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

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1536, # 1537, #1538, #1539, and #1540.

Since you would not agree to what I requested in the Tyre thread I do not promise anything here.

 

[Curious George]

I have no need to show that all babies with guns kill others to claim that babies with guns is a bad idea and causes much harm. I have no idea what your talking about. There is nothing extreme about anything I said. It is based on secular fact and is shared by far more people than it's opposite. I see liberal tactic 101 has surfaced since an argument could not. No matter how many facts line up, how many people agree, or how many ways the truth of it has been proven call it extreme and dismiss it.

Bad idea or statistically causes harm is a long way from equalling immoral.

 

[1robin]

Bad idea or statistically causes harm is a long way from equalling immoral.

No action of any kind is strictly immoral without God. If however any secular person claims immorality exists at all then the most common basis for something being immoral is this:

Causing significant harm to others without a sufficient justification. Homosexuality massively increases harm but contains no justification that compensates for it.


If you deny that is immoral then no basis for declaring anything is immoral by that standard. However you are right, without God nothing is actually wrong or right. Thank God for God, huh.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

No action of any kind is strictly immoral without God. If however any secular person claims immorality exists at all then the most common basis for something being immoral is this:

Causing significant harm to others without a sufficient justification. Homosexuality massively increases harm but contains no justification that compensates for it.


If you deny that is immoral then no basis for declaring anything is immoral by that standard. However you are right, without God nothing is actually wrong or right. Thank God for God, huh.

How does it massively increase harm? I feel that is exaggeration on your part.

 

[Curious George]

No action of any kind is strictly immoral without God. If however any secular person claims immorality exists at all then the most common basis for something being immoral is this:

Causing significant harm to others without a sufficient justification. Homosexuality massively increases harm but contains no justification that compensates for it.


If you deny that is immoral then no basis for declaring anything is immoral by that standard. However you are right, without God nothing is actually wrong or right. Thank God for God, huh.

Except you miss a key point to the secular argument. Only behavior which actually causes such harm is immoral. Thus, it is not the general homosexual behavior which is immoral but the behavior which causes harm or is likely to cause harm. Let us take AIDS as an example. While anal sex, not necessarily homosexual, increases the chance of spreading AIDS. This is true only when one of the parties actually has AIDS. If neither party has AIDS there is no chance of spreading AIDS. What you seem to argue, is that Anal sex increases the likelihood of disease, people cannot guarantee fidelity, and are likely to engage in this behavior without knowing past partners of their partner and without getting tested prior to the sexual act. Therefore engaging in any anal sex is wrong. Since anal sex is highly common in homosexual relationships, homosexuality is wrong.

Some members have pointed out that one can engage in a homosexual relationship without sex. This comment directs focus to the logical leap that homosexual relationships equal sexual intercourse.

I suggest that you can also have a homosexual relationship and anal sex without incurring the risks.

Either exception shows that homosexuality is not inherently immoral.

The harm lies in infidelity, lack of knowledge, and lack of responsibility. So, if all your harm comes from these and not homosexuality, why blame the behaviour that is not the cause.

 

[1robin]

How does it massively increase harm? I feel that is exaggeration on your part.

I am speechless. The 4% of the population that is gay produce 60% of the aids cases according to the CDC. By what definition of harm is that insignificant? And that is only one of dozens of problems it has increased dramatically. It costs billons as well.

 

[1robin]

Except you miss a key point to the secular argument. Only behavior which actually causes such harm is immoral. Thus, it is not the general homosexual behavior which is immoral but the behavior which causes harm or is likely to cause harm. Let us take AIDS as an example. While anal sex, not necessarily homosexual, increases the chance of spreading AIDS. This is true only when one of the parties actually has AIDS. If neither party has AIDS there is no chance of spreading AIDS. What you seem to argue, is that Anal sex increases the likelihood of disease, people cannot guarantee fidelity, and are likely to engage in this behavior without knowing past partners of their partner and without getting tested prior to the sexual act. Therefore engaging in any anal sex is wrong. Since anal sex is highly common in homosexual relationships, homosexuality is wrong.

That is as absurd as saying giving a baby a gun is not immoral because many times they do not shoot anyone.

Some members have pointed out that one can engage in a homosexual relationship without sex. This comment directs focus to the logical leap that homosexual relationships equal sexual intercourse.

I do not remember that but I have been talking only of homo sexualities sexual aspects. I have not suggested feminine behavior in men is immoral thought it might well be. I am discussing only he sexual aspects of being gay. I do not much care about most of whatever else is involved.

I suggest that you can also have a homosexual relationship and anal sex without incurring the risks.

That is impossible according to the CDC and a Navy doctor who is a friend. It even causes problems with heterosexuality when done.

Either exception shows that homosexuality is not inherently immoral.

I saw no exceptions nor relevance if they did exist. Less harm is still immoral if no justification exists.

The harm lies in infidelity, lack of knowledge, and lack of responsibility. So, if all your harm comes from these and not homosexuality, why blame the behaviour that is not the cause.

The harm still exists in monogamy but is only reduced (in some areas) with infidelity. The behavior is the only cause. There is nothing else to even look at. BTW infidelity is no more justified anyway.

I have never seen issues this simple be mangled to less effect than for homosexuality. Less damage is still damage. Less risk is still risk. Less immoral even if true is still immoral. You can't arrive at right through even irrational degrees of wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What you seem to argue, is that Anal sex increases the likelihood of disease, people cannot guarantee fidelity, and are likely to engage in this behavior without knowing past partners of their partner and without getting tested prior to the sexual act. Therefore engaging in any anal sex is wrong. Since anal sex is highly common in homosexual relationships, homosexuality is wrong.

Yeah, it's weird. For some reason, the typical conservative Christians seems highly focused on anal sex. I'm still scratching my head over that.

According to 1robin's arguments, there is nothing wrong with all the other homosexual sex acts but only anal sex.

And he apparently has no problem with lesbian homosexuality. He's refused to answer when pressed on it, anyway, so I assume he's OK with it.

It's all about the anal sex. Really weird.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, it's weird. For some reason, the typical conservative Christians seems highly focused on anal sex. I'm still scratching my head over that.

According to 1robin's arguments, there is nothing wrong with all the other homosexual sex acts but only anal sex.

And he apparently has no problem with lesbian homosexuality. He's refused to answer when pressed on it, anyway, so I assume he's OK with it.

It's all about the anal sex. Really weird.

Oh brother.

 

[Curious George]

That is as absurd as saying giving a baby a gun is not immoral because many times they do not shoot anyone.

I do not remember that but I have been talking only of homo sexualities sexual aspects. I have not suggested feminine behavior in men is immoral thought it might well be. I am discussing only he sexual aspects of being gay. I do not much care about most of whatever else is involved.

That is impossible according to the CDC and a Navy doctor who is a friend. It even causes problems with heterosexuality when done.

I saw no exceptions nor relevance if they did exist. Less harm is still immoral if no justification exists.

The harm still exists in monogamy but is only reduced (in some areas) with infidelity. The behavior is the only cause. There is nothing else to even look at. BTW infidelity is no more justified anyway.

I have never seen issues this simple be mangled to less effect than for homosexuality. Less damage is still damage. Less risk is still risk. Less immoral even if true is still immoral. You can't arrive at right through even irrational degrees of wrong.

You say there is less of a risk, but where is the risk when two virginal homosexual engage in a faithful, lifelong relationship which includes anal sex with only each other. You can say how do we know they will remain faithful - but in that instance it is not the homosexuality which creates risk. The infidelity creates risk.

 

[1robin]

You say there is less of a risk, but where is the risk when two virginal homosexual engage in a faithful, lifelong relationship which includes anal sex with only each other. You can say how do we know they will remain faithful - but in that instance it is not the homosexuality which creates risk. The infidelity creates risk.

Good Lord. Are you trying to justify 99% of a behavior by using lessons (which are not true) from it's 1%. You can not use the exceptions to overturn the rules. For starters that would only apply to one sex act even among the same people. Second it has no less risks in some areas even if it had none in others (actually there is no such thing as non risk). This the most extraordinary case (among many extraordinary ones) of rationalization I have ever seen for anything. I do not have time to debate the associated risks of every subdivision of every sub group a behavior that no sub group has in it has justification for. There is always unjustified risks whether great or small in homosexuality.

 

[Curious George]

Good Lord. Are you trying to justify 99% of a behavior by using lessons (which are not true) from it's 1%. You can not use the exceptions to overturn the rules. For starters that would only apply to one sex act even among the same people. Second it has no less risks in some areas even if it had none in others (actually there is no such thing as non risk). This the most extraordinary case (among many extraordinary ones) of rationalization I have ever seen for anything. I do not have time to debate the associated risks of every subdivision of every sub group a behavior that no sub group has in it has justification for. There is always unjustified risks whether great or small in homosexuality.

You miss the point. This exception does not deal with one small sub group. This exception demonstrates your error in justifying a sweeping generalization based on a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I do not have time to debate the associated risks of every subdivision of every sub group a behavior that no sub group has in it has justification for. There is always unjustified risks whether great or small in homosexuality.

HeeHee... no time for it, eh?

I've gotta say, I have rarely seen anyone as unprepared as you in the homosexuality debates. You really should be ashamed of yourself, to condemn homosexuality, but to 'have no time' to defend your ugly positions.

Christianity is a great evil, doing terrible harm and destruction in society, and without any justification for it.

But I don't have time to debate every little subdivision of Christianity. There are always unjustified risks whether great of small in Christianity.

It is immoral to follow Christianity. I think we should start a thread about it.

 

[1robin]

You miss the point. This exception does not deal with one small sub group. This exception demonstrates your error in justifying a sweeping generalization based on a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.

I never said that all homosexuals produce misery. Though much evidence exists that most do of one type or another. I said the sexual behavior does in general. Pointing out some very very rare form of it that LESSENS the risks in some areas does nothing to change that. Stealing is not right because no one gets hurt in some cases. Murder is not right even if the one killed was a bad person. Babies with guns is not a just behavior because most do not kill anyone. I have no idea even what you think what you posted proves. It has no possibility of making homosexual acts right or justified. I find the desperation that results in this type of rationalization even more disturbing than the practice. The only worse thing than causing misery by being wrong is the rationalization of causing misery by being wrong. I can easily understand mistakes that are made and even allow the inherent destruction they cause because it is unavoidable but not being able to recognize a mistake as a mistake is not reasonable, especially when it costs others their lives by the thousands, and billions of dollars, and has no justification possible. I have had all I can take for today, have a good one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am speechless. The 4% of the population that is gay produce 60% of the aids cases according to the CDC. By what definition of harm is that insignificant? And that is only one of dozens of problems it has increased dramatically. It costs billons as well.

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person.[2] The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex);[2] however, the pattern of transmission varies significantly among countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men,[2] with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases.[35]
As regards unprotected heterosexual contacts, estimates of the risk of HIV transmission per sexual act appear to be four to ten times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries.[36] In low-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is estimated as 0.38% per act, and of male-to-female transmission as 0.30% per act; the equivalent estimates for high-income countries are 0.04% per act for female-to-male transmission, and 0.08% per act for male-to-female transmission.[36] The risk of transmission from anal intercourse is especially high, estimated as 1.4–1.7% per act in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts.[36][37] While the risk of transmission from oral sex is relatively low, it is still present.[38] The risk from receiving oral sex has been described as "nearly nil"[39] however a few cases have been reported.[40] The per-act risk is estimated at 0–0.04% for receptive oral intercourse.[41] In settings involving prostitution in low income countries, risk of female-to-male transmission has been estimated as 2.4% per act and male-to-female transmission as 0.05% per act.[36]

I would like to point out that MSM is not the same as homosexuality.

Also how does the correspond with that the dominant mode of HIV infection being heterosexual sex?

 

[1robin]

HeeHee... no time for it, eh?

I've gotta say, I have rarely seen anyone as unprepared as you in the homosexuality debates. You really should be ashamed of yourself, to condemn homosexuality, but to 'have no time' to defend your ugly positions.

Christianity is a great evil, doing terrible harm and destruction in society, and without any justification for it.

But I don't have time to debate every little subdivision of Christianity. There are always unjustified risks whether great of small in Christianity.

It is immoral to follow Christianity. I think we should start a thread about it.

What the Holy Heck are you talking about? There is not one thing you or anyone in this thread have said that has the slightest potentiality to do anything about my primary claims. I was leaving yesterday and was running out of time to chase down every irrelevant attempt you or another made to justify what can't be. Is that the closest you could get to a victory and so it had to be claimed as one. My Lord that is desperate. Maybe you have forgotten what I said or something.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in cost, suffering, and death. (It varies by sub group but is still does so in all).
2. It has no compensating factor that justifies it's practice. (no sub group does either)

In fact the sub group argument has no theoretical ability to over come just these two points alone and is a complete waste of my time. I will no longer waste it showing this (I have done so exhaustively in this thread already). So step up or be content with victories that never occurred, and use them to justify killing others if you wish.

I just realized who I was responding to. I would not have taken this seriously if I had realized sooner.

 

[1robin]

The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through sexual contact with an infected person.[2] The majority of all transmissions worldwide occur through heterosexual contacts (i.e. sexual contacts between people of the opposite sex);[2] however, the pattern of transmission varies significantly among countries. In the United States, as of 2009, most sexual transmission occurred in men who had sex with men,[2] with this population accounting for 64% of all new cases.[35]
As regards unprotected heterosexual contacts, estimates of the risk of HIV transmission per sexual act appear to be four to ten times higher in low-income countries than in high-income countries.[36] In low-income countries, the risk of female-to-male transmission is estimated as 0.38% per act, and of male-to-female transmission as 0.30% per act; the equivalent estimates for high-income countries are 0.04% per act for female-to-male transmission, and 0.08% per act for male-to-female transmission.[36] The risk of transmission from anal intercourse is especially high, estimated as 1.4–1.7% per act in both heterosexual and homosexual contacts.[36][37] While the risk of transmission from oral sex is relatively low, it is still present.[38] The risk from receiving oral sex has been described as "nearly nil"[39] however a few cases have been reported.[40] The per-act risk is estimated at 0–0.04% for receptive oral intercourse.[41] In settings involving prostitution in low income countries, risk of female-to-male transmission has been estimated as 2.4% per act and male-to-female transmission as 0.05% per act.[36]

I would like to point out that MSM is not the same as homosexuality.

Also how does the correspond with that the dominant mode of HIV infection being heterosexual sex?

Does no one have a original claim? I have seen this one at least 3 times. Let me post my two primary claims again. They must be forgotten.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in cost, suffering, and death. (It varies by sub group but is still does so in all).
2. It has no compensating factor that justifies it's practice. (no sub group does either)


Hetero sexuality has justification. The human race would end if it was not practiced. The same is not true of homosexuality. If it was strictly practiced the human race would end. That is why no animal of the few that display homosexual behavior practice it exclusively. That is why heterosexuality is justified and homosexuality is not.

That is even taking your claims as fact. In the US 60% of the aids cases are caused by the 4% of the population that is gay. How does that equal what you said? and even if what you said was true it is no help overcoming my two points. In what way is male on male sex not homosexual?

 

[1robin]

You miss the point. This exception does not deal with one small sub group. This exception demonstrates your error in justifying a sweeping generalization based on a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.

You cannot justify giving babies guns by claiming that (even most) of them do not kill anyone. This subgroup crap is a desperate rationalization even if it was true. The fact is that no sub group is lacking risk and no sub group has any way to justify that risk. I have never seen more desperation in defending any subject and that is saying something. Even Obama's rationalizations why he should bankrupt the greatest nation in history are not this bad.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What the Holy Heck are you talking about?

Godly matters. Don't worry if you can't always follow along.

There is not one thing you or anyone in this thread have said that has the slightest potentiality to do anything about my primary claims.

Your primary claims have been utterly gutted by most every poster in this thread. But you ignore our arguments and repeat your 'primary claims' as if no one has even countered them. In my view, that's the behavior not of a rational debater, but rather the behavior of one who has a holy truth and no intention of allowing it to be changed in the slightest. Normally I wouldn't care much. Believe whatever nonsense suits you. But in this case, your preachings against homosexuals could have a direct negative impact on people's lives. So I oppose you. It's an actual Mission From God for me.

I was leaving yesterday and was running out of time to chase down every irrelevant attempt you or another made to justify what can't be.

Baloney. You constantly flee from counterarguments. Usually you claim you are out of time and will come back to it and respond when you have more time... but you never come back. It is a serious pattern of debate flight.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in cost, suffering, and death. (It varies by sub group but is still does so in all).

1) Explain how lesbians cause massive increases in cost, suffering and death.

2) Explain how male homosexuals who don't practice anal sex cause massive increases in cost, suffering and death.

I'm sure you won't answer, since you ducked the questions repeatedly, but I'm putting them up for public view so that your refusal to answer will be noted by all.

2. It has no compensating factor that justifies it's practice. (no sub group does either)

That's a really dumb opinion -- ignorant as it is to the justification of human warmth, fun, and bonding -- but fine. Christianity also has no compensating factor that justifies its practice... and yet you practice it, don't you?

Why? Why do you practice an immoral behavior which has no compensating factor that justifies it?

In fact the sub group argument has no theoretical ability to over come just these two points alone and is a complete waste of my time.

Run away. Run away. I will stay here and demonstrate the emptiness of your ugly assertions about homosexuality.

So step up or be content with victories that never occurred, and use them to justify killing others if you wish.

Yeah, man. Those lesbians are out there killing folks left and right. What utter nonsense you post here on this board. Ugly stuff.

Certainly unfit to come from the keyboard of someone who claims to follow Christ, in my view.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hetero sexuality has justification. The human race would end if it was not practiced. The same is not true of homosexuality.

As someone has told you, we can now artificially inseminate. Therefore there is no longer any need for sex between men and women. Obviously such sex causes horrible cost and suffering in the world, without any compensating justification -- as least according to your strange reasoning.

So you now admit that married folks having sex is immoral?