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

[1robin]

Okay, 1Robin, as you pointed out, you haven't used the Bible to justify your anti-gay stance, so I won't use it either. Let's consider that part of our discussion over, shall we?

Very well.

This is wrong. People can have children without being married. I am not aware of any country in the world that says that only married couples are permitted to have children. If you know of one, please let me know.

I never said anything about what could happen. I said marriage was instituted for one of two reasons in the pasts of virtually every culture. This isi why the institution was sanctioned and recognized.

1. To perpetuate the species by establishing secure families to bring children up in.
2. As a reflection of God's relationship with the church (but I was not using this one).

I am not talking about capacity but about purpose. Marriage was instituted to be conducive to perpetuating the race. I did not say it had any biological function in creating a child. Beings survive better in tribes that are accepted by society. That is why children outside wedlock were referred to as illegitimate.

Also, do you really think that people get married just because they want to have children? Please. What about the people who get married because they feel this emotion called "love" towards another? Does that play no part in it?

What does what people want have to do with anything? Yes they want to have children but what they want is not the basis of law. Are we to let the prisoners all out because they wanted to commit crime?

1. I was not talking about marriage at all, you brought it up. I was talking about gay sex.
2. If I was talking about marriage it was not why Suzy married Bill.
3. It was why marriage has been institutionalized and codified by society at large.

Let me ask you, which is a worse crime? For me to get married to a woman I do not love just for the purpose of churning out babies, or for me to get married to a woman I adore completely, even though we have no desire to ever have children? Which of those do you find to be worse?

Life is vexing enough not to need hypotheticals. It also is no defense of something to point out something is worse. I do not care about marriage anyway. I was talking about a behavior that kills without any justification.

Oh, and what about couples who are either unwilling or unable to get pregnant? Should they also be denied the right to get married, since, as you said, the primary purpose of marriage is to produce children?

That is between the people who codified marriage and the law. You have totally left the issue for some far off aspect of historical relationships that I was not talking about. My main contentions concern sex not marriage.

And there are things that are far more prevalent in heterosexual relationships than in homosexual relationships. Your argument is that, "Activity X causes harmful result Y, therefore Activity X should be banned." By this same logic, we should ban smoking and alcohol. What percentage of lung cancer sufferers are smokers? What percentage of road fatalities are from drink driving? How many liver disorders come from alcoholism? If you want to argue that a thing should be banned because it is harmful, then we must ban EVERYTHING that is harmful.

This is like a child's defending his wrong action by pointing out a worse one he made up about Jim or Jim actually did. A thief is not right even if he points at a murderer. We should ban smoking and alcohol, for the exact same reason we ban a thousand types of drugs and chemicals. You can't use human inconsistency and moral insanity as a defense for more moral insanity.

I was not arguing about banning anything anyway. I was saying if X causes massive harm and has no justification it is immoral. Quit changing the subject and taking off ramps. You cannot defend a behavior that is a distortion of nature, increases suffering in huge quantities, and costs others billions. You can't rationalize this. It is not moral. it is not defendable, it is not reasonable, and doe snot become ok even if something else is wrong, and that is why 99% of humanity over all has termed it immoral.

For crying out loud not causing harm without justification is the most basic foundation in all of law. However let me join you in fantasy land for a minute. If causing harm without justification is moral in your universe then pray tell what isn't?
Your defending death for the love.

Continued below for no reason:

 

[1robin]

I could make the same argument about left-handedness. You'd be surprised at how many left handed people die because they find it difficult to use things designed to be used with the right hand. And left handedness was also once considered to be evil and people were forced to change.

No you can't make that same argument. This was kind of the point. I do not care what some theological nuts said. I defend the Bible and God not everything every person who claimed to be a Christian said. Will you stay focused?

But you are applying your logic against one thing yet refusing to apply it to other things, as I have pointed out.

This is a homosexuality thread, not a thread on homosexuality and everything a person can distract someone from discussing it thread. Make a thread about something else and debate it there. There is not flaw in my two points, they are the basis for law everywhere.

And yet, for some reason, you fail to apply your logic to ban heterosexuality, even though straight sex spreads many diseases.

I did not ban anything. Straight sex has justification, homosexual sex has none. I only have two points each only a sentence long. Why are you discussing every subject in the banks of human knowledge except those two?

Are you actually suggesting that you don't care if people are happy or not?

I am suggesting that is a secondary consideration. Are you suggesting happiness justifies anything that produces it?

BTW, I say let's ban straight sex. Almost 100% of the cases of unwanted pregnancies happen to straight people. This causes financial hardships to couples and poor quality of life for the children. Given that straight people make up about 90% of the population and that nearly 100% of the cases of unwanted pregnancies happen to them, there can not be any justification for it.

I do not care what you want to ban. I do not care about banning things myself. I have been discussing what is unjustifiable and what is.

Heterosexuality has justification. Homosexuality has none.

When you figure out why this argument is wrong, you'll have the reason why your argument is wrong.

In other words you had no reply and have run out of other things to point at.

I'm sorry, but did I miss the part here where you explained why your opinions should be used to control other peoples' lives? Could you highlight it for me?

You certainly missed the part where I said is should. I debate what is moral or immoral not what should be done about it.

Oh, and I must point out that there were 56,300 cases of HIV (which is different to AIDS, it must be noted!) reported in 2006, and only half of these were from homosexual men, so about 25,000. Let's call it 30,000 to be generous. However, there were about 80,000 alcohol-related deaths each year in the US (one and a half times as many), poor diet and inactivity results in about 365,000 deaths (twelve times as many deaths as homosexuality) and smoking kills about 435,000 people a year (almost fifteen times as many deaths!). I hope you fight against these things just as passionately as you do against homosexuality. In fact, you should be fighting these things even MORE than you fight homosexuality, considering that they result in a HUGE number of deaths per year more than homosexuality does! SOURCE

When you look up from all these misdirection's do you have any idea where you are or what direction the actual argument is in? If 4% of the population is causing 50% of the problem there is something unimaginably wrong with whatever that 4% is doing, and something morally insane with anyone who would defend something that wretched. I am not for malnutrition, not for alcoholism, heart disease, drug abuse, cancer or a thousand other things that may be worse than homosexuality. How does that make homosexuality right. This is by far the worst subject for rationalization I have ever had the misfortune to debate. You can't rationalize suffering with no compensating gain. It is immoral to even try to. My God if this is excusable, what isn't.

Also, please note that gay women are much less likely to contract aids, as they do not generally have anal sex as much as gay men. Do you also have a problem with lesbianism? In fact, there has not been any case of a lesbian contracting aids or HIV through sex with another woman. This makes it safer than even heterosexual sex! Will you now push for lesbianism? SOURCE

Less wrong is still wrong. This has been like a child's broken record for months now.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and costs form even those that do not practice it.

a. It is no defense to point to something more harmful. Less wrong is wrong.
b. Even if it did the people in those subgroups almost never remain in them. The infidelity rate for homosexuals is off the chart.
c. Condoms only decrease risk for some things, they do not eliminate it and have no effect on certain risks.
d. Even if they did homosexuals are far less likely to use them.
e. etc....

2. It has no compensating gain to justify the cost.

a. Less risk does not justify anything with no compensating gain.
b. Fun or desire is no excuse for endangering and hurting others given known risks.
c. It does not justify making other pay the medical bills by the billions.


Since harm to others even if there is no justification is just fine with you, what in the world is the foundation for your morality? How do you know if anything at all is wrong, if homosexuality is just fine?

I have given all new posters a chance to contend with my two main points. Once it is determined they will use the same ineffective 3 or 4 things that did not work in the past I get bored. You must become effective or original for me to continue this.

 

[Tiberius]

No you can't make that same argument. This was kind of the point. I do not care what some theological nuts said. I defend the Bible and God not everything every person who claimed to be a Christian said. Will you stay focused?

Yes I can. You just tell me I can't because you don't like the fact that I am making an argument that shows the ridiculousness of your position.

This is a homosexuality thread, not a thread on homosexuality and everything a person can distract someone from discussing it thread. Make a thread about something else and debate it there. There is not flaw in my two points, they are the basis for law everywhere.

Here we go again...

I did not ban anything. Straight sex has justification, homosexual sex has none. I only have two points each only a sentence long. Why are you discussing every subject in the banks of human knowledge except those two?

Actually, you said that the only justification straight sex has is producing children. Do you think that straight sex that does NOT produce children has no justification?

I am suggesting that is a secondary consideration. Are you suggesting happiness justifies anything that produces it?

I am suggesting that anything that causes happiness while no affecting others is justifiable. Gay sex does not affect anyone who is not partaking in it. And don't give me that "it spreads disease" crap. Straight sex spreads disease too.

I do not care what you want to ban. I do not care about banning things myself. I have been discussing what is unjustifiable and what is.

Yes, you;ve shown us what is unjustifiable. Not intentionally, and not the thing you think, but you've shown us anyway.

Heterosexuality has justification. Homosexuality has none.

Ah yes. Producing children. Any other justifications, or just that. Because as I've alredy said, if there's no other justification, then shouldn't you be against any sex that doesn't produce children?

In other words you had no reply and have run out of other things to point at.

Way to completely avoid actually ANSWERING the point. Of course, it's because you don't have an answer to it.

You certainly missed the part where I said is should. I debate what is moral or immoral not what should be done about it.

So you aren't saying that homosexual behaviour should be stopped?

When you look up from all these misdirection's do you have any idea where you are or what direction the actual argument is in? If 4% of the population is causing 50% of the problem there is something unimaginably wrong with whatever that 4% is doing, and something morally insane with anyone who would defend something that wretched. I am not for malnutrition, not for alcoholism, heart disease, drug abuse, cancer or a thousand other things that may be worse than homosexuality. How does that make homosexuality right. This is by far the worst subject for rationalization I have ever had the misfortune to debate. You can't rationalize suffering with no compensating gain. It is immoral to even try to. My God if this is excusable, what isn't.

Yeah, when presented with actual facts, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it, trying to wave it away.

Less wrong is still wrong. This has been like a child's broken record for months now.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and costs form even those that do not practice it.

And smoking produces much much much MORE suffering, death and costs from even those that to not practice it. DO you think smoking is immoral?

a. It is no defense to point to something more harmful. Less wrong is wrong.

But to focus on one while ignoring the greater wrong is hypocritical, isn't it? Are you a hypocrite?

b. Even if it did the people in those subgroups almost never remain in them. The infidelity rate for homosexuals is off the chart.

This is priceless. You got a source to show that gay people are inherently more likely to cheat on their partners?

c. Condoms only decrease risk for some things, they do not eliminate it and have no effect on certain risks.

Ah, but you have been talking about HIV, haven't you. Do condoms reduce the risk of catching HIV with anal sex? Yes? Then why do you discount them? Because you want to maintain your position, and you don't want those pesky facts getting in your way.

d. Even if they did homosexuals are far less likely to use them.

Oh, once again you are pulling facts out of your ****. Have you got a source for this?

e. etc....

Wow, this argument is so compelling. The logic of this is astounding. Your "etc" really shows me the dangers of gay people.

2. It has no compensating gain to justify the cost.

Only if you don't care about peoples' happiness.

a. Less risk does not justify anything with no compensating gain.

But there is a gain, you are just too blind and apathetic to see it.

b. Fun or desire is no excuse for endangering and hurting others given known risks.

You seem to be unaware of this thing called "love"

c. It does not justify making other pay the medical bills by the billions.

Billions? Please. Once again you are distorting facts to support your flawed arguments.

Since harm to others even if there is no justification is just fine with you, what in the world is the foundation for your morality? How do you know if anything at all is wrong, if homosexuality is just fine?

Anything that involves someone against their will is generally wrong. This explains why things like rape and theft and murder are wrong. Second hand smoke is wrong. But since a gay couple having sex in private does not involve anyone else, then it's not wrong.

I have given all new posters a chance to contend with my two main points. Once it is determined they will use the same ineffective 3 or 4 things that did not work in the past I get bored. You must become effective or original for me to continue this.

They are only inneffective because you choose to ignore them. The fact that you ignore an issue does not mean you have proven it wrong.

 

[1robin]

Yes I can. You just tell me I can't because you don't like the fact that I am making an argument that shows the ridiculousness of your position.

1. You can make any ineffective argument you like, and apparently will. That will not make it any more effective.
2. My primary claims have no theological basis, so theological counter claims have no relevance.
3. Even if they did the ones you made are not Biblical.
4. Why are claims by anyone calling themselves a Christian my responsibility or relevant to me if they contradict the Bible and my arguments?
5. That was a childish "I know you are but what am I" response. In fact it is worse.

Here we go again...

Start talking about the thread instead of everything but the thread and I will quit reminding you what thread we are in.

Actually, you said that the only justification straight sex has is producing children. Do you think that straight sex that does NOT produce children has no justification?

No I didn't. That is the only one I used but there are others, and there are still others if theology is allowed to exist where it already does. I think that promiscuity is wrong. I think sex outside marriage is wrong. I think sex for pleasure in marriage is right but require all of reality to argue that point. What I do not think is that a defense of X is a condemnation of Y. Even if I can not show that heterosexuality for pleasure is right without God, it does not follow that homosexuality is. Homosexuality is right or wrong independently of whether anything else is.

I am suggesting that anything that causes happiness while no affecting others is justifiable. Gay sex does not affect anyone who is not partaking in it. And don't give me that "it spreads disease" crap. Straight sex spreads disease too.

No it is not but even if it was that does not help homosexuality because it effects millions of others and in some ways everyone negatively. I didn't give any crap. I provided CDC data that in every single case completely refutes everything you have said. IT DOES SPREAD DISEASE AT A MASSIVELY INCREASED RATE even if that is inconvenient for your narrative.

Yes, you;ve shown us what is unjustifiable. Not intentionally, and not the thing you think, but you've shown us anyway.

My claims stand. Protest is not evidence.

Ah yes. Producing children. Any other justifications, or just that. Because as I've alredy said, if there's no other justification, then shouldn't you be against any sex that doesn't produce children?

I am not, however I need the half of reality that your side dismisses because it is inconvenient to justify. Actually I don't but it is cut and dried when done. I can make secular arguments alone why sex for pleasure within heterosexual married couples is justified but they are not as clear and concise. They are also not the subject. You entire argument is a semantic technicality. It does not matter if you figure out some arbitrary semantic technicality to attempt to make my claims condemn other things, that does not make homosexuality right.

Way to completely avoid actually ANSWERING the point. Of course, it's because you don't have an answer to it.

I love how your side takes exasperation over the incoherence others find in your rationales as a victory. I guess you can't come any closer to an actual accomplishment.

So you aren't saying that homosexual behaviour should be stopped?

I have my personal views but homosexuality is a sin just like any other (only more destructive than most). I call it wrong but I think it is a personal matter as to choice. I do not want anyone telling me I can't make mistakes. The difference is I expect them to if it endangers others and I admit their mistakes. The solution to homosexuality is not my domain. It's nature is. I would not legitimize or sanction it but it is not in my power or desire to make laws against it. I have no idea what the answer should be.

Yeah, when presented with actual facts, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it, trying to wave it away.

Say the guy who claims the CDC does not know what they are talking about. What facts exactly did I ignore. There are no facts in your favor.

Less wrong is still wrong. This has been like a child's broken record for months now.

Truth does not become less true or irrelevant if repeated. Quit making ridiculous and desperate claims and I will quit pointing out why they are ridiculous and desperate.

Continued for no apparent reason:

 

[1robin]

And smoking produces much much much MORE suffering, death and costs from even those that to not practice it. DO you think smoking is immoral?

Yes I do. However pointing out something worse does not justify anything. Talk about broken records. Your side has about six ineffective illogical lyrics that just will not stop and have never worked for anything. Theft is not good because murder is so bad.

But to focus on one while ignoring the greater wrong is hypocritical, isn't it? Are you a hypocrite?

Depends on the threads title. Make a smoking thread and I will condemn it there. Why don't you try and discuss what the thread is about instead of anything but?

This is priceless. You got a source to show that gay people are inherently more likely to cheat on their partners?

I have no idea why other than a lack of moral judgment and care in general and but I can provide proof that is true if you want and have done so at least twice in this thread alone, but will do so again if you can't find in this one case. I get sick of posting the same stats for every new poster here. Theologically speaking committing one sin makes committing additional sins more likely. There are quite a few categories where homosexuals have vastly higher stats of moral failure than heterosexuals and I have posted that data as well.

Ah, but you have been talking about HIV, haven't you. Do condoms reduce the risk of catching HIV with anal sex? Yes? Then why do you discount them? Because you want to maintain your position, and you don't want those pesky facts getting in your way.

I have been talking about dozens of things. Aids being one. Yes condoms help, no that doe snot justify anything. Post anything I have said that even remotely hinted that I deny that condoms reduce risk or retract your bogus statement that I did. I said they do not justify anything. The reason I have to say less wrong is still wrong so many times is because you keep forgetting or ignoring it and make ridiculous arguments. It doe snot matter if it was one death or ten million if there is no compensation that justifies the loss of life at all. How many deaths are justified by lust in your bizarre-world anyway?

Oh, once again you are pulling facts out of your ****. Have you got a source for this?

I will make a deal with you that will justify my posting what I already have more than once again. For every claim you question or say I am making up facts that I provide reliable data for you must post an apology. Deal. You might want to review this thread before agreeing but I hope you will not.

Wow, this argument is so compelling. The logic of this is astounding. Your "etc" really shows me the dangers of gay people.

Only your side would take a typing mistake as some strange accomplishment for your argument. I guess in your world the British won the war od independence, the south the civil war, and the Aztecs beat Cortez.

Only if you don't care about peoples' happiness.

This is the most disgusting debate tactic liberals use. It is the most immoral claim IMO possible. I am condemning the justification of death, suffering, and costs in the billions, you are defending death, misery, and that others must pay the bills and claiming moral high ground. This is not just wrong it is moral insanity. How can a person do this? To defend what should have never been claimed you must equate how many lives another persons lust (happiness) is worth. Well how many?

But there is a gain, you are just too blind and apathetic to see it.

I have no idea what your talking about and neither do you.

You seem to be unaware of this thing called "love"

So any claim to love justifies any act. This is nuts. People love drugs, they love killing, they love abusing others, they love alcohol, they love power, and they love lust. What kind of maniacal madness justifies stuff by claiming to love it? We love what is wrong more than what is right and that is our problem and this thread is proof of it.

Billions? Please. Once again you are distorting facts to support your flawed arguments.

Once again I have already posted the figures several times. Once again I offer to do so for the third or fourth time, if it is worth my effort. For every case where you contrive some claim that I made up data and it is supplied it will be if you post an apology and retraction. Deal?

Anything that involves someone against their will is generally wrong. This explains why things like rape and theft and murder are wrong. Second hand smoke is wrong. But since a gay couple having sex in private does not involve anyone else, then it's not wrong.

The heck it isn't wrong. If I make meth in my basement is it ok because it is private? What people do in their basements, dungeons, or bedrooms is my business if I am asked to risk my health, or pay for it. If what they did, did not infect others and cost BILLIONS it would still be wrong but since it does there remains no argument at all. The physical location an act takes place in has no power to make an immoral act that hurts others so often morally correct. These arguments are the worst I have seen in defense of anything, ever.

They are only inneffective because you choose to ignore them. The fact that you ignore an issue does not mean you have proven it wrong.

They are ineffective because they have no effect.


Summary:
1. The same lame less wrong equal good arguments.
2. The same X is wrong proves Y is right lame arguments.
3. The same misdirection and irrelevance.
4. The same claims to inaccurate data without even the attempt to provide evidence they were wrong nor an attempt to look them up in this thread or any of the hundreds of places on the net they can be found.
5. Off ramps into theological semantics in non-theological arguments.
6. Assertions made without a hint of evidence.
7. And the always handy false moral high ground in defense of suffering and death.

Nothing new or challenging here and nothing that is the slightest help to the defense of homosexuality. My two simple claims remain unaffected in the slightest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can make secular arguments alone why sex for pleasure within heterosexual married couples is justified but they are not as clear and concise.

No. Actually you can't. It's why you duck and dodge all my questions about it.

You cannot make secular arguments why sex for pleasure is justified with heterosexual married couples.

 

[1robin]

No. Actually you can't. It's why you duck and dodge all my questions about it.

You cannot make secular arguments why sex for pleasure is justified with heterosexual married couples.

I don't dodge just your questions. I have been avoiding everything you post because you can't possibly even take your self seriously and I gave you every opportunity but sincerity proved just a bridge too far. This feigned surprise or alternate excuse for my inattention is just another example of insincerity. It's too late. I gave you every chance and you burned every bridge.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't dodge just your questions. I have been avoiding everything you post because you can't possibly even take your self seriously and I gave you every opportunity but sincerity proved just a bridge too far. This feigned surprise or alternate excuse for my inattention is just another example of insincerity. It's too late. I gave you every chance and you burned every bridge.

Run away. Run away.

As I say, you cannot make secular arguments why sex for pleasure is justified with heterosexual married couples... despite your claim that you can do so.

 

[1robin]

Run away. Run away.

As I say, you cannot make secular arguments why sex for pleasure is justified with heterosexual married couples... despite your claim that you can do so.

You ever heard of the crying wolf story?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No neither one of my secular principle claims have any need of theology. You brought up something else which is your want. I said it was something else but added that even it is immoral if the half of reality that is denied by some it allowed. I answered a side issue with a side issue.

Let’s just cut to the chase though … in reality, you oppose homosexuality on religious grounds, don’t you? I mean, that seems to be your starting point. You try to employ secular arguments to justify your position, but that’s what it really boils down to here, right?

No I did not. I got so sick of the same lame arguments to my primary points I added a few extra points as an adjunct to try and give someone an opportunity to make an argument. I have two primary claims.

Sure you did. I copied that quote from your last post.

1. Homosexuality massively increases suffering, death, and costs.
2. Homosexuality does not have anything that we gain that compensates for that loss.

1. You have yet to justify this statement with anything concrete.
2. The “gain” is that homosexuals have an opportunity to live their lives like everyone else does without being picked on, insulted and marginalized. The “gain” is that they get to spend their lives without having to pretend to be something they are not. The “gain” is that they get to spend their lives with a person they love and respect and share a family with that person, just like anyone else.

I’m sorry you don’t see such things as “gains” but you’re lack of recognition of such doesn’t change it.

What your responding to was commentary because no one has yet been able to contend wit those two claims so I added some bonus ones on to see if anyone could do anything with them.

Everyone and their mother have contended with your two claims. Many, many times in this 179 page thread.

I addressed your “bonus claims” and now you’re taking issue with my doing so.

Yes it does.

No, it does not. Homosexuality exists all over the natural world. You know this, and yet you continue to make this odd claim.

Yes it does. The 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases in the US according to the CDC. Look back a bit I have posted all this info over and over.

I know we’ve been over this before which is why I can’t figure out why you’re still repeating the same thing again and again.

There’s a whole other world out there beyond the US. You should check it out sometime. Like in Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, where it’s most prevalent, the majority of AIDS cases are transmitted via heterosexual intercourse. The Caribbean isn’t far behind that.

It’s been pointed out to you before, but it needs to be said again: You apparently have a problem with promiscuity (e.g. unprotected sex), not actually homosexuality itself. Especially given that HIV/AIDS infection rates among homosexual females are actually quite low.

Behavior based on an assumed identity that is in conflict with anatomy does.

So we agree then: homosexuality doesn’t take lives.

So your problem lies with promiscuous, unprotected sex, which is evident from this statement.

I know what veins do. You are supposed to demonstrate what they are inconsistent with, not what their purpose is.

My point is that you have no idea what organs are “designed” for.

Because whether God or nature is the cause sexual organs are for reproduction.

So you claim, without having any idea whether that is wholly true or not.

Nature abhors at least in effect the improper use of them.

Nature abhors nothing, as it has no feelings. However, homosexuality exists in abundance in nature (which includes human beings) so I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about here.

The physical design of the organs does not in any way suggest the use homosexuals put them to.

It could, depending on how you look at it.

Heterosexuals engage in many of the same sex acts as homosexuals do, including things that the organs don’t in any way suggest the use of.

People insert tampons into their sex organs, so are tampons immoral? I mean, the organs themselves don’t “suggest” said usage. Or do they?

I have no idea what game is it I am not suppose to play. If you mean the game of certain organs by design are suited for certain things, I am afraid I must.

Then you’re going to lose, because you have no idea what organs were “designed” for.

There are certain things consistent with design or purpose (heterosexuality), there are certain things somewhat neutral to design (needles and such), and there are things inconsistent with design (homosexuality). A finger might be used to pull a trigger but you should not wear your liver as a hat.

Well then homosexuality is consistent with design or purpose, seeing as how homosexual exist in the first place.

Design only is a factor if God exists. He may have designed them to be self sealing to allow for needles but it does not matter. Purpose applies to even nature. Anatomy has efficient functions. However that does not matter here.

Well, as we continually find in nature, many things can and do serve more than one purpose. So who are you to dictate what specific purpose you thing anything is “designed” for? You don’t know any more than anyone else.

Obviously I don’t think your god exists, so I don’t think things were designed by anyone for any one specific purpose. From your point of view though, how can you claim to know what anything was designed for, even if your god does actually exist?

Why in the heck are you comparing a life saving neutral function, to a life taking contradictory function? This is just another irrational rationalization. Putting a bullet through a innocent persons brain is just as wrong even if a needle can be put into a vein.

Because I don’t see homosexuality as a “life taking contradictory function,” that’s why.

Continued ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am doing something with something that is not said to be acceptable which endangers others who had no role in my decision. I would claim if needles go into veins then my car should be allowed in your house if I was you, but I only make rational comparisons.

I wouldn’t make that claim because it doesn’t make any sense. Nor does your explanation of it.

The heck it doesn't, people of one type often change to another, people of one type often have no urges for the former. People even try a behavior of one type even though they are the other. Actions are incessantly independent of nature because we have choice and will that is often used to subvert nature and identity. You might even say homicide is a natural urge but you would not accept that as an excuse.

Okay, so homosexuality isn’t the killer, rather certain sexual behaviors are the killers. We’re finally on the same page there.

Sexual identity doesn’t change nearly as much as you claim it does and there’s no scientific evidence to back up said claim.

Who would say homicide is a natural urge?

Again your are talking about adjunct things I mentioned because no one could contend with my main points. I made them easy on purpose as indicators not reasons or foundations. And you still failed to argue on the terms and context my indicators came in. Sexual identity (male female) is not a choice, behavior is.

So what if I’m dealing with “adjunct things.” You said them, didn’t you? Now you’re going to claim that you didn’t really mean them in any real argumentative sense? Gimme a break.

Sexual behavior usually follows from sexual identity. If you don’t believe that, then go see if you’re able to enjoy having intercourse with a person from the gender you are not attracted to.

You can't justify behavior by something no choice exist for.

What?

You nor anyone has ever shown he has. I have presented studies that strongly indicate he didn't about a thousand posts back.

No you didn’t. Homosexuality isn’t a choice any more than heterosexuality is. Don’t believe that, ask a gay person. Or better yet, ask yourself when you decided to become attracted to the opposite sex. (I think you’ll find the answers are the same.)

So, gay people exist. Gay animals exist. If your god created everything, then “he” created homosexuality.

Murderers are human beings, thieves are human beings. I never judged a person.

And now you want to compare murderers and thieves to homosexuals? Seriously? Weren’t you the one just going on about rational comparisons?

I judged a behavior.

So now you can admit that your problem is actually with promiscuous, unprotected sex and not with homosexuality at all. Great!

I see another argument I forgot. The old appeal to false moral high ground that does not exist and is based on distortions of the counter position. A disgusting but favorite tactic of the liberal in constant use. Your defending death with lust as justification, and calling my position immoral. Good lord. Homosexuality is just another sin like many of the failures I have. The difference is I ask forgiveness, I do not defend my own failings as virtues.

I don’t believe in “sins” in the sense you’re talking about, obviously. Homosexuals have nothing to ask forgiveness for, in my opinion. Especially since they were born that way and have no control over whom they aren’t or are attracted to. As you pointed out, they do have control over their behavior, and that is intrinsically tied to their sexual identity. Whether they choose to protect themselves or not when engaging in said behaviors is the real issue I feel that you have with it.

Now then. I have responded to you because you were new to the debate and I wanted to see if you had any new and effective arguments. If anything you said had any effect on my adjunct points I did not see it. Nothing you said has any relevance on my two main contentions. I will read whatever you post but I do not promise to keep banging my head against the wall of moral insanity, rationalizations, false moral high ground, and misdirection. I don't care if you are wrong, I am here to be challenged.

I’m not new to this debate at all. But okay, you want to play the William Lane Craig game where you just keep repeating your two contentions as though no one has addressed them. You need to back up your two main claims with solid evidence, which I don’t think has been done. And I’m not the only one who feels that way, hence the length of this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So homosexuality is right because births in Africa are bad? If anything must be defended with this junk it deserves no defense and requires no critics. This is exactly like a child who got busted spending half their lunch money ion ice cream claiming Bobby spent it all on ice cream. How many babies that die in how many places does there have to be exactly to make another action moral? Is one death row convict released if any injustice or death occurs somewhere else?

Um no. We're employing a discussion method that illustrates the oddity of the morality claims you're trying to make about homosexuality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

After this posts I will not take the off ramp of what a corpsman did again. Right or wrong it has nothing to do with the issue.

You seem to think it has a lot to do with the issue. This is not anywhere close to the first time you’ve mentioned it, and it supposedly ties into your argument that gay people cost everyone else so much money and damage.

It ought to make you sick. A person mentioning he once had to remove a marlin spike for an orifice is not even remotely morally equivalent to risking the lives of others with the sole justification of lust and sticking the tax payers with all the bills. This is classic misdirection and obfuscation. Maybe we should quit talking about the guy who ate a family of four because one of the family may have lied on his taxes. Sound right to you.

Just to clarify, I find the corpsman’s behavior to be contrary to his obligations as a medical professional. That’s my problem with it and the reason I find it immoral and just plain rude. Would he be equally disgusted if he had to remove a marlin spike from a heterosexual’s orifice who had chosen to put it there? Would he be equally disgusted if he had to remove a marlin spike from someone’s orifice if they had accidentally fallen on it?

Sole justification of lust? Boy oh boy, you certainly are making some judgment calls that you claimed not to be making earlier.

If no one person is mentioned then it is impossible any persons privacy was violated. Preachers, doctors, psychiatrists, etc... all use generic examples of things they have seen and done in private conversations. You can ask them if they have ever seen a self performed sex change, but you can't ask them if Jim did one on himself. Every doctor I have ever had has mentioned generic things associated with what they have done. Some funny, some sick, some to help me or others.

The example you gave above isn’t all that generic, rather it’s fairly specific, if you ask me. Especially when you’re talking about a limited population of people and especially when you’re using a derisive tone when talking about homosexual patients.

I do not care.

Some people do care. That’s the point.

Yes it does.

Well then heterosexual behavior kills other people to. Now what?

He signed up when gays were not allowed in the military. He had to do the surgeries and other things instead of throw away a retirement. No one has done anything what so ever wrong by saying a sick thing was sick.

First of all, why assume the person with the spike in his orifice is gay?

Secondly, if he signed up for corpsman duty thinking that no gay people were in the military, he wasn’t using his head.

Thirdly, so what if he signed up when gays weren’t allowed in the military. He still has a duty, regardless of the sexual identity of the people he’s treating.

And finally, talking about these medical procedures as a way to mock gay people is just plain wrong. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No even in secular terms the purpose of marriage has always been procreation. That is it's lawful basis.

Nope. Originally, it was a used as a method for the transfer of property and/or to strengthen familial bonds and create alliances.

Obviously you don't need to be married to procreate.

 

[1robin]

Let’s just cut to the chase though … in reality, you oppose homosexuality on religious grounds, don’t you? I mean, that seems to be your starting point. You try to employ secular arguments to justify your position, but that’s what it really boils down to here, right?

I oppose it on both. I mainly oppose it as a distortion of purpose. I oppose it no more than any sin of equal cost in theology. I have independent reasons for condemning it. However I am only making them on secular grounds. I can't use math with a person who denies it. I did not agree with homosexuality long before I was a Christian and most of histories population have done so as well.

Sure you did. I copied that quote from your last post.

I did not say I never said it. I said it was an adjunct to my primary argument. It was a bonus or add on given because of boredom.

1. You have yet to justify this statement with anything concrete.

That is completely false. I have done so time after time after time. The last time it was the stats that 4% of us that are gay cause 63% of the aids in the US. It was from the CDC. I can't repost stats for every new poster here that denies reality. Search for them. There must be 6 lists and sources I gave in this thread alone.

2. The “gain” is that homosexuals have an opportunity to live their lives like everyone else does without being picked on,

I did not mention generic gain. I mentioned compensating gain. I swear I have to repeat my argument in totality at least half a dozen times for every new poster. It is maddening. I did so twice just today. How much happiness or lust is a life worth?

I’m sorry you don’t see such things as “gains” but you’re lack of recognition of such doesn’t change it.

That is irrelevant and no accessible to you anyway. I like or might like heroine, is that an excuse even if it only harms me.

Everyone and their mother have contended with your two claims. Many, many times in this 179 page thread.

Complaints are not contentions. Nothing that has been said has had the slightest potential effect on my two claims. One claim had an obscure capacity to prove something else was wrong but none had the capacity to justify homosexuality and all of them combined add up to only about 4 distinct claims anyway. They are rationalizations (and terrible ones) not arguments.

I addressed your “bonus claims” and now you’re taking issue with my doing so.

No I am quantifying my claims. Even if you disproved every claim made in boredom you have not began to contend with my primary claims.

No, it does not. Homosexuality exists all over the natural world. You know this, and yet you continue to make this odd claim.

Strict or exclusive homosexuality does not exist anywhere but in human dysfunctionality. Even monkeys know better, if they did not there would be no monkeys.

I know we’ve been over this before which is why I can’t figure out why you’re still repeating the same thing again and again.

There’s a whole other world out there beyond the US. You should check it out sometime. Like in Sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, where it’s most prevalent, the majority of AIDS cases are transmitted via heterosexual intercourse. The Caribbean isn’t far behind that.

It’s been pointed out to you before, but it needs to be said again: You apparently have a problem with promiscuity (e.g. unprotected sex), not actually homosexuality itself. Especially given that HIV/AIDS infection rates among homosexual females are actually quite low.

1. Germs or diseases do not act in Africa contradictory to the Us or anywhere else. You at best may go one way or the other a few percentage points by nation but the margins are so astronomical no hope exists in statistics for homosexuality.
2. The CDC said homosexuals not promiscuous people. Argue with them. Regardless homosexuals are far more promiscuous anyway. There is something morally corrupting with being gay. They are worse in almost every moral sexual category.
3. I have used statistics for the world in General, for Africa specifically. There is no refuge from what they claim.
4. Stating again what was incorrect to begin with does not improve its accuracy.

So we agree then: homosexuality doesn’t take lives.

What the holy heck are you talking about?


What did you do save up 6 posts and post them at once?

Continued;

 

[1robin]

So your problem lies with promiscuous, unprotected sex, which is evident from this statement.

The missuses of equipment made for one purpose for another is what causes revolts in nature. Homosexuality is wrong. Promiscuity is wrong. Your out of order, the jury's out of order, the whole circus is out of order. Condoms reduce risk, monogamy reduces risk. It makes nothing right and does not eliminate risk in any category and does not even help in others.

My point is that you have no idea what organs are “designed” for.

Yes we do. If you watch even the most atheistic of evolutionists he will use "design" a thousand times in any speech on evolution. Evolution has purposes and functions even if true. It may not cognitively set out with plans but it arrives at functionality all the same. This is all assuming that no God exists. Do you even realize how many layers of assumptions, rationalizations, denials, and just plain nonsense is involved in your defense. It is uncanny to look at objectively.

So you claim, without having any idea whether that is wholly true or not.

Are you actually denying the function of REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS given evolution, or especially given God?

Nature abhors nothing, as it has no feelings. However, homosexuality exists in abundance in nature (which includes human beings) so I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about here.

Well I see we have sunk to the bottom rung. Semantic technicalities as a defense of an action. Gooooooood lord. Nature appears to reject and destroy things inconsistent with it even if it is not consciously choosing to. If every atheist who ever lived and is a biologist uses design for nature why can't I use abhor? They both require intent. I wish above anything else you guys would at least be consistent. Play by your own rules.

It could, depending on how you look at it.

Possibly is not consistent with purpose. I can put my car in your house. Is that ok?

Heterosexuals engage in many of the same sex acts as homosexuals do, including things that the organs don’t in any way suggest the use of.

How does that help homosexuality? The worst and most preschool of defenses is to point at something else wrong to justify another action. Start a thread on heterosexuality and we can discuss what acts are natural.

People insert tampons into their sex organs, so are tampons immoral? I mean, the organs themselves don’t “suggest” said usage. Or do they?

Tampons were designed by moral agents with cognitive intent and rational purpose and justification. How many people did tampax kill last year? Natural is no a defense I used. I said unnatural, being inconsistent with nature, is an argument. How in the heck did we get to commercial feminine hygiene to defend homosexuality? What is next, lunar orbits, Newton's laws, cookie monster?

Then you’re going to lose, because you have no idea what organs were “designed” for.

See the above.

Well then homosexuality is consistent with design or purpose, seeing as how homosexual exist in the first place.

What? Is the existence of X proof that X is natural or good? Cancer exists, is it good? Thermonuclear weapons exist are they good? Weaponized anthrax that eats antibiotics exists, is it good?

Well, as we continually find in nature, many things can and do serve more than one purpose. So who are you to dictate what specific purpose you thing anything is “designed” for? You don’t know any more than anyone else.

I thought we had no idea what purpose something had. Play by your own rules in the same post at least for crying out loud.

Obviously I don’t think your god exists, so I don’t think things were designed by anyone for any one specific purpose. From your point of view though, how can you claim to know what anything was designed for, even if your god does actually exist?

Purpose and design are used by the most virulent atheists in existence.

Because I don’t see homosexuality as a “life taking contradictory function,” that’s why.

Contradictory or not it is without doubt life taking, misery producing, and money costing, and no justification having, as I am no grammar having.

Continued ...

Well hallelujah.

 

[1robin]

Nope. Originally, it was a used as a method for the transfer of property and/or to strengthen familial bonds and create alliances.

Obviously you don't need to be married to procreate.

That is not true. Property rights are a derivative of the family unit. Long before property of any value existed (and even in your evolutionary tribal days) family units produces offspring more successfully that wondering nomads who did not stick together. Even in the animal kingdom where property rights are gibberish tribes and heterosexual family units are the norm. To which you apparently are programmed to reply but exceptions exist. To which logic has programmed me to respond: Why only in the case of convenience do atheists draw lessons from the exceptions? Follow your own rules.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You ever heard of the crying wolf story?

Sure. But what does it have to do with you running away from the debate while proclaiming that you aren't running away from the debate?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I oppose it on both. I mainly oppose it as a distortion of purpose. I oppose it no more than any sin of equal cost in theology. I have independent reasons for condemning it. However I am only making them on secular grounds. I can't use math with a person who denies it. I did not agree with homosexuality long before I was a Christian and most of histories population have done so as well.

You oppose it mainly as a distortion of purpose? That's the first time I've ever heard that one before. Sounds like BS to me, otherwise you'd oppose IV treatments, tattoos, ear piercings, and nail polish, among a zillion other things.

Most of the American population and the population of the industrialized world do not currently oppose homosexuality and/or gay marriage. They disagree with your position on the matter. So there goes that argument. See, I can make an appeal to popularity fallacy too!

I did not say I never said it. I said it was an adjunct to my primary argument. It was a bonus or add on given because of boredom.

You did say that you never said it, but whatever.

If this is so boring for you, why are you here?

That is completely false. I have done so time after time after time. The last time it was the stats that 4% of us that are gay cause 63% of the aids in the US. It was from the CDC. I can't repost stats for every new poster here that denies reality. Search for them. There must be 6 lists and sources I gave in this thread alone.

Oh it's absolutely true. Your cut and paste jobs from religious websites don't cut it, as I've explained to you before because they are completely lacking in proper citation and/or they misrepresent or distort the information being presented.

I'm not a new poster here, and I don't deny reality (that's your department). I've been in this thread for a long time, and I've read the entire thing. Don't give me this go look it up garbage. I've seen your stats and found them quite lacking, as have many other people on this thread who have challenged them.

I did not mention generic gain. I mentioned compensating gain. I swear I have to repeat my argument in totality at least half a dozen times for every new poster. It is maddening. I did so twice just today. How much happiness or lust is a life worth?

This is quite an amusing claim coming from someone who is always whining about others quibbling about semantics. A gain is a gain. It may not be a gain for YOU, but it's not about you.

Again, I'm not a new poster and not only that, but we've had long discussions before, in this very thread! How bad is your memory, exactly?

What is life worth without happiness? That's the better question. Lust is only a sin if you're a Christian. You have to realize that others view it as simply a part of human nature, and one that isn't particularly wrong or evil.

That is irrelevant and no accessible to you anyway. I like or might like heroine, is that an excuse even if it only harms me.

What is not accessible to me? It's not irrelevant at all. So you personally don't see what the gain is? Who cares? Other people can see it, regardless of whether or not you can.

If a person wants to do heroine, and isn't harming anyone else, why shouldn't they be able to do so?

Complaints are not contentions. Nothing that has been said has had the slightest potential effect on my two claims. One claim had an obscure capacity to prove something else was wrong but none had the capacity to justify homosexuality and all of them combined add up to only about 4 distinct claims anyway. They are rationalizations (and terrible ones) not arguments.

Wow, so that's how you just brush them off, by calling them complaints? Nice try. They were\are valid counter arguments against yours, regardless of whether or not you recognize them as such.

Your claims are vacuous and lacking in evidence.

What you don't appear to understand is that when people are pointing out to you that other things are wrong or worse or equally as harmful, they're trying to point out to you the absurdity of your moral argument on the subject of homosexuality.

No I am quantifying my claims. Even if you disproved every claim made in boredom you have not began to contend with my primary claims.

You are doing exactly what I said you were doing and still are.

By the way, I've already addressed your primary claims many times over. It's very convenient for you that you don't seem to remember that at all.

Strict or or exclusive homosexuality does not exist anywhere but in human dysfunctionality. Even monkeys know better, if they did not there would be no monkeys.

There are strictly and/or exclusively homosexual human beings and yet the human race continues to exist and in fact overpopulate the earth so there goes your nonsensical monkey claim.

I can think of one example of animals that engage in strict or exclusive homosexual off the top of my head and that is domesticated sheep. Something like 8-10% of domestic rams will only mate with other rams.

Why is it even relevant if it's “strict” or “exclusive” at all? What does that have to do with anything??

1.Germs or diseases do not act in Africa contradictory to the Us or anywhere else. You at best may go one way or the other a few percentage points by nation but the margins are so astronomical no hope exists in statistics for homosexuality.

What? Are you under some strange impression that AIDS germs prefer male homosexual bodies? What in the world are you saying?

No, no, it's not a few percentage points. The vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa affect heterosexual females and the Caribbean is right behind them. The World Health Organization says that transmission of AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa is PRIMARILY through heterosexual contact. And they say that 80% of HIV infections in India are spread via heterosexual contact. I wonder how you never managed to come across such statistics.

The Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic, 2006

2.The CDC said homosexuals not promiscuous people. Argue with them. Regardless homosexuals are far more promiscuous anyway. There is something morally corrupting with being gay. They are worse in almost every moral sexual category.

Your arguments indicate to me that YOU have a problem not with homosexuality per se, but with behavior that increases the risk of disease. That behavior would be promiscuous and unprotected sexual contact, whether the participants involved are heterosexual or homosexual because which sexual identity you are, if you practice that BEHAVIOR you increase the risk of transmitting diseases. You simply choose to pick on the homosexuals (for some reason) and ignore the exact same behavior in heterosexuals, which results in the EXACT SAME THING. Get it?

3.I have used statistics for the world in General, for Africa specifically. There is no refuge from what they claim.

If you did, how is it that you managed to miss the stuff that shows that the vast majority of AIDS cases in Africa are spread via hetereosexual intercourse? The religious sites you copy your statistics from didn't mention that for some reason?

4.Stating again what was incorrect to begin with does not improve its accuracy.

Who did that besides yourself?

What did you do save up 6 posts and post them at once?

I didn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is not true. Property rights are a derivative of the family unit. Long before property of any value existed (and even in your evolutionary tribal days) family units produces offspring more successfully that wondering nomads who did not stick together. Even in the animal kingdom where property rights are gibberish tribes and heterosexual family units are the norm.

Maybe you should re-read what I said.

And note again that we don't need to be married to procreate.

To which you apparently are programmed to reply but exceptions exist. To which logic has programmed me to respond: Why only in the case of convenience do atheists draw lessons from the exceptions? Follow your own rules.

Huh? I didn't reply with an exception.