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

[MrMillion]

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.

You are wise brother.

 

[ranvirk]

U r fine brother, homophobes need help not homosexual.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Dr. Warren Throckmorton is a college professor of psychology, and is widely acknowledged as an expert on sexual identity. In an article at J. Michael Bailey on twin research and sexual reorientation, he discusses a well-known gay twin study by J. Michael Bailey, who is one of the world's top experts on sexual research. Consider the following from the article:

Dr. Francis Collins:

"The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/17/science/gay-men-in-twin-study.html

A new study of twins provides the strongest evidence yet that homosexuality has a genetic basis, researchers say, though they say other factors like social conditioning may be important.

The study, published in the December issue of The Archives of General Psychiatry, adds to evidence that sexual orientation does not result from a maladjustment or moral defect, one author said.

"We found 52 percent of identical twin brothers of gay men also were gay, compared with 22 percent of fraternal twins, compared with 11 percent of genetically unrelated brothers," said J. Michael Bailey, an assistant professor of psychology at Northwestern University in Evanston, "which is exactly the kind of pattern you would want to see if something genetic were going on." By "unrelated," Dr. Bailey was referring to brothers by adoption.

"The genetically most similar brothers were also the ones most likely to be gay, by a large margin," he added.

http://hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1993-homosexual-orientation-in-twins.html

University of Hawaii

Title: Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets

Authors: Frederick L. Whitam, Ph.D., Milton Diamond, Ph.D.,and James Martin, BA.

Published in: Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Vol. 22, No. 3, 1993

Twin pairs in which at least one twin is homosexual were solicited through announcements in the gay press and personal referrals from 1980 to the present. An 18-page questionnaire on the “sexuality of twins” was filled out by one or both twins. Thirty-eight pairs of monozygotic twins (34 male pairs and 4 female pairs) were found to have a concordance rate of 65.8% for homosexual orientation. Twenty-three pairs of dizygotic twins were found to have a concordance rate of 30.4% for homosexual orientation. In addition, three sets of triplets were obtained. Two sets contained a pair of monozygotic twins concordant for sexual orientation with the third triplet dizygotic and discordant for homosexual orientation. A third triplet set was monozygotic with all three concordant for homosexual orientation. These findings are interpreted as supporting the argument for a biological basis in sexual orientation.

Please reply to my posts #1327, and #1340.

Regarding your debates in various threads, either you do not know that you are a dabbler, or you do know that you are a dabbler, and don't care as long as you can influence new, unknowledgeable, easily influenced Christians. Unless you can defeat experts in debates, or at least get a draw, you should not crow about winning debates against other dabblers. You are only debating a very small fraction of the skeptics in the world, and very few of them have a college degree in science, philosophy, history, or theology.

As far as liberals debating conservatives is concerned, if you think that William F. Buckley was a good debater, please watch a two part video of him debating Noam Chomsky at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI, and at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9Samvw6Z08. Chomsky demolished Buckley even in the opinions of many conservatives. What most people do not know is that after the debate, Buckley became irritated at his loss, and stormed off the stage, and basically told Chomsky that he would invite him back to the show and teach him a lesson. Chomsky told Buckley that he would be happy to come back to the show, but Buckley never invited him back. On another occasion, Chomsky was asked about the debate, and said that he was amazed how little Buckley knew about many things. Chomsky's knowledge of various subjects is far beyond Buckley's knowledge. You can read about Chomsky's impressive background in a Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky.

The only reason that you think that you win many debates is that you always refuse to debate experts.

You said that the Bible is not confusing, but it definitely is confusing. Among thousands of examples, there is the story of the flood in the book of Genesis. Do you believe that the flood was global, or regional, or that the story was an allegory? If you do not have a good answer, then you are confused about the story. What is the purpose of the story?

Lots of evidence shows that eyewitness testimony if often not reliable today, let alone claimed eyewitness testimonies based upon copies of copies of ancient documents. I have seen people on both sides who know far more about the Bible than you and I do get nowhere after years of debating biblical textual criticism. That is primarily because both sides have to guess, and speculate about many things.

What evidence do you have the Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb, and that guards were placed at that tomb?

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation?

Why does God refuse to tell people about the Gospel message himself instead of allowing millions of people to die without hearing about it?

Bible topics are endless. There are hundreds of books that we could read, and discuss, and get nowhere just as millions of other people have gotten nowhere, even after a lifetime of reading books, and debating. However, regarding secular arguments against homosexuality, we can get somewhere if you will agree to reply to my posts.

 

[1robin]

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.

I have little need to defend Christians but do defend God and the Bible. WE got to be Christians by admitting more faults that most acknowledge. However I did not think anything would occur at Y2K, I am for legalized medical suicide (in fact I hope it never occurs but I am for the right to suicide to everyone).

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.

There is never a problem until it becomes one. It has occurred but it is the potentiality I am interested in. Human morality is doing nothing if not getting worse. Some day it may be as common to marry a bowling shoe as a same sex person.

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?

Did you really ask what it seems you did? Just in the past few years a guy died from it and I turn off the radio if I hear one of those stories.

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.

I never suggested genetics are not involved but only if little choice remains is it relevant.

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.

What do hurricanes have to do with anything and how do you know how many devout Christians were hurt? I did not see anything in that paragraph I have claimed so I have no comment.

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.

I did not recommend taking two apostles for heart conditions. However it has drastically changed hunger, water shortages, and aid relief more than any other group.

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.

That is a very contentious issue that I do not have a position on so I will leave it alone.

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.

Accusing a Christian of a mistake is not worth the effort nor even honorable. I make them all the time but seldom intentionally give mistaken data. I admit to more mistakes than you can possibly imagine and admit to this one if it exists. That is all you can expect and more than you will get in many cases. I am however not going to spend to much time digging through all my 6000 posts straining every mistake out. I reject flat out your judgment especially since this post followed immediately one where a mistake was made and an apology volunteered for it. I also do not recognize the moral authority that argues for a behavior that kills others to take offense over some data that does not change my central argument even if mistaken from hundreds of posts ago. Until you do something with my two main contentions you have done nothing at all.

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.

Many children play with guns without tragedy. So what?

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.

The others are not so easily prevented nor have I argued for their allowance. This is a homosexuality thread not a anything but homosexuality thread.

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.

I have already covered this.

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.

I agree but unlike your liberal side of the issue I will leave that in God's hands and not institute my own take on who should be left alive or procreate. Christians have been digging wells and non-Christians have been filling them up with waste for thousands of years so it isn't our fault. It is not an argument to claim we are screwed so have fun till it ends either. The moral depredations that is destroying us is not helped by adding to it.

No problem.

Did I admit a mistake? I forgot I was a Christian and did not ever claim I was wrong or was that statement what was wrong?

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.

Yes heart disease is worse so let's not worry about tooth decay, smoking, or homosexuality. Good argument. I against sex outside of marriage for everyone but that isn't this threads topic.

 

[philbo]

There is never a problem until it becomes one. It has occurred but it is the potentiality I am interested in. Human morality is doing nothing if not getting worse. Some day it may be as common to marry a bowling shoe as a same sex person.

I notice you ignored my earlier pointing out that your reductio ad absurdum examples are fallacious: you can't have informed consent from a bowling shoe. A homosexual partnership (which has no more inherent risk than any other, it's just your blinkered bigotry which filters out the harmless ones) takes two consenting adults. It's inanity of the highest degree to suggest that allowing homosexual relationships will lead to marrying inanimate objects.

..as for human morality getting worse.. you obviously haven't studied much history.

 

[SubZero]

Basicly you are alowed to love any man...god is love and he encourage us to love each other but relationship is different matter...as we have been born we got one soul and our duty to god is to treat our soul good and continue life cycle the way we learned from 1st humans. Two man are not able to continue life cycle and pay out debt to this universe...but still i think god is forgiving as this burden was chosen to you before birth and no building is alowed to judge that

 

[Agnostic75]

Accusing a Christian of a mistake is not worth the effort nor even honorable.

It is always honorable to identity mistakes, otherwise, people would not be aware of them. Your post #304 contains a number of false, and misleading claims. It is your responsibility to correct them. That post is deplorable.

I make them all the time but seldom intentionally give mistaken data.

Your intentions is not the issue, the mistakes is the issue.

I admit to more mistakes than you can possibly imagine and admit to this one if it exists. That is all you can expect and more than you will get in many cases. I am however not going to spend to much time digging through all my 6000 posts straining every mistake out.

I am talking about your post #304, not 6000 posts. Homosexuality is a problem, but is it not nearly as big a problem as you claim it is. If you want to continue to be ignorant about the facts, and refuse to discuss them, that is fine, but you should not expect anyone to pay any attention to you when you refuse to discuss your own posts. You have broken the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor, and you do not want to correct your mistake. I would never refuse to discuss a post that I made that someone claimed has lots of false, and misleading claims.

The others are not so easily prevented nor have I argued for their allowance. This is a homosexuality thread not a anything but homosexuality thread.

If necessary, I can provide lots of evidence that shows that heart disease, and obesity, can frequently be prevented, and that cancer can often be prevented, but to a lesser degree than heart disease, and obesity. Any informed person knows that heart disease, cancer, and obesity are far bigger problems than homosexuality is. Regarding heart disease alone, in 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS, and about 600,000, or 40 times more, or 4,000% more, died from heart disease. Homosexuality causes a small fraction of the health care costs that heart disease, cancer, and obesity do. There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

You are trying to make homosexuals much more responsible for problems in the world than they deserve. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, over 95% of health care costs would still exist, and most physical suffering would still exist, and even many of the most devout Christians would continue to get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, and would continue to be injured, or killed by hurricanes.

You said that homosexuality is wrong, but no behavior is wrong if there are not better options. Monogamous, healthy homosexuals do not have any better options, especially homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and much more so regarding those who have been monogamous for at least twenty years. Having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks. Many homosexuals have health that is favorable as compared with a large percentage of heterosexuals. There are not any good reasons why those homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Healthy homosexuals are not responsible for the sexual practices of unhealthy homosexuals. Many homosexuals are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been for many years, and would consider your claim that they should practice abstinence to be absurd.

You have said that homosexuals have problems other than STDs. That is true, but that does not help your arguments. For example, some homosexuals are alcoholics, but in many cases, alcoholism among homosexuals has been successfully treated without them giving up having sex. In addition, since many homosexuals would have been alcoholics if they had been heterosexuals, it is impossible to know which homosexual alcoholics are alcoholics because they are homosexuals. If a homosexual alcoholic named John Smith tries to give up alcoholism by practicing sexual abstinence for two years, and fails to give up alcoholism, and develops some additional health problems, some of those additional health problems could be due to sexual deprivation, and it would be reasonable for John to start having sex again in order to find out whether or not his health will improve.

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.

I have already covered this.

No, I have adequately already covered this, and you haven't. As I showed, there are substantial medical risks for women 45 years of age and older if they have children.

I agree but unlike your liberal side of the issue I will leave that in God's hands and not institute my own take on who should be left alive or procreate.

From a secular perspective, women over 45 having sex is not necessary in order to maintain world population, at least in most countries. In order to be fair, you need to recommend that all of the following groups of people should practice abstinence since they are all at risk:

1. Heterosexual men and women 45 years of age and older.

2. Heterosexual black American men and women.

3. Heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

4. People who live in poverty.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

There is never a problem until it becomes one.

Obviously.

It has occurred.......

No, same-sex marriage has not caused any significant problems.

.......but it is the potentiality I am interested in.

As I have shown, many conservative Christians have been poor judges of slippery slopes.

Human morality is doing nothing if not getting worse. Some day it may be as common to marry a bowling shoe as a same sex person.

I am not aware of any moral problems that Christian Scientists have. I believe that they are generally more moral than Christians are.

At any rate, same-sex marriage is here to stay, and the only way that we will be able to judge whether or not it will lead to people marrying trees and rocks is to wait and see what happens.

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.

I never suggested genetics are not involved but only if little choice remains is it relevant.

But I never suggested that environment is not involved, nor has any major medical organization, and I have said on many occasions that environment is partly involved, so I do not have any idea why, after months of debating, you still propose a straw man argument about genetics that I never made. All that I am trying to show is that homosexuality cannot be prevented entirely by environmental, and spiritual factors, and that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. My post #1344 shows that genetics is an important part of sexual identity.

Do you agree with virtually all experts that initial sexual identity is not a choice?

Not for homosexuality and I even doubt it is the opinion of virtually all experts.

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

.......the scientific consensus is that sexual orientation is not a choice.[13][14][15] There is no simple, single cause for sexual orientation that has been conclusively demonstrated, but scientists theorize that it is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1][13] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment.[14] Research over several decades has demonstrated that sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, from exclusive attraction to the opposite sex to exclusive attraction to the same sex.[1]

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is never a problem until it becomes one. It has occurred but it is the potentiality I am interested in. Human morality is doing nothing if not getting worse. Some day it may be as common to marry a bowling shoe as a same sex person.

Instead of looking at potentiality, how about looking at the direct effects? Instead of worrying about what might happen, we can look at what HAS happened when gay marriage is legalized. There are plenty of countries to look to for examples, as Agnostic pointed out. As it turns out, people don't seem to be rushing out to marry shoes and rocks. Hmm.

Gay marriage has been legal here in Ontario for over 10 years, and our society has not imploded in on itself. In fact, we've carried on as usual while adding some happy couples to the mix. A guy in my office just celebrated his 10th anniversary with his husband. Geez, listening to you, you'd think they would have died from AIDS by now or one of those other horrible medical conditions you don't want to talk about, while talking about all the time.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: From a secular perspective, women over 45 having sex is not necessary in order to maintain world population, at least in most countries, and there are important medical risks for women that age who have children. Such women have the better options of adopting children, or housing foster children. In order to be fair, you need to recommend that all of the following groups of people should practice abstinence since they are all at risk:

1. Heterosexual men and women 45 years of age and older.

2. Heterosexual black American men and women.

3. Heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

4. People who live in poverty.

The others are not so easily prevented nor have I argued for their allowance. This is a homosexuality thread not a anything but homosexuality thread.

If necessary, I can provide lots of evidence that shows that heart disease, and obesity, can frequently be prevented, and that cancer can often be prevented, but to a lesser degree than heart disease, and obesity. Any informed person knows that heart disease, cancer, and obesity are far bigger problems than homosexuality is. Regarding heart disease alone, in 2010, about 15,000 Americans died from AIDS, and about 600,000, or 40 times more, or 4,000% more, died from heart disease. Homosexuality causes a small fraction of the health care costs that heart disease, cancer, and obesity do.

There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals.

You are trying to make homosexuals much more responsible for problems in the world than they deserve. Even if there were not any homosexuals in the world, over 95% of health care costs would still exist, and most physical suffering would still exist, and even many of the most devout Christians would continue to get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, and would continue to be injured, or killed by hurricanes.

You said that homosexuality is wrong, but no behavior is wrong if there are not better options. Monogamous, healthy homosexuals do not have any better options, especially homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and much more so regarding those who have been monogamous for at least twenty years. Having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks. Many homosexuals have health that is favorable as compared with a large percentage of heterosexuals. There are not any good reasons why those homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Healthy homosexuals are not responsible for the sexual practices of unhealthy homosexuals. Many homosexuals are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been for many years, and would consider your claim that they should practice abstinence to be absurd.

You have said that homosexuals have problems other than STDs. That is true, but that does not help your arguments. For example, some homosexuals are alcoholics, but in many cases, alcoholism among homosexuals has been successfully treated without them giving up having sex. In addition, since many homosexuals would have been alcoholics if they had been heterosexuals, it is impossible to know which homosexual alcoholics are alcoholics because they are homosexuals. If a homosexual alcoholic named John Smith tries to give up alcoholism by practicing sexual abstinence for two years, and fails to give up alcoholism, and develops some additional health problems, some of those additional health problems could be due to sexual deprivation, and it would be reasonable for John to start having sex again in order to find out whether or not his health will improve.

How do you propose that heterosexuals should treat homosexuals? Should they refuse to employ, and house them? Should they reject them as friends, and refuse to socialize with them?

How do you propose that healthy heterosexuals should treat other heterosexuals who have heart disease, cancer, or obesity? Should they refuse to employ, and house them? Should they reject them as friends, and refuse to socialize with them?

Homosexuals who are healthy, and practice safe sex, are not responsible for the actions of homosexuals who are not healthy, and practice unsafe sex.

Your debates in this thread are harming the Republican party, and are helping the Democratic party. It is well-known that openly opposing homosexuality has become a political liability in swing states, let alone in blue states. Recent polls have shown that the majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage. That is because many Republicans realize that even if they privately oppose same-sex marriage, they will win far fewer elections if they publically oppose it.

Regarding Proposition 8 in California in 2008, its chief supporters were the Mormon church, and the Roman Catholic church. A lot has happened since then. Within the last twelve months, the Mormon church decided to abandon its widespread political opposition to same-sex marriage, although they still oppose it, and the new Roman Catholic pope has made friendly overtures to homosexuals.

Also, it is important to note that as more and more homosexuals have come out of the closet, more heterosexuals are observing for themselves firsthand that many homosexuals are healthy, happy, decent, productive people, and that the health of individuals within a group of people should not be judged by the general state of health of the entire group. In other words, health is best judged on an individual basis, not on a collective basis.

Although homosexuals have more health problems than heterosexuals have, they are generally not nearly as bad off as you claim they are. Surely the vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not pedophiles, are not alcoholics, and do not abuse drugs.

I admit to more mistakes than you can possibly imagine and admit to this one if it exists. That is all you can expect and more than you will get in many cases. I am however not going to spend to much time digging through all my 6000 posts straining every mistake out.

I am talking about your post #304, not 6000 posts. Homosexuality is a problem, but is it not nearly as big a problem as you claim it is. If you want to continue to be ignorant about the facts, and refuse to discuss them, that is fine, but you should not expect anyone to pay any attention to you when you refuse to discuss your own posts. You have broken the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor, and you do not want to correct your mistake. I would never refuse to discuss a post that I made that someone claimed has false, and misleading claims.

Although you have a degree in math, I believe that you do not know how to properly interpret some statistics about homosexuality. If you wish, I can show you some examples regarding your post #304.

 

[1robin]

..as for human morality getting worse.. you obviously haven't studied much history.

I think that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in any debate about anything. Do schools have less shootings or more compared with 1900? Do we have less or more drugs on the streets? Is television programming less or more moral than in 1950? I have already given hundreds of statistic alone that prove what I claimed in detail and exhaustively. I am too lazy to do it again but will find the link if necessary. Let me add just one fact that on it's own proves my point. We now have developed by the most exhaustive energies we could muster the capacity to wipe out all life as we know it and the moral insanity to have almost done so twice. You can attempt to wiggle out of this by blaming it on technological advancement but that only speaks about capacity not our will to actualize that capacity. That is if we do not kill off life in the womb before it gets a chance to use militarized rabies on others. For some bizarre reasons a few people claimed homosexuality does not introduce new and unnecessary suffering and I will elaborate quite a bit on that the next time I see that claimed.

 

[1robin]

It is always honorable to identity mistakes, otherwise, people would not be aware of them. Your post #304 contains a number of false, and misleading claims. It is your responsibility to correct them. That post is deplorable.

No that post is not deplorable. Instead of backing up I will post a new list with the same type of information. You may prove any claim on it wrong you wish (or try to) but until you do the argument that homosexuality massive increases suffering is a given and even if you can that does not make my posting information from credible sources a moral liability. Only the most guilty are obsessed with the guilt of others.

I am talking about your post #304, not 6000 posts. Homosexuality is a problem, but is it not nearly as big a problem as you claim it is. If you want to continue to be ignorant about the facts, and refuse to discuss them, that is fine, but you should not expect anyone to pay any attention to you when you refuse to discuss your own posts. You have broken the commandment about bearing false witness against your neighbor, and you do not want to correct your mistake. I would never refuse to discuss a post that I made that someone claimed has lots of false, and misleading claims.

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies
New York Blade News:
Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]
Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:
Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting "always" using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.[2]
The CDC reported that during the same period the proportion of men reporting having multiple sex partners and unprotected anal sex increased from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent. The largest increase in this category (from 22 percent to 33.3 percent) was reported by homosexuals twenty-five years old or younger.[3]
Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners.[6]
Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk. Following in the footsteps of the generation of homosexuals decimated by AIDS, younger homosexuals are engaging in dangerous sexual practices at an alarming rate.
A Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health study of three-hundred-sixty-one young men who have sex with men (MSM) aged fifteen to twenty-two found that around 40 percent of participants reported having had anal-insertive sex, and around 30 percent said they had had anal-receptive sex. Thirty-seven percent said they had not used a condom for anal sex during their last same-sex encounter. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported using drugs or alcohol during their last same-sex encounter.[7]
A five-year CDC study of 3,492 homosexual males aged fifteen to twenty-two found that one-quarter had unprotected sex with both men and women. Another cdc study of 1,942 homosexual and bisexual men with HIV found that 19 percent had at least one episode of unprotected anal sex--the riskiest sexual behavior--in 1998 and 1997, a 50 percent increase from the previous two years.[8]
Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:
A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[9]
In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[10]
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[12]

There is far more information about the suffering homosexuality causes, increases, or aggravates than I can fit in a hundred posts so I have deleted much of it but will supply the link.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.
HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."[17]
HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies."[18]
The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that "HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women."[19]
Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.
Gonorrhea: A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
Syphilis: In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[30]
The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present."[31]
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[39]
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs."[47] The CDC report concluded: "Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."[48]
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]
Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.
A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
Reduced Life Span.
Family Research Council


Notice almost all CDC or homosexual sources for this data.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I think that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard in any debate about anything. Do schools have less shootings or more compared with 1900? Do we have less or more drugs on the streets? Is television programming less or more moral than in 1950? I have already given hundreds of statistic alone that prove what I claimed in detail and exhaustively. I am too lazy to do it again but will find the link if necessary. Let me add just one fact that on it's own proves my point. We now have developed by the most exhaustive energies we could muster the capacity to wipe out all life as we know it and the moral insanity to have almost done so twice. You can attempt to wiggle out of this by blaming it on technological advancement but that only speaks about capacity not our will to actualize that capacity. That is if we do not kill off life in the womb before it gets a chance to use militarized rabies on others. For some bizarre reasons a few people claimed homosexuality does not introduce new and unnecessary suffering and I will elaborate quite a bit on that the next time I see that claimed.

Yeah, because little things like the Ottoman empire, the conquest of Africa, the crusades... yeah, those were real heights of morality...

It's funny but for a christian, killing a non believer isn't a big deal (or so it seems history wise) but if you have sex with a beautiful woman that isn't your wife... IMMORAL!!!!

I think if Jesus were around he'd tell you you got your morals all screwed the hell up.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[15] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[16]
Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts.
HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."[17]
HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies."[18]
The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that "HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women."[19]
Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.
Gonorrhea: A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[24] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[25]
Syphilis: In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[30]
The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present."[31]
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[39]
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.[46] A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs."[47] The CDC report concluded: "Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."[48]
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer."[49]
At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health in May, 2000, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that the incidence of anal cancer among homosexuals with HIV "was raised 37-fold compared with the general population."[50]
Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.
A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]
A report by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health concurred,
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. A national survey of lesbians published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology found that 75 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents had pursued psychological counseling of some kind, many for treatment of long-term depression or sadness:
Reduced Life Span.
Family Research Council


Notice almost all CDC or homosexual sources for this data.

Note that taking information about gays from the FRC is like taking information about Jews from the Nazists or information about blacks from the KKK.

They are just a whole lot of insane people who love to twist the truth and most of them are as dishonest as you hope to be one day i'm sure.

 

[1robin]

Can you please define or give us an example of these "negative effects"?

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies

Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]​

Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:

Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals.Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk.
Homosexual Promiscuity. Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples.
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships.
Human Papillomavirus (HPV).
Hepatitis:
Gonorrhea:
Syphilis:
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS)
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals.
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection.
Anal Cancer:
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk.
Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians.
Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians.
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. Greater Risk for Suicide.
Family Research Council

All the CDC and homosexual source material and data is at that link. However I guess you are right they ask that question first, instantly separate homosexuals who are bleeding from inmate populations and military medical facilities because it is cheaper and more fun to do so.

 

[1robin]

Note that taking information about gays from the FRC is like taking information about Jews from the Nazists or information about blacks from the KKK.

They are just a whole lot of insane people who love to twist the truth and most of them are as dishonest as you hope to be one day i'm sure.

They did not generate that data. Did you not see the CDC and homosexual sources for the statistics. Unsubstantiated claims of bias for sourced material is about the last rung on the latter.

 

[1robin]

I'm not stopping you, go for it. Just leave me out of it

If there exists a standard that prohibits orgies why would it not cover a sexual act that if practiced exclusively would annihilate the human race. Because it is on the list of what you may like is not a standard in its self.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality

By Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. Senior Fellow, Center for Marriage and Family Studies

Reports at a national conference about sexually transmitted diseases indicate that gay men are in the highest risk group for several of the most serious diseases. . . . Scientists believe that the increased number of sexually tranmitted diseases (STD) cases is the result of an increase in risky sexual practices by a growing number of gay men who believe HIV is no longer a life-threatening illness.[1]​

Instability and promiscuity typically characterize homosexual relationships. These two factors increase the incidence of serious and incurable stds. In addition, some homosexual behaviors put practitioners at higher risk for a variety of ailments, as catalogued by the following research data:

Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals.Young Homosexuals are at Increased Risk.
Homosexual Promiscuity. Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples.
Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships.
Human Papillomavirus (HPV).
Hepatitis:
Gonorrhea:
Syphilis:
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS)
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals.
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection.
Anal Cancer:
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk.
Cancer Risk Factors for Lesbians.
Compulsive Behavior among Lesbians.
Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage.
High Incidence of Mental Health Problems among Homosexuals and Lesbians. Greater Risk for Suicide.
Family Research Council

All the CDC and homosexual source material and data is at that link. However I guess you are right they ask that question first, instantly separate homosexuals who are bleeding from inmate populations and military medical facilities because it is cheaper and more fun to do so.

Again, the FRC is like the KKK for gays or the Nazi party for Jews.

Do you know what Timothy's PH.D is in? When asked he doesn't even know himself but he has a degree mill minor in engineering.

How the HELL does that qualify him for making any assessment about anything but art history.

Stop with this, use ACTUAL PEER REVIEWED studies by acknowledged scientists or shut the hell up.

This propaganda train stops here, consider yourself reported for every single one of these utter lies you spread.