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

[averageJOE]

Great! Then corroborate this numbers:

I asked for those numbers too. Got no response.

 

[averageJOE]

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.

Your the one making intellectually dishonest comparisons, like meth labs, thieves, and murderers. That's distorting.

 

[Me Myself]

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.

You no longer need links. No serious study would ever say 100% on any of such social cases because any study has a margin of error however small.

Its funny you make up numbers and say we blow off our credibility simply because we like a bit of snark. At least we dont make up facts

 

[averageJOE]

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.

Above is an example of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I really thought my two simplistic points would have been effectively challenged by now.

Your two simplistic points have been utterly destroyed by most everyone who has posted to you.

It's why you can't force yourself to attempt answers to our counterarguments.

 

[Me Myself]

Above is an example of intellectual dishonesty.

Oh no, ita rig, because ou havent evidenced to the contrary yet.

You see, thats how numbers work. You make up some and then say the other "side" has no credibility because they like snarky comments here and there or simply dont buy your made up numbers.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. Since this post will be long, I will post it in parts.

Argument #1

Since lesbians have less STD risks than heterosexual men and women do, you do not have any valid arguments against lesbians as far as STDs are concerned.

Argument #2

Other than STDs, what problems do lesbians have that can be corrected, or prevented, by them practicing abstinence?

Argument #3

Homosexual monogamy averages about 3-5 years.

Please quote your sources.

Surely many homosexuals have practiced abstinence for much longer than that, such as those who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years. Why should they practice abstinence?

A number of experts believe that about 3% of the people in the world are homosexuals. That would mean that there are about 210 million homosexuals in the world. If only 1% of those homosexuals are healthy, and strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, which is easily probable, that would be about 2 million homosexuals who would not need to practice abstinence.

If homosexuality is as bad as you say it is, it is quite remarkable that well over a million homosexuals are healthy, happy, and monogamous, and have overcome a difficult sexual identity that they did not ask for. Those homosexuals should be commended, not criticized.

Argument #4

When you can make the risks zero (and that is not possible), and guarantee thy were healthy when they got together (good luck), and guarantee they will not have sex outside of monogamy (which is impossible) then I will re-evaluate the secular argument at that time.

Five years or longer of monogamy, with good medical health, is a reasonable amount of time to warrant homosexuals staying together, and much more so regarding ten years or longer.

Argument #5

Monogamy does not eliminate the risks, it only reduces them.

If a homosexual couple are monogamous, and do not have any STDs, what risks do they have as far as getting STDs are concerned?

Argument #6

But only a small percentage fraction of the suffering, and billions of dollars due to often preventable cases of heart disease, cancer, and obesity.

I am not discussing any other section of what causes suffering and costs. This is a homosexuality thread not a costs thread.

But most of your secular arguments against homosexuality in this thread have been about suffering and costs.

Argument #7

It is well-known that having sex has significant health benefits, and that practicing abstinence has proven health risks. You can read about that in my post #2 in a thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/151133-can-sexual-identity-changed.html.

As far as reducing financial health care costs is concerned, long term abstinence often increases health care costs. Regarding homosexuals who have tried abstinence, and became worse off than they were before, and needed medical treatment as a result, it would be reasonable for them to start having sex again if they have safe sex.

Argument #8

Pointing out that Y is worse than X does not justify X.

I never said, or implied that, and I have told you that at least several times in various threads. As I have told you, my intention of mentioning heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are often preventable, especially heart disease, and obesity, was to try to get you to put homosexuality in its proper perspective. Yes, it is a serious problem, but nowhere near as serious a problem as heart disease alone. In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS. In the same year, about 600,000 Americans died of heart disease. In other words, about 40 times more, or about 4000% more Americans died of heart disease than died of AIDS.

The world is full of physical, and financial problems from many things, most of which do not have anything to do with homosexuality. If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, the vast majority of those problems would still exist.

Argument #9

It is amazing that you have said that homosexuals are a threat to heterosexuals since there are not any doubts whatsoever that heterosexuals’ greatest health risk by far is themselves, certainly not homosexuals, as proven by epidemic levels of heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Some experts have predicted that by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs, not to mention the physical suffering. Obesity is often preventable.

 

[Agnostic75]

Argument #10

In order to be fair, you need to recommend that all of the following groups of people should practice abstinence since they are at risk:

Heterosexual men and women 45 year os age and older.

When you show they can't possibly have children then we can discuss this for the 5th time.

Been there, done that since I have told you probably at least twice that the vast majority of women of that age do not want to have children, and have sex only for pleasure. That is far more true today because it takes a lot more money to raise children than it used to, and wages have not kept up with prices for a number of decades. An article at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/27...sks/index.html says that a large percentage of women 47 years of age and older who want to have children need to use other women's eggs, and that that can cost from $16,000 - $30,000 dollars.

In many countries women 45 years of age and older do not need to have children in order to help maintain the population.

Heterosexual black American men and women.

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

CDC ? Factsheet ? African Americans ? Racial/Ethnic Groups ? Risk ? HIV/AIDS

African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV.

African Americans accounted for an estimated 44% of all new HIV infections among adults and adolescents (aged 13 years or older) in 2010, despite representing only 12% to 14% of the US population.

In 2010, black men accounted for 70% (14,700) of the estimated 20,900 new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. The estimated rate of new HIV infection for black men (103.6/100,000 population) was seven times as high as that of white men, twice as high as that of Latino men, and nearly three times as high as among black women.

In 2010, black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)represented an estimated 72% (10,600) of new infections among all black men and 36% of an estimated 29,800 new HIV infections among all MSM. More new HIV infections (4,800) occurred among young black MSM (aged 13-24) than any other age or racial group of MSM.

In 2010, black women accounted for 6,100 (29%) of the estimated new HIV infections among all adult and adolescent blacks. This number represents a decrease of 21% since 2008. Most HIV infections among black women (87%; 5,300) are attributed to heterosexual sex. The estimated rate of new HIV infections for black women (38.1/100,000 population) was 20 times as high as the rate for white women, and almost five times as high as that of Latinas.

Heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries.

Nope.

Why not? Consider the following:

Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HIV/AIDS is a global pandemic. As of 2011 approximately 34 million people have HIV worldwide. Of these, approximately 17.2 million are men, 16.8 million are women and 3.4 million are less than 15 years old. There were about 1.8 million deaths from AIDS in 2010, down from 2.2 million in 2005.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most affected. In 2010, an estimated 68% (22.9 million) of all HIV cases and 66% of all deaths (1.2 million) occurred in this region. This means that about 5% of the adult populations is infected. Here in contrast to other regions women compose nearly 60% of cases. South Africa has the largest population of people with HIV of any country in the world at 5.9 million.

The vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa are among heterosexuals. An article at http://aidscience.org/Science/Cohen288(5474)2153.html says:

"Africa has a primarily heterosexual epidemic."

People who live in poverty.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

On the contrary, it is provable that heterosexuals who live in poverty are a high risk group. Consider the following:

Addressing Poverty as Risk for Disease: Recommendations from CDC's Consultation on Microenterprise as HIV Prevention

In March 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened a consultation meeting to explore microenterprise as a potential human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) prevention intervention. The impulse to link microenterprise with HIV/AIDS prevention was driven by the fact that poverty is a significant factor contributing to the risk for infection. Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population.

As an HIV prevention intervention, microenterprise differs from previously developed interventions in important ways. First, it has the capacity to disentangle the nexus of risk that characterizes the lives of those at risk for HIV or living with HIV. Poverty (and racism, arguably its most significant determinant) is associated with numerous factors throughout the life course that lead almost inexorably to risk for HIV infection. That is, individuals at risk for HIV often have histories of trauma, drug abuse, incarceration, unemployment, poor education, and homelessness, all of which have the potential to be alleviated, at least in part, by economic empowerment programs.

Beyond this, microenterprise has the ability to affect numerous health conditions in addition to HIV risk. Poverty is implicated in most health problems, and poverty- and race-related health disparities are viewed by many as the preeminent health issue—in fact, social justice issue—currently confronting U.S. society. Accordingly, economic empowerment may be able to reduce hypertension and other cardiovascular health problems, the incidence and course of numerous cancers, violence, substance abuse, and many other negative health conditions. Economic empowerment may achieve this through behavioral and lifestyle changes, increasing health-care utilization, and also through the alleviation of poverty-induced stress and its numerous health-related manifestations. For example, CDC's Hope Works project, an intervention that includes assistance with developing economic objectives, targets weight management and stress reduction in addition to job-skills training and improving incomes. The ability to affect multiple health outcomes is promising not only for economic empowerment, but also for other structural and community-level interventions such as incarceration policy and community mobilization.

Please note:

"Because increasingly high rates of HIV infection are occurring among women, particularly among poor African American women in the southern United States, we focused the consultation on microenterprise as an intervention among that population."

People who live in overpopulated countries.

I agree with this one but it is not provable.

What is not provable?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Fine. A Christian who kills atheists then. Christians have killed atheists (SOURCE and SOURCE). And the Bible tells people to kill those who don't believe in God or worship other gods.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

And also:

2 Chronicles 15:13: Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

So now that you can't avoid the issue, please answer my question. I can claim that since Christians have shown that their religion can be used for harm that Christianity should be banned. This is the exact same logic that you are using against homosexuality. "If X can be in any way shown to be the slightest bit harmful, it should not be allowed." If the logic is sound when used with homosexuality, then the same logic must also be sound when applied to Christianity.

(Now, no doubt, you are going to tell me that the Old Testament doesn't apply. But then, the bits in Leviticus that say that homosexuality is wrong don't apply either! Or are you just going to pick and choose the bits of the Bible you like and ignore the bits you don't like? But if you do that, then you are merely choosing a moral system for yourself and cherry picking from the Bible to justify it.)

In fact, I'll tell you what. You show me where Jesus said that being gay is wrong, and I'll give the point to you, m'kay?

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Really? Data regarding a society is better when it is older? Yes, I'm sure census data from the 1800s is going to give an accurate representation of life in the early 21st century.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

In fact, I'll tell you what. You show me where Jesus said that being gay is wrong, and I'll give the point to you, m'kay?

Jesus definitely approved of homosexuality. That is obvious.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my recent posts #1707, and #1708.

 

[1robin]

Jesus definitely approved of homosexuality. That is obvious.

It's far too late for me to take anything you say seriously at this point.

 

[1robin]

Your the one making intellectually dishonest comparisons, like meth labs, thieves, and murderers. That's distorting.

I do not even get why you mistakenly think so. They are both acts that people think are wrong because they hurt others. In what way are they distinct exactly. They are not, I am just curious why anyone would think they were. I never mentioned meth labs either. You are building up quite the list of stuff I never said that you say I have.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's far too late for me to take anything you say seriously at this point.

You assume that anyone cares whether you take them seriously or not.

I only stated that Jesus approves of homosexuality. So that's the obvious truth unless anyone can disprove it.

 

[Me Myself]

I do not even get why you mistakenly think so. They are both acts that people think are wrong because they hurt others. In what way are they distinct exactly. They are not, I am just curious why anyone would think they were. I never mentioned meth labs either. You are building up quite the list of stuff I never said that you say I have.

That homosexual sex does not hurt others.

Irresponsible homosexual sex does, just as irresponsible heterosexual sex hurts others.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I stand by my posts #1707, and #1708, which you will not be able to logically refute from a secular perspective.

 

[averageJOE]

I do not even get why you mistakenly think so. They are both acts that people think are wrong because they hurt others. In what way are they distinct exactly. They are not, I am just curious why anyone would think they were. I never mentioned meth labs either. You are building up quite the list of stuff I never said that you say I have.

Never mentioned meth? Here is where you attempt to make the comparison, then follow up with a bunch of made up numbers.

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.

 

[someoneuseful]

You see, most people got it wrong. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah means one major thing. God wasn't mad at gays to the point of total destruction, until he got down to 10 people.

God would have saved 2 whole city if he could have found 10 people that were not gay, but he couldn't. So...what do you think was going to happen to those people in the 2 cities eventually? They were going to die! Yes! that's right die!

There was no way they could multiply. Nobody was making babies. They would have succumb to diseases and infections and that would have killed them off. Now, add on the other sins on top of that sin.

Now, if we get down to...lets say 10% during this generation, what do you think he is going to do to us? He is going to destroy us!

So...although you have feelings for the same gender, you must discourage others not to become gay. Especially, if they are undecided, because then we all gonna die. Ain't no mountains to flee to, where I live at. lol***

So...God knows that gays are not robbing, stealing and killing. Most live according to God's law, except for that one thing. Straight people are the most criminals. God loves you, even if you are gay. Of course he doesn't like you being gay. Why? Because, he doesn't want us to get down to 10 or 10% and have to kill us. But, he loves us so much, he would rather kill us, before he see us destroy ourselves.

So, be of good cheer. Try your best to be straight and please God. Encourage others to be straight. Now, some people are born with too many of the wrong hormones and can't help it. Others are being lustful, foolish, trendy, and/or just plain devilish.

But, God understands. He is just waiting to see whether you are being gay out of "pleasure" or being gay out of "pain???"

"Pain," one may be able to get away with... but, just for pleasure, is destructible.

Ask God to take the taste out of your body, mind and spirit. He will, but that depends on how bad you want it gone!

He will answer you...just be honest with God and he will set you free to be what he wants you to be and not what man is expecting you to be!

God bless and trust him!

 

[psychoslice]

Yes we all should be able to love each other in the same degree, but we have been conditioned not to.