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

[1robin]

Oh noes! We are turning gay! ALL OF US!

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

You said it. The final straw was banning any game that involves a ball or giving everyone a trophy. People like that did not stop Hitler. Tough Christians with moral fortitude did. Is ridiculousness not comprehended a defense of homosexuality?

 

[Mycroft]

For Goodness sakes, that is a Christian position not a secular one. We learn it in the first years of Bible study not in "God sucks" 101. It never ceases to amaze me that your side can attempt to contend with a hundred pages of data, logical deduction, un contestable (apparently) argumentation, and the foundations of almost all civil law with few sentences of rhetoric. People with aids die in the real world and rhetoric can't save them, in fact rhetoric is what is killing them (indirectly).

The case of 'Homosexuality is wrong because it spreads aids' is rapidly becoming old. We have contraception. And soon, AIDS will be a thing of the past. Your reasonings are watering down, friend.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The case of 'Homosexuality is wrong because it spreads aids' is rapidly becoming old. We have contraception. And soon, AIDS will be a thing of the past. Your reasonings are watering down, friend.

Anti-gays will find any old reason to hold onto their hatred and fear of gays.

But at least they can't use Jesus, since Jesus was a stout champion of the right to be homosexual.

He was almost certainly gay himself, of course.

 

[Mycroft]

Anti-gays will find any old reason to hold onto their hatred and fear of gays.

But at least they can't use Jesus, since Jesus was a stout champion of the right to be homosexual.

He was almost certainly gay himself, of course.

I don't see any evidence of homosexuality in Jesus. But I can see why you would. He did hang around with an awful lot of blokes, didn't he? But in this case what we're looking it's more due to the fact Jesus was invented by a culture who regarded women as little more than dogs. The only reason Mary ever appears in the bible is because there was no other way they could think of to write jesus into the story. But if men could give birth, it would have been the Virgin Monty not the Virgin Mary.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is probably why it has never been a prominent part of my argument, nature, or why it is such a prominent part of your sides argumentation. My post was satire. Have you reviewed the dozens and dozens that were not? Is ridiculousness not comprehended a defense of homosexuality?

What? I just notice that that is a common argument that your side brings up, so I chose to point something out.

Is this a thread on that subject. I will be consistent like I always am if so.

Just something else that you don't seem to realize since your side seems to be obsessed with male on male anal sex but has nothing to say about male on female anal sex. Nevermind that HIV/AIDS is most prevalent in Africa. If you really care about the HIV/AIDS cause, you would be focusing on that.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't see any evidence of homosexuality in Jesus. But I can see why you would. He did hang around with an awful lot of blokes, didn't he?

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.

Since we all know what self-love is, therefore Jesus was recommending sex with one's neighbors, male or female.

Ipso facto and that's the end of it. Jesus was gay.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.

Since we all know what self-love is, therefore Jesus was recommending sex with one's neighbors, male or female.

Ipso facto and that's the end of it. Jesus was gay.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You said it. The final straw was banning any game that involves a ball or giving everyone a trophy. People like that did not stop Hitler. Tough Christians with moral fortitude did. Is ridiculousness not comprehended a defense of homosexuality?

Christians stopped Hitler? What nonsense. More like the Red Army.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think that's why most Christians are losing their anti-gay bias. They are finally reconciling themselves to their Lord's own probable nature.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Christians stopped Hitler? What nonsense. More like the Red Army.

Hey, all the Russians did was push Hitler's army some 1,500 miles backwards, destroy his capital, and force him to suicide.

But the Russians weren't Christians, so they can't possibly have stopped Hitler. It had to be Christians that did it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think that's why most Christians are losing their anti-gay bias. They are finally reconciling themselves to their Lord's own probable nature.

Christians have long been a sexually mixed up lot, so it's no surprise that their suppressed urges came out in the artwork.

 

[Me Myself]

You said it. The final straw was banning any game that involves a ball or giving everyone a trophy. People like that did not stop Hitler. Tough Christians with moral fortitude did. Is ridiculousness not comprehended a defense of homosexuality?

Oh please, you do know that studies show homophobes are way more prone to have homosexual tendencies than non homophobes right?

You seriously believe everyone will cease toe attracted to the opposite sex if sex with the same sex becomes permisible?

I advice to stop consulting the mirror when trying to figure out how other people's psyche works.

 

[Mycroft]

Oh please, you do know that studies show homophobes are way more prone to have homosexual tendencies than non homophobes right?

You seriously believe everyone will cease toe attracted to the opposite sex if sex with the same sex becomes permisible?

I advice to stop consulting the mirror when trying to figure out how other people's psyche works.

Homophobia is simply the fear of being treated by other men the way men treat women.

 

[1robin]

Christians have long been a sexually mixed up lot, so it's no surprise that their suppressed urges came out in the artwork.

Christians have nothing to do with Olympus or sexual confusion. In fact they are the most successful group in untangling sexual confusion according to those who straightened out their confusion. I have all but given up on arguments to just my two primary claims but as you are new to my, let's see what you have.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering, death, and costs. See any of the dozens of posts containing CDC data that makes this incontestable in the extreme.
2. It contains no justifications that compensate for the cost.

This is not your fault but I have grown weary of the ineffective rationalizations that are used in place of arguments. All 3 of them, so I will only respond with redundancy unless a new argument no matter how bad is offered. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

Homophobia is simply the fear of being treated by other men the way men treat women.

How in the world do you make that much wrong fit into a single sentence?

1. I guess that every women on Earth was too idiotic than to know their husbands before they were married.
2. You have sexopobia.
3. That makes you hypocritical.
4. If men are wrong to fear behavior x, then so would your claim anything is wrong with it.

This is epic, even for a non-theist.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Christians have nothing to do with Olympus or sexual confusion.

Who said anything about Olympus?

Don't play games with me. I'm educated about Christianity's screwed up views of sexuality from the Church Fathers up to today.

In fact they are the most successful group in untangling sexual confusion according to those who straightened out their confusion.

You mean driving people back into the closet. I wonder which pastor will have a gay sex scandal next. That doesn't sound "straightened out" to me.

1. Homosexuality causes massive increases in human suffering, death, and costs. See any of the dozens of posts containing CDC data that makes this incontestable in the extreme.
2. It contains no justifications that compensate for the cost.

Your arguments are crap because homosexuality or gay sex isn't inherently unhealthy. If a person gets an STD, it's due to number of factors but not because they happen to be gay, straight or bi. It's due to the person's actions (that is, if they weren't born with it, their lover was lying or they got it from a bad transfusion). If you're going to use that flawed reasoning, then you must be ****** at the number of heteros with STDs or who are promiscuous. Straight people are sluts just like slutty gay men. You also should be promoting lesbianism because they have a low occurrence of STDs and promiscuity, at least if you go by the stereotype.

Really, this just comes down to homophobes such as yourself finding man on man sex to be "icky". You types rant on and on about gay sex, when you really mean anal sex between two males (as if that's the only way men have sex with each other). As if straight people don't have anal, and as if all gay or bisexual men have anal sex. You hardly ever, if ever, say a damn thing about lesbians.

Stop fixating on what gay men do in bed and grow up.

 

[1robin]

Oh please, you do know that studies show homophobes are way more prone to have homosexual tendencies than non homophobes right?

This is another appeal to false high ground in the defense of death on the basis of defining another person by ridiculous PC buzzwords.

You seriously believe everyone will cease toe attracted to the opposite sex if sex with the same sex becomes permisible?

Can you distinguish between a hypothetical and reality?

I advice to stop consulting the mirror when trying to figure out how other people's psyche works.

To claim to know what you have no access to is a lie. There is being incorrect and mistaken and claiming to know what you could not know even if it was true.

Is unknown sarcasm all that you have left?

 

[1robin]

Who said anything about Olympus?

Don't play games with me. I'm educated about Christianity's screwed up views of sexuality from the Church Fathers up to today.

I see no evidence of this.

You mean driving people back into the closet. I wonder which pastor will have a gay sex scandal next. That doesn't sound "straightened out" to me.

It is hypocritical to both use a behavior as a condemnation and defend it. Did you acquire any philosophy with the your extensive training on the Church fathers sexuality? Condemning pastors is the worst defense of homosexuality possible.

Your arguments are crap because homosexuality or gay sex isn't inherently unhealthy. If a person gets an STD, it's due to number of factors but not because they happen to be gay, straight or bi. It's due to the person's actions (that is, they weren't born with it or their lover was lying). If you're going to use that flawed reasoning, then you must be ****** at the number of heteros with STDs or who are promiscuous. Straight people are sluts just like slutty gay men. You also should be promoting lesbianism because they have a low occurrence of STDs and promiscuity, at least if you go by the stereotype.

Redundant. Every time I will use that word I have responded to these lame rationalizations over a half dozen times. Review the thread and you will see why I have grown weary of this but as an example I will demonstrate why I have given up on these crap arguments. I never said all homosexuality was destructive. Find any post where I even hinted at that. This ridiculous defense is like saying all theft is not bad so theft is ok, or because all babies with guns do not shoot anyone then its just fine. I can't believe how consistently the defense for homosexuality is inept. Heterosexuals have justifications that compensates for the risk. You literally ignored 50% of a two sentence argument. This has passed appalling long ago. So that is why I will respond with redundant if you repeat the same mistakes of others.

Really, this just comes down to homophobes such as yourself finding man on man sex to be "icky". You types rant on and on about gay sex, when you really mean anal sex between two males (as if that's the only way men have sex with each other). As if straight people don't have anal, and as if all gay or bisexual men have anal sex. You hardly ever, if ever, say a damn thing about lesbians.

Well it took a single post for the defender of homosexuality to use profanity in defense of their morality. As a Christian I forgive but others in here will report posts that violate the forum rules. This was of course redundant but contained a twist I wanted to address. Homophobia is a motivation and is also a genetic fallacy which you have no access to anyway. You could not know that, even if it was true, so this is a lie in defense of a lie and used profanity to defend morality. You literally can't make this garbage up unless you are irrational to begin with. Lesbians have less risk not no risk. Less wrong is still wrong. One of the first and most irrational things a child uses to justify X is claiming it is not as bad as Y. Whatever may be right or wrong with homosexuality is not in any way a defense of homosexuality even if it is wrong. Now please post any claim I ever made about ickyness or honor demands you apologize. I won't wait.

Stop fixating on what gay men do in bed and grow up.

If I must pay for what they do and millions must die for it what room it takes place in is the worst defense in a very long list of bad defenses.

Last chance to even make a bad but applicable argument. Absurdity does not merit discussion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Robin, *edit*. I have no respect for you and your pretentiousness. I view people like you the same as racists and sexists. You've spent weeks and weeks whining about how male homosexuality and its so-called risks. If you're going to be consistent and save face at all, then your only option is to promote celibacy for all people. You've painted yourself into a corner, *edit*. You can't use disease and other harm as a basis for your argument since heteros have the biggest issue with that, if you want to talk about numbers. Half of all marriages end in divorce. Millions of children in broken homes. Millions of single parent households. Domestic violence. Promiscuity. STDs. The biggest offenders in all of those areas are straight people. And you have the nerve to talk about gay men? *edit*!

If you actually want to help lower STD rates among gay men, you have to reduce sexual stigma. The STD rates are highest among black and Latino gay men. These are cultures where homosexuality is highly stigmatized and the "macho man" ideal is looked up to. So there has been less dialogue about queer sexuality among black and Latino men than there has been in white mainstream culture. This is a cultural issue and not a sexual orientation issue. Gay men are perfectly capable of having safe sex. There needs to be a higher amount of outreach and resources getting where they need to go. But people like you are so dunce that you don't understand the nuisances of the issue. You're only making it worse. You homophobes are only going to end up driving the issue deeper underground and increasing an atmosphere of self-hatred which often leads to people behaving in reckless ways due to depression and such. When you're depressed and hate yourself, you're more likely to partake in risky behaviors. You're hurting people. So no, I have no respect for you. You don't have any respect for people like me, so I guess we've even. Capisce?

 

[Tiberius]

My God, this is like the tenth level of Hell where the worst arguments in history are on a broken record that plays forever. I have dealt with this one claim in at least 20 places. I only have two points and you had to ignore one of them to say this yet again. Apparently you do not read every posts or even 20% of them.

No, I have not ignored them. In fact, if you carefully read my responses, you'll see that I and many others have shown that your arguments are flawed. The fact that we disagree with you does not mean we don't read your posts.

Heterosexuality has risks, Homosexuality has far more. However the difference is that heterosexuality has the continuation of the human race to justify the risks. Homosexuality does not.

More UNNECESSARILY LARGE TEXT.

I guess that if homosexual behaviour was really that bad, all the wild animals that practiced it would have gone extinct because they weren't breeding enough.

Oh wait, they haven't. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in lots of different animals.

Here's a list of mammals that display homosexual behaviour.

Here's a list of birds that display homosexual behaviour.

It's also been observed in fish and even insects.

I never said it did not lessen them and answered this same point at least 15 times. Until you find a post where I denied it I am not doing so again. I thought you said you read posts.

And perhaps you missed the post where I asked you if you'd still be against homosexuality if it didn't spread disease or cause suffering or cost. I'd like to see if you would still be against it, and if so, what argument you would have against homosexual behaviour now that disease, suffering and cost are out of the picture.

Do you have any training in statistics. A group composed of all male on male homosexuals included all sub groups of male on male homosexuals. However it would not matter anyway. You may and do cherry pick any sub-group you wish, even ones that have less than 1% of homosexuals in it and my two primary points stand.

I understand statistics, but I doubt you do.

Because it has no effect. Find any cherry picked sub group you wish. I don't care. The only group my two claims do not condemn is an abstinent homosexual subgroup.

Then you are in violation of the agreement you proposed. Because you refuse to conform to the very guidelines you suggested, I declare you to have lost this debate.

And once again I will make you the same offer I make to every new poster after posting the data several times over. I will post it and sources yet again if you make it worth my while by promising to apologize and concede the point when I do. If you had the slightest confidence in what you claimed you should have no fear in promising to do so. That or you could do the most minimal of reviews.

Once again you do not understand statistics. The statistics you presented include ALL gay people. I am asking for statistics which include only PROMISCUOUS gay people.

If you see that gay people in monogomous relationships and few partners have much less incidence of HIV and that promiscuous gay people with many partners have high incidence of HIV, what would you conclude? Most rational people would conclude that it is the sleeping around with many people that spreads the disease, not the fact that they are gay.

I have not seen an agreement top you side of the bargain yet.

When you post a source that actually supports your position, I will. All you've done is present a source and then tell us that the source makes a claim that it isn't actually making.

This is not a statistical claim. It causes millions of deaths by spreading aids alone. It does not create a life, and if fact can't. One death is too many if there are no compensating gains. This one requires no statistics. Here are a few anyway.

Yes it IS a statistical claim. The instant you claim it produces a number of things it is a statistic because you are dealing with a particular number of deaths. Provide a source to support your claim that it causes MILLIONS of deaths and I will apologize. If you will not provide a source, I will declare that you have lost the debate - AGAIN.

Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).
Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).
(27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
Now is the bulk acceptable suffering and cost for what has no justifying gain even possible?

Did I ever say that gay sex is less prone to spreading disease? My point is that this is an EASILY CONTROLLED RISK. Therefore, claiming it is wrong is an overreaction.

See the above and here are a few more.

• The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

• The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

• Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.

Care to provide an actual link?

I did not. In fact provide any statement where I claimed that.

Click on the bit that says SOURCE in what you quoted and you'll see the post. You are arguing in that post that it is homosexuality that is the primary cause of the spread of disease, not promiscuity.

The 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census surveyed the lifestyles of 7,862 homosexuals. Of those involved in a "current relationship," only 15 percent describe their current relationship as having lasted twelve years or longer, with five percent lasting more than twenty years.[4] While this "snapshot in time" is not an absolute predictor of the length of homosexual relationships, it does indicate that few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census​

Probably because they aren't allowed to get married.

Also, I ask you once again to provide an ACTUAL LINK TO YOUR SOURCES.

In The Sexual Organization of the City, University of Chicago sociologist Edward Laumann argues that "typical gay city inhabitants spend most of their adult lives in 'transactional' relationships, or short-term commitments of less than six months."[5]

A small subset of gay people. Also this may be in part due to the social stigma that people still apply to gay people.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the "duration of steady partnerships" was 1.5 years.[6]
In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[7]

Again, please provide a link.

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]

Woah, hang on. I thought you just said that they rarely lasted two years. Now you are saying they average about two to three years? Your sources are in conflict!

4. "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!.

Yeah, do you actually CHECK your sources? Or do you routinely find that internet billboards are a good place to get information about gay relationships?

5. Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.

Again, this is a subset of gay people, not all.

6. Maria Xiridou, et al, "The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

And what did this source tell you?

7. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

Again, what did this source tell you?

Cont...