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

[AmbiguousGuy]

Fine. However you must be willing to provide sufficient evidence and justification. You have devolved into almost a troll lately that seems only interested in provocation. I will assume that I have misjudged but if I do not get sincere debate I will not make that mistake again. It will be a short debate as this is one of the easiest claims to justify I know of but if you wish create a thread and give me the link.

Never learned how to provide links, but my opening message is posted in the One-on-One Forum.

 

[1robin]

Never learned how to provide links, but my opening message is posted in the One-on-One Forum.

I at least need the title. I am not omniscient.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence ahs proven health risks. Consider the following:

Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks. Consider the following:

Sexual abstinence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



THE PROBLEM OF SEXUAL ABSTINENCE.

For the sake of contrived stress claims, and things that simple exercise can relieve and especially lust lets poison even people who do not practice it. Unless abstinence directly kills and costs as much as homosexuality does there is no argument possible. Not that I have the slightest obligation for a remedy.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I at least need the title. I am not omniscient.

1robin v. AmbigGuy: Basis of Morality

 

[1robin]

1robin v. AmbigGuy: Basis of Morality

Your up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

On the flip side, we've developed, by the most exhaustive energies we could muster, the capacity to save lives, cure terrible illnesses, increase the human life span, increase quality of life, and drastically decrease infant and child mortality rates, just to name a few. These are good things.

I've already discussed the problems with the links you keep providing, so I won't do it again here.

 

[1robin]

On the flip side, we've developed, by the most exhaustive energies we could muster, the capacity to save lives, cure terrible illnesses, increase the human life span, increase quality of life, and drastically decrease infant and child mortality rates, just to name a few. These are good things.

I am for these things but they do not compensate for the massively more effective things we are getting more wrong each day it seems.

Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would come of age. By this he meant that the atheist of the twentieth century would realize the consequences of living in a world without God, for without God there are no absolute moral values. Man is free to play God and create his own morality. Because of this, prophesied Nietzsche, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 8]. Still, Nietzsche was optimistic, for man could create his own meaning, truth, and morality. Set free from belief in a non-existent God, man could excel like never before. Nietzsche viewed the changes that would occur as man becoming more than man (the superman or overman), rather than man becoming less than man.

Nietzsche was the forerunner of postmodernism. A key aspect of modernism was its confidence that, through reason, man could find absolute truth and morality. Postmodernism rejects this confidence in human reason. All claims to having found absolute truth and morality are viewed by postmodernists as mere creations of the human mind. [Reference 9]. The history of the twentieth century has proven Nietzsche's basic thesis correct. Western culture's abandonment of the Christian world view has led to a denial of both universal truth and absolute moral values. The twentieth century has proven to be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 10]. Hence, the Christian thinker must object to the optimism of Nietzsche. The death of God is not a step forward for man; it is a step backward—a dangerous step backward. If God is dead, then man is dead as well.

The comments of Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft are worth noting:

One need not share Nietzsche's atheism to agree with his historical, not theological, dictum that "God is dead"—i.e., that faith in God is dead as a functional center for Western civilization, that we are now a planet detached from its sun. One need not share Nietzsche's refusal of morality and natural law to agree with his observation that Western man is increasingly denying morality and natural law; that we are well on our way to the Brave New World. {Reference 11].
Approaching the 21st Century: The Death of God, Truth, Morality, and Man

If we ever get this Uberman spawned he might die in the womb by our own immoral hands.
​

I've already discussed the problems with the links you keep providing, so I won't do it again here.

No, you objected to a facet of some of the claims at some of the links which did not disprove even those stats themselves. You said they ended at 199? However they are still higher today than when secularism began it's last march to destroy the last hope of mankind on earth.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Postulate whatever you want, but it's a waste of time. If we want to know what happens we look at actual results. That's what I'm saying.

What mess are we in??

What it increases or exacerbates has killed millions, devastated entire nations, and cost billions.

Nonsense.

Where is the point it gets to be a problem? Is there one?

Apparently not so far, since as I said, we’ve had gay marriage here for over 10 years and our world has not imploded. In fact, basically nothing has changed, except that more couples get to pledge their love to one another in front of family and friends and spend their lives together.

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.

For the 97th time, I’ll point out to you that homosexuality isn’t just all about sex, as you seem to think. Homosexual couples want to have a partner to spend their lives with too. They want to share love, a household and a family with another person too. There’s your “justifying benefit or necessity.” There’s more to it than just sex. The fact that you keep ignoring that aspect indicates where YOUR mind is, not the homosexuals’. Are you saying that heterosexual love is about something more than convenience or preference?

Most of what you say indicates that most homosexuals get sick, spread more diseases and are morally inferior to everyone else. Why do you think people are having major issues with your comments on the subject?

None of this post addresses in any way what I said about looking at the results of gay marriage which has already been instituted in countries all over the globe. Society has not imploded, as you seem to think it would. THAT’S THE POINT.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

:clap
I have pointed all of this out, and them some. Unfortunately, it won't get you anywhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am for these things but they do not compensate for the massively more effective things we are getting more wrong each day it seems.

Nietzsche predicted that the twentieth century man would come of age. By this he meant that the atheist of the twentieth century would realize the consequences of living in a world without God, for without God there are no absolute moral values. Man is free to play God and create his own morality. Because of this, prophesied Nietzsche, the twentieth century would be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 8]. Still, Nietzsche was optimistic, for man could create his own meaning, truth, and morality. Set free from belief in a non-existent God, man could excel like never before. Nietzsche viewed the changes that would occur as man becoming more than man (the superman or overman), rather than man becoming less than man.

Nietzsche was the forerunner of postmodernism. A key aspect of modernism was its confidence that, through reason, man could find absolute truth and morality. Postmodernism rejects this confidence in human reason. All claims to having found absolute truth and morality are viewed by postmodernists as mere creations of the human mind. [Reference 9]. The history of the twentieth century has proven Nietzsche's basic thesis correct. Western culture's abandonment of the Christian world view has led to a denial of both universal truth and absolute moral values. The twentieth century has proven to be the bloodiest century in human history. [Reference 10]. Hence, the Christian thinker must object to the optimism of Nietzsche. The death of God is not a step forward for man; it is a step backward—a dangerous step backward. If God is dead, then man is dead as well.

The comments of Roman Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft are worth noting:

One need not share Nietzsche's atheism to agree with his historical, not theological, dictum that "God is dead"—i.e., that faith in God is dead as a functional center for Western civilization, that we are now a planet detached from its sun. One need not share Nietzsche's refusal of morality and natural law to agree with his observation that Western man is increasingly denying morality and natural law; that we are well on our way to the Brave New World. {Reference 11].
Approaching the 21st Century: The Death of God, Truth, Morality, and Man

If we ever get this Uberman spawned he might die in the womb by our own immoral hands.
​

Apparently it only seems that way to you. For most of the rest of us, things have only gotten better over time.

Considering the centuries that came before, I'm not sure there's any basis in claiming that the 20th century was the bloodiest in human history and even less basis in assuming it would have anything at all to do with abandonment of a Christian world view considering "The Church" itself has a pretty terrible track record.

​

No, you objected to a facet of some of the claims at some of the links which did not disprove even those stats themselves. You said they ended at 199? However they are still higher today than when secularism began it's last march to destroy the last hope of mankind on earth.

I also pointed out that most of the links are incomplete, take you nowhere or are inaccurate representations of actual studies.

 

[1robin]

Postulate whatever you want, but it's a waste of time. If we want to know what happens we look at actual results. That's what I'm saying.

What mess are we in??

What mess are we not in? I said posted not postulated BTW. We pay millions to watch people die, have sex, commit adultery and flaunt every moral that ever existed on huge screens. Have enough missiles pointed at each to ensure the end of life and almost pulled the trigger a few times. Every century brings vastly more costly genocides and wars. This can't possibly continue or end well unless it completely reverses itself and the newest crop of atheist philosophers say that not only is there no moral truth but no truth whatever. I can't debate what has caused the mess with someone who does not know what messes are.

Nonsense.

Then I guess every nightly news program is from another planet. Good to know I was getting worried.

Apparently not so far, since as I said, we’ve had gay marriage here for over 10 years and our world has not imploded. In fact, basically nothing has changed, except that more couples get to pledge their love to one another in front of family and friends and spend their lives together.

Did I claim implosion was a symptom? However we have far more aids cases, and deaths from the behavior because of it. We might even have brand new STD since I checked last. Fra fewer of them actually do any of the things you claimed regardless or saying they would than heterosexuals do. Even if that was not true heterosexuality has justifications for the risks. Homosexuality have not a single one that does.

For the 97th time, I’ll point out to you that homosexuality isn’t just all about sex, as you seem to think. Homosexual couples want to have a partner to spend their lives with too. They want to share love, a household and a family with another person too. There’s your “justifying benefit or necessity.” There’s more to it than just sex. The fact that you keep ignoring that aspect indicates where YOUR mind is, not the homosexuals’. Are you saying that heterosexual love is about something more than convenience or preference?

I am judging the moral aspects of it's sexual components. What other aspects could you have thought I was discussing? I do not regard there is a type of love that is only applicable to homosexuality. I do not care what people love until it starts killing others.

Most of what you say indicates that most homosexuals get sick, spread more diseases and are morally inferior to everyone else. Why do you think people are having major issues with your comments on the subject?

Is the subject of what is most popular relevant. I did far more than claim it but it would be valid if that is all I did. My God this is poor reasoning. It massively increases suffering and expense for those that do it and those that do not. It has not one single sufficient justification for that. I hate the insane and non-existent moral high ground that liberal people invent to disguise the fact they are on the lowest moral ground there is. It is not my unjustifiable habit that produces abortion or very high STD transmission rates for others. There exists no high ground for anyone that supports it. You can't argue for unjustified death and suffering then claim the other guy is wrong. That is all I can take for today. I apologize if I was overly critical but the worst form of immorality I am aware of is defending wrong by calling it right. It is killing countless people and destroying everything people gave everything to build. I just can't watch that but so long and keep silent.

None of this post addresses in any way what I said about looking at the results of gay marriage which has already been instituted in countries all over the globe. Society has not imploded, as you seem to think it would. THAT’S THE POINT.

I predicted no implosions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What mess are we not in? I said posted not postulated BTW. We pay millions to watch people die, have sex, commit adultery and flaunt every moral that ever existed on huge screens. Have enough missiles pointed at each to ensure the end of life and almost pulled the trigger a few times. Every century brings vastly more costly genocides and wars. This can't possibly continue or end well unless it completely reverses itself and the newest crop of atheist philosophers say that not only is there no moral truth but no truth whatever. I can't debate what has caused the mess with someone who does not know what messes are.

Yes, you did say posted, please excuse me.

We pay millions to watch people die? What?

So what if morals are flaunted in movies? They’re MAKE BELIEVE. You don’t think people were into sex and adultery in the past? If you do, I don’t think you’re all that familiar with human nature or history.

We’re not talking about moral truths. We’re talking about results of actions. As in, the result of the legalization of gay marriage. You want to think about what could happen, and in this scenario you imagine people are marrying shoes and rocks and society is falling apart and I’m telling you what actually happens, and it is nothing of the sort.

Then I guess every nightly news program is from another planet. Good to know I was getting worried.

Every day when you turn on the news they’re talking about how homosexuality “increases or exacerbates has killed millions, devastated entire nations, and cost billions?” What news station do you watch??

Did I claim implosion was a symptom? However we have far more aids cases, and deaths from the behavior because of it. We might even have brand new STD since I checked last. Fra fewer of them actually do any of the things you claimed regardless or saying they would than heterosexuals do. Even if that was not true heterosexuality has justifications for the risks. Homosexuality have not a single one that does.

Um, yeah! All of your assertions and claims add up to the implosion of society as a result of homosexuality and more specifically, gay marriage.

Why do you imagine that only gay people spread AIDS? I bet if you surveyed the cases of AIDS worldwide, you’d discover that it’s spread more rapidly by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. Start with Africa.

Please provide the name of the brand new STD that gay people have created. Sorry, I can’t take your word for it but you once told me that STD’s are a recent event in human history, which of course, is not true.

What “justifications for the risks” does heterosexuality have that homosexuality does not?

I am judging the moral aspects of it's sexual components. What other aspects could you have thought I was discussing? I do not regard there is a type of love that is only applicable to homosexuality. I do not care what people love until it starts killing others.

Why do you only focus on the sexual components? That’s what I’m asking you. Also, how does gay marriage kill others?

Is the subject of what is most popular relevant.

What?

I did far more than claim it but it would be valid if that is all I did.

No, it would not be valid, especially if that’s all you did.

My God this is poor reasoning. It massively increases suffering and expense for those that do it and those that do not. It has not one single sufficient justification for that.

You keep asserting this over and over and over without any demonstration of such.

I hate the insane and non-existent moral high ground that liberal people invent to disguise the fact they are on the lowest moral ground there is.

Well, I’m not the one making up empty claims to justify my bigotry. So there’s that.

It is not my unjustifiable habit that produces abortion or very high STD transmission rates for others.
There exists no high ground for anyone that supports it.

What does abortion have to do with this??

There exists no high ground for anyone that supports the equality of gay people? Is that what you’re telling me?

I don’t support high STD transmission, and that is not exclusive to homosexuals by any means, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

You can't argue for unjustified death and suffering then claim the other guy is wrong. That is all I can take for today. I apologize if I was overly critical but the worst form of immorality I am aware of is defending wrong by calling it right. It is killing countless people and destroying everything people gave everything to build. I just can't watch that but so long and keep silent.

Good thing I’m not arguing for unjustified death and suffering then.

 

[Agnostic75]

For the sake of contrived stress claims, and things that simple exercise can relieve and especially lust lets poison even people who do not practice it.

The evidence that I posted indicates that exercise cannot prevent the majority of medical problems that are often caused by long term abstinence. You did not directly discuss, and refute what I posted at all.

If you are right, then heterosexual men and women in the U.S. 45 years of age and older, and heterosexual men and women who live in overpopulated countries would be able to practice abstinence with few problems.

Since most heterosexual men and women 45 years of age and older do not want to have children, and have sex only for pleasure, you have no argument at all regarding them, and even more so since the women and their children have serious medical risks.

Some time ago you said that any deaths at all from AIDS that are caused by homosexuals is not acceptable. If you are right, then any deaths at all from AIDS that are caused by heterosexuals is also unacceptable, especially regarding men and women who are 45 years of age and older, and heterosexual men and women who live in overpopulated countries. In parts of Africa, AIDS is far more common among heterosexuals than it is among homosexuals.

Unless abstinence directly kills and costs as much as homosexuality does there is no argument possible. Not that I have the slightest obligation for a remedy.

You have no argument unless you can provide valid research that shows that homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years have health risks sufficient to warrant abstinence. Any deaths at all does not warrant abstinence, at least in the opinions of many millions of people. In your opinion, how many deaths from teenage drivers would warrant preventing teenagers from driving? How many deaths from eating harmful foods would warrant prohibiting the sale of harmful foods? How many deaths from smoking cigarettes would warrant prohibiting the sale of cigarettes?

Since God has killed millions of people, he is not very interested in preserving life, so why are you so interested in preserving life?

Heart disease, cancer, and obesity are far more dangerous than homosexuality is. You claimed that those problems are not frequently preventable, but if necessary, I can provide you with documented evidence that they are frequently preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity.

As far as homosexuals being a threat to other people are concerned, that is one of the worst arguments that you have made since heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as evidenced by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. It is interesting that you have spent so much of your time debating a problem that is far less harmful than a number of much bigger problems that are largely preventable.

From a practical perspective, you are wasting your time since abstinence for all homosexuals is such an absurd, unpopular argument that if you posted that argument in a full page of the New York times, you would immediately become a laughing stock in the Western world. Even millions of Christians would reject such an absurd argument.

Not that I have the slightest obligation for a remedy.

Common sense indicates that even if a behavior is medically harmful, no behavior is morally wrong is there are not any good solutions. No solutions are needed for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. You need statistics for that group of homosexuals, and you do not have any.

Homosexuals who have proven for many years that they strongly prefer monogamy have earned the right to enjoy the significant joys and pleasures of sharing a sexual relationship with each other. I am referring to people who practice same-sex behavior and do not experiment with bisexuality, and there are plenty of them.

How in the world do lesbians increase suffering since they have less STD risks than heterosexual men, and women do?

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?

I showed some of the health risks of long term abstinence in my post #1396. You did not provide any valid evidence at all that exercise eliminates most of the risks. Research shows that many homosexuals who tried abstinence, and/or tried to change their sexual identity, ended up much worse off than they were before. Quite obviously, if something does not work, you need to try something else.

Consider the following:

http://www.bubblews.com/news/666436-for-a-long-abstinence-from-sex

Doctors and psychologists say that abstaining from sex, especially long-term, is very harmful to the human body. Especially dangerous abstinence in people who are in the prime of life. Candidate of Medical Sciences of Russia, psychotherapist, sexologist AM Poleev commented: "In general, abstinence - a rather dangerous thing. The men - in terms of physical health, women - psychological."

Everyone knows that [having] sex secretes endorphins - happy hormones that enhance our mood and restore mental state. Without them, there is a risk in long-term depression, already with its consequences. Of course, there is always a way out, you can eat chocolate and exercise, which entails the allocation of the same endorphins, but these.......artificial substitutes can only make us happy for a while. Scientists have found that the rejection of sexual life, no matter what [the] reason is, will lead to unwarranted aggression and control [of] your emotions will be very hard.

 

[payak]

I honestly recommend people go and talk to gay couples as I did, I was dead against it before I did.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I honestly recommend people go and talk to gay couples as I did, I was dead against it before I did.

Great advice! Sometimes we see things differently when we've had direct experience with them.

 

[1robin]

Yes, you did say posted, please excuse me.

No problem.

We pay millions to watch people die? What?

What percentage of modern movies do not have death, sex, or some sinful action in? What percentage of news stories do not contain suffering, lies, and sex?

So what if morals are flaunted in movies? They’re MAKE BELIEVE. You don’t think people were into sex and adultery in the past? If you do, I don’t think you’re all that familiar with human nature or history.

I studied brain washing in the military (not exactly studied, was familiarized). Man has no defense against the constant saturation of themes. No one can hold out indefinitely. It also speaks to what we value or have a taste for. In 1960 it was leave it to beaver and traditional values. Today it is sex in the city. If you take no lesson from this it is because you are resisting it.

We’re not talking about moral truths. We’re talking about results of actions. As in, the result of the legalization of gay marriage. You want to think about what could happen, and in this scenario you imagine people are marrying shoes and rocks and society is falling apart and I’m telling you what actually happens, and it is nothing of the sort.

I have discussed the effects of homosexuality and they are dire, in detail. Implosion was not one of them nor was the complete falling apart of society. For that we need all of liberalism and this countries track record since 1960 or before is proof enough.

Every day when you turn on the news they’re talking about how homosexuality “increases or exacerbates has killed millions, devastated entire nations, and cost billions?” What news station do you watch??

I had thought your post was on morality not specifically homosexuality when I made my reply here.

Um, yeah! All of your assertions and claims add up to the implosion of society as a result of homosexuality and more specifically, gay marriage.

No it does not. It posits a massive increase of suffering, costs, unnecessary negative complications to the military and medical practices and that is exactly hat we have. It has devastated nations that do not have our wealth but has harmed them all.

Why do you imagine that only gay people spread AIDS? I bet if you surveyed the cases of AIDS worldwide, you’d discover that it’s spread more rapidly by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. Start with Africa.

Nope, but they do so much faster and without justification.

Please provide the name of the brand new STD that gay people have created. Sorry, I can’t take your word for it but you once told me that STD’s are a recent event in human history, which of course, is not true.

So we can create life but not a virus? I said I bet there are new ones. I do not like the subject and so do not spend much time reading the catalogues of new diseases.

What “justifications for the risks” does heterosexuality have that homosexuality does not?

propagation of humanity for starters. Is that not enough?

Why do you only focus on the sexual components? That’s what I’m asking you. Also, how does gay marriage kill others?

Did I say it did? Your constant use of hyperbolic terms like implosion, falling apart, and kill do not honestly represent my argument. Gay marriage is not the primary claim I made. Homosexual behavior is. Marriage has negative effects but they are more subjective and I have already listed them in detail.

You keep asserting this over and over and over without any demonstration of such.

I have posted that stats over and over again. I can't keep doing so indefinitely. In just this thread I have done so at least a half dozen times. Just review a bit. The most rabid defender of homosexuality here only debated the level and not the claim that it produces massive increases in suffering and the CDC among others claim the same. Why do you not believe it?

Well, I’m not the one making up empty claims to justify my bigotry. So there’s that.

I have posted evidence from non-biased sources over and over. Look back at least a little.

What does abortion have to do with this??

It is another example of false moral high ground.
Liberals defend death and anyone who disagrees they suggest of some moral failing. It is the most disgusting and destructive debate tactic I can imagine.

There exists no high ground for anyone that supports the equality of gay people? Is that what you’re telling me?

Not when it comes at the expense to humanity, that it does. No there is no moral grounds without God of demanding equality for anything. Those who's behavior kills tens of thousands that do not practice it and spends billions of dollars of others peoples money because nature it self rejects that practice who have insufficient justification that it should be allowed are on the lowest moral ground there is. The only lowed ground is to then suggest those that wish to limit suffering are morally wrong.

I don’t support high STD transmission, and that is not exclusive to homosexuals by any means, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

The highest rates are exclusive to homosexuals but even if not the lack of justification would condemn the behavior anyway.

Good thing I’m not arguing for unjustified death and suffering then.

The fact you can't recognize it as such is just what I was talking about.

 

[1robin]

I honestly recommend people go and talk to gay couples as I did, I was dead against it before I did.

What possible answer to any question could they even theoretically supply that would make increases in suffering and expense "good" unless a justification exists that compensates for the negative impact? I have never met a homosexual I did not like personally. What does that have to do with whether it is right or wrong or justifiable?

 

[philbo]

What possible answer to any question could they even theoretically supply that would make increases in suffering and expense "good" unless a justification exists that compensates for the negative impact? I have never met a homosexual I did not like personally. What does that have to do with whether it is right or wrong or justifiable?

You might realize that they're normal people, they don't increase suffering and expense, and it's what they are not what they choose to be.

The scenarios you describe are not ones I recognize:
"Those who's behavior kills tens of thousands"
..is hyperbolic rubbish. I haven't clicked on every link you've posted, but that one has no justification anywhere.
"It has devastated nations that do not have our wealth but has harmed them all. "
Which nations have been devastated by homosexuality?

 

[1robin]

You might realize that they're normal people, they don't increase suffering and expense, and it's what they are not what they choose to be.

In what way can a people who practice one of life's basic functions in a way nature did not intend nor shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity be considered normal? This is not a choice of flavor. This is a primary function that has a vast impact on everyone. I made no claim about right being connected to normal anyway. I made a connection between moral right, suffering, and justification.

The scenarios you describe are not ones I recognize:
"Those who's behavior kills tens of thousands"
..is hyperbolic rubbish. I haven't clicked on every link you've posted, but that one has no justification anywhere.
"It has devastated nations that do not have our wealth but has harmed them all. "
Which nations have been devastated by homosexuality?

My Lord.

WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).
"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
US News reports that if HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to rise at the current rates, more than half of college-aged homosexual men will have HIV by the age of 50.
LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates


Between 1999 and 2000 more people died of AIDS in Africa than in all the wars on the continent, as mentioned by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan.
The death toll is expected to have a severe impact on many economies in the region. In some nations, it is already being felt. Life expectancies in some nations is already decreasing rapidly, while mortality rates are increasing.

[2000] began with 24 million Africans infected with the virus. In the absence of a medical miracle, nearly all will die before 2010. Each day, 6,000 Africans die from AIDS. Each day, an additional 11,000 are infected.
​

— Lester R. Brown, HIV Epidemic Restructuring Africa’s Population, World Watch Issue Alert, 31 October 2000


UNAIDS estimates for 2008 (which are latest figures available) there were roughly:

• 33.4 million living with HIV
• 2.7 million new infections of HIV
• 2 million deaths from AIDS
• Approximately 7 out of 10 deaths for 2008 were in Sub-Saharan Africa, a region that also has over two-thirds of adult HIV cases and over 90% of new HIV infections amongst children.

AIDS in Africa

Maybe you have a different definition of devastate than most.

 

[Jester]

Sorry to wade into this debate, gentlemen, but I couldn't resist.

Unfortunately for 1robin, I am another person in favor of homosexuality which is kind of making this slightly unfair. and I am an agnostic. I have a religious upbringing in a heavily religious school. It's also worth noting I have no ill will against those who oppose homosexuality, though I do believe it is a question of ignorance.

Anyway, let's get down to this, shall we?

In what way can a people who practice one of life's basic functions in a way nature did not intend nor shared by the overwhelming majority of humanity be considered normal? This is not a choice of flavor. This is a primary function that has a vast impact on everyone. I made no claim about right being connected to normal anyway. I made a connection between moral right, suffering, and justification.

Just because something is different to the overwhelming majority, doesn't make it necessarily "weird" or anything. It's a way they were programmed and hard-wired, whether by a God or just by nature itself. I have very little doubt that you believe in a God, so wouldn't homosexuality be a relatively clever and healthy way of thinning the population?

WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A fact sheet released at the end of June by the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) warns that HIV rates, already at epidemic proportions, are continuing to climb steadily among men who have sex with men (MSM).
"Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

First of all, if you are looking at LifeSiteNews for information, I recommend you find more sites for your news.
I clicked on it and the headlines could be summarized to "abortion, abortion, the pope, abortion, homosexuality."

Secondly, while I hate to get into the fairly uncomfortable mechanics of it, it's fairly safe to say that a reason that HIV would spread would be...
well...
Not wearing a condom.
If you think about it, people wear condoms less for the protection from STDs and more to prevent pregnancy. Homosexuals don't actually need to prevent pregnancy so STDs are more likely to be transmitted.

Also, you act as though the rate of death in a developed country has anything to do with Africa.
Which is ridiculous, considering the immensely different circumstances.