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

[1robin]

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

I do not understand what you mean. If you mean that creationists say creation is true because evolution is wrong then this is comparing two unequal things. I do not do that but it would be valid in that case because we have only two known choices. Either life was created or it evolved. If someone could show that it did not evolve (there is even a law based on the fact it never could) then it must have been created. That is another type of argument dynamic all together from homosexuality. Homosexuality is right or wrong completely independent from anything else being right or wrong.

 

[1robin]

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

This is another less risk is no risk argument.

All homosexual subgroups have some risk and nu justification to compensate for even the lowest risk levels. AS I keep saying babies with guns most of the time do not shoot anyone. However babies with guns is a bad idea because at any risk level there is no reason to justify giving them one.

IN the US the 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases. I am not saying you are wrong but why in the world would I think this would be the exact opposite anywhere else. It would not matter anyway because heterosexuality has justification for its risk. Perpetuation of the human race is pretty powerful justification.

If you review I have covered everything you said over and over and over again. Go back to me and Agnostics debate.

 

[1robin]

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.

You can only use that argument when only two choices exist. They must also be dependent which is where homosexuality goes wrong. If only Bob and Greg could have done x then if I prove Greg did not do it then Bob must have or vice versa. Homosexuality is wrong independently of whether heterosexuality is or not. I do not need to do what you said above because only heterosexuality has justification possible. They are not equal concepts and so are not dependent. One does not sink or float with the other.

 

[1robin]

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.

No you can't because killing doctors is not a part of Christianity. There is not one single verse that justifies murder under any circumstances in the NT. If most of the people in one church did this you could say whatever that church is teaching is bad concerning this but you can't lay at Christ's feet what he never ever allowed. If you wish to evaluate a teacher do you use the students who do the opposite of what is taught or those that obey what is taught? Why are you doing the opposite when Christianity is involved? I think the bias is apparent here. STD's are inherently a result of homosexuality. Violence is not inherently a part of Christ's teaching. In fact he taught the exact opposite even when struck our selves.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

Sp you cant say how homosexuality is inherently wrong, right?


And

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!

Totally waiting for that one.

 

[1robin]

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

I think it does.

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

IN a way it is. I would argue there are cases where starvation might occur where I would never fault a child for stealing my stuff but in general yes but it is wrong because it deprives another of value that is his or there was a risk to do so.

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

Kind of but it is what those actions result in that determines that they are wrong.

Homosexual sex is not wrong UNLESS IT DOES SOMETHING WRONG.

No it is the potential for wrong in the absence of justification that makes that wrong. Intentional murder is wrong even when no one was hurt. Giving a baby a gun who does not shoot anyone is still wrong. A drunk who drives home drunk but does not hurt anyone is still wrong. Actions can be wrong based solely on the potential of harm.

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

Just did. It alone causes 60% of aids cases just in the US. It contains no justification. It is morally wrong.

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.

I see you abandoned reason and went straight for the obligatory sarcasm, hostility, and rhetoric that your side of the issue uses as a crutch so often. The last section deserves no response from me.

 

[1robin]

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!

Judging from the end of your last post I have no desire to encourage you but did want to say one thing.

a social study needs to be at least less than seven years old to not be considered outdated

This is just weird. What happens during the night of the sixth year and three hundred and sixty 5th day to make a correct set of data instantly meaningless? Even if this magical line in the sand actually existed it would only apply to taking those numbers and examining something today with them and it would only partially apply there. Since you were so sarcastic in he last post you must suffer the wrath of my favorite poem of modern morality.

“Creed” on the World
By Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.
We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn
We believe in Masters and Johnson
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors .
And the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.
We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth
that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.
If chance be
the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky
and when you hear
State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!
It is but the sound of man
worshipping his maker.
Steve Turner, (English journalist), “Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44


How many of those have been used in this thread alone?

 

[1robin]

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

Of course that is why I did not use the word house, neighbor, fire or say anything that any rational human being would have distorted into what you claimed it was. Homosexuals kill others mostly unintentionally, make others suffer mostly unintentionally , make other pay for the problems it causes them and others intentionally. It has nothing to justify that cost. If you want to defend the indefensible you are going to have to start by being intellectually honest at least. With defenders this bad it takes no critics to condemn homosexuality.

 

[Me Myself]

I think it does.

IN a way it is. I would argue there are cases where starvation might occur where I would never fault a child for stealing my stuff but in general yes but it is wrong because it deprives another of value that is his or there was a risk to do so.


Kind of but it is what those actions result in that determines that they are wrong.

No it is the potential for wrong in the absence of justification that makes that wrong. Intentional murder is wrong even when no one was hurt. Giving a baby a gun who does not shoot anyone is still wrong. A drunk who drives home drunk but does not hurt anyone is still wrong. Actions can be wrong based solely on the potential of harm.


Just did. It alone causes 60% of aids cases just in the US. It contains no justification. It is morally wrong.


I see you abandoned reason and went straight for the obligatory sarcasm, hostility, and rhetoric that your side of the issue uses as a crutch so often. The last section deserves no response from me.

Sarcasm where? You gave numbers I would love to see the justification.

Of that 60% how many of those spread it becuase of irresponsible sex?

The numbers will tell you that is the actual problem. People having sex without condom and with unknown partners, not people having sex with people of the same gender.

You have shown hostility since the start by faulting people for the errors of others.

Also, the baby with a gun would only be a reasonable analogy if it werent a baby but a responsible adult with a gun giving it to another responsible adult with a gun. We ate talking about respinsible adults here, not babies.

 

[Me Myself]

Judging from the end of your last post I have no desire to encourage you but did want to say one thing. This is just weird. What happens during the night of the sixth year and three hundred and sixty 5th day to make a correct set of data instantly meaningless? Even if this magical line in the sand actually existed it would only apply to taking those numbers and examining something today with them and it would only partially apply there. Since you were so sarcastic in he last post you must suffer the wrath of my favorite poem of modern morality.

A stufy about social realities needs to be updated. After 7 years people have changed enough for the previous results to be too far from representing society to be taken seriously. I didnt come to this number, sociologists around theo world who study the subject closely did.

Do you have a not outdated study yet?

 

[1robin]

A stufy about social realities needs to be updated. After 7 years people have changed enough for the previous results to be too far from representing society to be taken seriously. I didnt come to this number, sociologists around theo world who study the subject closely did.

I don't have any stufys. They only need to be updated if they are claimed to represent today. For historical studies the oldest data is usually the best.

Do you have a not outdated study yet?

I do not know that any were old. However I was only using them to represent the time they were collected so no foul exists anywhere. The CDC data I used the most is from July of 2013 and was collected from 2008 - 2012.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This is another less risk is no risk argument.

All homosexual subgroups have some risk and nu justification to compensate for even the lowest risk levels. AS I keep saying babies with guns most of the time do not shoot anyone. However babies with guns is a bad idea because at any risk level there is no reason to justify giving them one.

IN the US the 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases. I am not saying you are wrong but why in the world would I think this would be the exact opposite anywhere else. It would not matter anyway because heterosexuality has justification for its risk. Perpetuation of the human race is pretty powerful justification.

If you review I have covered everything you said over and over and over again. Go back to me and Agnostics debate.

But all heterosexual subgroups have risk too. The risk is the issue here, is the risk present in both audiences? The answer is yes. What is the main cause of that risk? Sex.

If you want to advocate Protection or Abstinence that is one thing. But since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are at risk, painting it as you are "that it is an inherently homosexual issue" is flawed.

You also realize that in biology that perpetuation and control of a species reproduction is equally important. The lack of predators, or disease to disable a species and keep them from from reproducing indefinitely is harmful to that species. Homosexuality does curb that, as Homosexuals do not reproduce...however...they are still capable of reproducing if the need was to come about.

Yes in the U.S. your stats are true (though again it does not take into account Lesbians and MSM, which is important because your issue with HIV for instance is only high in who have identified with MSM and lower in lesbians than it is among the general population), but outside of the U.S. it is the Heterosexuals who are causing the most harm, and even more so with other diseases that are sexually transmitted and they even pass those diseases to their children as well, causing further harm.

 

[1robin]

But all heterosexual subgroups have risk too. The risk is the issue here, is the risk present in both audiences? The answer is yes. What is the main cause of that risk? Sex.

Come on Franklin, your are far too smart for this. I have said at least 2 dozen times in this thread that yes they both have risks. AS far as I can tell the homosexuals have massively higher risks in category after category. The thing they do not have is JUSTIFICATION.

Heterosexuality - if not practiced the human race ends. Justification for lower risks.
Homosexuality - if strictly practiced the human race ends. No justification for any risk.

Bonus: BTW no creature in nature is strictly homosexual that I have ever heard of and even if a few exist they are so few as to be a counter argument against human homosexuality being genetically mandated. .

If you want to advocate Protection or Abstinence that is one thing. But since both homosexuals and heterosexuals are at risk, painting it as you are "that it is an inherently homosexual issue" is flawed.

But only one has justification that compensates for he risk. I have only two primary claims. Why are you ignoring one of them?

You also realize that in biology that perpetuation and control of a species reproduction is equally important. The lack of predators, or disease to disable a species and keep them from from reproducing indefinitely is harmful to that species. Homosexuality does curb that, as Homosexuals do not reproduce...however...they are still capable of reproducing if the need was to come about.

That is not where homosexuality comes from. Though I did think it an interesting argument for a while. I can explain why this is if you wish to concentrate on it as it takes a bit.


Yes in the U.S. your stats are true (though again it does not take into account Lesbians and MSM, which is important because your issue with HIV for instance is only high in who have identified with MSM and lower in lesbians than it is among the general population), but outside of the U.S. it is the Heterosexuals who are causing the most harm, and even more so with other diseases that are sexually transmitted and they even pass those diseases to their children as well, causing further harm.[/quote] I used the data as a general claim about the disparity of damage versus how few people cause it. My argument does no suffer even in the lowest risk groups. For what has no justification for any risk a single person with aids is unjustifiable. However in many categories the risks are equal between certain groups. It is impractical for me to evaluate every single sub category you or others can invent. There are potentially thousands of them. Fortunately it is irrelevant. How much fun or physical lust justifies the loss of a single life or a million dollars?

BTW this thread is about male on male sex.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Come on Franklin, your are far too smart for this. I have said at least 2 dozen times in this thread that yes they both have risks. AS far as I can tell the homosexuals have massively higher risks in category after category. The thing they do not have is JUSTIFICATION.

Heterosexuality - if not practiced the human race ends. Justification for lower risks.
Homosexuality - if strictly practiced the human race ends. No justification for any risk.

Bonus: BTW no creature in nature is strictly homosexual that I have ever heard of and even if a few exist they are so few as to be a counter argument against human homosexuality being genetically mandated. .

But only one has justification that compensates for he risk. I have only two primary claims. Why are you ignoring one of them?

That is not where homosexuality comes from. Though I did think it an interesting argument for a while. I can explain why this is if you wish to concentrate on it as it takes a bit.


Yes in the U.S. your stats are true (though again it does not take into account Lesbians and MSM, which is important because your issue with HIV for instance is only high in who have identified with MSM and lower in lesbians than it is among the general population), but outside of the U.S. it is the Heterosexuals who are causing the most harm, and even more so with other diseases that are sexually transmitted and they even pass those diseases to their children as well, causing further harm.

I used the data as a general claim about the disparity of damage versus how few people cause it. My argument does no suffer even in the lowest risk groups. For what has no justification for any risk a single person with aids is unjustifiable. However in many categories the risks are equal between certain groups. It is impractical for me to evaluate every single sub category you or others can invent. There are potentially thousands of them. Fortunately it is irrelevant. How much fun or physical lust justifies the loss of a single life or a million dollars?

BTW this thread is about male on male sex.[/QUOTE]

The issue with the argument is that you are using harm through sex. If sex is the issue, and sex is an issue that is available to both heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the diseases transmitted between homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same. The issue is sex, not homosexuals. The argument just doesn't work.

Some creatures in Biology are not even strictly male or female. Nature is a plethora of things that homosexuality would exist in it is not a surprise, as many creatures practice homosexuality and also reproduce. Ironically enough the group that practices homosexuality and also sleep with Women cause more harm than Exclusive homosexuals or Exclusive Heterosexuals. Hence the coinage of the term MSM.

Heterosexual sex does promote expansion of a species. Homosexual sex, halts the expansion of that species, given humans ability to procreate (specifically males), and that we biologically we are the apex predator in almost any environment you put us in...then it would make sense that it would be away to subdue a species expansion. I think there is little evidence for this currently, and there may never be. That being said

Homosexuals can however still produce, they may choose not too, but if it comes down to it, they can be called for action. IF every straight male was to die today, the human race would not be doom (especially when you consider medical science)

I think you can make a stronger argument against unprotected poly-sexual relations than you can for homosexuality in terms of risk and harm to humanity.

Now since the argument is for Male on Male sex then even then you need to make a very important distinction between those who are strictly homosexual and those who practice homosexuality and heterosexuality. Those are the ones who carry the most burden of risk...the issue with the risk affiliation with STD's however is that proper sexual health education greatly reduces that.

 

[Me Myself]

I don't have any stufys. They only need to be updated if they are claimed to represent today. For historical studies the oldest data is usually the best.

I do not know that any were old. However I was only using them to represent the time they were collected so no foul exists anywhere. The CDC data I used the most is from July of 2013 and was collected from 2008 - 2012.

Great! Then corroborate this numbers:

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]

Great! Then corroborate this numbers:

So far the not been any exception to my claims. I said 99% to be generous. One person brought up two virgins in a monogamous homosexual relationship. Forget for a moment that they have risks, even if they have less. Do you claim they account for more than 1% or even .1% of the total homosexual encounters that occur? I only bring this in to give you a chance. Let's see if you can capitalize.

 

[Me Myself]

So far the not been any exception to my claims. I said 99% to be generous. One person brought up two virgins in a monogamous homosexual relationship. Forget for a moment that they have risks, even if they have less. Do you claim they account for more than 1% or even .1% of the total homosexual encounters that occur? I only bring this in to give you a chance. Let's see if you can capitalize.

The link is not working for me, I cant even see it.


Does anyone else have this problem? I am sure he wouldnt have said such a thing without numbers. After all "his side" is the "serious one" that does not exagerate or use sarcasm.

Oh noes! My I pad must be broken

Wait, maybe he genuinely forgot to put the link.

Please tell me if this is the case I hope my I pad is okay

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I only bring this in to give you a chance. Let's see if you can capitalize.

You are a serious hoot, man.

 

[1robin]

The link is not working for me, I cant even see it.


Does anyone else have this problem? I am sure he wouldnt have said such a thing without numbers. After all "his side" is the "serious one" that does not exagerate or use sarcasm.

Oh noes! My I pad must be broken

Wait, maybe he genuinely forgot to put the link.

Please tell me if this is the case I hope my I pad is okay

As soon as you indicate exactly why a link was necessary I will think about providing one. Why don't you do this instead of rabble rousing and cheerleading. I said 99%, but I will make it even worse. 100% of homosexual (sexual) encounters have risks which 0% of them have justification for. Exactly how many links does this fact require. I was being generous, I withdraw that generosity. Maybe you would like links for why up is up or left is left. Just let me know because I am at your service, even if there is no need what so ever for what you asked for. Do you need links for what gravity does to prevent you from floating away or will you just go with the pretty certain assumption it will old you down.

If you wish to defend the gratification of sexual lust which has no compensating benefit, no matter how many others must suffer and pay for it, I obviously can't stop that. However have the decency to not attempt to call that a moral act. If you can't even contrive or invent a reason why my facts might be inaccurate or even the attempt to, I see no reason for looking around the net for links in addition to what I already have. I have no burden to do so.

 

[1robin]

You are a serious hoot, man.

Whether I am or not it, the capitalization was not even attempted. Instead a technical way out of failed moral argument was its self a failure. I really thought my two simplistic points would have been effectively challenged by now. After all I had to tie half of reality behind my back to even have common ground on which to debate the issue.