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

[ImprobableBeing]

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.

Yes and they are cherrypicked and in no way related to actual truth.

Of course, dishonesty is the middle name from your kind with fake PH.D's and speaking to decieve in the name of the lord.

You're no better than a Muslim and an abomination to your God.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

I like the argument that they are so promiscuous and sleep around and that is risky so to save them we should not allow them to enter a monogamous marriage.

That makes SO much sense.

If someone mentions inanimate objects, animals or children i will bloody well rip you to shreds.

CONSENT is a word that is IN LAW, we already have this distinction and nothing would change except that perhaps a few more Falwells would come out of the closet.

 

[1robin]

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.

It is never honorable to ignore admissions of any mistakes made and constantly mention them if they ever in fact existed. Devils advocate is not a promotion or wise career choice. I have admitted to any mistake I have committed, repent daily, and correct errors where I have created them. Now get off of my case. Constant antagonism and harping on others mistake is not honorable and I do not remember you showing any mistakes existed in that data. However I posted new data of the same type that you can point out errors in if you wish without having to remember posts from months ago.

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.

This is a repeat and I am not in favor of those sins either so it is irrelevant and this is not a any sin that can be thought of thread.

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.

No I am not.

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.

There are better options. If NASA had that attitude then we would never have gone to the moon.

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.

I did not fault a specific person but a behavior that more than deserves it. Are only good marksmen that try and kill guilty of a crime? Is outcome the basis for legality or morality. Is the child's argument that no one was hurt this time a rational for allowing them to do what ever?

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.

I did not mean non sexual problems, just not disease problems. There are many ways homosexuals hurt each other (and others) that is sexual but not a disease but even your problems are still indicative that something is wrong with the behavior.

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

If children are possible then justification exists.

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.

For the third time this is the one aspect of my argument that can't be made from a purely secular world view. Many times it is necessary to include all of reality as secularism has necessary discontinuities by selecting only parts of reality to acknowledge. It is no help out side those brackets however and probably not true within them.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

[/i] Devils advocate is not a promotion or wise career choice. I have admitted to any mistake I have committed, repent daily, and correct errors where I have created them. Now get off of my case. Constant antagonism and harping on others mistake is not honorable and I do not remember you showing any mistakes existed in that data. However I posted new data of the same type that you can point out errors in if you wish without having to remember posts from months ago.



This is a repeat and I am not in favor of those sins either so it is irrelevant and this is not a any sin that can be thought of thread.

No I am not.

There are better options. If NASA had that attitude then we would never have gone to the moon.

I did not fault a specific person but a behavior that more than deserves it. Are only good marksmen that try and kill guilty of a crime? Is outcome the basis for legality or morality. Is the child's argument that no one was hurt this time a rational for allowing them to do what ever?




I did not mean non sexual problems, just not disease problems. There are many ways homosexuals hurt each other (and others) that is sexual but not a disease but even your problems are still indicative that something is wrong with the behavior.





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.



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.

[/quote]

Wait, you're scared you'll embrace the true you, aren't you?

You think others would turn gay like you would?

Trust me, except for you closeted homophobes, a la Haggard and yourself, the overwheming majority of us will procreate.

I have two children and one granddaughter. You have a longing for a boyfriend?

 

[1robin]

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.

I have posted actualities, likely hoods, and logical extrapolations and category does not matter. If inconvenient it is denied regardless. Only those who can't learn from the past ignore what things can be later used to justify. That is how we got in this mess.

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.

What it increases or exacerbates has killed millions, devastated entire nations, and cost billions. Where is the point it gets to be a problem? Is there one? Nothing I have ever said, thought, or even hinted indicates most homosexuals get sick, just that many more do to the behavior than in absence of it. Only morals untethered to anything beyond convenience or preference could insist that those who do not agree with the behavior should suffer and be killed by it and pay for its costs without a single justifying benefit or necessity. Once that is said no moral credibility can be claimed. Your side makes more claims about evil and more decisions that demand the right to kill the innocent than I would have thought even theoretically possible.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

The old tactic, i cant reasonably debate this from a reasonable standpoint so i will just put text out there and hope you don't read it and give up.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

There is no standard which prohibits orgies. God approves of orgies. He likes it when His creations enjoy themselves.

 

[philbo]

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.

Sorry, I was forgetting that as an American you may forget that history stretches back more than a century or two.

Still, what about the morality of slavery? the morality of child prostitution? of feudalism and a massive underclass of people supporting a handful in luxury? of genocides back all the way to biblical times. And don't get me started on the morality of the many hypocritical societies over the years which professed one set of morals yet behaved in a completely different manner.

Anyone who suggests today's morals are worse than those found throughout history really has no idea what they're talking about. The biggest difference between today and earlier societies is information: we know a lot more about what goes on contemporaneously than any other era ever has. You might think behaviour is worse today than at some mythical nostalgic past, but you're wrong.

 

[Agnostic75]

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.

No I am not.

Are you admitting that regarding physical health, and medical bills, homosexuality is a much smaller problem than some other problems are? Are you aware that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by many preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity?

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.

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.

Early in this thread, you said that although you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, you had primarily been using secular arguments. That has changed. Since I have shown that your secular arguments are very poor, you have ended up where I knew you would end up from the beginning of these debates, which is primarily religious arguments. Even if a God inspired the Bible, if physical health has anything to do with your arguments against homosexuality, or with God's arguments against homosexuality, homosexuality is a small problem compared with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

Many non-Christians are just as moral as the majority of Christians are. As far as I know, Christian Scientists are generally more moral than Christians are.

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.

There are better options.

Not for monogamous, healthy homosexuals.

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.

I did not mean non sexual problems, just not disease problems. There are many ways homosexuals hurt each other (and others) that is sexual but not a disease but even your problems are still indicative that something is wrong with the behavior.

What kinds of problems are you referring to that can be corrected by homosexuals practicing abstinence?

Regarding the very few monogamous homosexuals who have tried abstinence for two years, or for five years if you wish, if they end up much worse off medically than they were, which would increase insurance, and medical costs for themselves, and for other people, it would certainly be reasonable for them to go back to having sex.

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.

If children are possible then justification exists.

Absolutely not. In some countries, overpopulation is a serious problem. The earth is running out of resources at a rapid rate. There are serious medical risks for women of that age who have children. Women who want children have the options of adoption, and of housing foster children.

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.

For the third time this is the one aspect of my argument that can't be made from a purely secular world view.

Ok, you have admitted that you cannot provide a fair secular basis that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since that would need to include some other groups of people, so I have achieved my main goal in this thread, which has been to show that there are not any valid secular arguments against homosexuality.

Many times it is necessary to include all of reality as secularism has necessary discontinuities by selecting only parts of reality to acknowledge. It is no help out side those brackets however and probably not true within them.

There are lots of other threads where we can debate the Bible for years. I have achieved by mail goal in this thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

I did not fault a specific person but a behavior that more than deserves it. Are only good marksmen that try and kill guilty of a crime? Is outcome the basis for legality or morality. Is the child's argument that no one was hurt this time a rational for allowing them to do what ever?

You cannot provide any reliable evidence that shows that healthy homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years have medical problems that can probably be corrected by practicing long term abstinence, and will not become medically worse off by trying long term abstinence. That argument is much more valid regarding homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least twenty years. In addition, having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Based upon your deplorable post #304, which you still have not admitted was a deplorable post, it is no wonder that you are so misinformed about the general state of health of homosexuals. It is always deplorable to bear false witness against your neighbor without trying to correct the false witness, or without even trying to find out which of the claims are false. No reasonable abstinence argument can be made against homosexuals without first knowing what their general state of health is, and you don't.

None of the research that you have mentioned has been done on monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. In my opinion, that is your biggest secular problem by far in this thread.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

There is no standard which prohibits orgies. God approves of orgies. He likes it when His creations enjoy themselves.

Once again and it is almost not worth doing. Prove a single thing you claimed as is your burden.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Once again and it is almost not worth doing. Prove a single thing you claimed as is your burden.

Since you cannot prove your claims, why should I go to the trouble of proving mine?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I prefer my bigoted homophobes to at least be straightforward about their hate and disgust. I find people who attempt to hide their hate behind a ridiculous curtain of feigned rationality to be even more immoral, objectionable, and petty than people who are at least honest about their bigotry.

 

[1robin]

Sorry, I was forgetting that as an American you may forget that history stretches back more than a century or two.

As an amateur historian I am quite well aware of histories expanses. Was this an argument or just sarcasm for its own sake based on absolutely nothing? How did you know I was American, did I save the world from fascism twice and communism or something?

Still, what about the morality of slavery? the morality of child prostitution? of feudalism and a massive underclass of people supporting a handful in luxury? of genocides back all the way to biblical times. And don't get me started on the morality of the many hypocritical societies over the years which professed one set of morals yet behaved in a completely different manner.

300,000 Christians died to free the slaves that did exist in a morally wrong system of servitude. A Christian began the resistance and a Christian president did more to end it than any man in history. The slaves themselves looked to God more than any other thing for freedom and achieved it. Is that the slavery you mean? Child protestation would I think never be right with God nor ever actually be wrong without him. Christians are the only hypocrites who regularly admit to it among a population of no one who is not one. We are all guilty, at least we admit it and have a foundation for morality to begin with.

Anyone who suggests today's morals are worse than those found throughout history really has no idea what they're talking about. The biggest difference between today and earlier societies is information: we know a lot more about what goes on contemporaneously than any other era ever has. You might think behaviour is worse today than at some mythical nostalgic past, but you're wrong.

I have already demonstrated it is far worse at least in the US since secularism tainted the well and that is a reasonable microcosm of man in general. Only we demand the rights to kill millions in the womb and have the potential and moral insanity to wipe out all life known and almost have. How was it worse that that even theoretically? Was Stalin or Caesar worse? Were Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot light weights? There was a time when atheist philosophers were far wiser than these days. Nietzsche at least knew what was at stake. he said that because philosophers and poets killed God in the 18th century the 19th would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would prevail. Now that was wisdom. The 19th century was more bloody than all the previous centuries combined and not only does madness prevail but Nietzsche went insane himself. The best you side has these days is that truth its self no longer exists. Convenient I guess but futile. At least Dawkins could admit that within evolution who could say Hitler was not right?

 

[1robin]

Since you cannot prove your claims, why should I go to the trouble of proving mine?

That is what I thought. I can deal with some ambiguity but coupled with intentional moral repugnance and I will have to decline.

 

[1robin]

I prefer my bigoted homophobes to at least be straightforward about their hate and disgust. I find people who attempt to hide their hate behind a ridiculous curtain of feigned rationality to be even more immoral, objectionable, and petty than people who are at least honest about their bigotry.

Don't hold back. Do not stand on courtesy or evidence. Just say whatever it feels good to. I prefer a world view that has the potential of moral foundations at least possible. Without God morality is an illusion as Dawkin's and the atheistic philosopher of science Ruse so honestly admitted.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is what I thought.

Then why did you ask?

Any time you decide to offer evidence for you position that God hates homosexuality, please do so.

And any time you'd like to address my evidence that God approves of homosexuality, you are welcome to try.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Don't hold back.

I don't. I tell it like it is. I find intellectual dishonesty used as a shield for someone's true bigoted motivations to be morally and intellectually reprehensible.

 

[philbo]

As an amateur historian I am quite well aware of histories expanses. Was this an argument or just sarcasm for its own sake based on absolutely nothing? How did you know I was American, did I save the world from fascism twice and communism or something?

You, personally, have done no such thing, so please don't try claiming credit. As for how I guessed you were American, let's just say there were one or two clues.

300,000 Christians died to free the slaves that did exist in a morally wrong system of servitude. A Christian began the resistance and a Christian president did more to end it than any man in history. The slaves themselves looked to God more than any other thing for freedom and achieved it. Is that the slavery you mean?

Is that what you call "history"? How fantastically self-serving. Why do you not point out that almost every slave-owner was a Christian, too? But this is totally irrelevant: does your religious posturing not mean that you quite happily admit that mankind (including Christian mankind) traded slaves for a large part of history, and only relatively recently was slavery considered abhorrent?

Child protestation would I think never be right with God nor ever actually be wrong without him.

er, wut? Would you mind rephrasing that in English, please.

We are all guilty, at least we admit it and have a foundation for morality to begin with.

Speak for yourself. Though I think you're insulting the majority of the world's population with that statement.

I have already demonstrated

"Demonstrated"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. You making an unevidenced assertion is no more "demonstrated" than anything anyone else has said.

it is far worse at least in the US since secularism tainted the well and that is a reasonable microcosm of man in general.

Grow up - "since secularism tainted the well"??? As an amateur historian, you're not a very good one. Unless you actually mean for the entire existence of the United States, as the constitution is a most explicitly secular document.

Only we demand the rights to kill millions in the womb and have the potential and moral insanity to wipe out all life known and almost have. How was it worse that that even theoretically? Was Stalin or Caesar worse? Were Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot light weights? There was a time when atheist philosophers were far wiser than these days. Nietzsche at least knew what was at stake. he said that because philosophers and poets killed God in the 18th century the 19th would be the bloodiest in history and a general madness would prevail. Now that was wisdom. The 19th century was more bloody than all the previous centuries combined and not only does madness prevail but Nietzsche went insane himself. The best you side has these days is that truth its self no longer exists. Convenient I guess but futile. At least Dawkins could admit that within evolution who could say Hitler was not right?

I don't think I've ever met anyone who managed to be so fractally wrong and so blindly arrogant to go with it.. though maybe those two things pretty much have to go together, as with a bit more honesty and humility, you might have a chance of realizing just how wrong you are.

 

[1robin]

Are you admitting that regarding physical health, and medical bills, homosexuality is a much smaller problem than some other problems are? Are you aware that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by many preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity?

Of course I admit that and have several times. I did not say homosexuality was our biggest threat nor is this greatest threat thread.

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?

They should treat them the same but never condone the practice. I have had friends that were homosexuals several times. The only purpose for that statement is fishing for some alternate moral high ground. I hate that liberal tactic more than any.

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?

The same unless direct threats of disease are involved concerning non-professionals.

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

Repeat.

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.

What in the heck was that? I am not defending or discussing the republican party. Nor do I use that as a indicator of what is right or true. How weird. Do you actually think I subvert moral beliefs for political reasons. I will go down with the ship if I think the ship is right. However you are wrong here. It is not conservatism nor traditional values that have lost the last two elections. We put up compromise candidates and lost. The leadership is flawed. If they put up a true Reagan conservative they would have won. Do you actually want a political debate during the reign of the most destructive president in our history?

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.

Have you switched to political issue for some reason? I am discussing moral ones.

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.

People on drugs are probably the happiest people on Earth and I can speak from experience and most probably never get really negative effects. Is it ok. What isn't ok if all that is?

Early in this thread, you said that although you have religious, and secular arguments against homosexuality, you had primarily been using secular arguments. That has changed.

NO it has not. I only gave a theological explanation for one part of one claim you made. I have no need for the other 90% of the aspects of this issue.

Since I have shown that your secular arguments are very poor, you have ended up where I knew you would end up from the beginning of these debates, which is primarily religious arguments. Even if a God inspired the Bible, if physical health has anything to do with your arguments against homosexuality, or with God's arguments against homosexuality, homosexuality is a small problem compared with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.

I have not done what you suggest nor have you done what you claimed here.

Many non-Christians are just as moral as the majority of Christians are. As far as I know, Christian Scientists are generally more moral than Christians are.

What is with you and Christians scientists? This post looks like a fishing expedition. I made no claim about moral apprehension but only about moral foundations. You need better bait or techniques.

Not for monogamous, healthy homosexuals.

What? You healthy until you are not, and your monogamous until you are not. The rates of both are not in homosexuality's favor. This is also a repeat.

What kinds of problems are you referring to that can be corrected by homosexuals practicing abstinence?

I knew you would not read what I posted. There is an entire section on this in that link I recently gave. I am not typing that disgusting stuff out.

Regarding the very few monogamous homosexuals who have tried abstinence for two years, or for five years if you wish, if they end up much worse off medically than they were, which would increase insurance, and medical costs for themselves, and for other people, it would certainly be reasonable for them to go back to having sex.

What exactly happens to them? Do their hands fall off or their eyes melt or something?

Absolutely not. In some countries, overpopulation is a serious problem. The earth is running out of resources at a rapid rate. There are serious medical risks for women of that age who have children. Women who want children have the options of adoption, and of housing foster children.

Then move to China and join the proletariat so you can chose who may reproduce. A lot of people died so that you can not do so here. Your side is rabidly changing this but so far we still have a few rights left.

Ok, you have admitted that you cannot provide a fair secular basis that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since that would need to include some other groups of people, so I have achieved my main goal in this thread, which has been to show that there are not any valid secular arguments against homosexuality.

Where did I do that?

There are lots of other threads where we can debate the Bible for years. I have achieved by mail goal in this thread.

What is your mail goal and where did it occur? I see only that my two main claims are standing as tall as ever. It increases suffering without compensating gains.