No. My logical refutation of your first premise still stands waiting for a challenge beyond "babies with guns is a bad idea."
People pop up here from time to time claiming they disproved a contention of mine. I have no idea what they are talking about. I do not even remember a claim that applied to what I said. Can you repost whatever it is you think over turned something I said? I looked but found nothing.
I really hope that is 12 unit hours not a total of 12 hours. If you have taken even one statistics class you should understand the difference between causation and correlation. Yet, you seem to be relying wholly on confusing the two.
Of course it was unit hours. Who in the world tells others how many hours he spent in a class? I understand correlation and causation and that is why I and the CDC know that homosexuality is the cause of a massive increase in the spreading of aids and many more disgusting health problems not to mention the billions it costs. I did not say they caused aids to exist (that came from monkey blood used in polio vaccines), I said their behavior CAUSES it to be spread far faster than it is in heterosexual groups.
I am not saying Christianity is bad. I am saying that you point to supposed suffering (the spread of disease) and blame homosexuality. Yet there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that causes or spreads disease.
Yes there is.
I gave the stats from the CDC where 4% of the population (who's only common factor was that they were gay) produces over 60% of new aids cases. There is no escape from that study alone that Homosexuality causes the spread of the disease at much faster rates that heterosexuals do. Homosexuality would not be justifiable if they were the same but they are not even in the same realm. It was not a group of left handed people, red haired people, tall people, white people, or stupid people, it was a group of homosexuals who produced those obscene numbers.
Thus, you are wrong. I have explained the alternate causes (i.e. lack of personal responsibility, lack of fidelity, and lack of care or respect). The fact that parties engaged in anal sex increase their chance of contracting STD from another person who currently has an STD does not alter the fact that anal sex is not the cause of the disease or cause of the spread of the disease. Simply put: if people without STD's engage in consensual anal sex, they will not contract STD's through anal sex. This of course encompasses homosexual anal sex.
First you "other" factors only increase the rates. They alone are not solely responsible for them. Second sexual immorality is the parent problem, this includes homosexuality, promiscuity, not using protection, and infidelity. They are all far worse in the homosexual community than any other. Third everyone of them increases risk. I have tried to only deal with homosexuality because that is the threads context but all real problems and all are worse in homosexuality. Fourth anal sex does spread STD's, they are not gotten through casual contact. Fifth even if it did not it still produces all kinds of problems that are not STD related. Any ER doctor, medical corpsman, or nurse can tell you horror stories about anal sex that will make you sick that are not STD related. Sixth: since homosexuality has no justification it must only have the slightest of problems to condemn. It however has the most massive problems imaginable.
You have several times tried to shift the burden of proof, by asking me to prove that homosexual sex is a good thing.
No I did not. There are two sides to the issue. It is good, it is bad or it is moral, it is immoral. I prefer the it is morally justifiable, it is morally unjustifiable labels. Both are claims to knowledge and both have the same burden. My two primary claims meet my burden and you must meet yours as well. There is no shifting of anything occurring. I gave mine you have not given yours.
And, I will gladly take on this position later. But, currently we are discussing your argument that homosexuality is by itself immoral. This is simply not true. Thus, for the current purposes my argument has and will continue to be that homosexuality is not immoral. This is very different than saying that it is immoral.
It is still your burden but I do not care if you ever meet it and instead try and prove me wrong. Which you haven't, though you are putting ap a little better fight the most.
To answer my logical argument, you have only offered a contrived analogy about babies. I have explained why this is not a parallel. your logic is flawed. Look:
you say:
P.1 Some homosexual sex spreads disease
P.2 disease causes suffering
P.3 no benefit arises from homosexual sex to offset this suffering
C.1 ALL people engaging in homosexual behavior increase their chance of contracting STD's
C.2 therefore ALL homosexuality is wrong.
your conclusions do not follow from your premises. If people do not engage in sexual behavior with others who have contracted an STD then they will not increase their risk of contracting an STD through sexual behavior. In order for your conclusions to flow logically P.1 would have to read "ALL homosexual sex spreads disease." Or at least "All continuous homosexual sex will inevitably spread disease."
You cannot object to actualities based on hypotheticals. There is no such thing as safe homosexual behavior and the least at risk hypothetical group you could put forward is still at risk. The level does not matter because there exists no justification in homosexuality to counter the loss of one life or even one dollar another must pay. Plus virtually no one spends al their life in any of your subgroups. They may be monogamous for a year or two but the rest of the time their going through partners like a knife through butter. Your subgroups still have risks but your subgroups are not static either and the people in them almost never remain in them.
If you did change your premise to either of these- they are easy to prove faulty. Even your statistics do the job. Your argument is simply not logical.
Look, assertions will never carry any argument. How about some facts to back up these declarations?
Finally, you are making another classical error with statistics. You are taking statistical truths and applying them to case scenarios. That anal sex statistically increases your chances of contracting an STD does not mean that Adam and Steve will increase their chance of contracting an STD when they engage in anal sex together.
For one thing I have not used anal sex. I have used the entire sick totality of homosexual behavior. Each have their own problems and none are devoid of them. It seems nature its self has evolved to punish the practice severely. This is not an Adam and Eve thread it is a homosexuality thread and Adam and Eve will engage in the highest risk behavior in 99% of the cases sometime in their lives even if you arbitrarily shove them into some LESS risk hypothetical group for a few years.
Your argument fails from a logicians perspective, from a statisticians perspective, and from a common sense perspective. I do not know how I could state this any more clearly.
The organizations that employ the best and most statisticians on Earth are medical firms and insurance firms. They both assign most of the damage done by aids and many other STDs to HOMOSEXUAL behavior. Tell them they do not know how to do statistical studies. They have to know the truth, they go broke if they get it wrong. There is a reason gays are not allowed to give blood much of the time, There is a reason they ask your sexual PREFERENCE as the first question when they must be exposed to our blood. There is a reason insurance companies claim homosexuality increases their costs. They can't obfuscate, They can't play dishonest PC games. They can't rationalize harmful things away. They must know and do and they agree with what I claimed.
