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

[SkepticThinker]

I am pressed for time so I will agree with you to save it, but add additional research.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf
You do not cause 60% of aids cases and have an equal life span even if the other several dozen health problems were non-existent any more that Obama spending money as fast as China can print it has any other outcome than bankruptcy. The math does not work.

Life Span
References
[1]R. S. Hogg, S. A. Strathdee, et al., “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997). Death as the result of HIV infection has dropped significantly since 1996. CDC News Release, October 10, 2001[2]Press Release, Smoking costs nation $150 billion each year in health costs, lost productivity, CDC, Office of Communication, April 12, 2002, www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/ pressrel/r020412.htm.



http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2005/jun/05060606
One such study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.). It almost exactly mirrors the findings of Cameron’s research.
New Study Shows Homosexuals Live 20 Fewer Years

Get rid of the CDC and Oxford and I will find others.

How about addressing the ones I responded to, rather than just throwing more at me? (And if you want to throw more at more, please make sure they're properly cited and scientific in origin. TIA)

And as I already mentioned, Cameron's work has been discredited.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wow. Seriously? 1robin referenced a white supremacist to prove his position on homosexuality?

And I would guess that the good Dr. Fields is a Christian?

Well, he used to be a member of the Christian Anti-Jewish Party.
He ran some organization whose goal was to create a white, Christian America free of immigrants, feminists, gays, Jews and a bunch of other people he hates.
In 1996 he used to broadcast a program on World Wide Christian Radio.
And he founded and currently heads the America First Party.

So, yeah.

Obviously the Holocaust was faked. Come on!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Robin, you're a joke. 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, you fool. 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? You hypocrite!

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?

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[Ken Brown]

What's wrong with love between two consenting adults?

Hi SkepticThinker, IF Elohim was a homosexual, and desired to have relations with HaSatan, then you and me and everyone else that exists, wouldn't. KB

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hi SkepticThinker, IF Elohim was a homosexual, and desired to have relations with HaSatan, then you and me and everyone else that exists, wouldn't. KB

It still doesn't make any sense, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Your simply falling back again again into ad homin attacks and strawmanning.

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.

So there is no such thing as monogumus gays who have protected safe sex? You need to support that. and if for example gays who were over 6ft tall were far more highly infected with HIV in proportion to the rest of the population then we would require investigation and study to find out why.

You still do nothing but fall back on a miselading statistic and claim it is perfect causality when it is mere corolation that has been explained several times and your bias won't let you accept the answer because in your mind gays have to be wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests

Huh...turns out homosexuality is actaully an evolutionary advantage on the large scale level. So...do you want to eat your words raw or do you prefer them cooked?

 

[Ken Brown]

The Evolutionary Mystery of Homosexuality - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Male Homosexuality Study: Gay Men Have Evolutionary Benefit For Their Families, New Research Suggests

Huh...turns out homosexuality is actaully an evolutionary advantage on the large scale level. So...do you want to eat your words raw or do you prefer them cooked?

Hi Monk Of Reason, interesting articles. The first article compares benefits of homosexuality with the benefits of the birth defect of Sickle cell disease, in that homosexuals help with the rearing of their nieces and nephews and the children with Sickle cell disease have a protection against malaria. This made me start to theorize that maybe homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, like Sickle cell disease.

Then in the second article, their reasoning to explain how homosexuals do not become extinct, is rather silly (women who produce homosexual boys, have more children because they also attract men better- and the first article referenced this study). And IF it is true, I would think a vast majority of men would be looking for "less attractive" women to birth their straight children. That being said, the articles are full of "suggestions," "theories," "possibilities," etc., to explain their hypothesis on why nature does not render homosexuality extinct.

I would suggest a more reasonable, alternate theory that would explain why homosexuality is not automatically rendered extinct by nature. Isn't it possible that homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, something that is not normal by nature, but caused by genetic malfunction or other influencing factors? Here are two articles that discuss the causes of birth defects, and maybe, or quite possibly, one of these factors causes homosexuality to be a birth defect, which then suggests, the only way to rid us of these types of birth defects, is to educate. You see, education is what might render homosexuality extinct.

Sickle Cell Disease

BIRTH DEFECTS

KB

 

[McBell]

Hi Monk Of Reason, interesting articles. The first article compares benefits of homosexuality with the benefits of the birth defect of Sickle cell disease, in that homosexuals help with the rearing of their nieces and nephews and the children with Sickle cell disease have a protection against malaria. This made me start to theorize that maybe homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, like Sickle cell disease.

Then in the second article, their reasoning to explain how homosexuals do not become extinct, is rather silly (women who produce homosexual boys, have more children because they also attract men better- and the first article referenced this study). And IF it is true, I would think a vast majority of men would be looking for "less attractive" women to birth their straight children. That being said, the articles are full of "suggestions," "theories," "possibilities," etc., to explain their hypothesis on why nature does not render homosexuality extinct.

I would suggest a more reasonable, alternate theory that would explain why homosexuality is not automatically rendered extinct by nature. Isn't it possible that homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, something that is not normal by nature, but caused by genetic malfunction or other influencing factors? Here are two articles that discuss the causes of birth defects, and maybe, or quite possibly, one of these factors causes homosexuality to be a birth defect, which then suggests, the only way to rid us of these types of birth defects, is to educate. You see, education is what might render homosexuality extinct.

Sickle Cell Disease

BIRTH DEFECTS

KB

A rather interesting argument that homosexuality is not a choice...

 

[Ken Brown]

A rather interesting argument that homosexuality is not a choice...

Hi Mestemia, yes, it is interesting, but we are only speaking of theories here, and the theory of homosexuality being a choice or not, is only a theory. Sometimes you have to argue on both sides of a theory. And I would be more than willing to accept homosexuality being classified as a "birth defect," instead of a normal, healthy lifestyle. KB

 

[averageJOE]

Hi Monk Of Reason, interesting articles. The first article compares benefits of homosexuality with the benefits of the birth defect of Sickle cell disease, in that homosexuals help with the rearing of their nieces and nephews and the children with Sickle cell disease have a protection against malaria. This made me start to theorize that maybe homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, like Sickle cell disease.

Then in the second article, their reasoning to explain how homosexuals do not become extinct, is rather silly (women who produce homosexual boys, have more children because they also attract men better- and the first article referenced this study). And IF it is true, I would think a vast majority of men would be looking for "less attractive" women to birth their straight children. That being said, the articles are full of "suggestions," "theories," "possibilities," etc., to explain their hypothesis on why nature does not render homosexuality extinct.

I would suggest a more reasonable, alternate theory that would explain why homosexuality is not automatically rendered extinct by nature. Isn't it possible that homosexuality is a BIRTH DEFECT, something that is not normal by nature, but caused by genetic malfunction or other influencing factors? Here are two articles that discuss the causes of birth defects, and maybe, or quite possibly, one of these factors causes homosexuality to be a birth defect, which then suggests, the only way to rid us of these types of birth defects, is to educate. You see, education is what might render homosexuality extinct.

Sickle Cell Disease

BIRTH DEFECTS

KB

So you are presenting a theory (a bit on the offensive side) on how homosexuality is something a person is born with, not a choice.

 

[Ken Brown]

So you are presenting a theory (a bit on the offensive side) on how homosexuality is something a person is born with, not a choice.

Hi average JOE, it's not really a presentation of a theory, it's more or less giving an explanation to the theory that homosexuality is something a person is born with, and not a choice. IF, in actuality, homosexuals are born that way, then I would be compelled to classify it as a "birth defect," and not a natural, healthy lifestyle. KB

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi average JOE, it's not really a presentation of a theory, it's more or less giving an explanation to the theory that homosexuality is something a person is born with, and not a choice. IF, in actuality, homosexuals are born that way, then I would be compelled to classify it as a "birth defect," and not a natural, healthy lifestyle. KB

How can someone be born with a lifestyle? Can you describe the homosexual lifestyle which the birth defect of homosexuality causes a person to experience?

Would you refer to people born with sickle-cell anemia as living a sickle-cell lifestyle?

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia, yes, it is interesting, but we are only speaking of theories here, and the theory of homosexuality being a choice or not, is only a theory. Sometimes you have to argue on both sides of a theory. And I would be more than willing to accept homosexuality being classified as a "birth defect," instead of a normal, healthy lifestyle. KB

What makes homosexuality less healthy than heterosexuality?

 

[Ken Brown]

How can someone be born with a lifestyle? Can you describe the homosexual lifestyle which the birth defect of homosexuality causes a person to experience?

Would you refer to people born with sickle-cell anemia as living a sickle-cell lifestyle?

Hi AmbiguousGuy, it is only a theory that homosexuals are born that way, but if they are, I would classify it as a "birth defect," which develops into an unnatural, and unhealthy lifestyle, just as Sickle cell is a birth defect that develops into varying symptoms that affect the life of those who acquire it. Look, Monk Of Reason presented links which supposedly show that homosexuality is genetic, and so is Sickle cell, and they both have adverse affects upon the lives of those who are afflicted by the mutated genes. Whether you want to call it a "lifestyle," or just how their lives are affected, IF, they both are caused by mutating genes, then both should be classified as a birth defect. KB

 

[Ken Brown]

What makes homosexuality less healthy than heterosexuality?

Hi Mestemia, you will have to ask the Red Cross and the CDC to explain that to you. I have already tried to no avail. KB

 

[Mycroft]

Hi Mestemia, you will have to ask the Red Cross and the CDC to explain that to you. I have already tried to no avail. KB

You tried and failed. Sadly all of the points you mentioned are on shaky ground because of modern medicine is gradually eradicating those concerns. Moreover, the CDC and Red Cross are not agencies that support your claim that homosexuality is wrong or unhealthy. They just get on with the task of making it healthy instead.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi AmbiguousGuy, it is only a theory that homosexuals are born that way, but if they are, I would classify it as a "birth defect," which develops into an unnatural, and unhealthy lifestyle, just as Sickle cell is a birth defect that develops into varying symptoms that affect the life of those who acquire it. Look, Monk Of Reason presented links which supposedly show that homosexuality is genetic, and so is Sickle cell, and they both have adverse affects upon the lives of those who are afflicted by the mutated genes. Whether you want to call it a "lifestyle," or just how their lives are affected, IF, they both are caused by mutating genes, then both should be classified as a birth defect. KB

So far as I can remember, sickle cell was once a positive condition. It was a mutation which protected native Africans from malaria and began to spread through the population because it was beneficial. Only now -- when natural malaria protection is no longer needed -- do the negative effects of sickle-cell outweigh the positive.

That's just my rough memory of it.

Anyway, can you say why you believe that homosexuals suffer from their 'birth defect'? So far as I know, they aren't subject to any more diseases than heterosexuals. What are the adverse effects on the lives of homosexuals?

 

[McBell]

Hi Mestemia, you will have to ask the Red Cross and the CDC to explain that to you. I have already tried to no avail. KB

Since neither of those organizations (to my knowledge at least) made the claim, it is still on you to support said claim.

And no, I am not going to do your homework for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hi SkepticThinker, IF Elohim was a homosexual, and desired to have relations with HaSatan, then you and me and everyone else that exists, wouldn't. KB

Good thing they're not real then, eh?