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

[Curious George]

I am not discussing subsections of any group. It is not practical. Do you think condemning one tiny aspect of heterosexual behavior is a good defense for homosexuality? Infertile couples (or those that were thought to be) have had many children and until you can use your omniscience to predict who will or not you can not make what is not a good claim at all. The potential exists for having children in at least 98% of heterosexual couples and exactly 0% of homosexual couples.

That statement is irregular.

How is that the slightest thread to any of my claims. It is not even relevant unless you could guarantee total monogamy and is not a good one even then.

You just disproved you first claim. This is intellectual schizophrenia and not a even a reasonable attempt at justifying the cost of only homosexual monogamous behavior alone.



However if homosexuality was strictly practiced there would be no children to raise.

I actually thought the only argument against homosexuality was theological and avoided it. I was wrong. There is no claim that can over turn my secular claims alone judging by the desperation of the attempts so far. Believe what you wish, logic and evidence obviously can't change that. I still do not even see an attempt to refute my two primary claims by you. Monogamy is not it, if that is what you thought was one. If that was it, then why did you ever think it was?

People do come into relationships with kids in tow. Moreover, there is also adoption.

I never suggested exclusively homosexual relations should occur, so how would there not be children, either from prior relationships or adoption?


Your statement about guaranteeing all homosexual behavior as monogamous is wrong. I only have to justify homosexual behavior in one instance to disprove a blanket statement that all homosexual behavior is wrong. My choice is two loving committed married adults, who were virginal before getting married, had no diseases, and adopted children.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Beyond that, choosing not to wash one's hands spreads more disease than homosexuality ever could. Are you telling me not washing your hands is immoral?

If there's no redeeming or holy purpose and you only wash them to satisfy your carnal lust for hand-washing, then of course it is an immoral act.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I hate it because it is bad. Do you like bad? You must.

Christianity is bad. I hate it because it is bad. Do you like bad? I guess you must.

(It seems we've moved into the silly section of our debate.)

No because it isn't. They are reported more because they are exceptions. The rule is not interesting.

They're reported more because liberals don't have the sexual hangups. They just go ahead and get laid and move on to the next piece of business. But some Christians get so uptight over sex that they ball it all up and do something crazy.

I do now that a complete absence of justification exists for abortion and homosexuality exists.

And for Christianity. No moral justification exists for anyone indulging in a relationship with that theology. It's unnatural. Definitely immoral.

 

[philbo]

What you said was not disputed. Whether you have the slightest basis for claiming it is. When is this basis due for an appearance?

That homosexuals are normal people?
Homosexuality is natural, in that it occurs in nature. Homosexuals do not choose to be so, and cannot choose not to be so. Whether the incidence of homosexuality is low enough for you to decide it is not "normal" is irrelevant. These are people, and you want to tell them that they're not allowed to be what they are.

I never stated this either. I said there is no justifying gain. No pleasure is compensation for the misery and death it creates. If happiness alone was justification then let all the prisoners out then. A man's rights end at the other man's none. What right do those who practice deviancy have to make others pay for it? In fact what rights does anyone ever have without God?

But most homosexuals do not cause misery and death. Like most drivers do not cause misery and death, and most heterosexuals do not cause misery and death. Some do. It has nothing to do with causing misery and death: it's because you don't like them. Get over it.

I have never insisted my failures must be paid for by others as homosexuals do.

No, I'm sure you will find that no homosexual has insisted their failures be paid for. But if you're going to admit your moral failings, maybe you ought to have the humility to realize that just because you are some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe, you might be wrong.

I dare you to compare my admission of mistakes with any other person that is a non-theist that has as many posts and post the results. Until you do this is another unjustified assertion.

Why the backpedalling? You gave an absolute assertion that I challenged, and now you want to compare it to someone else.

I never said that only homosexuality spreads aids.

Weasel words. You said it devastated countries, and the only example you gave was of countries devastated by AIDS. If in those countries devastated by AIDS, HIV is spread more by heterosexual activity than homosexual (when looked at culturally not just likely, but inevitable), then your assertion has no validity.

An person both honest and numerate would have realized this.

I said it do so without justification. Unless you think propagating the human race is not justification there exists no argument possible. I did not assign or link rates of homosexuality in the US with those in Africa but think you are mistaken anyway. Let me change this to stop this trifling effort at intellectual gymnastics. If there was only 100 cases of aids causing death a year that can be traced to homosexuality. What justifies those deaths concerning the practice? How much fun are those who do not practice it's lives worth? Heck forget even that. Let's say no one died. How many billions is it worth?

Would you ban every activity that has the potential in a minority of cases to cause damage but has "no justification"? Because I can think of dozens without even trying. Any heterosexual recreational sex, skydiving, motorsport, television, pretty much all forms of entertainment, competetive sport..

Why only homosexuality then?

Where, Africa? I do not think so. I know Christians who go over year after year to dig wells for them. Every year they have to clean out the waste and trash from them so they can get the water again. The populations of the starving that depend almost exclusive on Christian aid has exploded. They are at many times impossible to even help. I get that aids stuff from reality. Join me there if you wish.

I shouldn't try sarcasm, should I? Some people just don't get it.

They did not mention homosexuality huh?

None of the ones related to "devastated nations", no. I know I didn't say that explicitly, but I did think the context was clear.

Unless aids is spread by homosexuality in America but not Africa then it is you who have been shown to be wrong and must admit it. I do not think physics, sexuality, nor diseases operate in the opposite way based on geography do they?

You are an idiot, aren't you :it is not spread only by homosexuality in America, as the figures you link to show. It is more prevalent in the homosexual community in the US, but not exclusively. That doesn't mean that the disease operates differently. Sexuality does operate differently with geography - at least, with different cultures.

Your problem is that you are so totally fixated on this that you are simply not thinking rationally (if at all). Why would there need to be any "opposite way"? In what way is it "opposite"? Think about it.

Let me suggest something. The closest you ever claim to providing evidence that anything I said was inaccurate was concerning the number of people that owned slaves. I offered to debate using your numbers regardless if they were accurate, or to debate only those numbers, or to debate the issue regardless of the numbers. If it is so important for you to find something I was wrong about I would suggest that, and tried to. You do not have a chance here. There are good reasons they denied homosexuals the right to donate much needed blood so often, why they ask you your sexual status if blood contact is likely, and why homosexual inmates are often segregated.

Sorry, I missed your reply to that post - do you mean you actually believe there were 1000x as many Christians fighting against slavery than were slaveholders?

Thing is, Robin, like your links above, when you post something claiming it provides evidence of what you're trying to argue about *and it doesn't* there's no need to post extra evidence to contradict: what you have already linked to fails to make your point.

 

[1robin]

That's the necessary logical conclusion to 1robin's argument. Same with couples who are on birth control. They shouldn't be having sex. There is nothing positive to be gained by them slaking their ugly lust, and there is the potential of great damage.

An innocent child could walk into the room and be scarred for life by seeing Mommy and Daddy 'that way.' In young adulthood, that child may commit suicide just to get the image out of his head.

The woman could get an infection from the sexual activity and die.

The man could have a heart attack!

I ask you: Is one single life worth all that useless humping and bumping of two grownup people at their lust! For no good reason!

Nay. Obviously not.

Let us all keep our private parts covered and to ourselves unless it's really really necessary and justified. OK?

On the other hand, consider the sheep of the fields. If we are willing to murder them for their meat, surely it could be no sin to... well... you know.

I am only trying to find the moral path here. I don't personally care for mutton.

I am only going to respond to sincere posts that honestly try to resolve the issue using reasonable evidence. I do not have time to entertain trolling, complaints in question form, or emotional conclusions made in-spite of evidence and this thread attracts more of these than most. Make a decent point or it will be ignored.

 

[1robin]

Monogamy defeats your disease spreading.

1. No it does not.
2. The are many other problems that are not technically diseases which exist even in monogamous homosexual relationships.
3. You can't guarantee that either they will remain monogamous (which their rate of failure is also worse than heterosexuals).
4. The diseases are still spread only at a lower rate. What rate is acceptable for a behavior that has insufficient compensating gain? How much pleasure is each life worth? Is gratification of the base lusts good reason for those people in hospitals struggling to survive? At what point is fun no longer compensation for the billions it costs those who do not indulge?

Self actualization defeats your purposeless perspective.

That statement has no detectable purpose.

Beyond that, choosing not to wash one's hands spreads more disease than homosexuality ever could. Are you telling me not washing your hands is immoral?

Only your side would use a dirty is worse than homosexuality so homosexuality is right argument. If I did things that had a high risk of harming others I would hope to have far better justification than "there is something that is worse". Let's declare every immoral act ever done that is worse than murder ok, because murder is worse. Good Lord man. I am not for being dirty either. Next.

 

[1robin]

Christianity is bad. I hate it because it is bad. Do you like bad? I guess you must.

(It seems we've moved into the silly section of our debate.)



They're reported more because liberals don't have the sexual hangups. They just go ahead and get laid and move on to the next piece of business. But some Christians get so uptight over sex that they ball it all up and do something crazy.



And for Christianity. No moral justification exists for anyone indulging in a relationship with that theology. It's unnatural. Definitely immoral.

This is silly and could not have been a sincere attempt at debate so it will be ignored.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am only going to respond to sincere posts that honestly try to resolve the issue using reasonable evidence. I do not have time to entertain trolling, complaints in question form, or emotional conclusions made in-spite of evidence and this thread attracts more of these than most. Make a decent point or it will be ignored.

You're welcome to ignore me. I will stay here unopposed, informing all readers of this thread about God's obvious approval of homosexuality and love of gay people.

But I'll sure miss you. Your argumentation is quite a lot of fun.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Only your side would use a dirty is worse than homosexuality so homosexuality is right argument. If I did things that had a high risk of harming others I would hope to have far better justification than "there is something that is worse". Let's declare every immoral act ever done that is worse than murder ok, because murder is worse. Good Lord man. I am not for being dirty either. Next.

Answer his question. You say that gay sex is immoral because it spreads disease.

So is it immoral not to wash one's hands often enough?

 

[1robin]

That homosexuals are normal people?
Homosexuality is natural, in that it occurs in nature.

Wow, just wow.

1. The overwhelming majority of animals are not homosexual.
2. Even the ones who are, are not strictly homosexual.
3. If any minority behavior in nature is justification for our behavior (this is just appalling). Then lets legitimize rape as whales and many fish practice it, lets legitimize infanticide because lions do it, or justify sex in the street because dogs do it.
4. Lets find any behavior in nature (regardless of its lack of prominence or application to humans) and declare it to be a rationality for the same behavior in our species. Good one.

Do you actually believe this is an argument?

Homosexuals do not choose to be so,

and cannot choose not to be so. Whether the incidence of homosexuality is low enough for you to decide it is not "normal" is irrelevant. These are people, and you want to tell them that they're not allowed to be what they are.

Prove any of that. They choose to be gay and choose to stop being so, every day. What are you talking about? I know some of them. Entire ministries exist to assist them. However lets fantasize that it is genetically mandated for a second. Is anything that we are genetically disposed to desire justification for practicing it. The Indians (I am one) should declare alcoholism is normal and ok. I saw an article the other day that infanticide has genetic roots so it must be just fine. Racism is easily seen to be a product of evolution and justified by it. I guess the civil rights heroes were immoral. This is very bad and desperate rationalization.

But most homosexuals do not cause misery and death. Like most drivers do not cause misery and death, and most heterosexuals do not cause misery and death. Some do. It has nothing to do with causing misery and death: it's because you don't like them. Get over it.

Most drunks do not crash their cars when driving drunk. It must be good then. Most babies who find a pistol do not shoot themselves so let's have parades for them. Hitler's evolutionary based racial supremacy claims do not kill most Jews so let's enshrine them as the new normal. So far you claims have been terrible but probably sincere. You claim about who I like is dishonest, irrational, completely contrived and meaningless and if that type of claim becomes prevalent you will be ignored. Abortionists defend the rights they deny to others for their actions, homosexuals mandate others will suffer and pay for their actions. People who do this have no credibility left to judge those that wish to prevent the deaths and misery those behaviors produce.

No, I'm sure you will find that no homosexual has insisted their failures be paid for. But if you're going to admit your moral failings, maybe you ought to have the humility to realize that just because you are some kind of foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe, you might be wrong.

When they walk into hospitals ever day and need an object removed from a embarrassing location or have full blow aids or anal cancer and have no insurance who is it that pays then? One more of your false moral high ground claims associated with personal sarcastic rhetoric and I am done with you. I am not interested in your commentary.

Why the backpedalling? You gave an absolute assertion that I challenged, and now you want to compare it to someone else.

Yeah I mistakenly asked a person who made a claim that is utter non-sense to back it up with the only form of data that can possibly be used to make the claim you did. A request this inconvenient is always backing up when requested of one who cannot produce it.

Weasel words. You said it devastated countries, and the only example you gave was of countries devastated by AIDS. If in those countries devastated by AIDS, HIV is spread more by heterosexual activity than homosexual (when looked at culturally not just likely, but inevitable), then your assertion has no validity.

I guess if you were in charge or one of those nations you would have done one of two things based on what you said here. Banned all sex and destroyed the population of that nation in one generation or allowed all sex (even that which has no justifiable gain but which produces vast increases in suffering). That is exactly how they got into this mess. You must have missed this the first 3 times I posted it.
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).

LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates

So 4% of the population produces 63 percent of the problem and instead of the honorable decision to stop it you instead dishonorably accuse the 96% of being more wrong when they only create 37% of the problem but 100% of the justification. That is not moral high ground it is moral insanity and the worst form possible of it. Defending something this wrong based on logic this irrational is disgusting and the root of more evil than even the CDC mentioned. Now you can dishonestly look for a technical out by claiming the same disease acts in the opposite way in Africa than the Us but that would of no use to anyone who is not willing to do anything to justify anything.

Continued below for no apparent reason:

 

[1robin]

An person both honest and numerate would have realized this.

See the above and tell me who is being dishonest.

Would you ban every activity that has the potential in a minority of cases to cause damage but has "no justification"? Because I can think of dozens without even trying. Any heterosexual recreational sex, skydiving, motorsport, television, pretty much all forms of entertainment, competetive sport..

Yep, 5% of the population doing something that less than ten percent of nature does is normal but 63% of aids cases is a minority. Just what level of mathematic and logical irrationality am I dealing with.

Why only homosexuality then?

Is this a heterosexual recreational sex, skydiving, motorsport, television, pretty much all forms of entertainment, or competitive sport.. thread? It appears that the only defense is desperation, bad math, and blaming other stuff. I will give you one more chance to make an argument free of useless sarcasm but I will even take that if it came with just one actually justifiable argument. There are worse arguments I have seen. There are not any I have seen this bad that are used to defend anything this destructive.

I shouldn't try sarcasm, should I? Some people just don't get it.

I get it I just have no use for it when seed instead of a challenging argument. When It and terrible arguments are all that I get for an issue I have no interest.

None of the ones related to "devastated nations", no. I know I didn't say that explicitly, but I did think the context was clear.

This just plain garbage and you can't help but no this. What is worth defending if it can only be defended by arguments this lacking in honor?

1. I gave the homosexual contribution to one disease only of many in the US. It is out of any rational proportion.
2. I gave the problems that are causing massive death, suffering, and devastation to many African nations. The exact same disease.

To honestly have any argument related to these two facts you must show the US study was biased (can't it is CDC). You must show it had insufficiently sample size or that the disease acts completely different and has completely the opposite causes in Africa where I would bet the homosexual contribution is even worse.

You are an idiot, aren't you :it is not spread only by homosexuality in America, as the figures you link to show. It is more prevalent in the homosexual community in the US, but not exclusively. That doesn't mean that the disease operates differently. Sexuality does operate differently with geography - at least, with different cultures.

This abject non-sense. I half expect this anyway but when it is used to defend suffering it simply beyond that pale of reason and is the tactic of the desperate and has no relevance to the obvious conclusions I have made.

1. I never said only homosexuality produces aids and it is irrelevant. It produces far more than heterosexuality and has not a single justifiable gain to call it acceptable.
2. I never mention exclusivity, thought it, nor even hinted at it and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. It is the last shriek of a dead argument.
3. General sexuality was not the primary issues but does operate the exact same way everywhere. Aids was the issues and it's obvious massive increase based on homosexual behavior. Another shriek.

I am done with you on this issue. You obviously have no desire to employ rational thought, moral truth, or hard evidence and only appeal to most dishonest absurdity I have ever seen used to defend the indefensible. I will hold out one last olive branch concerning your numbers of those who owned slaves but if more of this type of stuff is used to defend what can't be, that will the last attempt at civil discourse from you that I allow for. There exist no possibility of defending homosexuality if anything is actually conceded to actually be wrong, by your side (which is why so many from your side deny that moral truth even exists). You have only the slightest chance concerning slavery and numbers but that argument can't be actually made even I used the inaccurate numbers you gave.

 

[1robin]

Answer his question. You say that gay sex is immoral because it spreads disease.

No.

Those who do not present rational arguments have no right to demand them.

Agnostic could not sufficiently defend homosexuality but the posts were rational, well thought out, and reasonable. What has been done to defend the indefensible the last few days in this thread has been the exact opposite. It has been utterly deplorable and not even a challenge. There exists not a single reason within these arguments to take them seriously I can not believe they were taken that way by even those that made them. I do not have the time for this crap.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

There exists not a single reason within these arguments to take them seriously I can not believe they were taken that way by even those that made them. I do not have the time for this crap.

I'm a little sorry to see you withdraw from the debate, but I'm a lot happy about it.

We who can argue with rationality and grace about homosexuality will stay here and demonstrate that God approves of homosexuality -- without having to deal with the tedious illogic and misinformation of those who oppose homosexuality.

But thanks for trying.

 

[philbo]

Wow, just wow.

1. The overwhelming majority of animals are not homosexual.
2. Even the ones who are, are not strictly homosexual.
3. If any minority behavior in nature is justification for our behavior (this is just appalling). Then lets legitimize rape as whales and many fish practice it, lets legitimize infanticide because lions do it, or justify sex in the street because dogs do it.
4. Lets find any behavior in nature (regardless of its lack of prominence or application to humans) and declare it to be a rationality for the same behavior in our species. Good one.

Do you actually believe this is an argument?

The overwhelming majority of animals are not human, either. But humans occur in nature, therefore they're natural. It is a trait seen in many different species now, and the genes appear to get passed on because there is a survival advantage to having non-reproducing adults hanging around a family group. What other definition of "natural" do you want?

To then go on to talk about rape and pretend it's the same is disingenuous. If you can't see why, I'll explain to you, but I'm disappointed you'd even bring it up: it shows you are incapable of thinking outside your predetermined conclusion.

Homosexuals do not choose to be so, Prove any of that. They choose to be gay and choose to stop being so, every day.

There have been many studies posted in this thread that give the lie to what you're saying. Either you've been too pig-headed to read them, or you're doing your usual thing of believing what you want to believe in the face of all the evidence against. Either way, it's a crassly stupid statement based on sheer ignorance.

What are you talking about? I know some of them. Entire ministries exist to assist them.

..when one facepalm simply isn't enough

However lets fantasize that it is genetically mandated for a second. Is anything that we are genetically disposed to desire justification for practicing it.

You're back to your "desiring justification" - people don't need justification to be what they are. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean they have to change.

The Indians (I am one) should declare alcoholism is normal and ok. I saw an article the other day that infanticide has genetic roots so it must be just fine. Racism is easily seen to be a product of evolution and justified by it. I guess the civil rights heroes were immoral. This is very bad and desperate rationalization.

I despair of you: you go out of your way to think of nasty things to compare homosexuality to. Your mind must be a putrid little place to reside.

Hitler's evolutionary based racial supremacy claims do not kill most Jews so let's enshrine them as the new normal.

There's no point in going any further. You're beyond any sense where this is concerned. Goodbye.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wow, just wow.

1. The overwhelming majority of animals are not homosexual.
2. Even the ones who are, are not strictly homosexual.
3. If any minority behavior in nature is justification for our behavior (this is just appalling). Then lets legitimize rape as whales and many fish practice it, lets legitimize infanticide because lions do it, or justify sex in the street because dogs do it.
4. Lets find any behavior in nature (regardless of its lack of prominence or application to humans) and declare it to be a rationality for the same behavior in our species. Good one.

This really is some of the most flawed argumentation I've ever encountered.

You declare that homosexuality is unnatural.

Someone points out that it's actually natural... that many animals practice it.

You answer that 1) not all animals practice it, 2) they're not exclusively homosexual, 3) just because animals do it doesn't mean we should do it and 4) just because animals do it doesn't mean we sould do it (yeah, your #3 and #4 are the same).

It's really bad argumentation. Your #2 is the only argument which even comes close to relevancy, and I'm pretty sure it's false.

Why not simply acknowledge that homosexuality does indeed appear to be natural? Then the debate can move forward.

Why not join the discussion? If, as you seem to think, this is nothing more than a battle between good and evil, I fear you are not doing your 'side' any good with arguments like you're posting.

 

[1robin]

The overwhelming majority of animals are not human, either. But humans occur in nature, therefore they're natural. It is a trait seen in many different species now, and the genes appear to get passed on because there is a survival advantage to having non-reproducing adults hanging around a family group. What other definition of "natural" do you want?

This just keeps getting worse. Their humanity is not what is being discussed here. The argument that any behavior that can be found in any aspect of nature is justification for that behavior in humanity can't be made.

I come here for debate. I do not come here to make fun of others. I do not wish you to look as bad as I can make you. I do not wish to show a good argument is a bad. I want and am looking for challenging arguments or even bad arguments made in a civil way and by someone who has the capacity to allow reason and evidence to settle the issue even it is not in their favor. Instead I get obfuscation, disconnects, claims used for one purpose said to be insufficient for another, irrelevant misdirection. I am not turning good arguments knot these things. I want good arguments. I disagreed with everything you said about Christian slavery but was so interested in a rational debate I said we can use your numbers and the worst example of slavery in history to debate it. I will give you every break I can but these arguments are so pitiful no generosity of earth can make them rational or effective.

What a few species do is no justification for any aspect of behavior our group just happens to wish to justify by any means necessary. Never was, never will be, and is the type of claim that eliminates any hope that reason will be common ground. What kind of a defense is well monkeys do it?

When you make claims as you have made for homosexuality I see no hope of resolution because the grounds where it can occur (reason, evidence, rationality) are rejected for emotional preference driven wish fulfillment. Then to top that off the one using the most ridiculous argumentation I can imagine is accusing me (who is using the CDC and other applicable references, of not like gay people. If that was actually true (and it is a complete lie), you have no way to know it anyway. My argumentation has been based on the soundest, least emotion, purest reason possible. Looking at the rest of this post leaves no hope it will get any better. Think what you wish, as you will anyway. It will all come out in the end.

I will no longer respond to your irrational defense of what is utterly indefensible. Do you wish to resolve the slavery issue or not? This is utterly futile. You might want to (and I always expect your side to) claim that futility is my fault because that is the closest you will ever get to prevailing in a argument in this subject.

I have one last comment> What the heck does this even mean:

I despair of you: you go out of your way to think of nasty things to compare homosexuality to. Your mind must be a putrid little place to reside.

How is something despaired of anyway? Let me point the logical absurdities in just these few representative words. To get that much wrong in so little space requires effort.

1. I assume you meant you despair for me. The one who is arguing that what a monkey or a fish does is justification for massively increasing suffering should be far more worried about his own moral train wreck and the pain, misery, and money it has caused to others than one who believes in a savior and who does not defend the morally indefensible. This is like Hitler telling Mother Theresa he is worried about her.
2. Homosexuality produces more nasty things than the other examples I gave even combined. I compare like with like. The only problem here is you like one bad thing but not the others. Rape is the distortion of what has a purpose and it causes destruction. Homosexuality is the distortion of purpose and design even in a secular framework (which tying most of reality behind my back). It causes massively more harm than rape does and of far worse types. It is apples and apples. Both occur in nature, and while I am still almost in the floor laughing about it apparently what a few monkeys do is you standards for natural and normal. It was your own rope. Don't blame me. The only thing worse than being this wrong (and if you stopped there it would not be so absurd) but you then call your opposite as guilty of reproach and concern by a person with this morally insane standard.
3. It is you who are defending death, misery, costs, with the justification of what monkeys or penguins do, not me. My argument would save lives, your takes them from even other based on stuff that would not be true even if you had actually proven it was true.

This is a waste of time. I despair of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Theodore A. Jones]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

cf? "make love, sexually, to a person of the same gender"?

 

[1robin]

You declare that homosexuality is unnatural.

Where did that occur? I am not debating based on what your mind turns reality into. I did not say this. Someone said it was natural/normal and I argued with the reasons that was claimed.

Someone points out that it's actually natural... that many animals practice it.

Is what exists in a few animals actually your best justification for personal behavior? Your standard is really what animals do? I am showed this to a couple of fellow Christians in my lab and we are all in tears laughing, at the moment. If you are gong to be ridiculous, at least this was funny I guess. In this case what the overwhelming minority of them do not do. Picturing you standing in a courtroom in a suite and being asked well explain why what you desire must be allowed to kill others and cost billions and you responding with "I SAW A MONKEY DO IT" has me almost unable to type. If you were in God's courtroom and he said: I condemned homosexuality because it massively increases suffering without justification and like all sin is the wrong use of a good thing. All sin lies in distorting something that has a valid purpose. He says that to you and then says explain your self: Is your response actually going to be that a few monkeys and other species did X so you thought it was fine in spite of it's destructive outcome. I would love to see that. However If the Bible is true I would hate to see what God would think of that and what it might cost those who were willing to justify the worst behavior by the most absurd conclusions possible. It will work far less well there than it's complete failure here.

Thanks for that laugh, I needed it.

I saw a monkey do it so it is fine is the funniest thing I have heard in weeks.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Is what exists in a few animals actually your best justification for personal behavior? Your standard is really what animals do?

Nah. That's just you trying to cram stupid beliefs into my head so that you can ridicule them. Debaters who are unprepared for serious debate often do that. it's so common that there's even a name for it. Look up 'strawman argument' in a debate book.

I am showed this to a couple of fellow Christians in my lab and we are all in tears laughing, at the moment.

That's hurts, man. You Christians really are a cruel lot, I sometimes think.

If you are gong to be ridiculous, at least this was funny I guess. In this case what the overwhelming minority of them do not do. Picturing you standing in a courtroom in a suite and being asked well explain why what you desire must be allowed to kill others and cost billions and you responding with "I SAW A MONKEY DO IT" has me almost unable to type.

I can't help you with your imagination except to suggest that naked women are probably a better subject matter than I am.

If you were in God's courtroom and he said: I condemned homosexuality because it massively increases suffering without justification and like all sin is the wrong use of a good thing.

Yikes. You can't even write complete sentences, and you come here to teach us God's truth. Mercy me.

All sin lies in distorting something that has a valid purpose. He says that to you and then says explain your self: Is your response actually going to be that a few monkeys and other species did X so you thought it was fine in spite of it's destructive outcome. I would love to see that.

No, that's your own belief. Why do you think that if monkeys can murder, it means that God allows you to murder?

(Me and my buds are laughing hysterically at you right now. We are trying to mimic Christian morality -- just as a sort of creepy, kinky thrill.)

However If the Bible is true....

It's not. So you can stop worrying about that.

I saw a monkey do it so it is fine....

Whatever. But it seems weird. Do you also think it's fine to eat children since some animals do that?

A scary moral system if anyone asks me. Please try to find a better way to arrive at good moral behavior!

 

[Curious George]

1. No it does not.
2. The are many other problems that are not technically diseases which exist even in monogamous homosexual relationships.

well I am listening because I have destroyed your disease argument.

3. You can't guarantee that either they will remain monogamous (which their rate of failure is also worse than heterosexuals).

I don't have to guarantee such. I only have to create a hypothetical wherein homosexuality does not cause the harm you are suggesting to refute your notion as to why homosexuality is immoral. see post 1441

4. The diseases are still spread only at a lower rate. What rate is acceptable for a behavior that has insufficient compensating gain? How much pleasure is each life worth? Is gratification of the base lusts good reason for those people in hospitals struggling to survive? At what point is fun no longer compensation for the billions it costs those who do not indulge?

No- diseases are not spread in my hypothetical. Your assumptions that all homosexuality spreads disease is wrong. This is evidenced by homosexuals dying without disease.

That statement has no detectable purpose.

Only your side would use a dirty is worse than homosexuality so homosexuality is right argument. If I did things that had a high risk of harming others I would hope to have far better justification than "there is something that is worse". Let's declare every immoral act ever done that is worse than murder ok, because murder is worse. Good Lord man. I am not for being dirty either. Next.

Your statement is mistaken. To get to that conclusion you must also decry that not washing one's hands is an immoral act. I would not think that anyone would say that not washing one's hands alone is an immoral act. So it is not that murder, an immoral act, is worse therefore other immoral acts lesser than murder are ok-- But rather, we do not consider not washing ones hands immoral and not washing one's hands spreads disease more than sex. Therefore, why should we consider sex immoral.

I understand you really, really thought you had the argument there for a second. But, Alas, it was not meant to be.