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

[Agnostic75]

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.

But that has nothing to do with my comments that there is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years not to have sex. Logically, the longer that homosexuals stay monogamous, the less the odds that they will become promiscuous.

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.

I still do not have any idea what you are talking about. Neither William Lane Craig, or anyone else knows whether or not the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior, and whether or not God inspired those specific Scriptures, assuming for the sake of argument that he inspired some of them.

 

[Agnostic75]

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 homosexuals. 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

But that has nothing to do with lesbians.

You asked me for evidence that long term abstinence has proven health risks, and I provided the evidence for you.

Regarding the life span of homosexuals, if research was done on the life span of monogamous homosexuals, the statistics would have been much different.

Anyway, you have not provided any reasonable options for homosexuals, especially non-religious homosexuals.

 

[1robin]

Everyone knows that it can be done, but it is common knowledge that the vast majority of people who give up homosexuality are religiously motivated, and that even a large percentage of them fail to give it up. So, you have no reasonable secular alternatives for non-religious homosexuals.

That was not an attempt to provide a solution. I need none. It was an attempt to show that the behavior is not genetically mandated. I have found out much more about the genetic issues concerning homosexuality and almost none of it is helpful for your case but I wanted more time to digest it first. This issue is such a political one that it takes much time to cut through the crap and get at the facts.

 

[Agnostic75]

That was not an attempt to provide a solution. I need none.

You certainly do if you claimed that homosexuality is wrong, and you claimed that it is wrong.

It was an attempt to show that the behavior is not genetically mandated. I have found out much more about the genetic issues concerning homosexuality and almost none of it is helpful for your case but I wanted more time to digest it first. This issue is such a political one that it takes much time to cut through the crap and get at the facts.

Initial sexual identity is definitely largely caused by genetics. Regarding whatever environmental factors there are, children have very little control over their environments.

 

[1robin]

But that has nothing to do with lesbians.

Your question did not categorize the behavior so my response didn't. Your compartmentalization appears to be the lest gaps you go to when nothing else works and it doesn't either. Lesbians have similar issues but not in as significant numbers. Less wrong is still wrong.

You asked me for evidence that long term abstinence has proven health risks, and I provided the evidence for you.

Once again I find no need to even contend for my point to remain valid. Unless you believe any of the things you posted justifies between a few and 20 years shorter life then my claims remain perfectly intact.

Regarding the life span of homosexuals, if research was done on the life span of monogamous homosexuals, the statistics would have been much different.

Last gasp time again I see. When the behavior consists of only those people then you may have a less wrong point. Why are trying to do this even when it will never prove your claim that the behavior is good or morally acceptable. Maybe at this point your just trying to make some groups look less condemnable.

Anyway, you have not provided any reasonable options for homosexuals, especially non-religious homosexuals.

And I probably never will because I have no burden to. If they were only killing and infecting themselves that would be one thing but not only are they infecting others, and costing all of us billions, but defending their right to do so. The latter being the worst of those terrible actions IMO. The behavior can be stopped because many have done so. I have no burden in need of that either but it makes the whole argument ridiculous.

 

[1robin]

But that has nothing to do with my comments that there is no need for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years not to have sex. Logically, the longer that homosexuals stay monogamous, the less the odds that they will become promiscuous.

If you did not see a reason to not practice the behavior given just those medical nightmares and the costs the rest of us have to absorb because of them then there is little hope. You do realize that many of them occur in even monogamous relationships. Not that there is any uncertainty in that area either because homosexual couples are also far more likely to cheat on their partner than heterosexuals. If you do not think intestinal parasites are a problem then do not go to the doctor and the rest of us pay to get rid of them.

I still do not have any idea what you are talking about. Neither William Lane Craig, or anyone else knows whether or not the original Bible said anything about same-sex behavior, and whether or not God inspired those specific Scriptures, assuming for the sake of argument that he inspired some of them.

Those were independent issues. I wanted to discuss the Bible AND I wanted Craig's link. The Bible most certainly says all kinds of bad things about same sex behavior. If they do not know what the originals said (and they almost certainly do in 99% of the cases) then on what basis are you (who does not know if anyone doesn't) questioning it? It is very easy to very reliably know what original documents contained even if they do not exist given what is true of the Biblical tradition. I will elaborate if you want to contend the issue. It will be short.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Even if we debated homosexuality for years, that would not affect the behavior of the majority of homosexuals. Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die without every having had any STDs. You have said that you object to those homosexuals having sex, but not personally. So my current argument is that you do not have any secular arguments against any homosexual who is alive today who will never get any STDs.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is very easy to very reliably know what original documents contained even if they do not exist given what is true of the Biblical tradition.

But that has nothing to do with whether or not God inspired any texts about same-sex behavior.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Even if we debated homosexuality for years, that would not affect the behavior of the majority of homosexuals.

Did you think that was ever my purpose here? I have always stayed away from the issue because there was no secular argument that could be made against it. I began the debate only because I thought of a way that it could be argued from secularism alone. It was an experiment and at this time I think it successful.

Over the next 100 years, millions of homosexuals will die without every having had any STDs.

I am not debating against a person or group but about a behavior.

You have said that you object to those homosexuals having sex, but not personally.

In only a secular sense I object based on cost and reckless of a behavior so costly and so unnecessary. However if it was not detrimental it would not bother me on a secular level.

So my current argument is that you do not have any secular arguments against any homosexual who is alive today who will never get any STDs.

That is probably true (I would need to think it over concerning the loss of the family unit etc....) but definitely irrelevant as you can't predict that outcome and the chances are far worse for that outcome in the homosexual community.

 

[1robin]

But that has nothing to do with whether or not God inspired any texts about same-sex behavior.

Not so fast. I did not realize that was the lengths you would go to challenge it but even in that case can be made on to a greater than not standard if you wish. Of course there is no certain proof but there is more than enough good evidence. I also doubt your sincerity here. You mentioned the originals. There is not need to do that for what you say your argument was.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not so fast. I did not realize that was the lengths you would go to challenge it but even in that case can be made on to a greater than not standard if you wish. Of course there is no certain proof but there is more than enough good evidence. I also doubt your sincerity here. You mentioned the originals. There is no need to do that for what you say your argument was.

What evidence do you have that God inspired any texts about homosexuality?

 

[Agnostic75]

So my current argument is that you do not have any secular arguments against any homosexual who is alive today who will never get any STDs.

That is probably true (I would need to think it over concerning the loss of the family unit etc....) but definitely irrelevant as you can't predict that outcome and the chances are far worse for that outcome in the homosexual community.

But as I said, no matter how much we debate homosexuality, that will not change how most homosexuals act.

It is not necessary to predict outcomes for specific homosexuals in order to make a reasonable argument that over the next 100 years, millions of currently unknown homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, and that you do not have any valid secular arguments against them.

 

[CMike]

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



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

However, the criteria is extremely high to impose the death penalty. It's virtually impossible.

A jewish court that imposed the death penalty under any circumstances once in 70 years was called a blood thirsty.

 

[1robin]

What evidence do you have that God inspired any texts about homosexuality?

I must limit what I have to demonstrate. So you are conceding the texts are reliably known but you are only contending what source ultimately produced them. Is that correct? Unfortunately I have to be this technical with a person who has used the argumentation you have. You are not dishonest but you do play tricks and rely on semantics where convenient.

 

[1robin]

But as I said, no matter how much we debate homosexuality, that will not change how most homosexuals act.

Why is what I never intended to accomplish important? My job is to present truth, not what effect it has on a wayward humanity bound to self destruction in this context.

It is not necessary to predict outcomes for specific homosexuals in order to make a reasonable argument that over the next 100 years, millions of currently unknown homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, and that you do not have any valid secular arguments against them.

So will 5 out of six people survive a game of Russian roulette. Is that an argument for it be played? You know at best you have maybe 6 individual arguments but like a hydra they keep growing back long after destroyed. 6 ineffective arguments made in 10,000 ways are still wrong or ineffective against my primary claims, rewording them will not change the flaws in their core attributes.

 

[Agnostic75]

I must limit what I have to demonstrate. So you are conceding the texts are reliably known but you are only contending what source ultimately produced them. Is that correct? Unfortunately I have to be this technical with a person who has used the argumentation you have. You are not dishonest but you do play tricks and rely on semantics where convenient.

For the sake of argument, I am conceding that God inspired an unknown amount of the Bible, but not necessarily anything about same-sex behavior.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is not necessary to predict outcomes for specific homosexuals in order to make a reasonable argument that over the next 100 years, millions of currently unknown homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs, and that you do not have any valid secular arguments against them.

So will 5 out of six people survive a game of Russian roulette. Is that an argument for it be played?

No, but it will be played, and millions of currently unknown homosexuals will end up not get any STDs even if they play the game. Even if they are wrong to play the game, their being wrong about that will not end up harming anyone, and they would avoid the risks of lohg term abstinence, and enjoy the benefits of having sex. In addition, even if they did not play the game, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who do play the game.

 

[1robin]

No, but it will be played, and millions of currently unknown homosexuals will end up not get any STDs even if they play the game. Even if they are wrong to play the game, their being wrong about that will not end up harming anyone, and they would avoid the risks of lohg term abstinence, and enjoy the benefits of having sex. In addition, even if they did not play the game, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who do play the game.

The fact something wrong will be done is no justification for it being done even if it only kills millions of them, much less considering the billons and deaths of many that did not participate and even warned the ones that did. The thing that proves is what the Bible claimed 4000 years ago. We are morally insane and rebellious. Their being wrong about Roulette will kill one out of six. In what universe is that not wrong? You make it seem there is no alternative. I am suggesting nothing but entire societies have shut the issue down to an almost negligibility. Almost nothing can't be stopped in general. The one thing we could do is not legalize an institution that was initially instituted for two purposes. A reflection of God's design in the garden or in secular circles for procreation and family health. Neither warrant it being distorted to include homosexuality. I devoted a whole day to you case and despite what I thought going in, even after a whole day my case is stronger and yours weaker. You seem to have not been your self today but I greatly appreciate the efficient, less redundant, and to the point posts compared with you previous. They all lend to resolution which maybe is why they were avoided for so long or you just may be distracted, but tomorrow may be busier in my primary threads.

 

[1robin]

For the sake of argument, I am conceding that God inspired an unknown amount of the Bible, but not necessarily anything about same-sex behavior.

Well that is a very bogus methodology based on convenience (I usually let EVIDENCE NOT PREFERENCE dictate what IS TRUE) but so be it. Which book and verse?

 

[Agnostic75]

Well that is a very bogus methodology based on convenience (I usually let EVIDENCE NOT PREFERENCE dictate what IS TRUE) but so be it.

No, I did not use an argument from convenience since some Christians attempt to make a valid case for Christianity by only using secular sources that Jesus rose from the dead. However, a modest case cannot be made that God probably inspired any writings about homosexuality, especially since many homosexuals outlive many heterosexuals, have excellent health, and never get any STDs.

Which book and verse?

Anything that is about homosexuality.