• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
I have been dealing with you on a secular basis for this issue but I need to mention some things about your take on religions. Christians do not determine what God has claimed or has established as true. The Bible claims homosexuality is an abomination. Wrong or right, no Christian has the power to make it anything other than that. That is not an argument with a person of a secular bent but it does apply when a person makes claims about revealed religion.

What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior?

1robin said:
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, and less risk than heterosexual men and women do. That is why your comment about justifying homosexuality in general does not make any sense since you are comparing apples to oranges. You have committed the "fallacy of composition." Wikipedia says that 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......."

1robin said:
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.

An article at Study Shows How Many Americans Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender | The New Civil Rights Movement shows that
"close to 4% of the American adult population — identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and breaks down those numbers," and that 1.7% of Americans are gay, or lesbian. Of the 1.7 percent who are gay, or lesbian, just over half would be lesbians. You do not have any valid secular arguments against lesbians, or against gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
CMike said:
I said my Bible. The above has nothing to do with my Bible.

Which Bible do you have? If you are referring to any major Christian Bible, the links that I mentioned are relevant to those translations.
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
CMike said:
The Torah. The Jewish Bible.

If you mean the first five books of the Bible, if there were any errors in them, how could you know that?

Do you believe that Jewish people who work on the Sabbath Day should be put to death like happened during the time of Moses? In addition, what about the death penalty for cursing your parents, and following other Gods?

If the only evidence that you have is faith, everyone has faith of some kind. How is one person's faith any more reliable than another person's faith?

Why did God create homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and make all bonobos monkeys bisexual?

Surely, chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. In a landmark book that is titled "One Nation Under God," authors Kosmin, and Lachman provides lots of documented research that conclusively proves that geography, family, gender, and age, are important factors that influence what people believe. The time period that a person is born in is also an important factor.

If 1,000 American babies were taken to Iran, and raised by Muslims, it is probable that far more of them would become Muslims than if they had been raised in the U.S.
 
Last edited:

CMike

Well-Known Member
If you mean the first five books of the Bible, if there were any errors in them, how could you know that?

Do you believe that Jewish people who work on the Sabbath Day should be put to death like happened during the time of Moses? In addition, what about the death penalty for cursing your parents, and following other Gods?

If the only evidence that you have is faith, everyone has faith of some kind. How is one person's faith any more reliable than another person's faith?

Why did God create homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and make all bonobos monkeys bisexual?

Surely, chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. In a landmark book that is titled "One Nation Under God," authors Kosmin, and Lachman provides lots of documented research that conclusively proves that geography, family, gender, and age, are important factors that influence what people believe. The time period that a person is born in is also an important factor.

If 1,000 American babies were taken to Iran, and raised by Muslims, it is probable that far more of them would become Muslims than if they had been raised in the U.S.

That's because the Torah has to be understood and not read.

The criteria for the death penalty was so high it was nearly impossible to implement.

You have to have two eye witnesses.

They had to warn the perp not to do the crime right before he did and what the punishment could be.

The perp had to acknowledge this.

If all the judges in the court said he was guilty he couldn't get the death penalty.

I am not sure about the homosexuality in monkeys and I really don't care about how monkeys have sex.

I am not putting my faith against anyone else's.

All I am saying is that the Torah has no errors. It's perfect.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
CMike said:
That's because the Torah has to be understood and not read.

The criteria for the death penalty was so high it was nearly impossible to implement.

You have to have two eye witnesses.

They had to warn the perp not to do the crime right before he did and what the punishment could be.

The perp had to acknowledge this.

If all the judges in the court said he was guilty he couldn't get the death penalty.

But it would be easy today to prove that many Jews work on the Sabbath Day.

CMike said:
All I am saying is that the Torah has no errors. It's perfect.

Is your only evidence faith? If so, why is your faith any more reliable than anyone else's faith?
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
CMike said:
The Torah. The Jewish Bible.

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. In a landmark book that is titled "One Nation Under God," authors Kosmin, and Lachman provides lots of documented research that conclusively proves that geography, family, gender, and age, are important factors that influence what people believe. The time period that a person is born in is also an important factor.

If 1,000 American babies were taken to Iran, and raised by Muslims, it is probable that far more of them would become Muslims than if they had been raised in the U.S.

Do you accept the global flood theory?
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member

1robin said:
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. You do not want to discuss that post since you do not want people to know that you made a post without checking out the quality of your sources.

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 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 although homosexuals are 500% more likely to be alcoholics than heterosexuals are, 95% of homosexuals are not alcoholics, 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.

1robin said:
I have been dealing with you on a secular basis for this issue but I need to mention some things about your take on religions. Christians do not determine what God has claimed or has established as true. The Bible claims homosexuality is an abomination. Wrong or right, no Christian has the power to make it anything other than that. That is not an argument with a person of a secular bent but it does apply when a person makes claims about revealed religion.

What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior?

1robin said:
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, and less risk than heterosexual men and women do. That is why your comment about justifying homosexuality in general does not make any sense since you are comparing apples to oranges. You have committed the "fallacy of composition." Wikipedia says that 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......."

1robin said:
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.

An article at Study Shows How Many Americans Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender | The New Civil Rights Movement shows that
"close to 4% of the American adult population identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and breaks down those numbers," and that 1.7% of Americans are gay, or lesbian. Of the 1.7 percent who are gay, or lesbian, just over half would be lesbians. You do not have any valid secular arguments against lesbians, or against gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

1robin said:
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. You have claimed that homosexuality 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?

Do you object that the CDC has risk prevention programs? Do you object that the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society have risk prevention programs?

1robin said:
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.

1robin said:
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.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior?
Let me post what the current Bible's claim and if you do not think the originals said it then we can discuss it. I know the language is different BTW.
  1. Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22
  2. If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

    Deuteronomy
  3. "Every abomination ... the Lord ... hateth."
    Including homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22) 12:31
  4. Women are not to wear men's clothing and vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5
  5. God says not to bring any whore, sodomite, or dog into the house of the Lord. For "these things are an abomination to the Lord." Sodomites and dogs are biblical names for homosexuals. 23:17-18
  6. "There were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations...."
    14:24


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.
Does less wrong equal good in your view?


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, and less risk than heterosexual men and women do. That is why your comment about justifying homosexuality in general does not make any sense since you are comparing apples to oranges. You have committed the "fallacy of composition." Wikipedia says that 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......."
Your premise was correct your conclusion wrong. Something less wrong is not therefore justifiable. It might be if some necessary justifying good came from the practice but it doesn't in this case.


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
I have never mentioned bi-sexuals. I might have responded to a statement you made about them but do not remember it.


"close to 4% of the American adult population — identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and breaks down those numbers," and that 1.7% of Americans are gay, or lesbian. Of the 1.7 percent who are gay, or lesbian, just over half would be lesbians. You do not have any valid secular arguments against lesbians, or against gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years.
You must prove several things to even make that argument meaningful at all, no matter how many times you post it.

1. That acts with less risk are right because they have less risk. Giving a kid a .22 instead of a .458 nitro express is less dangerous but both are wrong.
2. That those in lower risk groups would always remain within them.
3. Once you did both then you would have to show damage even for the less risky groups is justifiable by the gains the practice produced.

Until you can do all three the argument is pointless. This is rationalization, no more.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
That was your post #304 in this thread.
What is that?



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. You do not want to discuss that post since you do not want people to know that you made a post without checking out the quality of your sources.
How could I be scared of the errors in a post I have no idea the contents of? I can't remember all 6000 posts I have made. At this point I am fine with you only retaining what you think was true in that post because I am certain it will enough to justify my main contentions.


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.
The red section alone is enough to justify my main contentions. The rest was a rationalization only.


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 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:
I have never read any statistics that were not of the type you suggest do not exist. They have Aids and other STD numbers from both groups and even adjusted for per capita ratios.


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 although homosexuals are 500% more likely to be alcoholics than heterosexuals are,
My God I would have never thought that. Why did you post it? You are digging a hole here which nothing can extricate you from.

95% of homosexuals are not alcoholics, 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.
That is the relevant statistic. How many aren't has no purpose beyond rationalizing.


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.
So you reject my scholarship in general (which I did not provide) but refuse me the same right concerning yours even though I gave you a way to demonstrate the accuracy of yours. The three most referenced sites about the biological basis of homosexuality all have homosexual sources. Is that any better? There is something dreadfully wrong with anything that incorporates a 500% greater occurrence of alcoholism alone.



What evidence do you have that the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior?
Which book? The books were written over the course of 2000 years and have different pedigrees and methods to evaluate accuracy.




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, and less risk than heterosexual men and women do. That is why your comment about justifying homosexuality in general does not make any sense since you are comparing apples to oranges. You have committed the "fallacy of composition." Wikipedia says that 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......."
When you start a paragraph with the exact same irrelevant claim you made in the last post to me above I am not answering anything in that paragraph.


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.

An article at Study Shows How Many Americans Are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender | The New Civil Rights Movement shows that
"close to 4% of the American adult population identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender, and breaks down those numbers," and that 1.7% of Americans are gay, or lesbian. Of the 1.7 percent who are gay, or lesbian, just over half would be lesbians. You do not have any valid secular arguments against lesbians, or against gay men who have been monogamous for at least ten years.
Repeat.



I told you that you do have to provide solutions if you are claiming that a behavior is wrong.
No I do not.


You have claimed that homosexuality 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?
Good Lord is a 500% greater risk of alchoholism and the massive increase in health problems you yourself admitted to above not enough. Homosexual behavior its self is not mandated by anything.


Do you object that the CDC has risk prevention programs? Do you object that the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society have risk prevention programs?
No, why would I object to less risk. Has nothing to do with what is right but it is a good idea.



Having cancer is only wrong when people who have it know how to prevent it, and don't.
So cancer that could not be prevented is good?


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.
Less risk is not no risk. Less risk is not the only risk we have. All of it adds to misery without compensation for even those that do not practice it. Only a liberal could think there was the slightest room for contention here. Liberal secularism is thinking humanity into moral insanity.

BTW I found a site that has the testimony of former homosexuals if you want it. Where is my link to Craig?
 
Last edited:

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
Less risk is not no risk.

But lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.
1robin said:
Less risk is not the only risk we have. All of it adds to misery without compensation for even those that do not practice it.

Having sex has proven health benefits.

There is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years not to have sex.

1robin said:
BTW I found a site that has the testimony of former homosexuals if you want it.

Please post the link.

I once asked you if you object to homosexuals who died, and never had any STDs. You said that you do object, but not personally since they did not harm you. Well, as a practical matter, you know that many homosexuals will die without ever getting any STDs, so you do not have anything personal against those of them who are alive today having sex.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
But lesbians have less risk than heterosexual men and women do. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.
Are you unaware of the fact that repetition does not increase relevance? Less wrong is still wrong. There are no health risks that outweigh the risks of practicing it. I do not even believe you can show there are any significant health risks associated with abstinence at all.

Having sex has proven health benefits.
That are in no way compensation for what is lost by practicing homosexuality.

There is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years not to have sex.
Yes there are, and many.


Please post the link.
Stories of Sexual Addiction

You practically dared me to talk to Craig and now I can't get a link from you.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
There is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years not to have sex.

1robin said:
Yes there are, and many.

What are they?


1robin said:
You practically dared me to talk to Craig and now I can't get a link from you.

What are you talking about? What Craig are you talking about that has something to do with homosexuality?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What are they?
There is no way you do not know.

Andrew Lansdown points out that 'homosexual activity is notoriously disease-prone. In addition to diseases associated with heterosexual promiscuity, homosexual actions facilitate the transmission of anal herpes, hepatitis B, intestinal parasites, Kaposi's Sarcoma and AIDS.'1 Research on the life expectancy of a group of homosexual men in Canada in the early 1990s indicated that they could expect 8-21 years less lifespan than other men.8
What's wrong with being gay? Homosexual behavior versus the Bible

Not even to mention the cost of the breakdown in the family unit.



What are you talking about? What Craig are you talking about that has something to do with homosexuality?
William Craig, and no. I thought that what the Bible claims about homosexuality to be a good compromise but it seems the subject has dropped off the radar.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I am not going to wade through all of that. If you want me to comment on it, you are going to have to quote it, or refer to a specific part of it.
I never wanted you to comment on it, only to know what I claimed does exist in many places, and that maybe you were interested in something besides stuff that agrees with you. People have left that life far behind. It can be done.
 

Agnostic75

Well-Known Member
1robin said:
I do not even believe you can show there are any significant health risks associated with abstinence at all.

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia said:

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

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

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


newscientist.com said:

PSYPLEXUS - a portal for mental health professionals

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

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

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

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

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

1robin

Christian/Baptist

Well one side is lying. Every statistic I found from sites on both sides show that the actual lifespan of homosexuals is significantly lower then heterosexuals. That would refute almost every claim you provided. I would establish who was lying but I am so certain that I already know that it would be a waste of time for me.

The study found that life expectancy at age 20 among gay and bisexual men in Vancouver was 8 to 21 years shorter than that of all men in the Canadian city. The researchers also said their conclusion probably underestimated the life expectancy deficit among gay and bisexual men because AIDS cases were underreported.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.full.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top