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

[Agnostic75]

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 long term abstinence, and would 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.

But I am only referring to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

As I said:

"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 long term abstinence, and would 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, 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.

Who? I don't think that could even be rationally attempted. Secular sources only confirm Christian sources but are too week to prove anything themselves.

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.

You premise was not helped by the support you gave in the least.

Anything that is about homosexuality.

So you believe God may have revealed some sources but which verses is determined by your preference concerning homosexuality. I just want to point out the absurdity of the argument to begin with but I will get to this issue tomorrow. I am out of time even if that is inconvenient for you. I guess convenience is not what determines reality after all. Have a good one and get some sleep or something. I expected a much greater fight than I got today from you.

 

[1robin]

But I am only referring to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

And why is that a valid practice in a debate about a behavior in general?

As I said:

"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 long 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."

Facts known after the risk has passed are of no help in this debate. When you can predict who will be in what group it might, maybe.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you believe God may have revealed some sources but which verses is determined by your preference concerning homosexuality.

No, you know that I am only conceding for the sake of argument that it is plausible that a God inspired some of the texts that we have today. Even many Christians do not believe that God inspired, and preserved all of the Bible.

 

[Agnostic75]

But I am only referring to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

And why is that a valid practice in a debate about a behavior in general?

All homosexuals are irrelevant to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

Lesbians cannot logically be compared with gay men since lesbians' much different anatomy accounts for their much smaller risks. Since lesbians also have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, they are less at fault than heterosexual men and women are. You have said that heterosexuals must have sex in order to maintain the population, but some countries are overpopulated, and according to your philosophy, all heterosexuals in those countries should stop having sex until the population decreases. In countries that are not overpopulated, heterosexual men and women over 40 could stop having sex and the population could still be maintained in most countries.

As I said:

"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 long 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."

Facts known after the risk has passed are of no help in this debate. When you can predict who will be in what group it might, maybe.

But their being wrong will not harm anyone, and it would not influence the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs. As it will turn out, when they die, although they should not have chosen to play the game at that time, it is good that they played the game. It is not necessary to know which homosexuals will get any STDs since we know that millions of currently unknown homosexuals will never get any STDs.

Today, if it was possible to raise people from the dead, and a homosexual named John Smith was raised from the dead, and never had any STDs, if you told him that he should not have played the game, he might tell you that although he should not have played the game, as it turned out, it was good that he did play the game, and that his playing the game did not influence the behavior of homosexuals who did get STDs.

In other words, nothing practical would have been gained if those homosexuals had not played the game, and some of them would have required medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would have missed enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex without someone who they loved.

Your entire secular case against homosexuality depends upon harm that has happened, and will happen in the future. What will happen in the future is that millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs.

Do you have any statistics about homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and give up monogamy?

The highest risk in the U.S. is among 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? If not, then you believe that the CDC needs to recommend solutions. The CDC has not proposed that all lesbians should practice abstinence.

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 heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries. And please do not leave out heterosexual men and women of any color who live in poverty since they are also at risk. Before you are done, you will have a large percentage of the heterosexuals in the entire world practicing abstinence.

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.

But surely the life spans of homosexuals who will never get any STDs are much higher than the lifespans of the general homosexual population.

As far as I recall, in 2010, about 15,000 people died from AIDS, and about 600,000 people died from heart disease. Since heart disease is largely preventable, and since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, heterosexuals could do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could, and that does not include preventable deaths from other causes. Surely heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

 

[1robin]

No, you know that I am only conceding for the sake of argument that it is plausible that a God inspired some of the texts that we have today. Even many Christians do not believe that God inspired, and preserved all of the Bible.

I have never met a Christian that did not believe God inspired the Bible. God himself only guaranteed the revelation not the transmission. However the Bible is more accurately preserved that any text of any kind in ancient history by an overwhelming margin. My point still stands that you have granted that God may have inspired texts but only doubt it concerning those important to you. That is indicative of what I say about most non-theists. Convenience not evidence determines your truth. I will at some point soon pick one of these verses and look at the textual tradition that surrounds it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have never met a Christian that did not believe God inspired the Bible.

Lots of Christians do not believe that God preserved all of the originals free of errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

God himself only guaranteed the revelation.......

Nonsense, much of what Christians believe about the Bible is found only in the Bible. Until the Bible reached ancient China, no one in China knew anything about the God of the Bible.

However the Bible is more accurately preserved that any text of any kind in ancient history by an overwhelming margin.

But that does not reasonably prove that God inspired any writings about same-sex behavior.

My point still stands that you have granted that God may have inspired texts but only doubt it concerning those important to you. That is indicative of what I say about most non-theists. Convenience not evidence determines your truth. I will at some point soon pick one of these verses and look at the textual tradition that surrounds it.

Textual tradition will not help you since it is probable that the Bible writers who wrote about same-sex behavior attributed their own personal prejudices against it to God.

Why would God have anything against homosexuals who never get any STDs, and never have any other serious health problem?

Why did God create homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and cause all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual?

When do you believe that homosexuality began among animals, before or after humans were created?

 

[1robin]

All homosexuals are irrelevant to the millions of homosexuals over the next 100 years who will die without ever having had any STDs.

I have no idea what this means.

Lesbians cannot logically be compared with gay men since lesbians' much different anatomy accounts for their much smaller risks. Since lesbians also have less risk than heterosexual men and women do, they are less at fault than heterosexual men and women are. You have said that heterosexuals must have sex in order to maintain the population, but some countries are overpopulated, and according to your philosophy, all heterosexuals in those countries should stop having sex until the population decreases. In countries that are not overpopulated, heterosexual men and women over 40 could stop having sex and the population could still be maintained in most countries.

I see you have just went back dusted off arguments used and refuted several time all ready. Less destructive is still destructive. Less wrong is still wrong.

But their being wrong will not harm anyone, and it would not influence the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs. As it will turn out, when they die, although they should not have chosen to play the game at that time, it is good that they played the game. It is not necessary to know which homosexuals will get any STDs since we know that millions of currently unknown homosexuals will never get any STDs.

Stopping the behavior across the board would stop almost al the damage. Allowing the behavior will produce massive suffering. Until you can predict which ones will cause the destruction and which will not stopping the behavior is justified. This is like arguing that the babies that won't shoot themselves caused no harm so give them all guns.

Today, if it was possible to raise people from the dead, and a homosexual named John Smith was raised from the dead, and never had any STDs, if you told him that he should not have played the game, he might tell you that although he should not have played the game, as it turned out, it was good that he did play the game, and that his playing the game did not influence the behavior of homosexuals who did get STDs.

I think I agree but as this is not just improbable but impossible what is the point? I however deny the game was good even if it did not produce devastation though my arguments would not work in that case. A baby playing with a gun is not good even if he shoots no one.

In other words, nothing practical would have been gained if those homosexuals had not played the game, and some of them would have required medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would have missed enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex without someone who they loved.

All of this requires foreknowledge no one has. Without it there is no point in the argument.

Your entire secular case against homosexuality depends upon harm that has happened, and will happen in the future. What will happen in the future is that millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs.

We know millions will die if it is practiced and almost none will if it is stopped. Simple to see what the correct decision is (or should be).

Do you have any statistics about homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and give up monogamy?

You mean the numbers that are unfaithful or that transact a disease after being unfaithful?

The highest risk in the U.S. is among 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? If not, then you believe that the CDC needs to recommend solutions. The CDC has not proposed that all lesbians should practice abstinence.

Race is what people are and can't be changed. Behavior is what we do and can be.

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 heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries. And please do not leave out heterosexual men and women of any color who live in poverty since they are also at risk. Before you are done, you will have a large percentage of the heterosexuals in the entire world practicing abstinence.

This is one sad attempt. Your are (as apparently every liberal in history does) trying to box me into saying something morally questionable by mangling terminology and semantics. Black has no relevance to this discussion. Black can't be changed, it is not a factor that increases risk for STD's. Black is not a behavior or choice it is pigmentation and muscle fiber length. All homosexuality within all races, sexes, and even faiths is unjustified. I did not say people at risk should stop having sex. I said people at risk who's practice has no corroborating justification for the practice should stop it. You are not going to box me in so don't waste you time. I am very familiar with liberal tactics 101.

But surely the life spans of homosexuals who will never get any STDs are much higher than the lifespans of the general homosexual population.

That requires foreknowledge to be relevant.

As far as I recall, in 2010, about 15,000 people died from AIDS, and about 600,000 people died from heart disease. Since heart disease is largely preventable, and since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, heterosexuals could do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could, and that does not include preventable deaths from other causes. Surely heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

Costing less than something else means it still costs plenty and is not an argument. I said you have maybe six actual arguments. 2 require knowledge no one will ever have to be relevant and 2 simply argue that something else is more destructive and so are of no help.

 

[1robin]

Lots of Christians do not believe that God preserved all of the originals free of errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

You responded to a point about revelation with a point about preservation even though I covered preservation as well. Why?

Nonsense, much of what Christians believe about the Bible is found only in the Bible. Until the Bible reached ancient China, no one in China knew anything about the God of the Bible.

This is irrelevant for two reasons. The main one being that it had nothing whatsoever to do with what it was a response to. Did you get your post mixed up?

But that does not reasonably prove that God inspired any writings about same-sex behavior.

It was not meant to. It was a comment designed to stop what you claimed in your first statement but it never works.

Textual tradition will not help you since it is probable that the Bible writers who wrote about same-sex behavior attributed their own personal prejudices against it to God.

No it is not and I will get into that when I pick a verse to discuss.

Why would God have anything against homosexuals who never get any STDs, and never have any other serious health problem?

Why would I have to answer that even if I could not? The reasons include the fact it breaks down traditional family units, it is a perversion of what sex was intended for, and it was pleasure only for pleasures sake outside the conditions God instituted for that to take place in. Sex outside of marriage is dangerous and has plagued man since he existed. It has brought empires down and split families among many other tragedies.

Why did God create homosexuality in over 1500 species of animals and birds, and cause all bonobo monkeys to be bi-sexual?

I do not know that he did, but even if he did he did not create it in hundreds of thousands of species. Just going by the odds that leaves your argument in the dust. Why are taking lessons from the exception to contend with the rule? Got double standards?

When do you believe that homosexuality began among animals, before or after humans were created?

I almost never take firm stances about pre-historic events. IMO no one knows for sure. Your getting way off the subject. The issue is considering if God commanded it the best conclusion given the evidence concerning biblical verses against the practice. That was not even the original issue but you raised the standard when you found I was going to debate it and I have simply went along for the heck of it. The original issue was did the Bible originally contain those verses.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why would God have anything against homosexuals who never get any STDs, and never have any other serious health problems?

The reasons include the fact it breaks down traditional family units, it is a perversion of what sex was intended for, and it was pleasure only for pleasures sake outside the conditions God instituted for that to take place in. Sex outside of marriage is dangerous and has plagued man since he existed. It has brought empires down and split families among many other tragedies.

I will agree with you that the world would be better off if everyone was a heterosexual, but initial sexual identity is not a choice. From an entirely secular perspective, you will have to agree with me that at least some homosexuals in the entire world are much better off having
monogamous sex than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence.

Do you doubt that God created homosexuality among over 1500 species of animals, and birds?

As far as I recall, in 2010, about 15,000 people died from AIDS, and about 600,000 people died from heart disease. Since heart disease is largely preventable, and since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, heterosexuals could do far more to reduce health care costs than homosexuals ever could, and that does not include preventable deaths from other causes. Surely heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

Costing less than something else means it still costs plenty and is not an argument.

It costs plenty, but I was comparing who is more at fault for high health care costs, homosexuals, or heterosexuals, and it is heterosexuals.

Do you believe that all heterosexual black American men and women, and all heterosexual men and women over 40, and all heterosexual men and women who are living in poverty should practice abstinence? You should since all of those groups are at risk. I did not include heterosexual men and women aged 40 and under since you might argue that they need to have sex in order to maintain the population.

 

[Agnostic75]

In other words, nothing practical would have been gained if those homosexuals had not played the game, and some of them would have required medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would have missed enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex without someone who they loved.

All of this requires foreknowledge no one has. Without it there is no point in the argument.

It does not require foreknowledge regarding all of the homosexuals who have died, and never got any STDs.

Whether or not homosexuals should play the game, here is what will happen:

1. Most of them will play the game, and millions of them will never get any STDs.

2. It is not necessary to know who they are in order to know that.

3. Their playing the game would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if they practiced abstinence.

4. If they practiced abstinence, some of them would require medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would have miss enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex with someone who they loved.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have never met a Christian that did not believe God inspired the Bible.

Lots of Christians do not believe that God preserved all of the originals free of errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

God himself only guaranteed the revelation.......

Nonsense, much of what Christians believe about the Bible is found only in the Bible. Until the Bible reached ancient China, no one in China knew anything about the God of the Bible.

However the Bible is more accurately preserved that any text of any kind in ancient history by an overwhelming margin.

But that does not reasonably prove that God inspired any writings about same-sex behavior.

My point still stands that you have granted that God may have inspired texts but only doubt it concerning those important to you. That is indicative of what I say about most non-theists. Convenience not evidence determines your truth. I will at some point soon pick one of these verses and look at the textual tradition that surrounds it.

Textual tradition will not help you since it is probable that the Bible writers who wrote about same-sex behavior attributed their own personal prejudices against it to God.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[1robin]

I will agree with you that the world would be better off if everyone was a heterosexual, but initial sexual identity is not a choice.

I am surprised by your reasonability for half of this. You have never demonstrated that homosexuality is mandated by genetics. I have recently looked into it a little and I do not think you ever will. Many studies or lines of evidence suggest the opposite.

From an entirely secular perspective, you will have to agree with me that at least some homosexuals in the entire world are much better off having
monogamous sex than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence.

I can concede that if pleasure is some kind of justification in and of its self. However even on a secular level pleasure many times is a road to disaster. I am not exactly sure how to evaluate you statement.

Do you doubt that God created homosexuality among over 1500 species of animals, and birds?

I do not have enough information to doubt or confirm. Let's say he did for the heck of it. What next?

It costs plenty, but I was comparing who is more at fault for high health care costs, homosexuals, or heterosexuals, and it is heterosexuals.

I agree but the focus of our debate is not health care costs outside homosexuality. You seem to value less wrong arguments greatly.

Do you believe that all heterosexual black American men and women, and all heterosexual men and women over 40, and all heterosexual men and women who are living in poverty should practice abstinence?

I believe that outside of marriage the same goal applies to us all. However I have failed in that regard myself. The difference is that I do not argue that it is good. That is why I do not get into personal demands for others. It is not my place. Within marriage I do not believe they should practice abstinence.

You should since all of those groups are at risk. I did not include heterosexual men and women aged 40 and under since you might argue that they need to have sex in order to maintain the population.

I think you catching on, so what trap did you just lead me into?

 

[1robin]

It does not require foreknowledge regarding all of the homosexuals who have died, and never got any STDs.

Whether or not homosexuals should play the game, here is what will happen:

1. Most of them will play the game, and millions of them will never get any STDs.

2. It is not necessary to know who they are in order to know that.

3. Their playing the game would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if they practiced abstinence.

4. If they practiced abstinence, some of them would require medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would have miss enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex with someone who they loved.

So how many deaths verses non deaths are acceptable (given that nothing what so ever gained could justify a single death). Is it 5%, 10%, 1%, 80%? How do you know? What about those killed that had nothing to do with the behavior? How many innocent lives are too many to justify the gratification of lust? How many billion of other peoples money is justified to grant physical pleasure to others especially from people who condemn the behavior? You do realize that sexual gratification can be gained without any risk to anyone? This is another reason I hate this topic. I must deal with things I do not like discussing in public and many I refuse to. This sick mess is forced on a society that overwhelmingly condemns it but is forced to deal with it by a very small minority without justification. Maybe someone should found a gay island nation or something (however I think they like flaunting it in front of those that object too much if their parades and blogs are any indication).

 

[Agnostic75]

I will agree with you that the world would be better off if everyone was a heterosexual, but initial sexual identity is not a choice.

I am surprised by your reasonability for half of this.

You shouldn't be since virtually all experts who support homosexuals know that homosexuals generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do.

You have never demonstrated that homosexuality is mandated by genetics. I have recently looked into it a little and I do not think you ever will. Many studies or lines of evidence suggest the opposite.

But we have already discussed this many times. For months I have asked you for evidence that environment primarily causes sexual identity, and you have never provided any. I also told you that even if sexual identity was caused 100% by environment, children have very little control over their environments.

If environment primarily caused sexual identity, most children who are raised by homosexuals in an environment that accepts homosexuality would turn out to be homosexuals, but the majority of them turn out to be heterosexuals.

College psychology professor Warren Throckmorton is a widely acknowledged expert on homosexuality. In an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, Dr. Throckmorton discusses a well-known twin study on homosexuality by Dr. J. Michael Bailey, who is widely acknowledged as an expert on sexual identity. Dr. Bailey provides reasonable proof that genetics are an important part of sexual identity, and he said that if proponents of homosexuality provide him with enough research money, there are scientific ways to show who is right. Or, opponents of homosexuality could do their own research with some assistance from Dr. Bailey. All that you side has to do is to come up with enough money to conduct the proper research.

 

[Agnostic75]

From an entirely secular perspective, you will have to agree with me that at least some homosexuals in the entire world are much better off having monogamous sex than they would be if they practiced long term abstinence.

I can concede that if pleasure is some kind of justification in and of its self. However even on a secular level pleasure many times is a road to disaster. I am not exactly sure how to evaluate you statement.

Millions of homosexuals will die without ever having had any STDs. How is that disastrous? Why would a loving God object to that?

It does not require foreknowledge regarding all of the homosexuals who have died, and never got any STDs.

Whether or not homosexuals should play the game, here is what will happen:

1. Most of them will play the game, and millions of them will never get any STDs.

2. It is not necessary to know who they are in order to know that.

3. Their playing the game would not reduce STDs among homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if they practiced abstinence.

4. If they practiced abstinence, some of them would require medical treatment due to the proven risks of long term abstinence, and they would miss enjoying significant physical, and emotional health benefits from having sex with someone who they loved.

So how many deaths verses non deaths are acceptable (given that nothing what so ever gained could justify a single death)?

How do homosexuals who never get any STDs cause any deaths?

Do you recommend that all heterosexuals over 40 years of age practice abstinence?

 

[Agnostic75]

I have never met a Christian that did not believe God inspired the Bible.

Lots of Christians do not believe that God preserved all of the originals free of errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

God himself only guaranteed the revelation.......

Nonsense, much of what Christians believe about God is found only in the Bible. Until the Bible reached ancient China, no one in China knew anything about the God of the Bible.

However the Bible is more accurately preserved that any text of any kind in ancient history by an overwhelming margin.

But that does not reasonably prove that God inspired any writings about same-sex behavior.

My point still stands that you have granted that God may have inspired texts but only doubt it concerning those important to you. That is indicative of what I say about most non-theists. Convenience not evidence determines your truth. I will at some point soon pick one of these verses and look at the textual tradition that surrounds it.

Textual tradition will not help you since it is probable that the Bible writers who wrote about same-sex behavior attributed their own personal prejudices against it to God.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

 

[1robin]

How do homosexuals who never get any STDs cause any deaths?

For the last time of saying this you can't know who would do what. Until you do there is no argument here. Unless your argument is that the gratification of lust for a hundred million is worth the deaths of 5 million others.

Do you recommend that all heterosexuals over 40 years of age practice abstinence?

I am through with any argument that compartmentalizes these issues. I am kind of burned out on the whole again.

 

[1robin]

Lots of Christians do not believe that God preserved all of the originals free of errors, interpolations, and forgeries.

A repeat of what was not applicable nor even known to you in the first place.

Nonsense, much of what Christians believe about God is found only in the Bible. Until the Bible reached ancient China, no one in China knew anything about the God of the Bible.



But that does not reasonably prove that God inspired any writings about same-sex behavior.



Textual tradition will not help you since it is probable that the Bible writers who wrote about same-sex behavior attributed their own personal prejudices against it to God.

Please reply to my two previous posts.

I think this whole thing is a repeat.