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

[payak]

I judge behavior not people. I myself make many mistakes. The difference is I call my mistakes - mistakes. I call bad things bad. I never say that some happiness of mine or some pleasure I get justifies it harming others. A behavior is right or wrong independent of any solutions to it. I have steered away from solutions because I have no experience or qualifications to comment on it in depth. I will say a few things but regardless of any solution things are justifiable or not.

1. As admitted by a person who defends homosexuality, the church has had success in turning people from this practice. There are many people who have left their gay life behind and embraced heterosexuality and will and have said that it was a choice and a spiritual problem not a genetic mandate. They do not have homosexual desires any longer. Even secular programs have successes, they are just much lower rates than Christian institutions.
2. I am not saying it is easy. Like alcoholism and drug addiction etc.... recovery and getting away from the hold it has on us is hard. It can and has been done but many do not make it. That does not mean that it is justifiable.
3. Drug addiction is also a love affair (I am speaking from experience). We literally love drugs more than anything. More than a lover, more than a spouse, more than even food or our health. Trying to be free is a nightmare and without God I would never have made it. However whether I ever made it or not I would have told anyone who asked it was wrong and unjustifiable.
4. There are countless things people would claim their desire to do was irresistible. Yet we do not claim they were right or justified because they claimed they were compelled to do them.
5. However lets say there is no solution possible. Which is a lie but lets pretend it was true. Abstinence is always an option. I was in the Navy and when out to sea for months we were all 100% abstinent. Priests and holy men of most faiths have practiced it. People who get tired of playing the games involved in dating have given up sex. Now take the reasons those people chose abstinence and think how much greater the motivation for it when what is resisted causes so much pain, misery, and death. If I and others have practiced abstinence based of preference or convenience. How much more could do so based on not risking injury to others for the sake of physical lust. A lust by the which can be satisfied in other ways that do not risk others lives.

Claiming to like to do something is never an excuse for doing so alone.

what pain and suffering are you refering to, if two gay people only have sex with each other what pain and suffering are they causing the community.

I think your trouble is with unfaithful people or people that sleep with multiple partners spreading disease, thats not exclusively a gay problem that's an individuals problem gay or otherwise.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

what pain and suffering are you refering to, if two gay people only have sex with each other what pain and suffering are they causing the community.

I think your trouble is with unfaithful people or people that sleep with multiple partners spreading disease, thats not exclusively a gay problem that's an individuals problem gay or otherwise.

Exactly. Us gays don't hold a monopoly on being sluts. Hell, some of us are even pretty damn monogamous.

 

[1robin]

what pain and suffering are you refering to, if two gay people only have sex with each other what pain and suffering are they causing the community.

Oh come on. There is a reason they have been prevented from giving blood. There is a reason they are segregated when injured. I have posted the CDC data that 4% of us that are gay produce 63% of the aids cases. Now there is an additional mountain of stats for other God awful diseases and other damage that the missuses of our sexual organs produces. However is aids alone not plenty. If homosexuals were all monogamous the damage would probably not be near as great but still far higher than "it feels good" can justify. How many lives is pleasure worth. Gays also have a far higher level of adultery and disloyalty than heterosexuals. Many baby's who find guns do not shoot anyone. Are babies with guns there for a good idea. I am judging a behavior as a whole. Any aspect of it is unjustifiable even monogamy with a condom still has great risks, but evaluating every subsection in isolation is not only invalid but impractical is a post.

I think your trouble is with unfaithful people or people that sleep with multiple partners spreading disease, thats not exclusively a gay problem that's an individuals problem gay or otherwise.

No, monogamy only reduces the risk and adds no justification. Let me ask you this. If it feels good or I like it is the motivation how many lives of just those who do practice it and how many billions should the rest of us pay for what do not do?

It can't be justified by anything what so ever?

Those who insist the 96% of us who do not do it must suffer the risk (and in thousands of cases death and in all cases expense) so the 4% can do whatever they wish is absurd. The reason that is wrong is the basis for most of our most prominent laws.

 

[1robin]

Exactly. Us gays don't hold a monopoly on being sluts. Hell, some of us are even pretty damn monogamous.

No you do not but you do have a much higher rate of infidelity and not one single justifying compensating reason that others must suffer what you do. If heterosexuality was banned the human race would end. We have proper justification for the risks. If homosexuality was practiced (unlike any other creature in nature) by everyone the human race would end. Homosexuality has vastly higher risks and no compensating gain.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

what pain and suffering are you refering to, if two gay people only have sex with each other what pain and suffering are they causing the community.

I think your trouble is with unfaithful people or people that sleep with multiple partners spreading disease, thats not exclusively a gay problem that's an individuals problem gay or otherwise.

Conservative Christians generally have sexual hangups. They're just weird about sex. That focus on sex is behind the gay hatred. Nothing else. And, as we see here, no amount of rational argument or evidence will sway a conservative Christian mind away from that weird infatuation with and fear of human sex.

 

[1robin]

Good, so you should not judge healthy homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and have demonstrated their preference for monogamy, and have thereby earned the right to share the joys of having sex. That argument is even more true of homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least twenty years.

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them. Is the behavior any different? Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years. Its rates of infidelity are far beyond heterosexuals. When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time. Good luck

Upon what evidence do you base that absurd guess? Please provide a secular definition for being in love.

I stated that incorrectly but the math and logic works anyway. I meant that lets assume ALL 4% of us that are gay (which produce 63%) of aids cases in the US..............

But the vast majority of homosexuals never get HIV, or AIDS.

The majority of babies with guns do not shoot anyone. Is it a good idea?

But only a small percentage fraction of the suffering, and billions of dollars due to often preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

I am not discussing any other section of what causes suffering and costs. This is a homosexuality thread not a costs thread. Pointing out that Y is worse than X does not justify X. You are saying he same invalid things over and over and over.

You have shown on such thing regarding homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

There are precious few in that group and this is not a homosexuals who are monogamous thread. And your very small group still has many risks even if they are lower.

What about lesbians, who have less risk than heterosexual men and women do?

80% of American homosexuals do not have HIV, and risks are far less in some countries. In 2010, the AIDS risk in Australia, and New Zealand was only about 1/6 of what it was in the U.S..

Exactly what level of risk is worth thousands of lives and billions of dollars that those who do not practice it must pay? If is was only 1 million dollars and 1000 lives does (it feels good so they must die and pay) make sense?

But millions of homosexuals are not promiscuous, and many who are promiscuous practice safe sex, and do not have any STDs.

See the above. You are even repeating arguments within the same post and have already tried them before in others and they did not work. You are just out of ideas are you not?

There are not any doubts whatsoever that the vast majority of homosexuals do not have HIV, or AIDS, are not pedophiles, are not alcoholics, and do not abuse drugs.

Repeat

If a God exists, he created most harmful viruses that kill humans, and innocent animals. Many diseases that humans have were originally transmitted to humans through animals, probably including AIDS, and God has killed millions of people in many other ways. Since God is not very much interested in the physical health of humans, why are you? God could have easily prevented the Irish Potato Famine, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom were Christians, but chose not to. The same goes for the Bubonic Plague, which killed millions of people.

Good created good things that were warped and twisted into bad things. Sexual organs that have valid purposes are used as they were not intended to. Drinks that have valid purposes are abused, Drugs are the same and so on. Almost all immorality is the misuse of something that is actually good if used correctly. The Bible teaches that virus evolved from things that were good. However lets pretend he directly created them. God is perfect justice. He may have created punishments for immoral actions so that we would not think God a wrong when wrong actions have no consequences. That is wild speculation but it is far more logical than homosexuality is not wrong (even if nature its self and most people believe it is) but if it is wrong it is God's fault. Pathetic.

Animals existed long before humans did. How do you explain why they killed each other, and probably practiced homosexuality? The Bible says that eventually, the lion will lay with the lamb. Why weren't things that way before humans existed?

There is no know animal that practices strict homosexuality. The rest is a biblical argument and I have used secular arguments. You must first at least dent my secular argument before you step up and try and challenge the Bible.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion. You said that the Bible is not confusing, but there are hundreds, or thousands of examples of where it is confusing. Perhaps I will start a few thread on that issue. If I do, you can explain why you believe that what the Bible says about Adam and Eve, and the flood, and what Jesus said about divorce, and tithing, are not confusing.

See above for why I am not going to respond to another load of stuff thrown at the wall in a thread on homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

How many are new?

Argument #1

You said that you do not need to provide any solutions for homosexuality, but you have done so many times by saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

I have mentioned some informal things about solutions for the benefit of someone asking a question. My primary claims have no burden for a solution.

Argument #2

From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong unless there are better alternatives. There are not any better alternatives for most homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and have proven their preference for, and dedication to monogamy.

The heck you say. No one has ever been cleared of murder by saying he just had to do it. This is an excuse and a rationalization that you side loves to use for anything they wish to justify. There are solutions but they are not my burden and no that is not the basis of even secular law. There is no such thing as I had to have homosexual sex.

Argument #3

Having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Nothing here justifies the cost.

Argument #4

None of your statistics deal with homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. You cannot provide any evidence that those homosexuals have enough risk to warrant practicing abstinence.

Do you actually think that a tiny subsection of a group that has less (less not none) risks is justification for the practice?

Argument #5

It is common knowledge that many homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, and/or long term abstinence ended up much worse off than they were before, and required medical treatment as a result. Obviously, it would be reasonable for those people to have sex again in order to try to improve their physical, and mental health.

It is common knowledge the same is true for drug addiction, sex addictions of other kinds, alcohol addictions, etc yet they are still wrong. They are seeking help for some reason to begin with. People usually do not try and fix what is not a problem to begin with.

Argument #6



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.

You may do so when I am for them and against homosexuality. It is no defense what so ever to point at something worse. That is what kids do and responsible parents try and change before they become adults. In your bizarre rational every other group could say they were fine because heart disease is worse. Smoking is good, cancer is justified, murder is natural because heart disease is worse.
Argument #7

There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

Homosexuality is a problem, but you need to keep it in perspective, and realize that there are a number of far more serious health problems, many of which are largely preventable.

Yet again huh. Pointing out something is worse does not make anything right.

Argument #8

As far as STDs are concerned, it is important to note that lesbians have less risks than heterosexual men and women do.

Less wrong is still wrong.

Argument #9


Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference.

Do you even read what you type? How was this an argument for anything.

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Argument #1

You said that you do not need to provide any solutions for homosexuality, but you have done so many times by saying that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Argument #2

From a secular perspective, no behavior is wrong unless there are better alternatives. There are not any better alternatives for most homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and have proven their preference for, and dedication to monogamy.

Argument #3

Having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Argument #4

None of your statistics deal with homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years. You cannot provide any evidence that those homosexuals have enough risk to warrant practicing abstinence.

Argument #5

It is common knowledge that many homosexuals who tried reparative therapy, and/or long term abstinence ended up much worse off than they were before, and required medical treatment as a result. Obviously, it would be reasonable for those people to have sex again in order to try to improve their physical, and mental health.

Argument #6



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.

Argument #7

There are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals' greatest health threat by far is themselves, not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

Repeat. You are so busy throwing stuff at the wall you must go into a frenzy which prevents you from noticing when you repeat your self. Why does no one else do this?

Homosexuality is a problem, but you need to keep it in perspective, and realize that there are a number of far more serious health problems, many of which are largely preventable.

I have it in perspective. IN this thread it is the primary issue.

Argument #8

As far as STDs are concerned, it is important to note that lesbians have less risks than heterosexual men and women do.

Repeat of a repeat.

Argument #9

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:

I will if it is true.

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

When you show they can't possibly have children then we can discuss this for the 5th time. I adopted a secular viewpoint that excludes half of reality because you can't rise to my level. This is the only point you have ever made that is not a slam dunk on just a secular level. Like many other times all of reality must be embraced to clear all the detail up. However notice that even your one rational argument only make what heterosexuals do after 45 an issue. It does nothing to make homosexuality right at all. So while this one may be a bit fuzzy without God, homosexuality would still be wrong either way.

2. Heterosexual black American men and women.

Nope.

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

Nope

4. People who live in poverty.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

5. People who live in overpopulated countries.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

Now I have answered every one of your arguments and only #1 in the last section has any wiggle room. The rest are slam dunks and have been answered in detail many times before. I am going to keep a copy of this list and will no longer address anything outside the only I mentioned again.

When 4% of the population produces 63% of the aids (without overwhelming justifying gain in some way) there is no longer any possibility of justification. The attempt alone is immoral in the extreme. Defending that is an admission that whoever did does not care about right and wrong what so ever and that others must suffer for what they want to do (not have to do).

 

[payak]

I'm not gay 1robin, however I would like to know where you get your off the planet stats.

I have known a few very homophobic friends like you,very homophobic,they turned out to be gay.

I think im seeing a pattern here,1robin when you accept your homosexuality the anger will pass,good luck.

 

[1robin]

I'm not gay 1robin, however I would like to know where you get your off the planet stats.

I do not remember saying you were.

I have known a few very homophobic friends like you,very homophobic,they turned out to be gay.

Not one word of this has the slightest thing to do with the issue, me, or anything I said and is no defense of anything.

I think im seeing a pattern here,1robin when you accept your homosexuality the anger will pass,good luck.

This is against forum rules, and far worse against common decency. Get back to the issues if you wish to talk to me. When you can counter a single primary point I made then you can guess about what you have no access to. Which BTW is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If you can't be relevant and civil you do not belong here.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have known a few very homophobic friends like you,very homophobic,they turned out to be gay.

There are many examples of that among conservative Christians, of course. I'm not implying it's the case with anyone specific, but it's definitely a pattern. The more unrelenting the attack against homosexuality, the greater the odds that the attacker is having an issue within himself.

At least that's what I've noticed.

 

[Curious George]

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them. Is the behavior any different? Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years. Its rates of infidelity are far beyond heterosexuals. When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time. Good luck

But your argument encompasses all homosexuality.

This is your mistake.

You cannot guarantee that there is not a completely monogamous homosexual relationship. Therefore, you cannot say ALL homosexuality is wrong.

It is really a simple exercise in logic. You took an extreme stance by making a sweeping generalization. There does exist a possible instance where your extreme stance is not valid. You just need to accept that you were wrong with your sweeping generalization.

 

[averageJOE]

@1Robin:
Whats this "4% of us that are gay..." thing you are talking about? Where did that number come from?

 

[payak]

I do not remember saying you were.

Not one word of this has the slightest thing to do with the issue, me, or anything I said and is no defense of anything.

This is against forum rules, and far worse against common decency. Get back to the issues if you wish to talk to me. When you can counter a single primary point I made then you can guess about what you have no access to. Which BTW is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If you can't be relevant and civil you do not belong here.

I just thought you should see what its like when people assume things.

Don't talk about honesty when you post dishonest stats.

You have a truly mean streak,you say they should practice abstinence however that makes absolutly no sense when they are breaking no laws and in their mind no moral rules.

You are speaking like we live under an extremist robin1 dictatorship,it only makes sense if they share your hateful views.

2 men going at it next door to my home,how on earth does that effect me.

 

[darkendless]

2 men going at it next door to my home,how on earth does that effect me.

It wouldn't. Chances are there could be right now and you'd never know unless you're boxed in by really small houses?

It disgusts me that people seem to feel the need to tell other people how to live. Its usually those same people who can't take constructive criticism themselves!!!

 

[Agnostic75]

Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years.

Please quote your sources.

Surely many homosexuals have practiced abstinence for much longer than that, such as those who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years. Why should they practice abstinence?

Lesbians have less risk of getting STDs than heterosexual men and women do. Why then would it make sense for them to practice abstinence? In some countries where sex among gay men is illegal, sex among lesbians is legal because it is actually safer than sex among heterosexual men and women.

A number of experts believe that about 3% of the people in the world are homosexuals. That would mean that there are about 210 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of those homosexuals are healthy, and strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, which is easily probable, that would be about 2 million homosexuals who would not need to practice abstinence.

If homosexuality is as bad as you say it is, it is quite remarkable that well over a million of them are healthy, happy, and monogamous, and have beaten the odds of developing a difficult sexual identity that they did not ask for. Those homosexuals should be commended, not criticized.

Its rates of infidelity are far beyond heterosexuals.

Confirmation bias. What about the many homosexuals who are not promiscuous? If only 2% of homosexuals are not promiscuous, that is millions of homosexuals.

When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time.

It is a simple matter to prove which homosexuals are healthy when they get together. Ten or more years of monogamy is a reasonable amount of time to warrant staying together, and much more so regarding twenty years or longer.

Good, so you should not judge healthy homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and have demonstrated their preference for monogamy, and have thereby earned the right to share the joys of having sex. That argument is even more true of homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least twenty years.

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them.

Risks regarding many things are part of life since they can seldom, or never be completely eliminated.

What are the proven health risks for homosexuals who have been monogamous for five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years?

Is the behavior any different?

If you mean do many promiscuous, and monogamous homosexuals have oral, and anal sex, of course the answer is yes. Emotionally, there is an obvious difference since a long term commitment to monogamy quite naturally creates closer bonds between monogamous homosexuals.

Yet again, you discussed your sexual abstinence while you were in the military, and in spite of the many times that I have posted valid evidence that having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks. If necessary, I will post the evidence again.

Quite obviously, not having sex for a year or two cannot be compared with abstinence for life.

Many homosexuals who tried abstinence ended up much worse off medically than they were before, and required expensive medical treatment, not to mention the additional suffering. It is certainly reasonable for those homosexuals to have sex again, especially those who were monogamous.

By far, whatever the religion. it is religiously motivated people who practice long term abstinence successfully, whatever successfully means, but abstinence is often unsuccessful even for religiously motivated people. That means that abstinence is not a valid option for non-religious, monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, although I think that five years is also acceptable, especially since you do not have any health statistics for that group of homosexuals.

 

[Agnostic75]

But only a small percentage fraction of the suffering, and billions of dollars due to often preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

I am not discussing any other section of what causes suffering and costs. This is a homosexuality thread not a costs thread.

But haven't suffering and costs been your entire secular arguments against homosexuality? As far as I recall, you have used the word "costs" on a number of occasions in your arguments. As far as I know, your first post in this thread was your post #395, which is on page 40. In part of that post, you said:

We are discussing what the practice of a certain brand of sexuality causes in the way of negative effects.

Homosexuality is the dynamic that causes the vast difference in the STI numbers. Of course if someone wants to obscure that fact because it is inconvenient the suggestion that ancillary or incidental causes are dominant is a way to confuse the issue. As I have stated in this context it is irrelevant.

Is that not an example of suffering and costs? You have also said that billions of dollars have been spent treating homosexuality. Is that not an example of costs?

Pointing out that Y is worse than X does not justify X.

I never said, or implied that, and I have told you that at least several times in various threads. As I have told you, my intention of mentioning heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, was to try to get you to put homosexuality in its proper perspective. Yes, it is often a serious problem, but nowhere near as big a problem as heart disease alone. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died of heart disease. In other words, about 40 times more, or about 4000% more Americans died of heart disease than died of AIDS.

The world is full of physical, and financial problems from many things, most of which do not have anything to do with homosexuality. If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, the vast majority of those problems would still exist. Since you are trying to limit your arguments to secular arguments, I will tell you that from a secular perspective, the world is heading for disaster, and homosexuality has very little to do with that. In only the past 85 years, world population has gone from 2 billion to 7 billion people, but you want people to keep having children, thereby greatly increasing suffering, and accelerating the death of our planet. Humans are using resources 50% faster than the earth can replenish them. Fifty years from now, the world will be so much worse that very few people will discuss homosexuality at all since life will have become so difficult for most people.

 

[Agnostic75]

In order to be fair, you need to recommend that all of the following groups of people should practice abstinence since they are at risk:

Heterosexual men and women 45 years of age and older.

When you show they can't possibly have children then we can discuss this for the 5th time.

Been there, done that since I have told you probably at least twice that the vast majority of women of that age do not want to have children, and have sex only for pleasure. That is far more true today because it takes a lot more money to raise children than it used to, and wages have not kept up with prices for a number of decades. An article at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27/late.pregnancy.risks/index.html says that a large percentage of women 47 years of age and older who want to have children need to use other women's eggs, and that that can cost from $16,000 - $30,000 dollars.

Heterosexual black American men and women.

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV.

African Americans accounted for an estimated 44% of all new HIV infections among adults and adolescents (aged 13 years or older) in 2010, despite representing only 12% to 14% of the US population.

In 2010, black men accounted for 70% (14,700) of the estimated 20,900 new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. The estimated rate of new HIV infection for black men (103.6/100,000 population) was seven times as high as that of white men, twice as high as that of Latino men, and nearly three times as high as among black women.

In 2010, black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)represented an estimated 72% (10,600) of new infections among all black men and 36% of an estimated 29,800 new HIV infections among all MSM. More new HIV infections (4,800) occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group of MSM.

In 2010, black women accounted for 6,100 (29%) of the estimated new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. This number represents a decrease of 21% since 2008. Most HIV infections among black women (87%; 5,300) are attributed to heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women (38.1/100,000 population) was 20 times as high as the rate for white women, and almost five times as high as that of Latinas.

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

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

Sub-Saharan Africa Girls Face High HIV/AIDS Risk

Teenage girls in sub-Saharan Africa are three-to-five times more likely to be infected with the virus that causes AIDS than boys their age.

Obviously, most of those girls are heterosexuals.

Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HIV/AIDS is a global pandemic. As of 2011 approximately 34 million people have HIV worldwide. Of these, approximately 17.2 million are men, 16.8 million are women and 3.4 million are less than 15 years old. There were about 1.8 million deaths from AIDS in 2010, down from 2.2 million in 2005.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected. In 2010, an estimated 68% (22.9 million) of all HIV cases and 66% of all deaths (1.2 million) occurred in this region. This means that about 5% of the adult populations is infected. Here in contrast to other regions women compose nearly 60% of cases. South Africa has the largest population of people with HIV of any country in the world at 5.9 million.

The vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa are among heterosexuals. An article at http://aidscience.org/Science/Cohen288(5474)2153.html says:

"Africa has a primarily heterosexual epidemic."

People who live in poverty.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

On the contrary, it is provable that heterosexuals who live in poverty are a high risk group. Consider the following:

Addressing Poverty as Risk for Disease: Recommendations from CDC's Consultation on Microenterprise as HIV Prevention

In March 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened a consultation meeting to explore microenterprise as a potential human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) prevention intervention. The impulse to link microenterprise with HIV/AIDS prevention was driven by the fact that poverty is a significant factor contributing to the risk for infection. Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population.

As an HIV prevention intervention, microenterprise differs from previously developed interventions in important ways. First, it has the capacity to disentangle the nexus of risk that characterizes the lives of those at risk for HIV or living with HIV. Poverty (and racism, arguably its most significant determinant) is associated with numerous factors throughout the life course that lead almost inexorably to risk for HIV infection. That is, individuals at risk for HIV often have histories of trauma, drug abuse, incarceration, unemployment, poor education, and homelessness, all of which have the potential to be alleviated, at least in part, by economic empowerment programs.

Beyond this, microenterprise has the ability to affect numerous health conditions in addition to HIV risk. Poverty is implicated in most health problems, and poverty- and race-related health disparities are viewed by many as the preeminent health issue—in fact, social justice issue—currently confronting U.S. society. Accordingly, economic empowerment may be able to reduce hypertension and other cardiovascular health problems, the incidence and course of numerous cancers, violence, substance abuse, and many other negative health conditions. Economic empowerment may achieve this through behavioral and lifestyle changes, increasing health-care utilization, and also through the alleviation of poverty-induced stress and its numerous health-related manifestations. For example, CDC's Hope Works project, an intervention that includes assistance with developing economic objectives, targets weight management and stress reduction in addition to job-skills training and improving incomes. The ability to affect multiple health outcomes is promising not only for economic empowerment, but also for other structural and community-level interventions such as incarceration policy and community mobilization.

Please note:

"Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population."

People who live in overpopulated countries.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

What is not provable? You said that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. That is provably not true regarding some countries.

When you get some extra time, please reply to my five most recent replies to you in the thread at the General Religious Debates forum that is titled "The right religion."

 

[Agnostic75]

But only a small percentage fraction of the suffering, and billions of dollars due to often preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

I am not discussing any other section of what causes suffering and costs. This is a homosexuality thread not a costs thread.

But haven't suffering and costs been your entire secular arguments against homosexuality? As far as I recall, you have used the word "costs" on a number of occasions in your arguments. As far as I know, your first post in this thread was your post #395, which is on page 40. In part of that post, you said:

We are discussing what the practice of a certain brand of sexuality causes in the way of negative effects.

Homosexuality is the dynamic that causes the vast difference in the STI numbers. Of course if someone wants to obscure that fact because it is inconvenient the suggestion that ancillary or incidental causes are dominant is a way to confuse the issue. As I have stated in this context it is irrelevant.

Is that not an example of suffering and costs? You have also said that billions of dollars have been spent treating homosexuality. Is that not an example of costs?

Pointing out that Y is worse than X does not justify X.

I never said, or implied that, and I have told you that at least several times in various threads. As I have told you, my intention of mentioning heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, was to try to get you to put homosexuality in its proper perspective. Yes, it is often a serious problem, but nowhere near as big a problem as heart disease alone. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died of heart disease. In other words, about 40 times more, or about 4000% more Americans died of heart disease than died of AIDS.

The world is full of physical, and financial problems from many things, most of which do not have anything to do with homosexuality. If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, the vast majority of those problems would still exist. Since you are trying to limit your arguments to secular arguments, I will tell you that from a secular perspective, the world is heading for disaster, and homosexuality has very little to do with that. In only the past 85 years, world population has gone from 2 billion to 7 billion people, but you want people to keep having children, thereby greatly increasing suffering, and accelerating the death of our planet. Humans are using resources 50% faster than the earth can replenish them. Fifty years from now, the world will be so much worse that very few people will discuss homosexuality at all since life will have become so difficult for most people.

 

[Agnostic75]

Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years.

Please quote your sources.

Surely many homosexuals have practiced abstinence for much longer than that, such as those who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years. Why should they practice abstinence?

Lesbians have less risk of getting STDs than heterosexual men and women do. Why then would it make sense for them to practice abstinence? In some countries where sex among gay men is illegal, sex among lesbians is legal because it is actually safer than sex among heterosexual men and women.

A number of experts believe that about 3% of the people in the world are homosexuals. That would mean that there are about 210 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of those homosexuals are healthy, and strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, which is easily probable, that would be about 2 million homosexuals who would not need to practice abstinence.

If homosexuality is as bad as you say it is, it is quite remarkable that well over a million of them are healthy, happy, and monogamous, and have beaten the odds of developing a difficult sexual identity that they did not ask for. Those homosexuals should be commended, not criticized.

Its rates of infidelity are far beyond heterosexuals.

Confirmation bias. What about the many homosexuals who are not promiscuous? If only 2% of homosexuals are not promiscuous, that is millions of homosexuals.

When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time.

It is a simple matter to prove which homosexuals are healthy when they get together. Ten or more years of monogamy is a reasonable amount of time to warrant staying together, and much more so regarding twenty years or longer.

Good, so you should not judge healthy homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, and have demonstrated their preference for monogamy, and have thereby earned the right to share the joys of having sex. That argument is even more true of homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least twenty years.

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them.

Risks regarding many things are part of life since they can seldom, or never be completely eliminated.

What are the proven health risks for homosexuals who have been monogamous for five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years?

Is the behavior any different?

If you mean do many promiscuous, and monogamous homosexuals have oral, and anal sex, of course the answer is yes. Emotionally, there is an obvious difference since a long term commitment to monogamy quite naturally creates closer bonds between monogamous homosexuals.

Yet again, you discussed your sexual abstinence while you were in the military, and in spite of the many times that I have posted valid evidence that having sex has proven health benefits, and long term abstinence has proven health risks. If necessary, I will post the evidence again.

Quite obviously, not having sex for a year or two cannot be compared with abstinence for life.

Many homosexuals who tried abstinence ended up much worse off medically than they were before, and required expensive medical treatment, not to mention the additional suffering. It is certainly reasonable for those homosexuals to have sex again, especially those who were monogamous.

By far, whatever the religion. it is religiously motivated people who practice long term abstinence successfully, whatever successfully means, but abstinence is often unsuccessful even for religiously motivated people. That means that abstinence is not a valid option for non-religious, monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years, although I think that five years is also acceptable, especially since you do not have any health statistics for that group of homosexuals.