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

[1robin]

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.



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

It is not a defense of X to say Y is wrong. This is another repeat that did not work any better this time.

 

[1robin]

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.

Good Lord will these ineffective arguments never cease. There are babies with guns that did not kill anyone. Are babies with guns a moral or good idea? There are thieves who steal stuff no one is ever aware of - Is theft moral? There are drunks who drive home without incident - Is driving drunk moral?

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.

I understand cause and effect much better than you. I had to pass tests given by PhD's and write papers concerning cause and effect, modal being, probability and statistics, etc....to pass graduate math classes, philosophy classes, statistics classes, and calculus based physics classes. It is you who do not understand it. Your using the same tired arguments that were ineffective hundreds of posts ago. The homosexual defense tool box must only contain a half dozen ineffective arguments. Because I only see the same ones over and over and over.

Subgroups are no defense of homosexuality.
Pointing out something else that is wrong is no defense.
Pointing out that something worse exists is no defense.
Yelling about cause and effect relationships that are perfectly valid is no defense, and just ridiculous.
Less risk is still risk and when no justification exists to offset any risk level this is no defense.

After 1500 plus posts my two simple claims have not even been dented or challenged at all. I have become exasperated concerning ever being given an argument that has the slightest power to overturn either despite my desire for someone to do so. This has dissolved into every new poster using the same few ineffective arguments I have dealt with over and over and over. They are all ridiculous attempts to rationalize why someone favorite immoral action should be allowed to hurt others. Evan that attempt is immoral and especially so when using arguments so absurd.


Being far more generous than the arguments deserve Agnostic did present one aspect of one part of one claim where all of reality must be used to resolve. You know that part of reality non-theists summary dismiss for reasons of preference. However 99% of my arguments have not even been challenged at all. I no longer believe anyone will ever post a new and effective argument. So I will no longer respond in this thread until someone does. I just can't keep showing why the same arguments that did not work a thousand posts ago still don't.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It is not a defense of X to say Y is wrong. This is another repeat that did not work any better this time.

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

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

You'll never learn anything if simple questions frighten you, 1robin.

 

[1robin]

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

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

You'll never learn anything if simple questions frighten you, 1robin.

No explaining these things over and over any longer. Claiming X is wrong is the worst defense possible for claiming Y is right.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

However 99% of my arguments have not even been challenged at all. I no longer believe anyone will ever post a new and effective argument. So I will no longer respond in this thread until someone does. I just can't keep showing why the same arguments that did not work a thousand posts ago still don't.

Oh, my. I suspected that George's simple question would frighten you and that you would never answer it, but I didn't think it would make you flee the debate.

Here it is again: 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.

If simple questions frighten us, we are not ready for any sort of debate, much less the level of debate as happens here in this place.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No explaining these things over and over any longer. Claiming X is wrong is the worst defense possible for claiming Y is right.

So this is your way of agreeing? You seriously believe that sex between a married couple is immoral unless they are capable of and specifically intending a pregnancy.

Yikes.

I just wanted everyone here to see that.

Lots of Christian couples out there are facepalming right now, after understanding that you consider them to be having immoral sex with one another. Some of them think that sex is related to love somehow.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't, but that makes no difference. If Christians believe it is then I believe the passages I cited would stand as evidence to them that god condemns homosexuality. Don't you?

And clothes of more than one fabric.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, my. I suspected that George's simple question would frighten you and that you would never answer it, but I didn't think it would make you flee the debate.

Here it is again: 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.

If simple questions frighten us, we are not ready for any sort of debate, much less the level of debate as happens here in this place.

And like wise with virginal women.

How is it more immoral than wearing clothe from different fabrica or eating shellfish?

 

[1robin]

So this is your way of agreeing? You seriously believe that sex between a married couple is immoral unless they are capable of and specifically intending a pregnancy.

Yikes.

I just wanted everyone here to see that.

Lots of Christian couples out there are facepalming right now, after understanding that you consider them to be having immoral sex with one another. Some of them think that sex is related to love somehow.

And this is even worse that the last. Didn't think it possible.

 

[Me Myself]

One of my best friends is in a monogamous homosexual relationship and has been so for around a year now. They are both healthy. They are both happy, actually, he is happied than he ever was with a woman romantic wise.

I cant see how that is more immoral than wearing clothes of different fabrics.

 

[1robin]

One of my best friends is in a monogamous homosexual relationship and has been so for around a year now. They are both healthy. They are both happy, actually, he is happied than he ever was with a woman romantic wise.

I cant see how that is more immoral than wearing clothes of different fabrics.

The massive increase in suffering, destruction, and cost homosexuality produces is not encapsulated in your single example. My claims concern a behavior in totality and does not point out one couple who killed each other as the result of a sexual act and claim my point true because of it. Theft is not right if you know a thief that is happy. Drug addiction is immoral even if you know an addict that is a good person.

 

[Me Myself]

The massive increase in suffering, destruction, and cost homosexuality produces is not encapsulated in your single example. .

In other words you are telling me their case is an escemption? Because there is waaaaaay less of all things than on my heterosexual relationship and the ones my friend had and e ones I ve heard other people have. They just have a good relationship. No one is suffering really.

Also he is way more balanced and happy on his relationship than with others. So maybe all this bad things dont really come from homosexuality but from other factors? Irresponsable sex for example? Bad communication in a relatnship?

My claims concern a behavior in totality and does not point out one couple who killed each other as the result of a sexual act and claim my point true because of it.

I dont even follow.

T. Theft is not right if you know a thief that is happy. Drug addiction is immoral even if you know an addict that is a good person.

(Some forms of)Drug consumption are immoral, drug addiction is a compulsion or a result of such immorality. Theft is wrong because it hurts someone or disregards his/her ownership of something.

You havent said why my friend's relationship is immoral yet though.

 

[1robin]

In other words you are telling me their case is an escemption? Because there is waaaaaay less of all things than on my heterosexual relationship and the ones my friend had and e ones I ve heard other people have. They just have a good relationship. No one is suffering really.

No it is not an "escemptition". Most gay sexual encounters do not produce a death. However so many do that the behavior is unjustifiable. I did not understand the rest of that statement.

Also he is way more balanced and happy on his relationship than with others. So maybe all this bad things dont really come from homosexuality but from other factors? Irresponsable sex for example? Bad communication in a relatnship?

I know extremely smart drunks, happy pain killer addicts, and babies with guns that did not shoot anyone. However none of those behaviors is good because they do not always cause misery. I have already posted CDC data for aids and most other STDs that homosexuality directly caused. the gay 4% of the US produces 60% of aids cases. Homosexuality has no justification at all but certainly none that justify that 60%. Heterosexuality does.

I dont even follow.

I am judging homosexuality in general not Bill's or Julies homosexuality. A behavior is justifiable or not regardless of how it turned out in any single case.

Drug consumption is immoral, drug addiction is a compulsion or a result of such immorality. Theft is wrong because it hurts someone or disregards his/her ownership of something.

Homosexuality hurts millions and costs billons and contains no benefit that compensates for that loss.

You havent said why my friend's relationship is immoral yet though.

I do not care about your friend in particular. I care about the behavior he is engaged in. It has massively higher risks (even to others) and it contains no justifying gain to compensate for. What your friends status this second is has no relevance in the context my claims are in and homosexuals have far higher rates of infidelity and promiscuity in general. Even if Jim or Suzy is this second in less risk group (there are not any no risk groups) they are more than heterosexuals likely to be in a high risk group several times in their life. The average for even the monogamous relationships is 3 - 5 years for gay folks.

The only thing your friend proves is that homosexuality is not always fatal. I have never claimed it is.

 

[Me Myself]

No it is not an "escemptition". Most gay sexual encounters do not produce a death. However so many do that the behavior is unjustifiable. I did not understand the rest of that statement.

I know extremely smart drunks, happy pain killer addicts, and babies with guns that did not shoot anyone. However none of those behaviors is good because they do not always cause misery. I have already posted CDC data for aids and most other STDs that homosexuality directly caused. the gay 4% of the US produces 60% of aids cases. Homosexuality has no justification at all but certainly none that justify that 60%. Heterosexuality does.



I am judging homosexuality in general not Bill's or Julies homosexuality. A behavior is justifiable or not regardless of how it turned out in any single case.



Homosexuality hurts millions and costs billons and contains no benefit that compensates for that loss.

I do not care about your friend in particular. I care about the behavior he is engaged in. It has massively higher risks (even to others) and it contains no justifying gain to compensate for. What your friends status this second is has no relevance in the context my claims are in and homosexuals have far higher rates of infidelity and promiscuity in general. Even if Jim or Suzy is this second in less risk group (there are not any no risk groups) they are more than heterosexuals likely to be in a high risk group several times in their life. The average for even the monogamous relationships is 3 - 5 years for gay folks.

The only thing your friend proves is that homosexuality is not always fatal. I have never claimed it is.

The only thing you have said is a problem with homosexuality so far as I read is Aids, which are no problem in a monogamous relationship where both are healthy.

The imortance of the behaviour is how it impacts people. If your concern of damage is aids, then there is no reason to oppose responsable gay sex.

About infidelity and promiscuity, I would like to see a study that is not more than 7 years old, as that is the standard for social studies.

Remember that if your study is more than 7 years old it is outdated. Also, one needs to crossreference things. I would wager there is less infidelity today than on past generations because now they are more accepted as a real romantic relationship and they can have hopes for its future.

Still, your tendencies would be meaningless on case by case scenarios because morality is about causes and effects and with more specific variables you can better predict outcomes.

As such, homosexuality would just be one varaible to consider when thinking on posible infidelity. A far more reliable. Variable for seeing who will die by aids is who is having unprotected sex and who isnt, not if ey are having sex with their same sex or not.

Again, I would love to check out a not outdated study, that also detailed infidelity and promiscuity by location, age, gender and compares them to heterosexual counterparts with other relevant variables and that is a follow up showing whether they are becoming as a group, more promiscuous or less promiscuous and if they do so at a higher rate or a slower rate than their heterosexual counterparts,

 

[Me Myself]

I do not care about your friend in particular. I care about the behavior he is engaged in.

Then again, I think this could sum out your stance really well.

Those of us who do care about people, will keep in fighting for their freedom and rights to be happy while they engage in responsible relationships with those they love.

And we will see each scenario and each behaviour as to what it leads to each particular person, instead of pretending everything is just a non existing avarage gay joe and jane.

 

[1robin]

Then again, I think this could sum out your stance really well.

The fact you boiled down everything I had said, and did not even place this in it's context removes any credibility you have to complain about what another said. This is a thread about the defense or problems homosexuality. It is not on what your buddies are doing. I care about four friend in a Christian context but not in the context of this debate. I am discussing a behavior not every single one of the millions who practice it and how happy they are. I do not care about your friend in that context and tat is the context of this thread. I could have sympathy if I did not know that you knew this before you posted the above.

Those of us who do care about people, will keep in fighting for their freedom and rights to be happy while they engage in responsible relationships with those they love.

There is a tactic liberals use to justify what can't be that IMO is the most despicable and pathetic tactic used in any debate about any subject by any group I am aware of. The false moral high ground. The moral insanity required to do it will be proven below.

1. You take a statement made in one context (the right one) and you strip it of all context and if you are a sentient being you place it into a context for reasons of sensationalism that you knew were invalid. This is moral low ground.
2. You are defending a practice that kills millions, massively increases suffering, and costs billions and does so to even those that do not practice it. This is the lowest moral ground a person can possibly be on.
3. You defend a behavior with no justification at all mushy less any that can justify it's costs. Moral low ground.
4. You use one example to counter the summary costs of the behavior in general. This is not automatically moral low ground, but is always dishonest.

So we have the person who defends causing death to others, causing others to suffer in hospitals or even the womb, causing people who do not practice it to pay the bills the disgusting diseases and problems cause. A person who defends the use of nature in ways nature and or God did not design the organs for. This person has to do this by placing statements in contexts it was not given in and stripping them of contexts they came in. Then this person claims they are on moral high ground but the person who wishes to save these lives is on moral low ground. Simply amazing. If something I did would cause harm to others I would hope and pray I would demand better justification and tactics of defense to justify.

And we will see each scenario and each behaviour as to what it leads to each particular person, instead of pretending everything is just a non existing avarage gay joe and jane.

No we do not do that. Law is not different for each person, the prohibition against gays giving blood is not particular to each individual, theft does not depend on the thief, nor Murder on the killer, and no moral truth is truth only for a certain person. This is just more intellectual dishonesty used to rationalize what can't be. So far you have not even attempted to prove homosexuality is moral. The defense of this behavior has been defended in this thread to less effect than I have ever seen anything defended of any type. How could anyone risk harming others, make others pay for the damage, without any justification at all and call anyone who wants that not to happen wrong. I guess we are living in that age talked about in revelations where right is wrong and wrong is right.

 

[Curious George]

Good Lord will these ineffective arguments never cease. There are babies with guns that did not kill anyone. Are babies with guns a moral or good idea? There are thieves who steal stuff no one is ever aware of - Is theft moral? There are drunks who drive home without incident - Is driving drunk moral?

I understand cause and effect much better than you. I had to pass tests given by PhD's and write papers concerning cause and effect, modal being, probability and statistics, etc....to pass graduate math classes, philosophy classes, statistics classes, and calculus based physics classes. It is you who do not understand it. Your using the same tired arguments that were ineffective hundreds of posts ago. The homosexual defense tool box must only contain a half dozen ineffective arguments. Because I only see the same ones over and over and over.

Subgroups are no defense of homosexuality.
Pointing out something else that is wrong is no defense.
Pointing out that something worse exists is no defense.
Yelling about cause and effect relationships that are perfectly valid is no defense, and just ridiculous.
Less risk is still risk and when no justification exists to offset any risk level this is no defense.

Your arguments demonstrate a lack of understanding in statistics, logic, and morality. I have clearly shown each facet of this in my posts to you. Others have as well. Yet, you cling to your arguments for some unknown reason. At least you are tenacious.

I have re-articulated your arguments giving you ample chance to clear any misunderstanding on my part. You have not re-articulated my counter arguments so I can only assume that you understand them but refuse to acknowledge your errors because of pride. The wrongness of what you assert occurs on so many levels that further discussion is pointless. take care sir.

After 1500 plus posts my two simple claims have not even been dented or challenged at all. I have become exasperated concerning ever being given an argument that has the slightest power to overturn either despite my desire for someone to do so. This has dissolved into every new poster using the same few ineffective arguments I have dealt with over and over and over. They are all ridiculous attempts to rationalize why someone favorite immoral action should be allowed to hurt others. Evan that attempt is immoral and especially so when using arguments so absurd.


Being far more generous than the arguments deserve Agnostic did present one aspect of one part of one claim where all of reality must be used to resolve. You know that part of reality non-theists summary dismiss for reasons of preference. However 99% of my arguments have not even been challenged at all. I no longer believe anyone will ever post a new and effective argument. So I will no longer respond in this thread until someone does. I just can't keep showing why the same arguments that did not work a thousand posts ago still don't.

I find it interesting, If everyone keeps telling you that you're wrong, it does not necessarily mean that you are- but it is a red flag for you to at least consider the possibility.

Your understanding and knowledge across a breadth of subjects requires is wanting. In order to continue any discussion relating to this subject, we will have to cover basic understanding and knowledge across an array of subjects. Thus, sometime in the future -after we have discussed logic, statistics, morality, cause and effect, and harm- we can try again.

Cheers.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have re-articulated your arguments giving you ample chance to clear any misunderstanding on my part. You have not re-articulated my counter arguments so I can only assume that you understand them but refuse to acknowledge your errors because of pride.

My best guess is that it isn't so much pride as that our counter arguments are just invisible to him. I think he literally can't see them. That's why he seems to honestly believe that no one has countered his assertions.

My best guess. A most curious thing, if true.

The wrongness of what you assert occurs on so many levels that further discussion is pointless. take care sir.

I think bigotry needs to be opposed. Some young person might encounter this thread and assume that the anti-gay stuff is true, else it wouldn't be posted as if true.

So I'm not going away. Real people may suffer if no one stands up and corrects the nonsense posted here against homosexuality.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

How is it more immoral than wearing clothe from different fabrica or eating shellfish?

Conservative Christians seem to suffer real serious hangups about sex. That's all I can figure.

 

[Tiberius]

Good Lord will these ineffective arguments never cease. There are babies with guns that did not kill anyone. Are babies with guns a moral or good idea? There are thieves who steal stuff no one is ever aware of - Is theft moral? There are drunks who drive home without incident - Is driving drunk moral?

I understand cause and effect much better than you. I had to pass tests given by PhD's and write papers concerning cause and effect, modal being, probability and statistics, etc....to pass graduate math classes, philosophy classes, statistics classes, and calculus based physics classes. It is you who do not understand it. Your using the same tired arguments that were ineffective hundreds of posts ago. The homosexual defense tool box must only contain a half dozen ineffective arguments. Because I only see the same ones over and over and over.

Subgroups are no defense of homosexuality.
Pointing out something else that is wrong is no defense.
Pointing out that something worse exists is no defense.
Yelling about cause and effect relationships that are perfectly valid is no defense, and just ridiculous.
Less risk is still risk and when no justification exists to offset any risk level this is no defense.

After 1500 plus posts my two simple claims have not even been dented or challenged at all. I have become exasperated concerning ever being given an argument that has the slightest power to overturn either despite my desire for someone to do so. This has dissolved into every new poster using the same few ineffective arguments I have dealt with over and over and over. They are all ridiculous attempts to rationalize why someone favorite immoral action should be allowed to hurt others. Evan that attempt is immoral and especially so when using arguments so absurd.


Being far more generous than the arguments deserve Agnostic did present one aspect of one part of one claim where all of reality must be used to resolve. You know that part of reality non-theists summary dismiss for reasons of preference. However 99% of my arguments have not even been challenged at all. I no longer believe anyone will ever post a new and effective argument. So I will no longer respond in this thread until someone does. I just can't keep showing why the same arguments that did not work a thousand posts ago still don't.

I'm just coming in to this thread, so forgive me if I am wrong, but is your argument that since homosexual sex carries risk it is wrong?

Need I remind you that heterosexual sex also carries risk?