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

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Oh it causes revolts in nature, does it? Then how come lesbians aren't dropping dead all over the place?

If nature hates homosexuality so much it should probably just revolt and get rid of it. Hmm, but it hasn't so maybe it isn't as wrong as you seem to think it is. Or maybe it serves some kind of purpose, maybe even a gain of some kind. Hmmmm.

So again, your problem is with promiscuous, unprotected sexual contact. Why don't you just say that and put an end to this silliness?

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.

No, you're not getting what I'm saying and no, atheistic evolutionists don't talk about design. Let's take the mouth for example. We can breathe through it, talk with it, use it to eat and a whole bunch of other things. So, what was the mouth designed for exactly? Was it one particular thing, or is it useful for many different things?

No I don't have any idea. Please lay out these many layers of assumptions, rationalizations, denials and just plain nonsense you think is involved in my defense.

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

No, I'm not. Please read above and try to grasp what I'm saying.

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.

That's hilarious coming from the person who said basically the exact same thing to me in regards to science. And now you say it's crap.

Nature has not destroyed homosexuality. Hmmm. Why not, if what you say is true?

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

Sure it is. Lots of things serve more than one purpose, as noted above.

You could put it in my garage. Or you could store some old boxes in my garage if you'd like. Or you could set up a workshop in my garage. Wait a minute, what was the garage designed for?! It couldn't possibly serve more than one purpose, could it?!

How does that help homosexuality?

It puts it on par with heterosexuality.

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.

I didn't say anything about it being wrong, that's what YOU'RE saying. All I'm saying is that gay and straight people can and do engage in similar sexual behaviors and that sexual organs, (as in other things like the mouth, for example) may serve more than one purpose or use. Who are you to say what the purpose should be?

I really don't give a rat's behind what sexual acts you personally feel are natural or not. It's completely irrelevant to me and doesn't equate to anything factual.

Tampons were designed by moral agents with cognitive intent and rational purpose and justification. How many people did tampax kill last year?

So what?

I guess you've never heard of toxic shock syndrome?

Natural is no a defense I used. I said unnatural, being inconsistent with nature, is an argument.

Huh? Is using a tampon immoral or not?

Please stop whining to others about using semantic arguments when you employ them yourself, it makes you look foolish.

How in the heck did we get to commercial feminine hygiene to defend homosexuality? What is next, lunar orbits, Newton's laws, cookie monster?

What's so hard to follow here? You told me that organs should only be used for their intended purpose or function and depending on what purpose or function you use them for, that action is either moral or immoral. That's why we're talking about tampons and tattoos.

See the above.

What was the mouth designed for?

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?

I would say cancer is natural, and so is homosexuality.
I didn't say anything about any of it being good or bad. You're trying to tell me what is consistent or inconsistent with design, and I'm questioning you on it. You're the one dictating what is moral or immoral based on its congruency with this design you apparently know everything about.

Maybe everything wasn't “designed” for exactly what you personally think it was “designed” for.

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.

Many things serve many purposes. How is pointing that out not playing by my own rules??

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

What does that have to do with what I asked you? Are you trying to avoid the question?

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

I disagree and I'm still waiting for you to back up these grand, prejudicial claims you keep making.

 

[Tiberius]

1. You can make any ineffective argument you like, and apparently will. That will not make it any more effective.

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "Lalalalala" does not render an argument ineffective. It just makes you a poor debater.

2. My primary claims have no theological basis, so theological counter claims have no relevance.

Who made a theological counter claim? I said that people once treated left-handed people the way we are now treating gay people. Are you sure you are paying attention?

3. Even if they did the ones you made are not Biblical.

Given that I didn't mention the Bible - in fact I agreed with your statement that you had never made a biblical argument and I agreed that I would not do the same! - I don't see why you are bringing this up.

4. Why are claims by anyone calling themselves a Christian my responsibility or relevant to me if they contradict the Bible and my arguments?

Because the old "anti-left handed argument" is not really any different to the anti-gay arguments you are spouting.

5. That was a childish "I know you are but what am I" response. In fact it is worse.

No, it is not. I am pointing out that you are using a particular logical process to form an argument you agree with (the anti-gay argument) when that same logical process has been used to form arguments you do not agree with. Either the logical process is valid or not. If it is valid, then you must agree with all the conclusions it reaches. If it is not valid, why do you use it? I am pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

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

Again, I am pointing out that the logic you are using, when applied to other things, leads to ridiculous results. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.

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.

Well, then, enlighten us. Apart from having children, what justifications does marriage have?

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.

And I've provided CDC data that PROVES that the spread of disease among the homosexual population is a MINISCULE problem compared to things like smoking, drinking and unhealthy lifestyles, any one of which kills significantly MORE people than the spread of disease among gay people.

And yet you ignore that. You seem to do that a lot, ignore things that don't agree with what you say.

My claims stand. Protest is not evidence.

Ah, but my arguments come with evidence.

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.

What you are saying here is basically, "I have my reasons, but I'm not going to explain them." Brilliant debate form. No one can argue against a position you never actually make.

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.

How am I exasperated? I pointed out that you did not actually address the issue I raised, and now you are pretending that your avoidance of that issue somehow counts as a victory for you.

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.

Only more destructive than most? Excuse me, did I not show that smoking, drinking and poor lifestyle are EACH more destructive than the spread of disease among gay people? Your claim that homosexuality is more destructive than most is certainly a far fetched idea.

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.

Excuse me, when did I say that the CDC doesn't know what they are talking about? Or are you just making strawman arguments?

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.

And your flawed arguments do not become more valid, no matter how many times you repeat them.

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.

Well then, how about you start arguing FOR a way to prevent the spread of disease among gay people? After all, sex is a basic human right. And it is easy to prevent the spread of disease through sex.

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?

Say what you will, but I don't see you going to this much effort to argue against the evils of smoking. Actions speak louder than words, you know.

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, so now you are claiming that gay people are inherently immoral and lacking in judgement. This is priceless. And you can't even cite a source, you are just going with your own opinions.

Do I need to point out the flaws in this or can you see it for yourself?

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?

Heterosexual sex also spreads disease. Condoms can help, but that does not justify anything. Therefore heterosexual sex is just as bad as gay sex. My goodness, you are really bad at logic, aren't you?

To be continued...

 

[Tiberius]

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.

Fine. You can start by posting reliable data showing that gay people are more likely to be immoral and lacking in judgement.

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.

So you actually meant to type an actual argument there and the "etc..." came out as a typo? Very well. Feel free to tell me what you actually meant to say instead of the "etc..." and I'll respond to that. In the meantime, I suggest you proofread before you actually post your reply.

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?

As per your agreement that you will provide reliable data for any point I say you are making up, please provide reliable data that shows that the spread of disease among gay people causes an unacceptable level of death, suffering and costs billions of dollars. Please bear in mind that if the level of death, suffering and costs of disease spread among HETEROSEXUAL people is higher, then I will expect you to state that you find heterosexual sex to be worse than gay sex, as it causes more death, more suffering and costs more.

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

I know perfectly well what I am saying. A gay couple gains from their gay relationship in exactly the same way that a straight couple gains from a straight relationship.

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.

So now you are saying that gay sex is as bad as drugs, murder, alcohol? Well, I know for a fact you are wrong on those counts. I've already provided data from the CDC that shows that alcohol is responsible for more deaths than gay sex is (and that isn't including injuries from alcohol, such as people injured by drink drivers, etc). And there were almost 15,000 murders in the USA in 2012, a significant percentage of the number of gay people who were infected with HIV (let's not forget that HIV does not always result in death, neither is HIV the same thing as AIDS).

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?

Did I claim that you made up the data you posted? No. All I did was point out that what you are arguing against is small fry. If you think the number of people infected with a disease through gay sex is enough to justify gay sex being wrong, then by extension you must consider smoking, drinking and poor lifestyle to be much greater wrongs. Why do we not see you arguing against those?

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.

But that affects other people, doesn't it? It affects your family and those who you abuse. meth makes people violent. Do you think that this wouldn't have an effect on others? SOURCE. And yet, a gay person having sex does not result in any of this. If you are walking down the street and pass a gay person who has just had gay sex half an hour ago, you will not be able to tell. It will not make them aggressive. And yet, if you pass a meth user who took the drug half an hour ago, you are at risk of a sudden outburst of violence.

Oh, and if you are going to make comparisons like this, you don't have a right to criticise me for doing the same thing, okay?

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.

I love this. Your argument against gay sex is that even if it didn't spread disease it would still be wrong. As per our agreement, I would like you to make an argument against gay sex that does not mention the supposed horror of the rate at which people get infected with diseases. I bet all you'll be able to do is make the subjective claim that it is immoral.

They are ineffective because they have no effect.

Circular logic. Deeply flawed.

Summary:

Oh goody.

1. The same lame less wrong equal good arguments.

Huh? Translate this into English please?

2. The same X is wrong proves Y is right lame arguments.

I have been arguing that other things cause much more suffering than gay sex and yet society finds those acceptable. It is therefore illogical to claim that something that causes less suffering is unacceptable based on the amount of suffering it causes.

3. The same misdirection and irrelevance.

This is not an argument against homosexuality.

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.

I provided data from the same source as you, the CDC. If this source is so inaccurate, why do you use them? Do you wish to claim that the CDC uses inaccurate data?

5. Off ramps into theological semantics in non-theological arguments.

Excuse me? I agreed with you that you hadn't used theological arguments and I also agreed that I would not argue against a theological position with you. Stop with the straw man.

6. Assertions made without a hint of evidence.

I've provided evidence. You are the one who claimed that gay people are inherently more likely to cheat on their partners without providing a hint of evidence.

7. And the always handy false moral high ground in defense of suffering and death.

I am not defending suffering and death. On the other hand, you are the one making a big show of fighting for a lack of risk at the cost of people's rights.

In 2011, 49,273 people were diagnosed with HIV. SOURCE. According to the graph on that page, the number of gay males who contracted HIV in 2010 was 28,500 (made up of 11,200 gay white males, 10,600 gay black males and 6,700 hispanic, latino gay males). Meanwhile, 25,692 people died from consumption of alcohol. This is not including unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use, as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome. The number of alcoholm related deaths would therefore be much higher. Are you going to claim that people who argue for their right to drink alcohol are using the "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.

No, I've pointed out that your claims are not valid - we find things that cause much greater suffering to be socially acceptable, so your claim against homosexuality on the grounds of the suffering it causes are not supported.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have not avoided anything. There are only versions of maybe six futile points in this entire thread. I have answered them all over and over and over. When you can guarantee the above then it might be relevant. With insane rates of infidelity and unsafe sexual practices in the homosexual community is not even remotely relevant.

Except you havent' provided a single shred of evidence that homosexual males that have a single partner and use safe sex are more likely to have STD or any rate of harm.

But if I were to take your same argument and apply it to something else you simply say its a non-issue or has nothing to do with it. But what I am doing is proving to you that your argument fails at the fundamental level.

Yes it does.

Citation needed.

Less risk is still unjustified when insufficient gain is present. Cut out the categorizing crap. Liberals have the most diabolical habit of defending death by distorting (by any means necessary but never valid) morality to the point they can claim the other guy is on lower moral ground. It is disgusting what is justified by that tactic. The people literally killing the most innocent lives on earth for the worst reasons in history claiming moral high ground over those trying to save them, is another symptom of the moral insanity secularism is producing.

You have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence for anything that I have brought up. Homosexual female relationships are the safest form of sexuality you can have and yet you still strive to say its wrong just cuz.

Now your jumping on personal attacks towards those you view as "left leaning" without any supporting evidence.

 

[Tiberius]

Except you havent' provided a single shred of evidence that homosexual males that have a single partner and use safe sex are more likely to have STD or any rate of harm.

I have to agree with MoR here. 1robin, it seems like your problem is with promiscuity and unsafe sex rather than homosexuality.

 

[s2a]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

I'm not (attracted to men, not in any sexual sense), but if you find men attractive in that way, I can no more deny that feeling than my own rampant proclivities towards women.

Just don't make me watch...'cos even straight people sucking face in public offends my general sensibilities

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I have to agree with MoR here. 1robin, it seems like your problem is with promiscuity and unsafe sex rather than homosexuality.

Right. Blaming homosexuality for disease is like blaming men for bad parenting. It's true that there would be less bad parenting if there were no men -- just as there'd be less disease if there were no homosexuals -- but it is obvious flawed thinking to blame the entire class for the actions of a subset of bad actors in that class.

Those who oppose homosexuality are clearly and thankgodfully on the wrong side of history. Two men were just married in the West Point Chapel. Even conservative Christians, many of them, are finally relaxing about the whole thing.

 

[1robin]

I have to agree with MoR here. 1robin, it seems like your problem is with promiscuity and unsafe sex rather than homosexuality.

This is for Tiberius, Monk of Reason, and SkepticalThinker.

Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
US News reports that if HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to rise at the current rates, more than half of college-aged homosexual men will have HIV by the age of 50.
When broken down by age group, the CDC reported that new infections among the youngest MSM, aged 13-24, increased from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010, which translates into a 22 percent increase in that time span.
LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates

Notice a few things about the SECULAR CDC article.

1. It does not even include the word promiscuity. The entire article never mentions it.
2. The group label applied to the causal group is not "the promiscuous group" It is the "homosexual group".
3. Since promiscuity is present on both sides and the heterosexual side is a far larger group then why is heterosexual promiscuity not the title of the group producing the aids epidemic in the US?

I am against promiscuity as well but it is not the cause of a huge portion of the aids cases. It is homosexuality. However homosexuals are far more promiscuous anyway. It is a symptom of the same disease. Moral corruption. Of course since I must tie half of reality behind my back I can't make theological arguments and this is not a sin in general thread. It is on homosexuality and my data is on homosexuality not promiscuity.

When 4% cause 63% of anything what binds or is in common to that 4% is the cause even if promiscuity is also a contributor.

Since no-one else would look it up or even review the thread for the list after list of statistics I hope my providing them is the end of this. It's getting monotonous. And no, aids and homosexuality do not function in the opposite direction in Africa, Australian, or the ant-arctic, so that is no refuge either. And no, subgroups of the few percent of homosexuals that are monogamous for a meaningful amount of time or Lesbians or any other sub group with less risk is justifiable when no group has compensating gain to offset death, suffering, and cost. Rationalizations are not a defense.

 

[Uberpod]

1robin has succumbed to binary thinking.

 

[Tiberius]

This is for Tiberius, Monk of Reason, and SkepticalThinker.

Yes. A larger font size makes your arguments so much more legitimate.

Notice a few things about the SECULAR CDC article.

1. It does not even include the word promiscuity. The entire article never mentions it.

Irrelevant. It is a proven fact that disease does not spread anywhere near as much when people have monogamous relationships and use condoms.

2. The group label applied to the causal group is not "the promiscuous group" It is the "homosexual group".

Again, irrelevant. It does not discount the presence of promiscuous people in that group.

3. Since promiscuity is present on both sides and the heterosexual side is a far larger group then why is heterosexual promiscuity not the title of the group producing the aids epidemic in the US?

Because the heterosexual community has a greater variety of sexual positions to use. I won't deny that anal sex is riskier and is more likely to pass on disease. But to therefore claim that gay sex is wrong is not a valid conclusion. There are many ways to reduce the spread of the disease that work just fine for gay people.

I am against promiscuity as well but it is not the cause of a huge portion of the aids cases. It is homosexuality. However homosexuals are far more promiscuous anyway. It is a symptom of the same disease. Moral corruption. Of course since I must tie half of reality behind my back I can't make theological arguments and this is not a sin in general thread. It is on homosexuality and my data is on homosexuality not promiscuity.

As per our previous agreement, I am going to accuse you of making up the claim that gay people are "far more promiscuous" than straight people. You are now required to provide hard data to support this claim.

When 4% cause 63% of anything what binds or is in common to that 4% is the cause even if promiscuity is also a contributor.

And I agree that it is something that needs to be looked at. However, you seem to be insisting on a very drastic action that will curtail the basic human rights for gay people instead of using another method that leaves their rights intact.

Since no-one else would look it up or even review the thread for the list after list of statistics I hope my providing them is the end of this. It's getting monotonous. And no, aids and homosexuality do not function in the opposite direction in Africa, Australian, or the ant-arctic, so that is no refuge either. And no, subgroups of the few percent of homosexuals that are monogamous for a meaningful amount of time or Lesbians or any other sub group with less risk is justifiable when no group has compensating gain to offset death, suffering, and cost. Rationalizations are not a defense.

No, I didn't think you'd listen to a rational argument.

You aren't using the evidence to form a reasonable conclusion. You reach your conclusion and that pick and choose the data that supports you while ignore whatever data weakens your position. This is not an intelligent way to find out the truth about issues.

 

[1robin]

Yes. A larger font size makes your arguments so much more legitimate.

The larger font was to try and make sure those who it applied to noticed it. It was not an argument so your critique of an argument not made was wasted time.

Irrelevant. It is a proven fact that disease does not spread anywhere near as much when people have monogamous relationships and use condoms.

If you read my post instead of scanning it I included all the "less risky" form of homosexuality and why they do not overcome either of my two primary points. This is like a broken record or a whack-a-mole. As soon as one argument is dealt with another pops up, when it is contended another and probably the first argument pops up again. I have stated in detail why these monogamy and condom use arguments have never worked, do not work, and will never work in post after post after post. Just review a bit.

Again, irrelevant. It does not discount the presence of promiscuous people in that group.

The CDC must present the most relevant cause, they can't be wrong. That is their business. They said it was homosexuality that caused the problem. Once again I have already said promiscuity is part of it but since it is drastically higher in Homosexual relationships (the average is 3-5 years for monogamous homosexual relationships) it is inseparable from it. Homosexuality is moral insanity and that disease causes countless other sexual immoral actions like lack in fidelity and the higher risk of having sex with or without protection, but it would make no difference anyway.

Because the heterosexual community has a greater variety of sexual positions to use. I won't deny that anal sex is riskier and is more likely to pass on disease. But to therefore claim that gay sex is wrong is not a valid conclusion. There are many ways to reduce the spread of the disease that work just fine for gay people.

You know this entire post and posts of others is saying the same thing in different ways and it never works. Lets go to fantasy land for a second to illustrate this.

1. Lets pretend every homosexual was in a lifelong monogamous relationship.
2. Lets say they all used condoms or whatever else to limit risk.
3. Lets pretend they all maintain complete fidelity.

Now everyone of these have massive rates of infidelity, irresponsible sex, and monogamy in the homosexual community is extremely brief.

However if give the above fantasy illustration some risk is not even affected at all and others are only lowered. It is still present in huge amounts even in the best of scenarios. It still has no justification to compensate for the losses so in it's best for it is morally unjustifiable.

As per our previous agreement, I am going to accuse you of making up the claim that gay people are "far more promiscuous" than straight people. You are now required to provide hard data to support this claim.

That was only half the agreement. Since I have posted all these statistics in this thread and they exist a thousand sites, I can't justifying them every time a new poster that will not review a little asks for the. So in order to make it worth my while you must agree to admit and apologize when I pot then in you response post. You must admit I was not lying and must admit I was right in your post before I will post the stats for the 4th time. Deal?

And I agree that it is something that needs to be looked at. However, you seem to be insisting on a very drastic action that will curtail the basic human rights for gay people instead of using another method that leaves their rights intact.

What? I have done everything I can to not present an solutions. It is not my burden nor am I qualified to do so. I am calling a bad thing wrong. The end. Any solution I may have mentioned was to show they exist not that they were the best nor what I would choose.

No, I didn't think you'd listen to a rational argument.

You aren't using the evidence to form a reasonable conclusion. You reach your conclusion and that pick and choose the data that supports you while ignore whatever data weakens your position. This is not an intelligent way to find out the truth about issues.

That is a genetic fallacy. No matter how I arrived at a truth or when evidence came into play it would still be true. However just out of curiosity what evidence do you have to counter that lust of the 4% produce 60% of the aids that would render those numbers void. Love to see that.

The truth was that I had an intuitive and theological rejection of homosexuality. I wanted to know if secular reasons existed to argue or prove it. To my surprise, my two main contention proved to be bullet proof. I actually thought that people who had been sitting around for years thinking of ways to rationalize homosexuality would have quickly over come my point. So far far they have not even been dented by the totality of 6 arguments every one in this thread together have used. No matter how my claims evolved, they work, they never fail and there is no need to bring into it.

 

[1robin]

Oh it causes revolts in nature, does it? Then how come lesbians aren't dropping dead all over the place?

If nature hates homosexuality so much it should probably just revolt and get rid of it. Hmm, but it hasn't so maybe it isn't as wrong as you seem to think it is. Or maybe it serves some kind of purpose, maybe even a gain of some kind. Hmmmm.

So again, your problem is with promiscuous, unprotected sexual contact. Why don't you just say that and put an end to this silliness?


No, you're not getting what I'm saying and no, atheistic evolutionists don't talk about design. Let's take the mouth for example. We can breathe through it, talk with it, use it to eat and a whole bunch of other things. So, what was the mouth designed for exactly? Was it one particular thing, or is it useful for many different things?

No I don't have any idea. Please lay out these many layers of assumptions, rationalizations, denials and just plain nonsense you think is involved in my defense.


No, I'm not. Please read above and try to grasp what I'm saying.



That's hilarious coming from the person who said basically the exact same thing to me in regards to science. And now you say it's crap.

Nature has not destroyed homosexuality. Hmmm. Why not, if what you say is true?



Sure it is. Lots of things serve more than one purpose, as noted above.

You could put it in my garage. Or you could store some old boxes in my garage if you'd like. Or you could set up a workshop in my garage. Wait a minute, what was the garage designed for?! It couldn't possibly serve more than one purpose, could it?!


It puts it on par with heterosexuality.


I didn't say anything about it being wrong, that's what YOU'RE saying. All I'm saying is that gay and straight people can and do engage in similar sexual behaviors and that sexual organs, (as in other things like the mouth, for example) may serve more than one purpose or use. Who are you to say what the purpose should be?

I really don't give a rat's behind what sexual acts you personally feel are natural or not. It's completely irrelevant to me and doesn't equate to anything factual.



So what?

I guess you've never heard of toxic shock syndrome?


Huh? Is using a tampon immoral or not?

Please stop whining to others about using semantic arguments when you employ them yourself, it makes you look foolish.



What's so hard to follow here? You told me that organs should only be used for their intended purpose or function and depending on what purpose or function you use them for, that action is either moral or immoral. That's why we're talking about tampons and tattoos.


What was the mouth designed for?



I would say cancer is natural, and so is homosexuality.
I didn't say anything about any of it being good or bad. You're trying to tell me what is consistent or inconsistent with design, and I'm questioning you on it. You're the one dictating what is moral or immoral based on its congruency with this design you apparently know everything about.

Maybe everything wasn't “designed” for exactly what you personally think it was “designed” for.



Many things serve many purposes. How is pointing that out not playing by my own rules??


What does that have to do with what I asked you? Are you trying to avoid the question?





I disagree and I'm still waiting for you to back up these grand, prejudicial claims you keep making.

Sorry I am low on time. I will get back to this. I did however answer one of question above.

 

[1robin]

Sticking your fingers in your ears and going, "Lalalalala" does not render an argument ineffective. It just makes you a poor debater.



Who made a theological counter claim? I said that people once treated left-handed people the way we are now treating gay people. Are you sure you are paying attention?



Given that I didn't mention the Bible - in fact I agreed with your statement that you had never made a biblical argument and I agreed that I would not do the same! - I don't see why you are bringing this up.



Because the old "anti-left handed argument" is not really any different to the anti-gay arguments you are spouting.



No, it is not. I am pointing out that you are using a particular logical process to form an argument you agree with (the anti-gay argument) when that same logical process has been used to form arguments you do not agree with. Either the logical process is valid or not. If it is valid, then you must agree with all the conclusions it reaches. If it is not valid, why do you use it? I am pointing out that you are a hypocrite.



Again, I am pointing out that the logic you are using, when applied to other things, leads to ridiculous results. I am pointing out that your logic is flawed.



Well, then, enlighten us. Apart from having children, what justifications does marriage have?



And I've provided CDC data that PROVES that the spread of disease among the homosexual population is a MINISCULE problem compared to things like smoking, drinking and unhealthy lifestyles, any one of which kills significantly MORE people than the spread of disease among gay people.

And yet you ignore that. You seem to do that a lot, ignore things that don't agree with what you say.



Ah, but my arguments come with evidence.



What you are saying here is basically, "I have my reasons, but I'm not going to explain them." Brilliant debate form. No one can argue against a position you never actually make.



How am I exasperated? I pointed out that you did not actually address the issue I raised, and now you are pretending that your avoidance of that issue somehow counts as a victory for you.



Only more destructive than most? Excuse me, did I not show that smoking, drinking and poor lifestyle are EACH more destructive than the spread of disease among gay people? Your claim that homosexuality is more destructive than most is certainly a far fetched idea.



Excuse me, when did I say that the CDC doesn't know what they are talking about? Or are you just making strawman arguments?



And your flawed arguments do not become more valid, no matter how many times you repeat them.



Well then, how about you start arguing FOR a way to prevent the spread of disease among gay people? After all, sex is a basic human right. And it is easy to prevent the spread of disease through sex.



Say what you will, but I don't see you going to this much effort to argue against the evils of smoking. Actions speak louder than words, you know.



Ah, so now you are claiming that gay people are inherently immoral and lacking in judgement. This is priceless. And you can't even cite a source, you are just going with your own opinions.

Do I need to point out the flaws in this or can you see it for yourself?



Heterosexual sex also spreads disease. Condoms can help, but that does not justify anything. Therefore heterosexual sex is just as bad as gay sex. My goodness, you are really bad at logic, aren't you?

To be continued...

Sorry I am low on time. I will get back to this. I did however answer one of question above.

 

[1robin]

Fine. You can start by posting reliable data showing that gay people are more likely to be immoral and lacking in judgement.



So you actually meant to type an actual argument there and the "etc..." came out as a typo? Very well. Feel free to tell me what you actually meant to say instead of the "etc..." and I'll respond to that. In the meantime, I suggest you proofread before you actually post your reply.



As per your agreement that you will provide reliable data for any point I say you are making up, please provide reliable data that shows that the spread of disease among gay people causes an unacceptable level of death, suffering and costs billions of dollars. Please bear in mind that if the level of death, suffering and costs of disease spread among HETEROSEXUAL people is higher, then I will expect you to state that you find heterosexual sex to be worse than gay sex, as it causes more death, more suffering and costs more.



I know perfectly well what I am saying. A gay couple gains from their gay relationship in exactly the same way that a straight couple gains from a straight relationship.



So now you are saying that gay sex is as bad as drugs, murder, alcohol? Well, I know for a fact you are wrong on those counts. I've already provided data from the CDC that shows that alcohol is responsible for more deaths than gay sex is (and that isn't including injuries from alcohol, such as people injured by drink drivers, etc). And there were almost 15,000 murders in the USA in 2012, a significant percentage of the number of gay people who were infected with HIV (let's not forget that HIV does not always result in death, neither is HIV the same thing as AIDS).



Did I claim that you made up the data you posted? No. All I did was point out that what you are arguing against is small fry. If you think the number of people infected with a disease through gay sex is enough to justify gay sex being wrong, then by extension you must consider smoking, drinking and poor lifestyle to be much greater wrongs. Why do we not see you arguing against those?



But that affects other people, doesn't it? It affects your family and those who you abuse. meth makes people violent. Do you think that this wouldn't have an effect on others? SOURCE. And yet, a gay person having sex does not result in any of this. If you are walking down the street and pass a gay person who has just had gay sex half an hour ago, you will not be able to tell. It will not make them aggressive. And yet, if you pass a meth user who took the drug half an hour ago, you are at risk of a sudden outburst of violence.

Oh, and if you are going to make comparisons like this, you don't have a right to criticise me for doing the same thing, okay?



I love this. Your argument against gay sex is that even if it didn't spread disease it would still be wrong. As per our agreement, I would like you to make an argument against gay sex that does not mention the supposed horror of the rate at which people get infected with diseases. I bet all you'll be able to do is make the subjective claim that it is immoral.



Circular logic. Deeply flawed.



Oh goody.



Huh? Translate this into English please?



I have been arguing that other things cause much more suffering than gay sex and yet society finds those acceptable. It is therefore illogical to claim that something that causes less suffering is unacceptable based on the amount of suffering it causes.



This is not an argument against homosexuality.



I provided data from the same source as you, the CDC. If this source is so inaccurate, why do you use them? Do you wish to claim that the CDC uses inaccurate data?



Excuse me? I agreed with you that you hadn't used theological arguments and I also agreed that I would not argue against a theological position with you. Stop with the straw man.



I've provided evidence. You are the one who claimed that gay people are inherently more likely to cheat on their partners without providing a hint of evidence.



I am not defending suffering and death. On the other hand, you are the one making a big show of fighting for a lack of risk at the cost of people's rights.

In 2011, 49,273 people were diagnosed with HIV. SOURCE. According to the graph on that page, the number of gay males who contracted HIV in 2010 was 28,500 (made up of 11,200 gay white males, 10,600 gay black males and 6,700 hispanic, latino gay males). Meanwhile, 25,692 people died from consumption of alcohol. This is not including unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use, as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome. The number of alcoholm related deaths would therefore be much higher. Are you going to claim that people who argue for their right to drink alcohol are using the "false moral high ground in defense of suffering and death"?



No, I've pointed out that your claims are not valid - we find things that cause much greater suffering to be socially acceptable, so your claim against homosexuality on the grounds of the suffering it causes are not supported.

Sorry I am low on time. I will get back to this. I did however answer one of question above.

 

[1robin]

Except you havent' provided a single shred of evidence that homosexual males that have a single partner and use safe sex are more likely to have STD or any rate of harm.

But if I were to take your same argument and apply it to something else you simply say its a non-issue or has nothing to do with it. But what I am doing is proving to you that your argument fails at the fundamental level.

Citation needed.


You have yet to provide a single scrap of evidence for anything that I have brought up. Homosexual female relationships are the safest form of sexuality you can have and yet you still strive to say its wrong just cuz.

Now your jumping on personal attacks towards those you view as "left leaning" without any supporting evidence.

Sorry I am low on time. I will get back to this. I did however answer one of question above.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

This is for Tiberius, Monk of Reason, and SkepticalThinker.

Gay and bisexual men remain at the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic," says Jonathan Mermin, the director of the CDC's division of HIV/AIDS prevention.

The CDC notes that while homosexual men make up only a very small percentage of the male population (4%), MSM account for over three-quarters of all new HIV infections, and nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of all new infections in 2010 (29,800).
"Men who have sex with men remain the group most heavily affected by HIV in the United States," the fact sheet states.
US News reports that if HIV infections among men who have sex with men (MSM) continue to rise at the current rates, more than half of college-aged homosexual men will have HIV by the age of 50.
When broken down by age group, the CDC reported that new infections among the youngest MSM, aged 13-24, increased from 7,200 infections in 2008 to 8,800 in 2010, which translates into a 22 percent increase in that time span.
LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of ‘epidemic’ HIV rates

Notice a few things about the SECULAR CDC article.

1. It does not even include the word promiscuity. The entire article never mentions it.
2. The group label applied to the causal group is not "the promiscuous group" It is the "homosexual group".
3. Since promiscuity is present on both sides and the heterosexual side is a far larger group then why is heterosexual promiscuity not the title of the group producing the aids epidemic in the US?

I am against promiscuity as well but it is not the cause of a huge portion of the aids cases. It is homosexuality. However homosexuals are far more promiscuous anyway. It is a symptom of the same disease. Moral corruption. Of course since I must tie half of reality behind my back I can't make theological arguments and this is not a sin in general thread. It is on homosexuality and my data is on homosexuality not promiscuity.

When 4% cause 63% of anything what binds or is in common to that 4% is the cause even if promiscuity is also a contributor.

Since no-one else would look it up or even review the thread for the list after list of statistics I hope my providing them is the end of this. It's getting monotonous. And no, aids and homosexuality do not function in the opposite direction in Africa, Australian, or the ant-arctic, so that is no refuge either. And no, subgroups of the few percent of homosexuals that are monogamous for a meaningful amount of time or Lesbians or any other sub group with less risk is justifiable when no group has compensating gain to offset death, suffering, and cost. Rationalizations are not a defense.

I have already debunked this argument. Several times. All you do is fall back on the same statistic and ignore my argument. I gave up.

Secondly you have not provided anything stating that homosexuality innately provides a gateway to HIV/AIDS. You have simply provided a statistic that shows corrolation but not causality.

Thusly you have not provided a single shred of evidence for your claim that homosexual males that have safe sex with monogomus relationsihips are in any way innately harmful.

 

[ladybug77]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

You can. Love is not sinful. This OP is explainable if you look outside the box. If souls exist...we have no set in stone gender. Thats a reason some male bodies fell as if they are women...and vis-versa. If you belive our natural state of 'being' is not merely physical...then you have the answer. Your conscience, your personality...its a factor to consider. But love is never a sin...people just remain close-minded.

 

[1robin]

I have already debunked this argument. Several times. All you do is fall back on the same statistic and ignore my argument. I gave up.

Secondly you have not provided anything stating that homosexuality innately provides a gateway to HIV/AIDS. You have simply provided a statistic that shows corrolation but not causality.

Good grief man. The CDC linked homosexual sex with aids. I have no idea what your talking about. No has said anything about the cause of he aids virus. I think money blood was used in polio vaccines that contained HIV that the monkeys were immune to or something like that. Who cares? I and the CDC and everyone else not in denial mode has linked homosexual sex with the spreading of type of remorseless germs, physical damage, and the various lists I have provided. This is like arguing it is not walking off a building that causes death, it is gravities fault. It is not Bin Laden's fault the twin towers no longer exist it is the law of momentum that did it. The defenders of this issue use the worst rationalizations in human history.

Thusly you have not provided a single shred of evidence for your claim that homosexual males that have safe sex with monogomus relationsihips are in any way innately harmful.

That is because there is no such thing. I was not talking about left handed gays, gays over 6 foot, gays that live in the ant-arctic, or gays that had found a way to reduce the risks in some areas. I was talking about homosexual behavior as a whole. So your comment here has no application. It has no application what so ever, but even if it did, it is not true. There are no safe ways to have homosexual sex. Condoms do not make it safe, monogamy does not make it safe, only not doing it ,makes it safe. The average length of fidelity is 1 - 3 years anyway for homosexuals, and condoms have no effect on some risks and only partial effect on others. This is layer of wrong on top of another layer of wrong. It has never worked, it is not working, and this rationalization stuff will never work and is its self immoral. Your using every ineffective trick in the liberal arsenal to defend misery and death. Can anything get any more wrong? It is appalling.

 

[1robin]

You can. Love is not sinful. This OP is explainable if you look outside the box. If souls exist...we have no set in stone gender. Thats a reason some male bodies fell as if they are women...and vis-versa. If you belive our natural state of 'being' is not merely physical...then you have the answer. Your conscience, your personality...its a factor to consider. But love is never a sin...people just remain close-minded.

I am starting to get the picture than in the defense of homosexuality anything, and I mean ANYTHING will be claimed. Not only stuff that is not true, or simply wrong, even stuff that can't possibly be true is used. How do you any of what you claimed?

1. Love can be very very sinful. Ask anyone with a teenage daughter. We love violence, drugs, alcohol, and sex in all situations. Some even love suffering, causing harm, theft, and trouble. Every dug treatment facility will you that a person who gives up even what is killing them will mourn its loss. There is little in human history as destructive as inappropriately loving something or someone.

2. The soul has no ability to render gender meaningless. I do not even know where you contrived that from. I am not any less or more male with a soul than without one.

3. Gender is biological not soulish. We are what we are because of chromosomes. That is not even consistent. If souls mean we have no gender then how in the world do you suggest souls make us male even if we are biologically female.

4. Love is most sinful, as all things are that have a genuine purpose or role. Immorality usually involves the misuse of something that if use correctly is no t immoral. There is little in history that has led more people to suffer than loving the wrong things.

Where did you get any of this?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Good grief man. The CDC linked homosexual sex with aids.

It's humans who are to blame. If no one were human, there would be no AIDS problem at all.

Therefore it is immoral to be human.

(I doubt you'll have any idea what this message means, but many of the participants in this thread are experienced logicians. Some will appreciate it.)