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

[1robin]

I apologise if I hurt your feelings, but it was a crassly stupid thing to have said.

Why not try working out why rather than going off in a huff?

You did not hurt my feelings. However a debate with a very emotional and sarcastic person is not enjoyable. If we can have a serious debate then I will explain why it was not so stupid after all. Your choice.

 

[1robin]

That's not what Sodomy means...

I saw no definition of Sodomy in his claim.

 

[philbo]

You did not hurt my feelings. However a debate with a very emotional and sarcastic person is not enjoyable. If we can have a serious debate then I will explain why it was not so stupid after all. Your choice.

I wasn't being emotional. But if you can't realize what you wrote was on the far side of stupid, there's no point in debating with you.

Have you had a look at what you wrote, yet? Or are you saying that you didn't actually mean that if it's a choice for one person, that means it's a choice for all of them?

 

[1robin]

We could debate that for years and get nowhere.

How is that any different than what we have been doing? I was not going to debate the truth of those claims only the sufficiency of them if they were true. You do not want to debate prophecy with me.

You have claimed that sexual urges, aka sexual identity, can frequently be changed. I have provided lots of evidence that reasonably proves that sexual identity cannot frequently be changed, and you have not provided any valid evidence that it can be changed. I provided the evidence in my post #1213, which you continue to refuse to reply to. I provide evidence, you refuse to reply to it, and then claim that I have to prove something. That is ridiculous.

No I have not. I said it has been changed many times or there are claims to that. I never thought it was a high percentage. Those that chose to be gay obviously are not all that provoked by contending with traditional morality and have little desire to change. You posted information that is was not frequent and I never claimed it was so I just moved on.

When I made the post is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have easy access to it, and it adequately refutes your claim that environment primarily causes sexual identity. I provided documented research from medical professionals, and you did not provide any documented research from medical professionals.

I will this one last time. I like debating 100s of theological and 100's of philosophical issues, and 100's of scientific issues. I do not enjoy homosexuality debates. I was only curious. Your very very prolific and redundant and take up much time. The only reason I have spent so many hours doing it is that I am considerate and like you. However it is very low on the list and I am not going to compound it by constantly having to go back and research old posts. Whether you like it or agree with it can you not understand it?

What link are you referring to that claims that environment primarily causes sexual identity?

I do not remember claiming it does. I actually confused environment with something else anyway. Ignore whatever I actually said about this. BTW how does environment mandate no choice sexuality?

As I showed in my post #1213, twin studies, which are the best way to study this issue, conclusively show that environment cannot primarily be responsible for sexual identity. As one of the studies that I posted said, the results were exactly what would be expected if genetics was largely, but not solely the cause of sexual identity. In other words, the highest concordance was among identical twins, followed by fraternal twins, followed by non-twin siblings.

I have seen twin studies used as primary resources in arguments against the genetic aspect of homosexuality.

That is correct, neither genetics nor environment solely mandate sexual identity, and I have never claimed otherwise.

I agree but others have. Let me ask if you believe that combined they mandate homosexuality or just tell me what part choice has IYO.

I am not aware of any research that quantifies gayness by percentages.

It is easy to see that if milk is in a recipe it constitutes a certain percentage of the whole. If genetics is in the mix why can't they say how much if they go on to claim no choice is involved as they do.

As you know, all major medical associations have said that the exact causes of homosexuality are not known, but we do know that environment alone does not primarily cause sexual identity. If it did, twin study research would have had the results that it did.

I am fine if unknown is the official conclusion because short of 100% genetic mandate my main two claims stand.

No, spiritual warfare, and demons cannot explain the results of twin studies.

See above. I did not say spirituality is 100% of the cause, unlike genetics you can't know what percentage it is and never will. I was just saying it gets complicated in my view. I have a much wider reality than you.

Whether or not you ever heard of him is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his former organization was the largest ex-gay organization of its kind in the world. No expert who I know of has claimed that a solution never exists, but a sizeable majority of experts have said that a complete change of sexual identity is rare. It is obviously quite rare, and it is rare even for religiously motivated people.

This is all relative stuff. How many successful cases must I provide to indicate it is choice? You would not even look at the link I gave why am I bound by yours?

Sometimes I am redundant when you continue to refuse to reply to my posts, such as my post #1213. You have claimed on a number of occasions that you have already replied to what I said, but you do the same thing. That post reasonably proves that environment does not primarily cause sexual identity, but you do not want to discuss it since the evidence does not agree with you.

If I refuse to answer based on redundancy it is almost always the case I have already responded at least once and nothing I have done explains your level of redundancy.

Repetition is reasonable when you refuse to reply to my posts.

Which is largely not the case.

But actualities are what life is primarily about. No political presidential, or congressional debate is about people marrying trees, or rocks.

In some cases a theoretical case is the most appropriate. If I said me smoking marijuana (which I don't) will not lead to stronger drugs you could not disagree unless you referred to hypotheticals. The same way I did with rocks and trees. Someone already tried to marry a doll I believe and many other irrational things.

That has nothing to do with whether or not all homosexuals should practice abstinence since many homosexuals are not married, and do not want to get married. However, if you wish, I will be happy to debate same-sex marriage with you from a secular perspective in a new thread that I could start. I enjoy debating homosexuality, and I have lots of time to conduct the necessary research.

I almost never mention solutions and you spend half you time talking about them. I claim only the behavior is unjustifiable. I have no interest in going beyond that. If you can't admit something is broken 9which is the greatest evil of our time) a solution is irrelevant.

Democratic societies are free to legislate anything that they want to legislate. As far as I know, no society has debated legislating the right for humans to marry trees. I assume that very few people would compare same-sex marriage to humans marrying trees.

Yes and often they legislate that which destroys them as we have been doing since 1960 or so. In fact in the life cycle of democracies that is what always destroys them. I care more about what is justifiable, moral, good, or bad than what is legal. Even having the right to do something (which is another problem) does not mean you are right in doing it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

How is that any different than what we have been doing? I was not going to debate the truth of those claims only the sufficiency of them if they were true. You do not want to debate prophecy with me.

That is comical since you do not want to debate many subjects with experts.

I will be happy to debate prophecy for years with you. Just start a new thread, and pick your favorite fulfilled Bible prophecy, and when we get finished debating that prophecy, we can discuss other ones. All that Bible prophecies do is cause unnecessary confusion if a God inspired them. A God could easily inspire far better prophecies than Bible prophecies. For example, if the Bible contained some accurate predictions of when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, date, and year, years in advance, -that would be reasonable proof that no human could have made the predictions. That would not necessarily prove that a God made those predictions, but many people would believe that a God made the predictions, and would become Christians partly as a result of the predictions.

As Dr. Richard Carrier has noted, the Gospels are not reliable historical sources since if supernatural beings exist, evil supernatural beings could have performed miracles, and predicted the future, and deceived humans, etc. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people. Unfortunately for Paul, if evil supernatural beings exist, Paul had no way of distinguishing good ones from evil ones, from determining which ones were more powerful, or even of determining if any good ones exist.

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if all Christians had been raised in predominantly Muslims countries, and knew about the Bible, the majority of them would have become Muslims. Research has shown that gender is also an important factor regarding which world views people choose. In most, or all cultures, women are a good deal more likely to become theists, and creationists. Women are also more likely to accept same-sex marriage.

There are also not any doubts whatsoever that if today's skeptics had the same kinds of tangible evidence that people did during the time of Jesus, some of them would become Christians. You have claimed that God is not obligated to provide any more evidence that he does today according to his purposes, but that is not the main issue. The main issue that is that skeptics living today who would become Christians if they had the same evidence as people did during the time of Jesus are not rejecting God, they are only rejecting less convincing evidence than people had during the time of Jesus, and would accept the same evidence that people had during the itme of Jesus.

You have claimed that God does not punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and destroys them, but three of your gurus, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas, disagree with you. If Craig, Zacharias, and Aquinas are right, that is a good reason why people should reject the God of the Bible since no moral God would punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and without offering all of them at least equal evidence.

What fair, worthy, and just goals does God have that cannot be achieved with killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

At any rate, none of your secular arguments against homosexuality. are valid.

As I showed in my post #1213, twin studies, which are the best way to study this issue, conclusively show that
environment cannot primarily be responsible for sexual identity. As one of the studies that I posted said, the results were exactly what would be expected if genetics was largely, but not solely the cause of sexual identity. In other words, the highest concordance was among identical twins, followed by fraternal twins, followed by non-twin siblings.

I have seen twin studies used as primary resources in arguments against the genetic aspect of homosexuality.

All that you have seen if some conservative Christian experts who have used twin studies to show that genetics does not solely determine sexual identity, which is a straw man argument since no major medical association claims that genetics solely, or primarily determines sexual identity. Twin studies show that that environment probably does not primarily cause sexual identity. The documented research is in my post #1213. It is quick, and easy for you to read. The best that I can do is provide documented research that supports my arguments. If you do not want to discuss the research, that is fine. I am not interested in how busy you are with other threads, or how interested you are in the topic of homosexuality. No one asked you to make posts in this thread.

What kind of environment could possibly typically cause homosexuality? As I have told you before, the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals, and that is true even if the children are raised in very gay friendly cities, and countries, and are raised by atheists. How could conditions be any better to produce a homosexual sexual identity?

I said it has been changed many times or there are claims to that. I never thought it was a high percentage.

The percentages are so small that very few homosexuals can expect to change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Those that chose to be gay obviously are not all that provoked by contending with traditional morality and have little desire to change.

But I just told you that even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

I like debating 100s of theological and 100's of philosophical issues, and 100's of scientific issues.

Better stated, you like debating with other dabblers, not experts.

I am fine if unknown is the official conclusion because short of 100% genetic mandate my main two claims stand.

100% genetic is a straw man argument since no major medical organization makes such a claim. There is certainly sufficient scientific evidence that environment does not primarily cause sexual identity.

Anything short of 100% environment is all that I need, and the vast majority of experts would definitely claim that genetics accounts for far more influence than that. An article at http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality easily shows that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. There is a similar article at http://io9.com/5967426/scientists-c...ity-is-not-genetic--but-it-arises-in-the-womb.

I did not say spirituality is 100% of the cause, unlike genetics you can't know what percentage it is and never will.

Exact percentages are not necessary in order to know that environment does not primarily cause homosexuality, and that even if spirituality did have something to do with homosexuality, so does genetics.

I almost never mention solutions and you spend half you time talking about them. I claim only the behavior is unjustifiable.

You said that homosexuality is wrong. From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong unless there are good solutions for the behavior. There are not any good solutions for healthy, monogamous homosexuals.

If you can't admit something is broken which is the greatest evil of our time, a solution is irrelevant.

That is patently absurd. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuIn 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Obviously, heart disease is a much bigger health problem than AIDS is, and it is often preventable by doing nothing more that eating healthier foods, and getting more exercise. Regarding heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, their greatest threat is obviously themselves, not homosexuals.

Generally, countries that are more friendly towards homosexuals are more prosperous, and have less crime, and have better societal health.

Sexual identity is not a choice. Homosexuals did not ask for their sexual identity. Considering the greater risks, and challenges that they have, you should commend the millions of them around the world who have beaten the odds, and are monogamous, healthy, and happy, and have health that compares favorably with the majority of heterosexuals, and who have no better options.

It is unfair, and illogical for you to recommend abstinence for all homosexuals, and not also for 1) all women over 45 years of age, 2) all black American heterosexuals, 3) all heterosexuals who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and 4) all people who live in poverty, since all of those groups are high risk groups.

Compared with all of the problems that humans have, including global warming, which is the biggest threat that humans have ever had, homosexuality is a very small problem.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I saw no definition of Sodomy in his claim.

He didn't define it he equated sodomy with homosexuality. While acts of Sodomy might be done by homosexuals it is also done just as much by heterosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

In some cases a theoretical case is the most appropriate. If I said me smoking marijuana (which I don't) will not lead to stronger drugs you could not disagree unless you referred to hypotheticals. The same way I did with rocks and trees. Someone already tried to marry a doll I believe and many other irrational things.

Few people equate same-sex marriage with humans marrying rocks, or trees, and rightly so since heterosexual marriage, and same-sex marriage involve only humans. Chimps are far more similar to humans than rocks and trees are. They are intelligent, and self-aware, and there have been some cases of altruism observed among them, but no country in the world has legalized marriage between humans and chimps, and I assume that 100 years from now, no country will have legalized humans marrying chimps.

Anyway, same-sex marriage does not have anything to do with your claim that the best solution for homosexuality is for all homosexuals to practice abstinence.

Generally, homosexuals are not nearly as bad off as your post #304 claims. When you made that post, you broke the commandment that says that believers should not bear false witness against their neighbors.

Heterosexuals would still destroy all human life on earth even if there were not any homosexuals. If homosexuality had never existed, most of the serious problems that humans have would still exist.

Please reply to my previous reply to you.

 

[1robin]

He didn't define it he equated sodomy with homosexuality. While acts of Sodomy might be done by homosexuals it is also done just as much by heterosexuals.

If so I agree but I do not see what the meaningfulness of pointing that out might be. However it was your debate and I can't even remember if I read it all carefully. If sodomy is wrong and stopped it would sure stop the most destructive form of homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Few people equate same-sex marriage with humans marrying rocks, or trees, and rightly so since heterosexual marriage, and same-sex marriage involve only humans. Chimps are far more similar to humans than rocks and trees are. They are intelligent, and self-aware, and there have been some cases of altruism observed among them, but no country in the world has legalized marriage between humans and chimps, and I assume that 100 years from now, no country will have legalized humans marrying chimps.

Pick your poison. The dichotomy is still valid. If X why not Y. Where are the boundaries anymore? We seem to think our opinion defines moral truth and all opinion are different. Quite convenient if convenience and not truth are what a person values. Some "great" scholars even eliminate that.

Anyway, same-sex marriage does not have anything to do with your claim that the best solution for homosexuality is for all homosexuals to practice abstinence.

Fine, ignore it. What is clear is that homosexuality causes massive increase in suffering and money even for those who do not practice it and it does not contain any gain that offsets that cost.

Generally, homosexuals are not nearly as bad off as your post #304 claims. When you made that post, you broke the commandment that says that believers should not bear false witness against their neighbors.

I doubt I did that but even if I did that is why I have repented and been born again so I may be forgiven of mistakes. Most others do not even admit to them. What do you mean by bad of and generally?

Heterosexuals would still destroy all human life on earth even if there were not any homosexuals. If homosexuality had never existed, most of the serious problems that humans have would still exist.

99% of them would have nothing to do with heterosexuality and the ones that do would still not surpass our need to perpetuate the species.

Please reply to my previous reply to you.

I will try but this is not even in the top 10 of my preferred subjects. Only when I have no theological, scientific, philosophical, etc... discussions going do I stop in here.

 

[philbo]

Pick your poison. The dichotomy is still valid. If X why not Y. Where are the boundaries anymore?

Informed consent: all parties to a homosexual relationship/marriage are capable of agreeing. Suggesting it's some kind of slippery slope to marrying rocks, trees or other such reductio ad absurdum ideas is basically fallacious.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If so I agree but I do not see what the meaningfulness of pointing that out might be. However it was your debate and I can't even remember if I read it all carefully. If sodomy is wrong and stopped it would sure stop the most destructive form of homosexuality.

Which one anal or oral sex? Both practiced by Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which one anal or oral sex? Both practiced by Heterosexuals and Homosexuals.

Not to mention that not all gay or bisexual men practice anal sex. A lot of them don't like it. Some of them are even against it and promote frottage instead.

 

[Agnostic75]

What is clear is that homosexuality causes massive increase in suffering and money even for those who do not practice it
and it does not contain any gain that offsets that cost.

But I easily refuted that argument in my post #1327, which you did not reply to.

 

[1robin]

But I easily refuted that argument in my post #1327, which you did not reply to.

So you were being dishonest when you said I never responded? I see you failed my test a second time as well.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you were being dishonest when you said I never responded? I see you failed my test a second time as well.

No, you did not reply to my post #1327, nor did you reply to my post #1335.

 

[1robin]

No, you did not reply to my post #1327, nor did you reply to my post #1335.



Not nearly as much as the massive increase in suffering from preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Some experts have predicted that by the year 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars in health care costs. There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

Agnostic my apologies. I mixed you up with another poster. You were not dishonest. I am sorry. I am out of time try and check back soon. Have a good weekend.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Few people equate same-sex marriage with humans marrying rocks, or trees, and rightly so since heterosexual marriage, and same-sex marriage involve only humans. Chimps are far more similar to humans than rocks and trees are. They are intelligent, and self-aware, and there have been some cases of altruism observed among them, but no country in the world has legalized marriage between humans and chimps, and I assume that 100 years from now, no country will have legalized humans marrying chimps.

Pick your poison. The dichotomy is still valid. If X why not Y. Where are the boundaries anymore? We seem to think our opinion defines moral truth and all opinion are different. Quite convenient if convenience and not truth are what a person values. Some "great" scholars even eliminate that.

Conservative Christians are frequently wrong regarding slippery slope scenarios. For example, regarding the Y2K computer issue in 2000, it was primarily conservative Christians who predicted dire consequences, and many of them hoarded food, and warned of disasters that did not happen. In 1997, Oregon legalized physician assisted suicide. Many conservative Christian opponents of the law predicted that many thousands of people would take their lives annually, but nothing close to that has happened during the past 16 years, and the relatively few people who did take their lives were only a very small fraction of the people who needlessly took their lives by eating unhealthy foods, and not getting enough exercise.

The Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage in 2001, and Belgium, Ontario, and British Columbia legalized it in 2003. Surely there have been no significant political, or legal movements in those countries to legalize humans marrying chimps, let alone marrying rocks and trees. It would not be reasonable to deny homosexuals the right to get married based only upon wild guesses about future events.

Zoophilia is legal in a number of U.S. states, and in a number of countries. What bad things have happened as a result of that?

I did not say spirituality is 100% of the cause, unlike genetics you can't know what percentage it is and never will.

If genetics has anything at all to do with homosexuality, which it definitely does, that means that environmental factors, and spiritual factors alone do not cause homosexuality, and that a homosexual sexual identity cannot be prevented solely by environmental, and spiritual factors. Identical twins are more likely to both be homosexuals than fraternal twins are. That would not be the case if genetics did not have a lot to do with homosexuality.

Spiritually has little, if anything to do with physical health. The most devout Christians generally have worse physical health than atheists who eat better foods, and get sufficient exercise. When Hurricane Katrina went to New Orleans, it harmed the most devout Christians just as much as it did anyone else, and it killed innocent animals. Generally, the people who recovered the best from Hurricane Katrina were rich people, who could afford to rebuild their homes, or could afford to better protect their homes. The vast majority of Christian doctors do not use exorcism to treat their patients who have heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Even if everyone in the world was a conservative Christian, most of the world's major secular problems would be the same as they are now. In some predominantly Christian countries in Africa, the average life span is less than 50 years of age. Those Christians' spirituality will not increase their life span. People in Japan live longer than almost anyone else in the world, and the vast majority of them are non-Christians. Also, Japan is in the top ten countries in the world on the Global Peace Index, and it has far less violent crime than many predominantly Christian countries do.

Surely, Christian spirituality, or any other kind of religious spirituality, is not the main cure for heart disease, cancer, obesity, water shortages, overpopulation, finite resources, and global warming.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but it is well-known that sometimes, divorce is a much better choice than staying married, or staying separated. It is interesting to note that most Christian churches that do not allow homosexuals to join the churches allow divorced people to join, and without asking them whether or not they would get divorced again. The boards of directors of those churches are hypocrites. It is interesting to note that in the U.S., Baptists have a higher divorce rate than atheists do, and that in Denmark, heterosexuals have a higher divorce rate than homosexuals do.

Generally, homosexuals are not nearly as bad off as your post #304 claims. When you made that post, you broke the commandment that says that believers should not bear false witness against their neighbors.

I doubt I did that but even if I did that is why I have repented and been born again so I may be forgiven of mistakes.

I assure you that you did, and on a number of occasions. In addition, even some of the claims that are true are misleading. Repentance does not excuse you from admitting that you were wrong, and in which specific cases you were wrong, and which of your arguments were misleading. Arguments are only as good as the bases upon which they are founded. Before you say anything about homosexuality, you first need to inform yourself about the general state of health of the majority of homosexuals.

Many homosexuals enjoy health as good as heterosexuals generally have. There are not any good reasons for them to practice abstinence, especially those who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and especially since having sex has proven health benefits, and practicing long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Heterosexuals would still destroy all human life on earth even if there were not any homosexuals. If homosexuality had never existed, most of the serious problems that humans have would still exist.

99% of them would have nothing to do with heterosexuality.......

Of course not, but my point was that homosexuality is a relatively small problem compared with some other largely preventable problems that humans have that have nothing to do with homosexuality, as I showed in my post #1327. Please reply to that post.

.......and the ones that do would still not surpass our need to perpetuate the species.

But women 45 years of age and over are not needed to perpetuate the species, and I have posted medical evidence that it is risky for women that age to have children. Women of that age can adopt children if they want children, or they can house foster children. A number of countries have overpopulation. In those countries, abstinence would reduce the need for resources, and it would decrease STDs.

We need less people in the world, not more people. World population has risen from 2 to 7 billion during the past 85 years. There are serious water shortages in many parts of the world. We currently consume 50% more natural resources than the earth's systems can replenish. Global warming is the biggest problem by far that humans have ever had. The world is headed for disaster, and homosexuality has little to do with it.

Agnostic my apologies. I mixed you up with another poster. You were not dishonest. I am sorry. I am out of time try and check back soon. Have a good weekend.

No problem.

What is clear is that homosexuality causes massive increase in suffering and money even for those who do not practice it.......

Not nearly as much as the massive increase in suffering from preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Some experts have predicted that by the year 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars in health care costs. There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals. In 2010, 40 times, or 4,000% more Americans died from heart disease alone than died from AIDS, and it is often preventable by doing no more than eating healthy foods, and getting enough exercise.