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

[1robin]

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.

No it isn't.

 

[1robin]

That homosexual sex does not hurt others.

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

That is not even close to truth. Responsible homosexual sex is only less destructive in some cases (it is never free of destruction even on a large scale), it is equally destructive for others. I guess it will never be understood that unless a justification for death can be found in homosexuality the degrees of harm are irrelevant. If a single person suffers who did not commit the act it is immoral without justification. That principle has been a foundation of law for thousands of years. Have we finally educated ourselves into imbecility today? I don't you care about the bible any more than you do for finding justification for acts that cause others to suffer in massive quantities, but it predicted this exact thing as usual. In the latter days right would be called wrong, immorality as morality, and injustice as justice. As Johnny Cash said, it is not a mystery, it is just going by THE book.

I guess it is only the irresponsible babies with guns or the irresponsible parents with guns that leave them out that is wrong. The responsible parents safely provide babies with loaded guns. If those drunks would only be responsible when they drive drunk. It isn't the alcohol or the misuse of it. Good grief.

 

[1robin]

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

I apologize. I did mention meth. It is not one of my usual's so I did not remember doing so. I was wrong. Sorry.

Now explain why its use was invalid.

 

[Me Myself]

That is not even close to truth. Responsible homosexual sex is only less destructive in some cases (it is never free of destruction even on a large scale), it is equally destructive for others.

Which others? In which ways does responsible homosexual sex hurt anyone?

T

I guess it is only the irresponsible babies with guns or the irresponsible parents with guns that leave them out that is wrong. The responsible parents safely provide babies with loaded guns. If those drunks would only be responsible when they drive drunk. It isn't the alcohol or the misuse of it. Good grief.

No baby is responsible, so no baby should be given a gun, and a parent that gives a baby a loaded gun is not a responsible parent.

Drunkness diminishes capacities so driving drunk is not responsible.

Now, which are the ways in which homosexual sex with a condom damages anyone?

 

[someoneuseful]

Ah ha... looking for a permission slip?

Why "Conditioned?" We are not, "Conditioned" we are boldly told, up front, in black and white, what the rules and regulations of God's laws are when it comes to homosexuality.
Now, we can either accept them or not.

Love for another man...huh? An old lady once told me, "If you have to say "NO" three times...it's a "NO" Therefore, if you have to question whether you can love another man and want to believe there is nothing wrong with it, shouldn't it be a quick "Yes!" off the tippy top?

You question it, because you know it's wrong. lol*** You just want enough permission slips to not feel guilty. lol***

You remind me of someone I know! He is still waiting on his permission slip from me. Nope, not gonna give you one either. lol***

Keep the faith!

 

[Me Myself]

Ah ha... looking for a permission slip?

Why "Conditioned?" We are not, "Conditioned" we are boldly told, up front, in black and white, what the rules and regulations of God's laws are when it comes to homosexuality.
Now, we can either accept them or not.

Love for another man...huh? An old lady once told me, "If you have to say "NO" three times...it's a "NO" Therefore, if you have to question whether you can love another man and want to believe there is nothing wrong with it, shouldn't it be a quick "Yes!" off the tippy top?

You question it, because you know it's wrong. lol*** You just want enough permission slips to not feel guilty. lol***

You remind me of someone I know! He is still waiting on his permission slip from me. Nope, not gonna give you one either. lol***

Keep the faith!

Do you wear clothing of different fabrics?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

What percentage of homosexuals actually have AIDS's? now compair that to the percentage of african American's with aids. How about compairing it to the percentage of Africa?

I have already explained to both you and someone else in thist thread WHY the AID's epidemic happened and it has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY in the innate sense. It had to do with lack of education and public knowledge. AID's wasn't even heard of till after it was significant. Once a disease like that is in the population it is very hard to stop it from spreading. No one cared that gays were dying so they didn't educate people nor did they do anything to stop it. Safe sex was a non-issue since the only reason people used condoms back then was to prevent pregnancy. And you cannot concieve through homosexual means.

 

[averageJOE]

Ah ha... looking for a permission slip?

Why "Conditioned?" We are not, "Conditioned" we are boldly told, up front, in black and white, what the rules and regulations of God's laws are when it comes to homosexuality.
Now, we can either accept them or not.

Love for another man...huh? An old lady once told me, "If you have to say "NO" three times...it's a "NO" Therefore, if you have to question whether you can love another man and want to believe there is nothing wrong with it, shouldn't it be a quick "Yes!" off the tippy top?

You question it, because you know it's wrong. lol*** You just want enough permission slips to not feel guilty. lol***

You remind me of someone I know! He is still waiting on his permission slip from me. Nope, not gonna give you one either. lol***

Keep the faith!

Lucky for us this god you speak of doesn't exist.

 

[averageJOE]

I apologize. I did mention meth. It is not one of my usual's so I did not remember doing so. I was wrong. Sorry.

Now explain why its use was invalid.

Your telling us that if you suspected your neighbors house was being used as a meth lab you would take the exact same steps to find like out like if your neighbors were gay? It's your business what your neighbors are doing in their bedroom?

Your making a ridiculous comparison.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No it isn't.

Then why does my claim about Jesus stand, without anyone being able to counter it?

No one has dented my claim that Jesus supports homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Which others? In which ways does responsible homosexual sex hurt anyone?

There are two main and several subcategories of harm homosexuality causes. One is STD's, the other is physical damage or diseases caused by the misuse of what was intended for another purpose that are not sexual diseases, like cancer for example. I have not mentioned the rest so I will not comment on them but there are many. There is no such thing as responsible homosexual sex but there are categories that have less risk than others for STD's, however the non-STD stuff has equal risks whether condoms are used or monogamy is involved, etc...

My simple claim is this. Any risk, any damage, any costs others must bear for a behavior that has no justification possible, to balance them out is immoral. Heterosexuality has costs, but unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality has the justification of continuing the human race.

There is only a partial response possible here but it is invalid for two secular reasons and all kinds of theological ones. I will only mention the secular ones since you guys operate on half of reality and deny the other half. Even if you find a group of heterosexuals that have no chance to conceive, you can't make homosexuality right by condemning some tiny group of heterosexuals. X is right or not independent of whether Y is right or not. Most of those groups are not in a marriage and I would not be for promiscuity in that case anyway.

No baby is responsible, so no baby should be given a gun, and a parent that gives a baby a loaded gun is not a responsible parent.

Right, It is the decision to create risk without a compensating reason to do so. That is identical to homosexuality. It increases and creates risk, damage, suffering, costs, but has no compensating reason to justify them.

Drunkness diminishes capacities so driving drunk is not responsible.

Homosexuality eliminates the reasons heterosexuality has to justify risks. BTW the risks are not equal. Homosexuality massively increases the risks and looses all justification as well. It is a loss coupled to another loss.

Now, which are the ways in which homosexual sex with a condom damages anyone?

I have posted list after list after list of disgusting things that still occur with condom use in this thread. It reduces the risks of some but does not do so for many. However decreased risk with no justification still equals immoral. That is a fundamental principle of law for thousands of years.

 

[Me Myself]

There are two main and several subcategories of harm homosexuality causes. One is STD's, the other is physical damage or diseases caused by the misuse of what was intended for another purpose that are not sexual diseases, like cancer for example. I have not mentioned the rest so I will not comment on them but there are many. There is no such thing as responsible homosexual sex but there are categories that have less risk than others for STD's, however the non-STD stuff has equal risks whether condoms are used or monogamy is involved, etc...

My simple claim is this. Any risk, any damage, any costs others must bear for a behavior that has no justification possible, to balance them out is immoral. Heterosexuality has costs, but unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality has the justification of continuing the human race.

There is only a partial response possible here but it is invalid for two secular reasons and all kinds of theological ones. I will only mention the secular ones since you guys operate on half of reality and deny the other half. Even if you find a group of heterosexuals that have no chance to conceive, you can't make homosexuality right by condemning some tiny group of heterosexuals. X is right or not independent of whether Y is right or not. Most of those groups are not in a marriage and I would not be for promiscuity in that case anyway.


Right, It is the decision to create risk without a compensating reason to do so. That is identical to homosexuality. It increases and creates risk, damage, suffering, costs, but has no compensating reason to justify them.

Homosexuality eliminates the reasons heterosexuality has to justify risks. BTW the risks are not equal. Homosexuality massively increases the risks and looses all justification as well. It is a loss coupled to another loss.

I have posted list after list after list of disgusting things that still occur with condom use in this thread. It reduces the risks of some but does not do so for many. However decreased risk with no justification still equals immoral. That is a fundamental principle of law for thousands of years.

Two healthy homosexuals having a monogoamous relationship with condom means no risk or damage. Thousands of people are inside this category.

 

[1robin]

Do you wear clothing of different fabrics?

Is that relevant? Those Levitical laws went away when their purpose was fulfilled. A new covenant was installed when Christ died. A covenant of grace not law. No one is under levitical law (even if a few think they are), it served its function and was nullified. They were practical laws anyway, ethics, not necessarily moral commands. Pork was forbidden for reasons involved undercooking it with primitive stoves for example. The Temple does not even exist any longer, you can not do many of them if you wanted to.

 

[Me Myself]

Also, there is no justification to have kids today.

We have too many people. If we go risks vs benefits for mankind, people shouldnt be having kids any more, just adopting.

Thus, heterosexual sex would be immoral right now by your own standards, even if later when there arent too many of us it ceased to be immoral again.

 

[1robin]

What percentage of homosexuals actually have AIDS's? now compair that to the percentage of african American's with aids. How about compairing it to the percentage of Africa?

When no compensating gain exists to justify a single life lost how many are lost is irrelevant. In the US the 4% of us that are gay create 60% of the aids cases. It has no justification for 1% but it produces 60%. Why should I compare anything with a race? A race is what someone is, sex is something a person does. What does geography have to do with this?

I have already explained to both you and someone else in thist thread WHY the AID's epidemic happened and it has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMOSEXUALITY in the innate sense. It had to do with lack of education and public knowledge. AID's wasn't even heard of till after it was significant. Once a disease like that is in the population it is very hard to stop it from spreading. No one cared that gays were dying so they didn't educate people nor did they do anything to stop it. Safe sex was a non-issue since the only reason people used condoms back then was to prevent pregnancy. And you cannot concieve through homosexual means.

Do you mean that homosexuality is not solely responsible for all the aids cases, which I never claimed to begin with? Homosexuality most certainly did have something to do with aids in Africa. This is a thread on homosexuality, not on needle sharing, promiscuity, sanitation, condom use, lack of medicine, living conditions, research grants, or anything else that might add to the aids problem. This thread is about homosexuality and the massive increase in suffering, deaths, and costs it has and it's lack of any compensating benefits that justify it's cost. It has been one irrelevant rationalization after another. When we are discussing aids in African then this data may be applicable, it has not the slightest impact on justifying homosexuality.

 

[1robin]

Two healthy homosexuals having a monogoamous relationship with condom means no risk or damage. Thousands of people are inside this category.

That is completely false. I will not accuse you of lying because I do not know your motivation but what you claimed is simply not true. I work with a Navy corpsman. Since gays have been allowed to serve he has spent much time and money on just the non-STD side of homosexual physical damage. However even STDs occur with condom usage. Do you want me to find him on Monday, he can give you quite a list of disgusting medical damage he has seen since gays have been allowed in the military?

1. Every safe guard there is only reduces risks of STd's, they never eliminate it.
2. Many other risks condom usage has no effect on.

Forget my claims for a second, and be honest here. If something is so morally wrong that nature, most theologies, all the major concepts of God, and most cultures have shunned it or punished it, do you actually think a condom (even if it did what you claimed which it does not) makes the act morally right? Come on.

The organs themselves are designed or intended for a specific function. The distortion of proper purpose and design is the basis for what most societies term as wrong. If the human race strictly practiced homosexuality, it would cease to exist. How is that grounds for thinking it right even if my arguments had never been made? The contentions against my actual arguments are so ineffectual I am having to look other places for a challenge.

 

[Me Myself]

There is no reason for heterosexual sex today.

Furthermore, the most moral thing to do right now is to not have kids. There are too many of us.

So there would be no moral justification for making more humans.

 

[Me Myself]

That is completely false. I will not accuse you of lying because I do not know your motivation but what you claimed is simply not true. I work with a Navy corpsman. Since gays have been allowed to serve he has spent much time and money on just the non-STD side of homosexual physical damage. However even STDs occur with condom usage. Do you want me to find him on Monday, he can give you quite a list of disgusting medical damage he has seen since gays have been allowed in the military?

1. Every safe guard there is only reduces risks of STd's, they never eliminate it.
2. Many other risks condom usage has no effect on.

Forget my claims for a second, and be honest here. If something is so morally wrong that nature, most theologies, all the major concepts of God, and most cultures have shunned it or punished it, do you actually think a condom (even if it did what you claimed which it does not) makes the act morally right? Come on.

The organs themselves are designed or intended for a specific function. The distortion of proper purpose and design is the basis for what most societies term as wrong. If the human race strictly practiced homosexuality, it would cease to exist. How is that grounds for thinking it right even if my arguments had never been made? The contentions against my actual arguments are so ineffectual I am having to look other places for a challenge.

If homosexuality was shunned by nature there wouldnt be so many homosexual animals beyond humans and for starters homosexuality would have been extincted long before now.

Slave owning, war and superiority of man over woman has been reinforced by a lot of religions or most of religions too but I dont support those either.

Again, you did not take into account the MONOGAMOUS factor. If both of them are healthy and in a sexually exclusive relationship and using condoms, there are no problems. Thousands of couples like this exist.

 

[1robin]

Lucky for us this god you speak of doesn't exist.

Well lay this previously unknown bit of proof on us then. You might get an atheist Nobel for this remarkable evidence. You made a claim to knowledge it is your burden to prove.

 

[1robin]

Your telling us that if you suspected your neighbors house was being used as a meth lab you would take the exact same steps to find like out like if your neighbors were gay? It's your business what your neighbors are doing in their bedroom?

Your making a ridiculous comparison.

I am being ridiculous, your defending death and misery? I do not think the context was my methodology concerning intervention in any ones bed room. The issue is right and wrong. I do not care where the behavior occurs if it causes massive increases in suffering, death, and costs and has no compensating gain for that loss it is unjustifiable. Do you think some invented arbitrary sanctity about bedrooms means that anything that occurs in them even if it kills millions is ok? What kind of logic is that?