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

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. You can disregard my previous posts. Since this post is large, I will post it in two parts.

Argument #1

The practice of a behavior even in LESS risky conditions increases the likelihood 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. The behavior [of lesbians] is of the same type. They themselves lump themselves into one community most of the time.

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

Argument #2

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?

Argument #3

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.

Argument #4

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.

Argument #5

You have never recommended reasonable solutions 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 Can sexual identity be changed?. 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.

In another thread, you said that there are numerous successful gay therapy clinics all over the world. I asked you to provide their names, and locations, but you refused to do so.

In the thread at Can sexual identity be changed that I mentioned, I also showed that many supposedly former homosexuals who claimed that they had changed their sexual identities still had a good deal of same-sex sexual attraction, and had misinterpreted a lessening of same-sex attraction to be a cure for same-sex attraction.

Argument #6

First tell me why I should care that lesbians have less risk.

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. You are of course aware that the anatomy of women is much different than the anatomy of men, and that that is the primary reason why the lesbian subsection of homosexuals have far less risk than gay men do. That is why your comment about justifying homosexuality in general does not make any sense since you are comparing apples to oranges.

Argument #7

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

I have mentioned at least a dozen times in at least three different threads that having sex has proven health benefits.

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.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: This is part 2 of a two part post. Part 1 precedes this post.

Argument #8

The highest risk in the U.S. is black people, including black 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 who are at risk wrong? As the CDC shows, black people are not at risk because of their color, but because of other factors. You have said that people who are at risk should practice abstinence. Black people are at risk, so according to you, they, both male and female, should practice abstinence, not because they are black, but because they are at risk. The same goes for black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries. And please do not leave out men and women of any color who live in poverty since they are also at risk. Before you are done, you will have over half of the people in the entire world practicing abstinence.

Argument #9

I have no idea what is in that post.......

That was your post #304 in this thread. You knew what was in the post when you made it. When people make posts, it is certainly reasonable for other people to reply to the posts. Some of that post is true, but some of it is false, misleading, or poorly documented. One of your biggest problems is that you believe a lot of things about homosexuals that are not true, including some false things that are in your post #304.

Homosexuals do generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do, but the vast majority of them do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not alcoholics, do not abuse drugs, and are not pedophiles. That is pretty good for a group of people who did not choose their sexual identity, and have greater health challenges than heterosexuals do.

If you were much better at conducting research than you are, you would know that lots of the research that is done regarding comparing homosexuals with heterosexuals does not tell anything at all about what percentage of the general population of homosexuals have a specific problem. All that such research often tells is, for example, how much more likely homosexuals are to be alcoholic than heterosexuals are, not what percentage of the general population of homosexuals are alcoholic. For easy math, let's assume the following hypothetical parameters:

U.S. general population 102,000,000
Heterosexual population 100,000,000
Homosexual population 2,000,000
Heterosexual alcoholics 1,000,000
Homosexual alcoholics 100,000

So 1% of heterosexuals are alcoholics, and 5% of homosexuals are alcoholics, and homosexuals are 500% more likely to be alcoholic than heterosexuals are. However, 95% of homosexuals are not alcoholic, but imagine how easily led people would interpret the data if all that was published was that homosexuals are 500% more likely to be alcoholic than heterosexuals are. Such research is deplorable, dishonest, and misleading, and there is some of that in your post #304, and at a number of conservative Christian websites, and in a number of books that were written by conservative Christians.

Argument #10

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.

Argument #11

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.

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 have unsafe sex.

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.

Argument #12

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 U.S. 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 if they (heterosexuals) acted responsibly.

Argument #13

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. Therefore, lesbians who have been lesbians for at least ten years, and gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years, have no need of practicing abstinence, or of trying to change their sexual identity.

 

[Agnostic75]

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

 

[Lord'sChild]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

Because it is not possible to conceive in this way, and man to man is not intercourse.

 

[Agnostic75]

Because it is not possible to conceive in this way, and man to man is not intercourse.

But bisexuals have no problem conceiving.

Lesbians are able to have children.

Sexual identity is not a choice, so how can homosexuals be sexually interested in the opposite sex?

Some heterosexuals cannot conceive. Do you object to them having sex?

Have you ever had sex entirely for pleasure?

 

[Lord'sChild]

sure, I've had sex for pleasure, and if done with a woman then it is intercourse if condom is not used.

Man on man is not, neither is man on woman with condo.

 

[CMike]

To answer the question from the OP.

Because G-D calls it an abomination.

 

[Lord'sChild]

not an abomination, but it's not intercourse.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

Why would you want to be with a guy when you could be with a woman?

I would say it just seems unnatural as there is no natural purpose of anal intercourse no matter if it be man, nor if it be woman. If people want to do it then go for it but anal intercourse is 100% linked with the H.I.V. Virus and A.I.D.S. so it should be avoided by all including heterosexual couples, Oral intercourse should also be avoided because Semen is not made to be digested by neither man nor woman and is actually toxic to the mouth and can cause mouth and throat cancer.

Aids and HIV are caused by the same virus but it's caused by autoimmune deficiency that arises because when you inject something up your butt it bypasses your liver and directly enters your blood stream. If you are entering semen into you blood stream it will attack and destroy white blood cells which will lead to developing the HIV virus which will turn to AIDS if more and more semen is injected into the blood stream. Latex condoms should always be used if engaging in anal intercourse but due to the high amount of tearing that occurs with anal intercourse it's better for both men and woman to avoid it completely.

 

[Lord'sChild]

the anus is a sexual organ so it is likely to be involved in the sexual act, on occasion.

 

[Agnostic75]

To answer the question from the OP, because God calls it an abomination.

No, some men who presumed to speak for God called it an abomination.

Do you have any secular arguments against homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

Because it is not possible to conceive in this way, and man to man is not intercourse.

But bisexuals have no problem conceiving. Do you object to bisexuality?

Lesbians are able to have children.

Sexual identity is not a choice, so how can homosexuals be sexually interested in the opposite sex?

Do you have any recommendations for homosexuals?

Sure, I've had sex for pleasure, and if done with a woman then it is intercourse if condom is not used.

Man on man is not, neither is man on woman with condom.

Why isn't sex for pleasure between a man and a women intercourse if a condom is used?

 

[Agnostic75]

Why would you want to be with a guy when you could be with a woman?

I would say it just seems unnatural as there is no natural purpose of anal intercourse no matter if it be man, nor if it be woman.

If by "natural" you mean "what occurs in nature," over 1500 species of animals and birds practice homosexuality, and all bonobo monkeys are bisexual.

If people want to do it then go for it but anal intercourse is 100% linked with the H.I.V. Virus and A.I.D.S. so it should be avoided by all including heterosexual couples.

On research study showed that in the U.S., 80% of homosexuals do not have HIV. The leading cause of death for homosexuals is heart disease, not any STD. The leading cause of death for heterosexuals is also heart disease.

What about when gay men who use condoms have sex, and when monogamous homosexual couples who do not have any STDs have sex and do not use condoms?

Oral intercourse should also be avoided because Semen is not made to be digested by neither man nor woman and is actually toxic to the mouth and can cause mouth and throat cancer.

If neither homosexual has any STDs, is there still a risk of cancer?

Latex condoms should always be used if engaging in anal intercourse but due to the high amount of tearing that occurs with anal intercourse it's better for both men and woman to avoid it completely.

The CDC says:

Consistent and correct use of the male latex condom reduces the risk of sexually transmitted disease (STD) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission. However, condom use cannot provide absolute protection against any STD. The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of STDs are to abstain from sexual activity, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. However, many infected persons may be unaware of their infection because STDs often are asymptomatic and unrecognized.

Condom effectiveness for STD and HIV prevention has been demonstrated by both laboratory and epidemiologic studies. Evidence of condom effectiveness is also based on theoretical and empirical data regarding the transmission of different STDs, the physical properties of condoms, and the anatomic coverage or protection provided by condoms.

Laboratory studies have shown that latex condoms provide an effective barrier against even the smallest STD pathogens.

Epidemiologic studies that compare rates of HIV infection between condom users and nonusers who have HIV-infected sex partners demonstrate that consistent condom use is highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV. Similarly, epidemiologic studies have shown that condom use reduces the risk of many other STDs. However, the exact magnitude of protection has been difficult to quantify because of numerous methodological challenges inherent in studying private behaviors that cannot be directly observed or measured.

Theoretical and empirical basis for protection: Condoms can be expected to provide different levels of protection for various STDs, depending on differences in how the diseases or infections are transmitted. Male condoms may not cover all infected areas or areas that could become infected. Thus, they are likely to provide greater protection against STDs that are transmitted only by genital fluids (STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, and HIV infection) than against infections that are transmitted primarily by skin-to-skin contact, which may or may not infect areas covered by a condom (STDs such as genital herpes, human papillomavirus [HPV] infection, syphilis, and chancroid).

So if gay men do not have any STDs, there are not any good reasons for them not to have anal sex. If they are uncertain whether or not they have any STDs, using condoms would not be 100% safe, but quality condoms would greatly reduce the risk.

Now lesbians are a horse of a different color since they have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. An article at AIDS Statistics | Statistic Brain shows that less than 1% of lesbians have AIDS. If, as some experts believe, lesbians are about 1.7% of the U.S. population, that means that as far as AIDS risk is concerned, lesbians are significantly underrepresented among all women.


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 HIV/AIDS is detected early in the U.S., and in other advanced countries, with proper medical treatment, many people who have HIV/AIDS can expect to live past 60 years of age, and in many cases, a good deal longer.

 

[CMike]

No, some men who presumed to speak for God called it an abomination.

Do you have any secular arguments against homosexuality?

That may be your belief not mine.

Why should I have secular arguements? This is a religion web site.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That may be your belief not mine.

Why should I have secular arguements? This is a religion web site.

No this is a websight where we talk about religion. It is not a webisght where we have to remain in the bounds of religion without asking for secular arguments.

However in this specific thread we are talking about a real issue that does affect people via laws in several countries. America is a secular nation with secular laws and a religious based law would be unconstitutional. In that reguard to ever impose laws against something a secular argument must be made. If its your opinion then thats great but it doesn't hold any ground in a debate forum.

 

[CMike]

No this is a websight where we talk about religion. It is not a webisght where we have to remain in the bounds of religion without asking for secular arguments.

However in this specific thread we are talking about a real issue that does affect people via laws in several countries. America is a secular nation with secular laws and a religious based law would be unconstitutional. In that reguard to ever impose laws against something a secular argument must be made. If its your opinion then thats great but it doesn't hold any ground in a debate forum.

So should murder be allowed because it is against Jewish lae.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So should murder be allowed because it is against Jewish lae.

No. Murder has secular implications that can be argued. No one has ever said "killing is wrong and god is the only reason why that is". Well no one who knew what they were talking about anyway.

Bigotry is now looked down upon in our society as it doesn't have secular reasoning to argue behind. And the "evidence" behind attacks on homosexulaity tends to be nothing more than simple bigotry.

 

[SonofSonofGod]

No. Murder has secular implications that can be argued. No one has ever said "killing is wrong and god is the only reason why that is". Well no one who knew what they were talking about anyway.

Bigotry is now looked down upon in our society as it doesn't have secular reasoning to argue behind. And the "evidence" behind attacks on homosexulaity tends to be nothing more than simple bigotry.

I don't think we should ever attack the people no matter our own views on homosexuality. Sure we might not like, suggest nor endorse it but they are still people and they still are free to do with they want with their own bodies and ultimately we will all reap what we sow whatever the consequences that may be.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't think we should ever attack the people no matter our own views on homosexuality. Sure we might not like, suggest nor endorse it but they are still people and they still are free to do with they want with their own bodies and ultimately we will all reap what we sow whatever the consequences that may be.

Would you vote for marriage equality?

 

[SonofSonofGod]

Would you vote for marriage equality?

I wouldn't vote on that subject at all but I say if they want it let them have it.