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

[Curious George]

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.

I take it by these extra insults that the logic finally dawned on you that it is not homosexuality that causes your first primary claim.

BTW your baby analogy is off. No one is giving homosexuals anything here so their is no contribution. Furthermore babies lack the cognitive skills of those able to engage in consensual romantic relationships.

After decimating your first primary claim, I move yo your second. Sex finds itself in maslows hierarchy of needs. Sex is more beneficial than solely as a means of reproduction. Consensual sex is healthy, physically, emotionally, and cognitively. Therefore, people should engage in sexual relations with consenting others of their preference to live better. As all sexual relations have value outside of reproduction, so too do homosexual sexual relations.

 

[1robin]

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?

Do you think claiming something else is wrong is any kind of a defense for something else. Is A moral even if you could show B is immoral? As I have already said at least twice artificial insemination is not available to all at any cost and it is too expensive for most. Homosexuals are spreading aids faster than the African nations can bury he dead and you want to them to artificially inseminate everyone. Good plan.


The defense of homosexuality has been far too desperate and ridiculous for far too long. Unless a new claim makes an appearance I am done with it. I gave it several months for a counter claim if possible to undue just my two simple primary claims and they have not even been dented yet and only repeats with no more chance of success are being offered. The arguments are actually going from bad to worse lately. I am sure you will claim that as some kind of hollow false victory but that is your problem not mine.

 

[1robin]

I take it by these extra insults that the logic finally dawned on you that it is not homosexuality that causes your first primary claim.

BTW your baby analogy is off. No one is giving homosexuals anything here so their is no contribution. Furthermore babies lack the cognitive skills of those able to engage in consensual romantic relationships.

After decimating your first primary claim, I move yo your second. Sex finds itself in maslows hierarchy of needs. Sex is more beneficial than solely as a means of reproduction. Consensual sex is healthy, physically, emotionally, and cognitively. Therefore, people should engage in sexual relations with consenting others of their preference to live better. As all sexual relations have value outside of reproduction, so too do homosexual sexual relations.

See the above post. I just can't entertain the same bad arguments I have been overturning for weeks now, indefinitely. My statements were on the quality of the argument not the one making it so the false moral high ground tactic will not work either. I can't believe this type of stuff is what those who endanger others lives and demand others money use to justify it.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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?

No I wanted to know where you got your claim from you said it was from the CDC, I wanted to see the source.

Homosexuality is not just the act, it's a lifestyle, but even in part homosexuals for instance who avoid anal sex, are at lower risk for HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals.

For instance does this 60% account for lesbians as well? Is that not considered homosexual?

 

[Curious George]

See the above post. I just can't entertain the same bad arguments I have been overturning for weeks now, indefinitely. My statements were on the quality of the argument not the one making it so the false moral high ground tactic will not work either. I can't believe this type of stuff is what those who endanger others lives and demand others money use to justify it.

I am not saying you were insulting me. But you extra insults on my argument instead of directly dealing with the logic of my last posts amounts to you stamping your feet and saying my argument is just stupid. The problem is while my hypothetical points to an obvious flaw which is fixed when you understand the real causes of the "suffering" instead of trying to blame homosexuality in general, you simply claim that my hypothetical is trying to exonerate many based on a few. This is not true. I am highlighting the cause and illustrating the difference between causation and correlation. Instead of accepting your error, you persist in games of calling my argument crazy, insisting you have already refuted my argument, and offering inane analogies of babies.

BTW, I am not trying to take any moral high ground. I am trying to move from your defeated first claim and move to your second. Since, both of your claims ate wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you think claiming something else is wrong is any kind of a defense for something else. Is A moral even if you could show B is immoral?

No idea what you are talking about. Why not try and bring yourself to address my counterarguments which destroyed your 'two primary points'?

Lesbians are homosexuals. Lesbian sex is safer sex than heterosexual sex. Therefore -- by your own assertions -- lesbians must be more moral than heterosexuals. After all, the only reason you oppose homosexuality is that it causes disease and suffering, yes?

So address the issue of lesbians and of gay men who do not engage in anal sex. Dare you.

As I have already said at least twice artificial insemination is not available to all at any cost and it is too expensive for most.

So if the government would offer free insemination, you would agree that sex between married people is immoral. Yes?

There'd be a lot less disease, a lot less suffering. So you must consider sex between a married couple to be immoral, so long as free artificial insemination is available.

Homosexuals are spreading aids faster than the African nations can bury he dead and you want to them to artificially inseminate everyone.

AIDS in Africa is mostly spread by heterosexuals, I think.

The defense of homosexuality has been far too desperate and ridiculous for far too long. Unless a new claim makes an appearance I am done with it.

OK. It's probably time for that. I'd rather you stayed and attempted to actually address our arguments, but if you won't do that, it may be better for you to retire from the debate.

 

[1robin]

No idea what you are talking about. Why not try and bring yourself to address my counterarguments which destroyed your 'two primary points'?

Lesbians are homosexuals. Lesbian sex is safer sex than heterosexual sex. Therefore -- by your own assertions -- lesbians must be more moral than heterosexuals. After all, the only reason you oppose homosexuality is that it causes disease and suffering, yes?

So address the issue of lesbians and of gay men who do not engage in anal sex. Dare you.

So if the government would offer free insemination, you would agree that sex between married people is immoral. Yes?

There'd be a lot less disease, a lot less suffering. So you must consider sex between a married couple to be immoral, so long as free artificial insemination is available.

AIDS in Africa is mostly spread by heterosexuals, I think.

OK. It's probably time for that. I'd rather you stayed and attempted to actually address our arguments, but if you won't do that, it may be better for you to retire from the debate.

Nothing you said that I saw was true or new so I am not disproving them for the 4th or 5th time. I even told you this. Nothing helps. I can't force a good argument out of you. Step up or this circus is over (and has been for a long time anyway).

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nothing you said that I saw was true or new so I am not disproving them for the 4th or 5th time. I even told you this. Nothing helps. I can't force a good argument out of you. Step up or this circus is over (and has been for a long time anyway).

The lesbian thing really scares you, I see. And the male gays who don't have anal sex.

If your arguments are so flimsy that I can frighten you away with such easy counter arguments, shouldn't you give some serious consideration to the thought that you're just dead wrong about homosexuality?

 

[1robin]

The lesbian thing really scares you, I see. And the male gays who don't have anal sex.

If your arguments are so flimsy that I can frighten you away with such easy counter arguments, shouldn't you give some serious consideration to the thought that you're just dead wrong about homosexuality?

Yes I am terrified of the Lesbians. Why would you even say that as a joke? That does not make sense on any level. I will entertain the thought I am wrong once a single one of my two claims is even in the same ballpark as an argument against them. Did you even see a single clam anyone made at anytime that had the slightest effect on either one? Maybe you should find one before you argue for the right of one group to harm another.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes I am terrified of the Lesbians. Why would you even say that as a joke? That does not make sense on any level.

It makes sense to those who are able to make sense.

My lesbian argument frightens you. That's why you refuse to address it.

I will entertain the thought I am wrong once a single one of my two claims is even in the same ballpark as an argument against them. Did you even see a single clam anyone made at anytime that had the slightest effect on either one?

Yes. Your two claims were shown to be silly and without any substance by most everyone in this thread who has stooped to countering them.

If you'd answer my lesbian argument, you might see that, but so long as it frightens you, you will probably not understand how badly your claims have been destroyed.

If you want to learn, you have to engage the battle.

 

[1robin]

It makes sense to those who are able to make sense.

My lesbian argument frightens you. That's why you refuse to address it.

The weakest most feminine Lesbian frightens me more than any argument you have ever made if there is a less than none possible.

Yes. Your two claims were shown to be silly and without any substance by most everyone in this thread who has stooped to countering them.

That is an abject absurdity which did not come with one single attempt at evidence even when specifically requested. You are almost no longer even preferable to killing time by staring at a blank screen these days. You can not even been more clever sarcastically than me, which is usually your sides one capability.

If you want to learn, you have to engage the battle.

I wish there was a battle or challenge to get involved in. I have exhaustively looked for one in this issue. France has a better war record than homosexuality does and your input has lessened even that. I can't even get a new bad argument from you guys. No good arguments, no new bad ones, no humor, and in your case no rationality a debate does not make much less a battle.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can't even get a new bad argument from you guys. No good arguments, no new bad ones, no humor, and in your case no rationality a debate does not make much less a battle.

Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Male gay sex is safer than heterosexual sex if there is no anal sex.

These simple statements of truth completely gut your claims about the unjustified harm done by homesexuality.

Don't run from it. Deal with it.

 

[averageJOE]

Do you think claiming something else is wrong is any kind of a defense for something else. Is A moral even if you could show B is immoral? As I have already said at least twice artificial insemination is not available to all at any cost and it is too expensive for most. Homosexuals are spreading aids faster than the African nations can bury he dead and you want to them to artificially inseminate everyone. Good plan.


The defense of homosexuality has been far too desperate and ridiculous for far too long. Unless a new claim makes an appearance I am done with it. I gave it several months for a counter claim if possible to undue just my two simple primary claims and they have not even been dented yet and only repeats with no more chance of success are being offered. The arguments are actually going from bad to worse lately. I am sure you will claim that as some kind of hollow false victory but that is your problem not mine.

Wow. If you replace the word "homosexual" with "negro" your argument would sound exactly like the people in the 60's for keeping schools segregated.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

Homosexuals are spreading aids faster than the African nations can bury he dead and you want to them to artificially inseminate everyone. Good plan.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the condemnation of condom use by Christianity is spreading AIDS faster than Africa can bury the dead...but tomato, tomahto, right?

The defense of homosexuality has been far too desperate and ridiculous for far too long. Unless a new claim makes an appearance I am done with it. I gave it several months for a counter claim if possible to undue just my two simple primary claims and they have not even been dented yet and only repeats with no more chance of success are being offered. The arguments are actually going from bad to worse lately. I am sure you will claim that as some kind of hollow false victory but that is your problem not mine.

Luckily, I don't really feel like I have to defend my homosexuality to you. If you don't like it, well, that is your problem not mine.

 

[1robin]

Lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Male gay sex is safer than heterosexual sex if there is no anal sex.

These simple statements of truth completely gut your claims about the unjustified harm done by homesexuality.

Don't run from it. Deal with it.

Safer is not safe. This is not new and not meaningful try again.

 

[1robin]

Wow. If you replace the word "homosexual" with "negro" your argument would sound exactly like the people in the 60's for keeping schools segregated.

Well it has almost been five minutes since a liberal did not post an argument but asserted a false moral high-ground meant to justify the gratification of lust in killing other people and making them front the costs. This ranks right up there with trying to prevent US bankruptcy actually being attempts to kill old people. Good night nurse.

 

[1robin]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the condemnation of condom use by Christianity is spreading AIDS faster than Africa can bury the dead...but tomato, tomahto, right?

First of all that is not a Christian thing it is a subset of Catholicism thing. Second it is not even close to being true. Third even if true and even if Christian it is not much involved in Africa. The statistic all prove one thing and it is the opposite of what you claimed and it is despicable to make up stuff to justify a behavior that kills other people that has no compensation at all for it.

Luckily, I don't really feel like I have to defend my homosexuality to you. If you don't like it, well, that is your problem not mine.

I don't think you feel you have a burden to defend it at all or you would not be doing it because no defense is possible. What I like did not kill all those people. What homosexuals like did. I did not think the defense of homosexuality could get any worse. I was wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Safer is not safe. This is not new and not meaningful try again.

Jesus. So even though lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex, still lesbian sex is immoral while heterosexual sex is fine.

Even if the heterosexuals, like the lesbians, can't make children from the sexual act.

In other words, 1robin will always arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong, no matter the overwhelming, unanswerable, irrefutable rational arguments against that position.

What in the heck are you doing in a debate forum, man?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

...and it is despicable to make up stuff to justify a behavior that kills other people that has no compensation at all for it.

Christianity is a behavior that kills other people and has no compensation at all for it.

And yet you are always making up stuff to justify your Christian behavior.

I did not think the defense of homosexuality could get any worse. I was wrong.

I didn't think that the unreasoned, irrational bigotry against homosexuality could get any worse. I was bad wrong.

 

[Curious George]

Christianity is a behavior that kills other people and has no compensation at all for it.

And yet you are always making up stuff to justify your Christian behavior.



I didn't think that the unreasoned, irrational bigotry against homosexuality could get any worse. I was bad wrong.

I really don't think its bigotry. I thinks it is grasping at air, trying to salvage integrity or a complete inability to understand that correlation is not causation paired with confirmation bias.