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

[Tiberius]

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.

So a single example that shows you are wrong doesn't count but a single example that supports your point DOES count? Are you cherry picking your data?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Except this massive increase in suffering, destruction and cost are all imaginary? There are some SLIGHT increases of medical problems but I have explained in the past to you and several others the reasonin behin those are not inherent to homosexuality.

 

[averageJOE]

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

That's part of your problem. You think what two adults, who are complete strangers to you, are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom at night is your business. Should your private sex life be made everyone's business?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.




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.

You mean MSM? because people who are MSM are not considered "gay" as Gay is a reference to a lifestyle. Men who have Sex with Men also have sex with women. That is the population that is most at risk because they are the population least likely to reveal their sexual past to their partners, least likely to use condoms, and least likely to go for treatment.

They do not however consider themselves gay. However I still need to see your source for the 4% of the population that is gay (are you talking about the entire united states?), commits to 60% of the HIV cases.

Now as mentioned before does that account for Lesbians?

Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

And as mentioned by the CDC does this factor in Drug use (i.e. needle sharing?)

Does it also account for Homosexuals who do not participate in anal sex? As well as those who use protection?

 

[1robin]

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.



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.

Do you think a bunch of homosexuality supporters claiming someone that refutes every argument they make is wrong, is meaningful? Immorality has a thousand fathers, morality is an orphan. There is no more biased group possible than those who wish to do X even if X has no justification. My two primary statement have no meaningful weakness (outside of a partial one that applies to one aspect of one part of one of them). My data comes from the CDC and other organizations that have no bias and must be right. The arguments used against mine are so ineffective I have no idea which ones apply to which. There are only a few that are repeated over and over that I have shown why they are completely incapable of the slightest effect against my primary claims. I have done this in several different ways. I honestly do not see a single one (other than that very partial one) that can contend with my most secular of arguments. I have never seen anything defended so badly. They are not arguments, they are rationalizations and I have pointed out why so many times I have given up any hope I am dealing with people who have any capacity to resolve this issue by evidence and logic. It seems to be an emotional position in search of anything that can back it up and finding none instead use things that don't as if they do.

I have degrees and transcripts that say in no uncertain terms that I am competent in many areas. In many an absolute wrong and right can be determined and in most others an almost certainty can be determined. I find that the liberal (atheist, homosexual, or just plain liberals) are always on the wrong side of almost every issue. When I claim 2 + 2 = 4 and your side says it is 5 and insists on it, I have no choice to think your side faulty as it I am certain it is in this issue. Not one argument has ever even jeopardized my primary claims. 2 + 2 is not = to 5 no matter how many liberals claim it is. My greatest wish is that someone would invent a machine capable of rightly determining the answer to every debate. However until it is invented your side will have to go on thinking wrong is right because no power on earth can change a position adopted by preference.

I do not know what to say. No argument I have seen here has the slightest potential to challenge my claims. 2 + 2 = 4 even if 4 is not preferred.

I think you are completely wrong (let me restate, I don't see how it is possible for you to be right about this issue) but you do seem at least half sincere so I will repost my two primary claims because the only thing I can figure is no matter how simple they are they are not understood by those making these ineffectual arguments to them.

1. Homosexuality massively increases human suffering, death, and costs in general. (some subgroups cause more and some less but all cause some)
2. Homosexuality has no justification to compensate for the harm it causes. It does not create any life, ever. So the loss of one life is unjustifiable. However the numbers of dead are in the millions, and the cost is in the billions.

Not one dang thing anyone has said refutes these or even comes close.
Keep in mind I have been doing this with half of reality tied behind my back for your sakes. I have not used God in defense of either of those outside that tiny fraction of one I mentioned earlier and it is of no help anyway. I don't know what else to say.

 

[1robin]

That's part of your problem. You think what two adults, who are complete strangers to you, are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom at night is your business. Should your private sex life be made everyone's business?

If what they did, did not kill millions of other people it might not be. If you cook meth in your bedroom at night and it kills someone, ask this same question then. When what your doing, me and others who are not doing are asked to pay billions for it, it sure as heck is our business. If homosexuals killed only homosexuals and did not require the rest of the 96% who aren't for the 60% of the aids cases it creates then the whole issues would take care of its self, unfortunately what the 4% of us who are gay are doing kills and costs the rest of us. If you think lust is justification for the amount of suffering caused to others by those gratifying it, is ok, then you have no moral credibility left to judge anything by.

 

[1robin]

You mean MSM? because people who are MSM are not considered "gay" as Gay is a reference to a lifestyle. Men who have Sex with Men also have sex with women. That is the population that is most at risk because they are the population least likely to reveal their sexual past to their partners, least likely to use condoms, and least likely to go for treatment.

I am speaking against all homosexual behavior. Some groups have greater risk than others but all have risk and none have justification that compensates for the damage produced.

They do not however consider themselves gay. However I still need to see your source for the 4% of the population that is gay (are you talking about the entire united states?), commits to 60% of the HIV cases.

It is the CDC and I have given the link at least 4 times. Just look back a little bit.

Now as mentioned before does that account for Lesbians?

Fact Sheet: HIV/AIDS among Women Who Have Sex With Women | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

Lesbians have less risk but still have risk. They have no justification to justify any risk at all.

And as mentioned by the CDC does this factor in Drug use (i.e. needle sharing?)

It linked the aids cases with homosexuality. I am sure they know how to do statistics if anyone does. However homosexuals seem to exhibit a lack of judgment across the board so it would not be unrelated anyway.

Does it also account for Homosexuals who do not participate in anal sex? As well as those who use protection?

Look at the link and if you still have these questions, remind me then.

 

[1robin]

Except this massive increase in suffering, destruction and cost are all imaginary? There are some SLIGHT increases of medical problems but I have explained in the past to you and several others the reasonin behin those are not inherent to homosexuality.

I swear it just keeps getting more bizarre every day. The 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of just aids cases alone. That is tens of thousands or aids cases which have no justification whatever. Now you may think that minor. The rest of the world thinks ten thousand aids victims that did not have to have it as wrong as wrong can get. The same post after post of data that every new poster seems to ignore that I have provided here over and over again also show that many of these aids victims have no insurance. Who is paying these millions and millions used to treat these people that homosexuality put in the hospital, the 4% of us that put them there or the rest of us that do not practice the behavior? I keep saying these arguments are so hyperbolically absurd I am giving up on them. However the mystery of what can cause disconnects this large between people and reality always make me try and find out. In this entire thread I know of only one meaningful claim and it only applied to one part of one part of my claim and did not help homosexuality at all anyway. The rest has been 100% rationalization and has not even dented a single one of my two primary claims.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Lesbians have less risk but still have risk. They have no justification to justify any risk at all.

Married couples have less risk than others, but still have risk. They have no justification to justify any risk at all, especially if they are sterile or using contraceptives or if they can be artificially inseminated.

You should inform the married couples in your church that they are immoral for having sex together. It is your moral duty to inform them.

I would like to be there and watch you do that.

 

[1robin]

So a single example that shows you are wrong doesn't count but a single example that supports your point DOES count? Are you cherry picking your data?

That is exactly right. My claims apply to 99% of the spectrum of homosexuality in general. Some of them apply to 100% of it. You bring up 1% that at less than 20% of their time being homosexuals might escape one type of what I have been discussing and think that is an argument against the other 99% of homosexuality, the other 80% of even those peoples lives, in-spite of it not working at all for one type of claim I made. Simply remarkable.

 

[1robin]

Married couples have less risk than others, but still have risk. They have no justification to justify any risk at all, especially if they are sterile or using contraceptives or if they can be artificially inseminated.

You should inform the married couples in your church that they are immoral for having sex together. It is your moral duty to inform them.

I would like to be there and watch you do that.

I have said to almost every claim you have made what I say now. You can not defend x by claiming Y is wrong. It is the worst defense possible for anything or any type ever made by anyone. If you ever get arrested for theft, try using the defense that you are innocent because someone else was speeding. See how it works. You are asking the same questions I have answered time after time when you alone asked them not to mention the others. Your dichotomy is not right to begin with but I am tired of these arguments so I instead I pointed out the simple fact guilt of something else (even though it is not guilt at all) is of no help for the guilt of another thing. That is all the time I can justify for this thread today.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I am speaking against all homosexual behavior. Some groups have greater risk than others but all have risk and none have justification that compensates for the damage produced.

It is the CDC and I have given the link at least 4 times. Just look back a little bit.


Lesbians have less risk but still have risk. They have no justification to justify any risk at all.

It linked the aids cases with homosexuality. I am sure they know how to do statistics if anyone does. However homosexuals seem to exhibit a lack of judgment across the board so it would not be unrelated anyway.



Look at the link and if you still have these questions, remind me then.

Lesbian Risk is lower than heterosexual risk. The risk is higher in homosexual males who engage in unprotected anal sex. The heterosexual risk is lower than the homosexual male risk but higher than the lesbian risk.

Even then the risk of aids is higher in men who practice MSM not men who practice monogamous sex with a male partner.

Estimate wise 2001 through 2005 the rates of aids transmission in america was 40-49% of all new cases compared to heterosexuals which were 32-35% of all new cases.

However in the places that have the highest risk (Africa and the Caribbean's), the risk is highest among heterosexuals and not homosexuals. With more women being infected in those areas.

So it would seem the "harm" is related more to unprotected sex, than simply the act of who you are sleeping with. Now if you want to condemn all sex, which would be fine to me, given that the rates of transmissions are not uniform for sex groups throughout all countries, but just the act of having unprotected sex is enough, then by all means I think that is a better arguement to make then the current one you are positioning.
Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have said to almost every claim you have made what I say now. You can not defend x by claiming Y is wrong. It is the worst defense possible for anything or any type ever made by anyone. If you ever get arrested for theft, try using the defense that you are innocent because someone else was speeding. See how it works. You are asking the same questions I have answered time after time when you alone asked them not to mention the others. Your dichotomy is not right to begin with but I am tired of these arguments so I instead I pointed out the simple fact guilt of something else (even though it is not guilt at all) is of no help for the guilt of another thing. That is all the time I can justify for this thread today.

Yes you can, the underline theme between X and Y in this case is sex. Do heterosexuals have sex? yes, do homosexuals have sex? yes

If your point is that harm is caused by having homosexual sex, then you would need to show that no harm is caused in heterosexual sex, if not then you cannot by any means condemn homosexual acts as harmful. Now if you are simply going by religious doctrine, then you can, because that is a simple matter of saying "cause God said so" you'll get an end to these responses more so then your attempt to try to portray homosexuality in the inaccurate light that you have been.

 

[Tiberius]

That is exactly right. My claims apply to 99% of the spectrum of homosexuality in general. Some of them apply to 100% of it. You bring up 1% that at less than 20% of their time being homosexuals might escape one type of what I have been discussing and think that is an argument against the other 99% of homosexuality, the other 80% of even those peoples lives, in-spite of it not working at all for one type of claim I made. Simply remarkable.

And you don't think that such a bias is inherently harmful and dishonest? By the same logic, I can claim that since some Christians have murdered doctors who have performed abortions, Christianity is dangerous and should be prohibited. Anyone discovered to be a Christian should be punished. This is obviously ridiculous, isn't it, and yet you are using the same logic in your argument.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

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.


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.

You keep saying theft does not depend n the thief, but that has nothing to do with it,

Theft is wrong in itself where homosexuals ex is not wrong in itself.

Infidelity is wrong in itself. Spreading diesease is wrong in itself.

Homosexual sex is not wrong UNLESS IT DOES SOMETHING WRONG.

Which you have failed to demonstrate that homosexual sex is inherently wrong like theft and murder, etc.

You have not done this. You have said that some people that have homosexuals ex spread diseases and some people that have homosexual sex are adulterous. This does not mean homosexual sex is wrong,

You want to say it is because you are judging everyone for the failures of some, which is of course #%%^*hit .

Judging all homosexuals or the act of himosexuality for the sin of some homosexuals is wrong.its ridiculous, and it's just plain fallacious.

 

[Me Myself]

That is exactly right. My claims apply to 99% of the spectrum of homosexuality in general. Some of them apply to 100% of it. You bring up 1% that at less than 20% of their time being homosexuals might escape one type of what I have been discussing and think that is an argument against the other 99% of homosexuality, the other 80% of even those peoples lives, in-spite of it not working at all for one type of claim I made. Simply remarkable.

Oh oh oh! i totally want sources for this numbers!

Remember: a social study needs to be at least less than seven years old to not be considered outdated. I know this because it is from my field of studies.

Oh please! I want to see a source for this magnificent numbers!

 

[averageJOE]

If what they did, did not kill millions of other people it might not be. If you cook meth in your bedroom at night and it kills someone, ask this same question then. When what your doing, me and others who are not doing are asked to pay billions for it, it sure as heck is our business. If homosexuals killed only homosexuals and did not require the rest of the 96% who aren't for the 60% of the aids cases it creates then the whole issues would take care of its self, unfortunately what the 4% of us who are gay are doing kills and costs the rest of us. If you think lust is justification for the amount of suffering caused to others by those gratifying it, is ok, then you have no moral credibility left to judge anything by.

Got it. You think if to men have sex their neighbors house will catch fire.

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

Got it. You think if to men have sex their neighbors house will catch fire.

And it will be the most fabulous fire that anyone has ever seen. :rainbow:

 

[SteveGrayFTW]

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.

Admittedly, yes, it is believed that homosexuals make up around 4% of the US population. And yes, homosexual males account for 60% of new HIV transmissions.

You gloss over the fact that those with HIV only account for .6% of the population, though. This is as opposed to countries such as Botswana, or South Africa, where the infection rate is around 20%, most if which is done via heterosexual sex.

Yet you still insist that we (as in homosexuals) are the ones causing the most suffering? Heterosexuals seem to be doing a good job of inflicting suffering on themselves.

 

[Skwim]

I have said to almost every claim you have made what I say now. You can not defend x by claiming Y is wrong.

Hey, this is the crux of the creationist argument. Be careful what you condemn. :slap: