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

[AmbiguousGuy]

People pop up here from time to time claiming they disproved a contention of mine. I have no idea what they are talking about.

As bizarre as it seems, I believe you. Your contentions have been beaten to a pulp. Over and over again. But you don't even see it because you refuse to address the counter arguments. It's as if they are invisible to you.

We can't learn unless we engage the fight, you know.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

So you do not care what I think and yet you hope God strikes me down for affirming his words. How did you pack that much wrong and inconsistency into those few sentences. Please get back to homosexuality or at least the miserable attempts to justify it.

Where did you get that I was hoping he struck you down? I said I hoped he scolded you on your bigotry...perhaps saying I hope he smacked you upside the head was a bit much, but nowhere did I imply that I hoped he struck you down.

Nice try, though. Darn homosexuals are it again, harming others and *****. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a litter of kittens to drown.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Nice try, though. Darn homosexuals are it again, harming others and *****. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a litter of kittens to drown.

Need any help? (I'm not gay, but some people think I'm an atheist, so I figure that gives me full kitty-drowning privileges.)

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

Need any help? (I'm not gay, but some people think I'm an atheist, so I figure that gives me full kitty-drowning privileges.)

By all means! The more the merrier!

Maybe we'll even end up killing off a few gay kittens (see, we're still talking about homosexuality!)

 

[1robin]

Unreasoning bigotry against homosexuality seems like an appropriate issue in this thread.

I'm reminded of an incident from my youth. As a teenager, I used to hang out with my buddies in one of their apartments. We were there one night when a guy bangs on the door. My friends open it to find a tall 30ish man there. He's mad. Downright angry. He begins accusing my friends of breaking into his apartment upstairs, stealing stuff and vandalizing it. He accuses them of doing it just because he is gay.

I was perplexed. We were indeed a slightly bad*** crowd, but we didn't break and enter.

But then I noticed something very strange. My friends were not denying the deed with appropriate gusto. They were just sorta looking at the guy and vaguely denying. And I realized, with a start, that it was true. My friends had indeed broken into his place just because he was gay. They were disgusted by him and thought he didn't deserve the same treatment as straight people.

I still shudder when I think of that.

And so I oppose anti-gay bigotry wherever I find it, even or especially when I encounter a debater who ignores all counter arguments and continues to assert his nasty, twisted views.

Just felt like telling that story. Not sure why.

Come off it. Cut out the false moral high ground crap. I am on the side that wishes to not sacrifice human lives and money on the alter of a few people's gratification of physical lust. You can't even see moral high ground from where your at. Quit ineffectually yelling at the bible or me and defend homosexuality or I will ignore you in this thread. If homosexuality has no better defenders than you and no better defense than this it needs no detractors.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Maybe we'll even end up killing off a few gay kittens (see, we're still talking about homosexuality!)

Oh, jeez. Now you're gonna make me lose my breakfast.

Gay kitties turn my stomach!

 

[1robin]

Where did you get that I was hoping he struck you down? I said I hoped he scolded you on your bigotry...perhaps saying I hope he smacked you upside the head was a bit much, but nowhere did I imply that I hoped he struck you down.

Nice try, though. Darn homosexuals are it again, harming others and *****. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a litter of kittens to drown.

Fine lets worry about semantics instead of defending homosexuality. I have no idea what the kitten reference means but it is of no help in defending homosexuality. Whatever you meant by your God comment is inconsistent with saying you do not care.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Quit ineffectually yelling at the bible or me and defend homosexuality or I will ignore you in this thread.

That bit is as old as your I'll-come-back-and-answer-your-scary-question-later bit.

You never come back later and answer the hard, scary questions (like my question about lesbians). And you never follow through on your threats to ignore me.

So why waste your time typing them onto the board?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have no idea what the kitten reference means but it is of no help in defending homosexuality.

Sure it's helpful. It points to the fact that there are people in the world who -- despite any evidence or rational argument -- will continue to hate homosexuals.

You told me once that you refused to read literature, even in college. Does it not occur to you that such behavior may have left you a little behind the rest of us regarding metaphor, allusions, cultural memes, and general rational connections?

I'm not trying to offend you. It's just that in light of your frequent complaints of 'no idea what that even means'... that you might consider looking for problems within, rather than without?

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

Fine lets worry about semantics instead of defending homosexuality. I have no idea what the kitten reference means but it is of no help in defending homosexuality. Whatever you meant by your God comment is inconsistent with saying you do not care.

Well, if you are going to accuse me of saying something that I did not in fact say, then I have a bit of a right to worry about semantics. You don't get to (falsely) play the victim card and then dismiss the subject when you are called out on it.

As for not caring, I don't. At least, I don't care what YOU think, or what your interpretation of God thinks.

Personally, I think the almighty creator of everything could care less about who a few organisms on some random planet are sleeping with, and that it is kind of arrogant to suggest otherwise.

 

[1robin]

That bit is as old as your I'll-come-back-and-answer-your-scary-question-later bit.

You never come back later and answer the hard, scary questions (like my question about lesbians). And you never follow through on your threats to ignore me.

So why waste your time typing them onto the board?

Ignore

 

[1robin]

Well, if you are going to accuse me of saying something that I did not in fact say, then I have a bit of a right to worry about semantics. You don't get to (falsely) play the victim card and then dismiss the subject when you are called out on it.

The point I made is not made invalid by semantics. You said you did not care and then said you hope God smacks me for agreeing with him. It is irrational and self contradictory and semantics are not the slightest help.

As for not caring, I don't. At least, I don't care what YOU think, or what your interpretation of God thinks.

Nor what facts make clear. Nor how many people must pay for what homosexuals do. I imagine there is little you do care about concerning this issue other than what you want to do.

Personally, I think the almighty creator of everything could care less about who a few organisms on some random planet are sleeping with, and that it is kind of arrogant to suggest otherwise.

Thank God what God does think has nothing to do with what you think. What you think has no application what so ever concerning what God thinks. What does matter is evidence. The revelation that has by far the most evidence of any disagrees with you 100% and what you think has no ability to change it. However my two primary claims are secular and not theological. If you cannot even dent my two claims I do not recommend you take on an argument with God. It is never arrogant to be concerned with the moral implications of a practice that kills millions and costs billions if it has no compensating justification. It is evil to not do so. Will there at any point be a defense of homosexuality because your ignorance (not stupidity) concerning God and the self justifying rhetoric based on nothing is wearing thin.

 

[1robin]

Sure it's helpful. It points to the fact that there are people in the world who -- despite any evidence or rational argument -- will continue to hate homosexuals.

You told me once that you refused to read literature, even in college. Does it not occur to you that such behavior may have left you a little behind the rest of us regarding metaphor, allusions, cultural memes, and general rational connections?

I'm not trying to offend you. It's just that in light of your frequent complaints of 'no idea what that even means'... that you might consider looking for problems within, rather than without?

ignore When you cough up a defense for what you are not even attempting to defend you let me know.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

When you cough up a defense for what you are not even attempting to defend you let me know.

Robin: Homosex is immoral because it causes disease without the compensating good of making babies.

AmbigGuy: But lesbian sex causes less disease than heterosexual sex. So you must believe that lesbian sex is more moral than sex between a sterile married couple.

Robin: I don't have time to answer that right now! No one has ever countered my claims about homosex! Stop trying to take the high moral ground! When you cough up a defense for homosex, let me know!!

Geez, man... do you really think the readers of this thread are as dumb as bricks?

Don't you realize the harm you are causing to the reputation of conservative Christianity? We see how a conservative Christian acts in debate. We take that as representative of conservative Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Robin: Homosex is immoral because it causes disease without the compensating good of making babies.

This is perfectly true, perfectly rational, and a perfect basis if morality is allowed to exist at al without God.

AmbigGuy: But lesbian sex causes less disease than heterosexual sex. So you must believe that lesbian sex is more moral than sex between a sterile married couple.

Lesbian sex has no compensating gain that justifies any risk, so the fact it has less is of no help what so ever. If it killed one person or only cost one person a $100 who does not practice it is unjustifiable. I have already said this a dozen times at least. It does not work any better the 13th time.

Next.

You know, like the monkeys and Shakespeare: if you keep typing maybe by accident and probability you may eventually produce a claim that has teeth despite your best efforts but I do not have a million eons to wait.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

Lesbian sex has no compensating gain that justifies any risk, so the fact it has less is of no help what so ever. If it killed one person or only cost one person a $100 who does not practice it is unjustifiable. I have already said this a dozen times at least. It does not work any better the 13th time.

Heterosexual sex can kill too. By your logic, I'm in the right to consider it unjustifiable as well, as I don't practice it?

And...how does sex between two people end up costing someone else $100? That's kind of random.

 

[1robin]

Heterosexual sex can kill too. By your logic, I'm in the right to consider it unjustifiable as well, as I don't practice it?

Good grief. Whay you practice has no bearing on what is right. I did not say homosexuality is wrong because I do not practice it.

Let's see if you can see what is wrong with your argument.

1. Heterosexuals kill. Well they kill light years less than homosexuals do per person. The 4% of the population that is gay produces 60% of only aids alone. However this is not the kicker.

2. If heterosexuals do not act all heterosexually then the entire human race ends in a single generation.
3. If Homosexuals quit doing it then nothing ends, except millions of aids cases.

Do you not see where you went so horribly wrong above? One is necessary to perpetuate humanity. The other only hurts humanity. One has the greatest justification possible, the other has no justification of any type possible.

And...how does sex between two people end up costing someone else $100? That's kind of random.

It occurs when those people do so in ways that neither nature or God intended and it breaks stuff or spreads a disease. Do they honorably sit at home and only incur the suffering upon the one who committed the immorality or do they run to the nearest ER and make the tax payer or the rest of an insurance companies heterosexual clients absorb the costs? If you would only cause misery and harm to those that practiced the behavior I would withdraw my objection though it would still be true. However you make others pay and suffer and to do so without any justification at all and using these completely failed arguments is as immoral as anything can possibly be. As a Christian or even as a simple moral human being I would never ever do anything that produces this much misery for others without a much much much better reason that any gay person has managed to put forth yet, even if I was gay.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Lesbian sex has no compensating gain that justifies any risk, so the fact it has less is of no help what so ever.

See what I mean? You can't even follow my argument, much less offer a relevant response to it.

Let me slow it down so I can determine if you follow my argument and refuse to respond or whether you simply can't follow it:

SEX BETWEEN A MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN WHO ARE STERILE HAS NO COMPENSATING GAIN.

SO I ASK YOU... IS SEX BETWEEN A STERILE MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN IMMORAL?

IS SEX BETWEEN A MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN IMMORAL IF THEY ARE USING BIRTH CONTROL?

See if you can answer those two questions.

If so, I'll re-ask some of the other questions I've asked.

You know, like the monkeys and Shakespeare: if you keep typing maybe by accident and probability you may eventually produce a claim that has teeth despite your best efforts but I do not have a million eons to wait.

Goodness. Only on the internet can Great Souls rub shoulders with dimwitted brats.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Heterosexual sex can kill too. By your logic, I'm in the right to consider it unjustifiable as well, as I don't practice it?

As best I can determine, 1robin considers it immoral for married men and women to have sex unless they are specifically trying to have a baby.

So a husband having sex with his pregnant wife would be immoral. A couple using birth control would be immoral. Post-menepausal wives would be immoral to have sex with their husbands.

On the other hand, he seems to prefer couples to have (dangerous, unjustified) sex rather than to be artificially inseminated.

Frankly, I can't make a bit of sense of his outlook on sex.

 

[Curious George]

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.

This has little to no bearing on my argument.

Are there homosexuals without STD's? Yes.
Are there homosexuals who die after living a full life with gay sex and still do not have an STD? Yes.
If this is your only evidence of "suffering" based on your statistics we cannot say that all homosexuality causes suffering. You are using poor logic and failing at every turn.

I cannot help that you do not understand cause and effect. Perhaps we can try an alternate route.

one non-diseased virginal man has sex with another non-diseased virginal man. Was this act immoral? If so point to why this act was immoral.