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

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[StarryNightshade]

What causes one to be attracted to the same sex, we are attracted to the opposite for obvious reasons,our chemical and physical make up is designed to encourage reproduction.

Therefore if that is not happening and you begin looking at the same sex in this way its natural yes, however there is a flaw in the way you were created, not your fault, just like retarded people,they cannot help it but it cannot be said that's normal and the way they should be, they have obvious flaws.

So it's "natural", yet is "flawed"?

A.) That's about as oxymoronic as something can get & B.) as a gay follower of Dharma, this is pretty disheartening. I was going to say "offensive", but I'm more perplexed than offended.

 

[Leftimies]

So it's "natural", yet is "flawed"?

A.) That's about as oxymoronic as something can get & B.) as a gay follower of Dharma, this is pretty disheartening. I was going to say "offensive", but I'm more perplexed than offended.

I suppose he meant what one perceives as natural, but is not so in technical sense.

Well, don't feel offended. We all have flaws. If someone called me perfect, I'd be offended because its not true. Homosexuality is a flaw. Diabetes is a flaw. Epilepsy is a flaw. Anorexia is a flaw. Asthma is a flaw. ADHD is a flaw. Addiction is a flaw. Bigotry is a flaw.

To deny flawed condition is denying the true state of matters - that is never, ever healthy. Its up to you to decide whether or not to correct the condition - no one can blame you for going either way (as long as your condition is harmless to others). However, you should carefully and honestly measure if correcting it would, in fact, make you happier in the very end.

 

[Agnostic75]

It's up to you to decide whether or not to correct the
condition.

How can homosexuality be corrected?

All bonobo monkeys are bisexual. In your opinion, is that a flaw, and would bonobo monkeys be better off if they were all heterosexuals?

 

[vtunie]

Why not?

Because. It. is. an. abomination.

Oh, yes, you disagree.

Well, guess what. It takes two to disagree.

And it is NOT about you.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why not?

Because. It. is. an. abomination.

Oh, yes, you disagree.

Well, guess what. It takes two to disagree.

And it is NOT about you.

Which post are you discussing?

Who says that homosexuality is an abomination?

 

[payak]

Of coarse its a flaw, a man born blind still has eyes, so they are obviously flawed.

If your not quite doing what a man does, somethings wrong, not your fault so live the gay life but please don't say their is no flaw.

I'm epileptic,born that way,it sure as hell is not the way we are meant to be,its a design flaw.

 

[Thoughts]

What causes one to be attracted to the same sex, we are attracted to the opposite for obvious reasons,our chemical and physical make up is designed to encourage reproduction.

Therefore if that is not happening and you begin looking at the same sex in this way its natural yes, however there is a flaw in the way you were created, not your fault, just like retarded people,they cannot help it but it cannot be said that's normal and the way they should be, they have obvious flaws.

No way you are saying it is ok

Kids attracted to play with electricity
But that doesn't mean it is ok to play with it .


When men do such thing he do lose his masculinity

He will be soft like women

Act like women

 

[Leftimies]

How can homosexuality be corrected?

All bonobo monkeys are bisexual. In your opinion, is that a flaw, and would bonobo monkeys be better off if they were all heterosexuals?

It is not really good argument to draw comparison to other species. They are different, and for that reason they are called different species. Black widow spiders eat their mating partners after a screw. Would you consider that 'natural' or ethical sexual behaviour just because it occurs in nature? Nope. We must establish what seems to be normal/natural framework for homo sapiens.

Homosexuality is a flaw that we pick up in difficult birth (as studies seem to indicate), and as such it simply needs to be recognized as such. After all, its only a question of sex - you'd prefer having mere sex instead of being a parent to a child you conceived yourself? Thats...lame
Then again, if one does, its one's choice, one's loss. Not mine. I am not going to stop one from being gay

Also, perhaps interestingly for some, I might add that homosexual activity is not bad itself in any way. It is the neglecting of reproduction while you are perfectly capable of it that bothers me. I don't see it as a sin, evil, wicked or any of those things.

 

[Leftimies]

Of coarse its a flaw, a man born blind still has eyes, so they are obviously flawed.

If your not quite doing what a man does, somethings wrong, not your fault so live the gay life but please don't say their is no flaw.

I'm epileptic,born that way,it sure as hell is not the way we are meant to be,its a design flaw.

I agree. Its not like I am against gays per se, I happen to know quite a few wonderful such persons. Its their insistence on that what they do is perfectly flawless and natural - its this dishonesty and denial that bothers me. It is not healthy for them.

I'm epileptic too

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I agree. Its not like I am against gays per se, I happen to know quite a few wonderful such persons. Its their insistence on that what they do is perfectly flawless and natural - its this dishonesty and denial that bothers me. It is not healthy for them.

I'm epileptic too

Have you considered the possibility that, perhaps, sexuality is merely a matter of preference? No more or less deserving of being called unnatural than my preference for the colour blue? Is that unnatural, or am I somehow biologically conditioned to like the colour blue? You are not biologically conditioned to be able to operate a keyboard, yet you do. You are not biologically conditioned to wear clothes, yet you do. Regardless of whether or not you dislike homosexuals, do you at least understand why calling it "unnatural" is extremely narrow-minded and insulting to homosexuals?

 

[Agnostic75]

It's not like I am against gays per se, I happen to know quite a few wonderful such persons. It's their insistence on that what they do is perfectly flawless. It's this dishonesty and denial that bothers me. It is not healthy for them.

How do you define the word "natural"? The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines it as follows:

1. based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>
2. being in accordance with or determined by nature
3. having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Homosexuality is not morally wrong.

Homosexuality is in accordance with nature regarding the fact that a minority of animals, and a minority of humans practice it.

If you are implying that homosexuals generally have more health problems than heterosexuals do, that is true, and all major medical organizations know that it is true. The main issue is what homosexuals should do about their homosexuality. What do you recommend that homosexuals do about their homosexuality?

People who develop a homosexual sexual identity, and practice same-sex behavior do what feels natural to them, just as heterosexuals do what feels natural to them.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

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&#8212;including anorexia, insanity, impotence, epilepsy, even death&#8212;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 gynæcologists 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.

That evidence is obvious since having sex is normal, and practicing long term abstinence is abnormal.

You once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, or any other serious premature medical problems, and will not have harmed anyone. Why did you not criticize homosexuals who have died and did not harm anyone, but are criticizing the same kind of homosexuals who are living today, and will never harm anyone?

Since you are concerned with reducing medical costs, and suffering from homosexuality, in order to be fair, you should also be concerned with the following groups of heterosexuals who are at risk from STDs, and other medical problems:

1. All heterosexual black Americans who live in black American communities.

2. All heterosexual black people who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

3. All heterosexuals in the world who live in poverty.

4. All heterosexuals in the world who are over 40 years of age, and are not needed to maintain the population, which would be most countries.

5. All heterosexuals in the world who died prematurely from heart disease, cancer, and obesity who could have prevented their illnesses.

Since heterosexuals are far more numerous than homosexuals are, and could do far more to reduce health care costs, and suffering, than homosexuals could, they are much more at fault than homosexuals are. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS, but about 600,000 died from heart disease alone. Heart disease is largely preventable. By 2030, which is 17 years from now, about half of Americans will be obese, which will add over 500 million dollars to health care costs. Two wrongs do not make a right, but everyone who is at risk from any preventable medical problem is to blame, not just homosexuals.

Regarding the five groups of heterosexuals who I mentioned, there are hundreds of millions of them, maybe over one billion of them, or even over two billion of them. Solutions are needed for them far more than solutions are needed for homosexuals. Logically, the more that a group of people threaten the health care system, the more that solutions are needed for their inappropriate behaviors.
If aliens abducted all homosexuals from the world, over 95% of health care costs would still exist, and global warming would still be the greatest threat to humans in history by far, and has been primarily caused by heterosexuals.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

But I was not defining child bearing age, I was replying to your argument that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. Heterosexuals over 40 do not need to have sex in order to main the population, especially in overpopulated countries.

I do not think your opinions on who should be allowed to reproduce are applicable or binding for in our context. I will not just accept who you think should be allowed to breed.

You have said that any deaths at all are not worth the risk, so you have refuted you own argument. Your primary context from the beginning of this thread regarding your secular arguments against homosexuality has been risk, and millions of heterosexuals in the U.S. alone are at risk. You said that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain that population. I adequately refuted that argument.

You need to provide medical statistics that only deal with monogamous homosexuals.

There are roughly 140 million homosexuals in the world. It is reasonable to assume that at the very least, the health of 1%, or 1.4 million of them, compares favorably with heterosexuals in general. Logically, there are not any good reasons for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.

That is not in the least true if I understood it correctly. Most of the non STD risks I provided once (and will not do again as they disgust me) are not even applicable to heterosexuals. In fact I am not discussing this issue again, it is uncomfortable to me and brings up repulsive images when considered.

In your post #304, you said:

"I will not comment further on this it has made me sick. I have never seen more lewd and grotesque displays than at a gay parade. Many are not contempt to quietly practice it they wish to rebelliously flaunt it and do so in disgusting ways. Since there are over 3 million sites that contain the problems of homosexuality I can't fathom why the question was asked."

A gay parade has nothing to do with medical problems.

Quite obviously, it is irrelevant how many websites discuss the problems of homosexuality, but how reliable they are, what percentage of all homosexuals have a particular problem, and what options homosexuals have. Much of your post #304 is false, misleading, or poorly documented.

It is important to note that some research only deals with the percentages of homosexuals who have medical problems as compared with the percentages of heterosexuals who have medical problems, not with what percentages of all homosexuals, and heterosexuals have medical problems. If you wish, I can give you some examples of that misleading tactic in your post #304. How many statistics do you know of that deal with percentages of all homosexuals? "Er, uh......., not very many."

You often believe only what you want to believe, and there is no way that you checked out most of the sources in your post #304 in order to compare them with other sources. I just read that post again, and it is even worse than I thought it was. Most of it is trash. It is no wonder that you are so ignorant regarding the health of the general homosexual population.

All that it takes to have 1.4 million healthy homosexuals in the world is 1% of them, and that is a given. It is a fact that the vast majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, are not drug abusers, are not murderers, are not pedophiles, and do not have HIV, or AIDS.

Just so you understand my position, I agree with you, and with most experts, who say that homosexuals generally have more medical problems than heterosexuals do. I disagree with you about the percentages of homosexuals who have some particular medical problems.

You do not have to discuss your post #304 since anyone who is interested can read it if they want to. Any qualified expert would immediately know that much that post is false, misleading, or poorly documented.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence. Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, and they will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, and they will avoid the risks of long term abstinence.

I am not writing laws, I am not making a constitution, I am not a counselor of non-Christian homosexuals, I am not discussing solutions.

But from a secular, and practical perspective, no behavior is wrong if there are not any better solutions. No solutions are needed for at least 1.4 million homosexuals.

Murder is still wrong even if we can't stop everyone from killing.

That is a ridiculous comparison. When a murder is committed, there is always an injured party. When homosexuals have safe sex, there is often not an injured part.

I have practiced long term abstinence (every naval man must, an most soldiers of all kinds must). I have never even noticed a problem with abstinence of any type among fellow soldiers who had the slightest self control, after a while you actually almost forget about it. I have noticed nothing but benefits outside a little frustration for the first few weeks.

That is another ridiculous argument. There is obviously no comparison that can be made between practicing abstinence for a year or two, and practicing it for decades. In addition, when you practiced abstinence, you knew that after a year or so, you would be able to enjoy having sex again. There is little doubt that eventually, you would have become frustrated with practicing abstinence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not really good argument to draw comparison to other species. They are different, and for that reason they are called different species. Black widow spiders eat their mating partners after a screw. Would you consider that 'natural' or ethical sexual behaviour just because it occurs in nature? Nope. We must establish what seems to be normal/natural framework for homo sapiens.

Homosexuality is a flaw that we pick up in difficult birth (as studies seem to indicate), and as such it simply needs to be recognized as such. After all, its only a question of sex - you'd prefer having mere sex instead of being a parent to a child you conceived yourself? Thats...lame
Then again, if one does, its one's choice, one's loss. Not mine. I am not going to stop one from being gay

Also, perhaps interestingly for some, I might add that homosexual activity is not bad itself in any way. It is the neglecting of reproduction while you are perfectly capable of it that bothers me. I don't see it as a sin, evil, wicked or any of those things.

My gay niece just gay birth to a beautiful baby girl. Oops.

Oh and I doubt whether anyone who doesn't want to have kids, be they gay or straight, care one bit whether or not you think their life is lame-o. Maybe they think your life is lame-o.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I do not see the point of your claims. Before I debate what they are, to what purpose are you using them? Nothing any minority of species does is a reasonable argument for human behavior.

That there are various forms of natural reproduction that do not correspond to heterosexual sex. To say that Nature deems something immoral is to imply that nature has a cause that it puts forward. The only thing that Nature would be "concerned" with in regards to a species is survival.

Your idea that homosexuality goes against nature compared to heterosexuality means very little.

Homosexuals are still capable of reproducing which is important to the survival of a species.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow, this thread is getting kind of offensive again, isn't it.

How about we do something truly amazing ... let's talk about gay people as if they are human beings. And let's treat them as such and not talk down to them or about them as if they're some other species or something. They're just people. They care about the same things as every other person on the planet.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Wow, this thread is getting kind of offensive again, isn't it.

How about we do something truly amazing ... let's talk about gay people as if they are human beings. And let's treat them as such and not talk down to them or about them as if they're some other species or something. They're just people. They care about the same things as every other person on the planet.

Yeah but you know...God hates them and so does Nature, so they aren't like every person...:thud:

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah but you know...God hates them and so does Nature, so they aren't like every person...:thud:

Right, right. Silly me. I don't know what I was thinking. :areyoucra