why are we still discussing cures in a an argument about damage. If someone killed those you care about and claimed he could not help it (even if true) would you allow that he did nothing wrong?

It is those homosexuals who I am defending, and there are lots of them.

I am not attacking any homosexuals but a behavior so who your defending is not relevant.

The vast majority of homosexuals will not die from any STD. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals.

And everyone knows that if you can find a greater killer then all lesser killers are ok.

Would you like to discuss your post #304 in detail?

We are on 905, in what thread are you talking about?

 

[Agnostic75]

From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong that does not have reasonable solutions.

That would be an example of why secularism is morally bankrupt.......

But all religions do not oppose homosexuality.

.......but I do not think it even true in the first place. Is cancer ok until it has a cure? Is alcoholism less wrong than shoplifting because it is harder to resist?

Cancer is a harmful disease. Safe sex among homosexuals is not a harmful disease.

Alcoholism is a harmful disease. Safe sex among homosexuals is not a harmful disease.

Shoplifting is not a good analogy because there is always an injured party, and regarding safe sex among homosexuals, there is seldom an injured party.

We are on 905, in what thread are you talking about?

Your post #304 in this thread. Some of it is false, and some of it is misleading, or poorly documented.

 

[1robin]

But all religions do not oppose homosexuality.

What is going on? Are you just saying anything at this point? I made a point about secular morality and your best response was this? I am completely non-plussed. I have no idea what that means but am sure it applies to whatever this was.

Cancer is a harmful disease. Safe sex among homosexuals is not a harmful disease.

So you have redefined morally wrong as being equal to physical harm? I almost headed this off at the pass as I knew what you would respond with but foolishly believed you had read the at least 3 ways I showed your response inadequate.

Alcoholism is a harmful disease. Safe sex among homosexuals is not a harmful disease.

Shoplifting is not a good analogy because there is always an injured party, and regarding safe sex among homosexuals, there is seldom an injured party.

Nope, not doing the repeat thing any more. I have pointed out why it does not work and even gave you examples where no harm was involved. Your are not even objecting in the same context my claim was used.

Your post #304 in this thread. Some of it is false, and some of it is misleading, or poorly documented.

My lord are you a machine? How in the world is it that your are reviewing 600 posts ago? Creating duplicate posts in 4 threads and creating several new threads a week. When do you have the time? Of course I was joking but I want an answer. How are you doing this and anything else?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[alviataylor]

Well the only reason is that a man and women are meant to be in pairs to fulfill the lacks of the other.

 

[Agnostic75]

Well the only reason is that a man and women are meant to be in pairs to fulfill the lacks of the other.

Are you referring to religious evidence against homosexuality? If so, which religious evidence?

Why do you suppose that God caused over 1500 species of animals and birds to practice homosexuality, and caused all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual? I know that some animals do things that humans should not do, but some humans do things that animals should not do, such as destroy the environment of the earth. It all gets down to what actions are beneficial for animals, and for humans. How is same-sex
behavior not beneficial for homosexuals who practice it safely?

What do you mean by "fulfill the lacks of the other? Don't bi-sexual humans fulfill the lacks of the other?

Are you aware that sexual identity is not a choice?

Do you have any secular recommendations for homosexuals?

 

[Agnostic75]

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 consider the CDC to be a trusted source. A CDC article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS shows that among almost 250,000 women who had HIV regarding a research study, less than 1% of them were lesbians. An article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain shows that less than 1% of lesbians have AIDS. The article quotes some other research from the CDC.

I have covered why posting statistics about subsections of a behavior is irrelevant about a dozen times so far.

No, as the CDC would surely agree, risk prevention programs are most important, and most necessary, for subsections of people who are the most at risk. You know very well that the CDC studies subsections of people so that they can better develop risk prevention programs.

What a low risk group (lesbians) does is irrelevant to what higher risk groups (gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women) do. Quite obviously, a low risk group is not responsible for the behavior of higher risk groups.

Regarding the article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain that I mentioned, the CDC provided statistics on the following subsections:

Black / African American
White
Hispanic / Latino
Multiple races
Asian
American Indian
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander

Regarding the article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS that I mentioned, the CDC provides statistics on the following subsections:

Female to male
Female to female with no risk factors other than same-sex behavior
Female to female with risk factors other than same-sex behavior
Female to male

In an article at Who Is at Risk for HIV Infection and Which Populations Are Most Affected? | National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health provides statistics on the following subsections regarding HIV risk:

Male-to-male sexual contact
Injection drug use
Male-to-male sexual contact, and injection drug use
Heterosexual contact
Other

So there are all kinds of subsections. Lesbians are one of a number of subsections, and they have significantly less risk than heterosexual men and women do. No major medical organization in the entire world would claim that a very low risk group was more at fault than higher risk groups are.

Why do you criticize lesbians, who have significantly less risk than heterosexual men and women do?

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

But you know that I did not attempt to use lesbians' very low risk to justify sex among gay men who practice unsafe sex. Unsafe sex is wrong regardless of a person's sexual preference, and you know that I oppose unsafe sex regardless of a person's sexual preference.

General means "all groups of homosexuals." You know that I never recommended anything like that.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that if you do not criticize heterosexual men and women, you do not have a rational basis to criticize lesbians.

Why do you suppose that heterosexual men and women have higher risk than lesbians do?

You know that no major medical association in the entire world would ever lump all heterosexuals into a single category, and all homosexuals into a single category. That would be atrocious science, and it would prevent major medical organizations from developing effective risk prevention programs.

The CDC says that black Americans are the highest risk group in the U.S. Unless the CDC knew that that subsection was the highest risk group, they would be able to develop effective risk prevention program for black Americans. Do you criticize black Americans, not because of their color, but because of their high risk? Isn't risk what your primary interest? If so, you should be concerned with the groups that have the highest risk. You cannot get away with saying that all homosexuals have high risk, and that all heterosexuals have low risk.

What is going on? Are you just saying anything at this point? I made a point about secular morality and your best response was this? I am completely non-plussed. I have no idea what that means but am sure it applies to whatever this was.

You complained about secular morality. Secular obvious pertains to things that are not religious. I said that all religions do not oppose homosexuality. So, you misused the word "secular."

Nope, not doing the repeat thing any more. I have pointed out why it does not work and even gave you examples where no harm was involved. Your are not even objecting in the same context my claim was used.

And I easily refuted those arguments that you made. You said that even desires, or unsuccessful attempts to steal are wrong, but I agree with you, but what does that have to do with the desire of homosexuals to have sex, or with them having sex? When someone steals something, there is always an injured party. There are seldom any injured parties when homosexuals have safe sex.

How in the world is it that your are reviewing 600 posts ago? Creating duplicate posts in 4 threads and creating several new threads a week. When do you have the time? Of course I was joking but I want an answer. How are you doing this and anything else?

This is interesting, no matter how many times I ask you to discuss your post #304 in this thread, you find a way not to answer my question. That is because you do not want to show people how little you know about how to conduct proper research.


Message to 1robin: You have accused me of being dishonest. I am not offended in the least, but I wish to say that you are the one who is
dishonest.

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.

If I had made what?

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.”? Of course not. As I said, "If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations who support it would be at risk, so your arguments are absurd."

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.

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

You said:

"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."

You have refuted your own argument since when homosexuality was first included in the DSM, far less was known about it than when it was removed from the DSM years later.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. If those same experts said that creationism is true, there is no doubt that you would use that evidence in debates since you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. You merely use science as a convenience when it agrees with you.

Even if you do not reply to these arguments, I will repost them frequently so that new readers will know how bad your arguments are.

 

[Question_love_act]

Well the only reason is that a man and women are meant to be in pairs to fulfill the lacks of the other.

Considering the many definitions of "man" and "woman" that varies with culture, subculture, era and individual factors... no "lack" is purely "womanly" or "manly".

 

[1robin]

No, as the CDC would surely agree, risk prevention programs are most important, and most necessary, for subsections of people who are the most at risk. You know very well that the CDC studies subsections of people so that they can better develop risk prevention programs.

How did risk prevention programs get into this. by now there is less stuff not in this discussion than in it. Are fruit bat migratory patters of any use to your argument?

What a low risk group (lesbians) does is irrelevant to what higher risk groups (gay men, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women) do. Quite obviously, a low risk group is not responsible for the behavior of higher risk groups.

It sure as heck is not irrelevant. It may be less detrimental but no less relevant.

Regarding the article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain that I mentioned, the CDC provided statistics on the following subsections:

Black / African American
White
Hispanic / Latino
Multiple races
Asian
American Indian
Native Hawaiian / Other Pacific Islander

Regarding the article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS that I mentioned, the CDC provides statistics on the following subsections:

Female to male
Female to female with no risk factors other than same-sex behavior
Female to female with risk factors other than same-sex behavior
Female to male

In an article at Who Is at Risk for HIV Infection and Which Populations Are Most Affected? | National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health provides statistics on the following subsections regarding HIV risk:

Male-to-male sexual contact
Injection drug use
Male-to-male sexual contact, and injection drug use
Heterosexual contact
Other

So there are all kinds of subsections. Lesbians are one of a number of subsections, and they have significantly less risk than heterosexual men and women do. No major medical organization in the entire world would claim that a very low risk group was more at fault than higher risk groups are.

I never argued subsections do not exist. In fact an almost infinite number of sections may be manufactured. I am discussing general risk associated with a behavior. I do not have time to debate the risk of the behavior on Mondays, of left handed, or redhead sub groups. Even if the risk was only minimal is the gratification of physical lust a compensation for anyone's immune system being disintegrated? Especially those who have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Why do you criticize lesbians, who have significantly less risk than heterosexual men and women do?

I didn't mention Lesbians.

But you know that I did not attempt to use lesbians' very low risk to justify sex among gay men who practice unsafe sex. Unsafe sex is wrong regardless of a person's sexual preference, and you know that I oppose unsafe sex regardless of a person's sexual preference. General means "all groups of homosexuals." You know that I never recommended anything like that.

For some reason Springer came on when I turned on the TV yesterday and I did not immediately turn it off. It just happened to be a bunch of Lesbians who were no longer Lesbians or that bounced back and forth. As I have said many many times to apparently no effect. The practice of a behavior even in LESS risky conditions increases the likely hood it will be done in MORE risky circumstances. When you find a planet where anyone in any group stagnates there and never migrates to another group this argument may be relevant.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that if you do not criticize heterosexual men and women, you do not have a rational basis to criticize lesbians.

I do not remember criticizing either. criticized homosexuality in general.

Why do you suppose that heterosexual men and women have higher risk than lesbians do?

First tell me why I should care? You are also conveniently leaving out a full 50% of what I claimed, corresponding gain. A single claim is kind of important when I only have 2.

You know that no major medical association in the entire world would ever lump all heterosexuals into a single category, and all homosexuals into a single category. That would be atrocious science, and it would prevent major medical organizations from developing effective risk prevention programs.

The behavior is of the same type. They themselves lump themselves into one community most of the time.

Continued below for no apparent reason.

 

[1robin]

The CDC says that black Americans are the highest risk group in the U.S. Unless the CDC knew that that subsection was the highest risk group, they would be able to develop effective risk prevention program for black Americans. Do you criticize black Americans, not because of their color, but because of their high risk? Isn't risk what your primary interest? If so, you should be concerned with the groups that have the highest risk. You cannot get away with saying that all homosexuals have high risk, and that all heterosexuals have low risk.

Which is why I never claimed this. You are the only one that has broken anything onto groups, not me.

You complained about secular morality. Secular obvious pertains to things that are not religious. I said that all religions do not oppose homosexuality. So, you misused the word "secular."

What? Complaining about secular morality has nothing what so ever to do with my not having complaints about other faiths, and neither have anything to do with this.

And I easily refuted those arguments that you made. You said that even desires, or unsuccessful attempts to steal are wrong, but I agree with you, but what does that have to do with the desire of homosexuals to have sex, or with them having sex? When someone steals something, there is always an injured party. There are seldom any injured parties when homosexuals have safe sex.

I have already explained that several times and it was a statement about your argumentation not the behavior its self.

This is interesting, no matter how many times I ask you to discuss your post #304 in this thread, you find a way not to answer my question. That is because you do not want to show people how little you know about how to conduct proper research.

I have no idea what is in that post as I have never done what you asked but even if I had you would still have no access to my motivations. I am unable to get to half of what you post and get anything of any kind done and have said so many times. Your simply being intellectual dishonest here.

Message to 1robin: You have accused me of being dishonest. I am not offended in the least, but I wish to say that you are the one who is
dishonest.

See above for an example of what I claim. You got any for what you claim?

If I had made what?

Don't remember and my statement there was incoherent and must have been a type O.

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.”? Of course not. As I said, "If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations who support it would be at risk, so your arguments are absurd."

There is no argument possible against the behavior being harmful. You have even conceded that point many times. Your only argument was certain subgroups were less harmful but no more justified.

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.

Where?

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 is a Dover trial? Homosexuality increases human suffering in massive amounts, period. If that is not "opposed" by any organization then I have no interest in anything they claim. Chesterton said most people know what is wrong but differ widely on what is excusable.

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

Is that what I said?

You said:

"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."

You have refuted your own argument since when homosexuality was first included in the DSM, far less was known about it than when it was removed from the DSM years later.

I see I did not in fact claim what you said above. I see no evidence I refuted anything based on what you said. What does a change in a stance have to do with reliability of a political issue?

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept common descent. If those same experts said that creationism is true, there is no doubt that you would use that evidence in debates since you have said that all of macro evolution has problems. You merely use science as a convenience when it agrees with you.

Even if you do not reply to these arguments, I will repost them frequently so that new readers will know how bad your arguments are.

Posting your claims even after I have addressed them has no power to prove my argument was bad. Just ignored and that you are redundant.

 

[Agnostic75]

The practice of a behavior even in LESS risky conditions increases the likely hood it will be done in MORE risky circumstances. When you find a planet where anyone in any group stagnates there and never migrates to another group this argument may be relevant.

If you were right, statistics would support you, but they don't.

The behavior [of lesbians] is of the same type. They themselves lump themselves into one community most of the time.[/quote]

Heterosexual men and women generally tend to lump themselves together since they are heterosexuals, and this lumping together produces more risk than lesbians have according to statistics. If statistics supported your arguments, you would use them.

A CDC article at Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS shows that among almost 250,000 women who had HIV regarding a research study, less than 1% of them were lesbians. The means that lesbians were significantly underrepresented among all women since they comprise over 1.5% of all women. A sample that large is good enough to win any debate.

An article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain shows that less than 1% of lesbians have AIDS. The article quotes some other research from the CDC.

In an article at Who Is at Risk for HIV Infection and Which Populations Are Most Affected? | National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health also provides statistics about lesbians that agree with the CDC.

If lesbians were at risk being together with each other, or being around gay, or bi-sexual men, statistics would definitely show that, but they don't.

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.

I told you that you do have to provide solutions if you are claiming that a behavior is wrong. From a secular perspective, a behavior cannot be wrong unless the desire to do it, or the action of doing it, causes harm. What harm does safe sex among homosexuals cause?

Is cancer ok until it has a cure?

Having cancer is only wrong when people who have it know how to prevent it, and don't.

Is alcoholism less wrong than shoplifting because it is harder to resist?

Alcoholism needs solutions since it harms alcoholics, and society. Shoplifting needs solutions since it harms society. Since lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, quite obviously, there is more need for heterosexual men and women to resist having sex than there is for lesbians to resist having sex.

You have never recommended reasonable solutions for homosexuals for homosexuals that generally work well. You said that sexual identity can be changed, but Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest ex-gay organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he had lied about changing his sexual identity, and that 99.9'% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity. I discussed that in my thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html. In that same thread, I provided evidence that having sex has proven health benefits, and that long term abstinence has proven health risks. I also said that even some conservative Christian experts who oppose homosexuality have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Why do you suppose that heterosexual men and women have more risk than lesbians do?

First tell me why I should care?

For the same reason that you care that male-to-male sexual contact is the riskiest sexual behavior. If that is important to you, it should also be important to you that female-to-female sexual contact is the least risky sexual behavior

Lesbians are not responsible for the actions of gay men since they are much less at risk than gay men are. Similarly, heterosexuals who have safe sex are not responsible for heterosexuals who have unsafe sex.

You are also conveniently leaving out a full 50% of what I claimed, corresponding gain.

Regarding lesbians, the gain is the significant health benefits from having sex.

What corresponding gain is there for heterosexual men and women to have sex? You have said that their gain is to maintain the human population. However, any major medical organization would immediately disagree with you, and would tell you that it is primarily heterosexuals who have unsafe sex who need to change their sexual behavior the most, not heterosexuals who have safe sex. Similarly, they would tell you that homosexuals who have unsafe sex are the ones who need to change their sexual behavior the most, not homosexuals who have safe sex. Quite obviously, lesbians have less need to change their sexual behavior than heterosexual men and women do.

The highest risk in the U.S. is among black people, including black heterosexual men, and women. Do you recommend that black people continue to risk getting, and spreading STDs, or that they practice abstinence? You said that you do not need to recommend solutions, but do you object that the CDC has risk prevention programs for black people, and for everyone else, that offer solutions? You have said that sex among homosexuals is wrong. Is sex among black people wrong? As the CDC shows, black people are not at risk because of their color, but because of other factors. You have said that groups of people who are at risk should practice abstinence. Black people are a group of people, so according to you, they should practice abstinence, not because they are black, but because they are at risk.

I have no idea what is in that post as I have never done what you asked but even if I had you would still have no access to my motivations.

No, you are being dishonest since you definitely know about your post #304 since I have mentioned it to you many times, in at least two threads, and because I discussed some of it in another thread in a reply that I made to one of your posts. One reason why you oppose homosexuality so much is that you believe lots of false, misleading, or poorly documented claims about homosexuality, many of which are in your post #304.

You have already stated your motivations on many occasions. You have said that you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality. Your secular arguments have to mostly be about the medical risks of homosexuality.

 

[Agnostic75]

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 cause 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.

Good, then you do not have anything personal against millions of homosexuals who will die over the next 100 years who will never get, or spread any STDs. Regarding those homosexuals, the gain will obviously have been getting significant health benefits from having sex, with no health risks from practicing long term abstinence.

For some reason Springer came on when I turned on the TV yesterday and I did not immediately turn it off. It just happened to be a bunch of Lesbians who were no longer Lesbians or that bounced back and forth. As I have said many many times to apparently no effect.

But I have been discussing lesbians, not bisexuals like you are doing. Obviously, bisexuals have much higher risk than lesbians do. Would you recommend that bisexuals practice abstinence? If so, I would agree with you regarding cases where bisexuals get STDs.

Do you have any statistics about how frequently lesbians become bisexuals?

Heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are. Therefore, they cause far more preventable medical costs than homosexuals do, and could reduce medical costs far more than homosexuals could even if only half of them who get preventable diseases acted responsibly. In 2010, about 15,000 people died of AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 people died from heart disease alone, and the vast majority of them were heterosexuals. You have claimed that you also disapprove of irresponsible heterosexuals. That is fine, but you should spend more of your time criticizing heterosexuals than you spend criticizing homosexuals since heterosexuals could reduce medical costs far more than homosexuals could.

Generally, the longer that lesbians remain lesbians, the greater the odds that they will not have sex with men, which would decrease their need to resist having sex. Also, the longer that gay men remain monogamous, the greater the odds that they will continue to be monogamous, which would decrease their need to resist having sex.

Please reply to my previous post.