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

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Except the evidence states that there is evolutionary advantages to it on a large scale. If you can simply repeate the false mantra that being gay causes HIV then I can use my legitimatly backed sources for the scientific advantages of homosexuality.


Homosexuality is not a choice. It has drawbacks on the personal level as far as evolution is concerned. The only one is the difficult to reproduce. One would have to have sexual relations with someone that one normally wouldn't be attracted to. However now we know how to deal with that. Many homosexuals adopt or pursue other options. Many don't have children at all and are happy.

So by broad definitions of birth defect yes homosexuality is one. It doesn't seem to be genetic as children of homosexuals don't have any higher chance of being homosexual than that of strait parents. Though none the less they are born with it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Except no evidence ....ever has suggested otherwise while nearly 100% (If not unanimous) accounts of homosexuals report being homosexual from birth AND every bit of biological evidence also points to it being innate.

There is no "theory" that stands up against it. There is only incorrect opinions on something based in bigotry or ignorance (often both) and those that know what their talking about.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course I copied and pasted the source, exactly what did you think I or anyone else would do? Almost all source material is given in textual form with no link. I would guess 95% plus are. That is how it has been done for over a thousand years. If you give me the data that had a dead link I will provide another source for it if I can't verify it. The list of sources is inexhaustible for this data. You can easily find it your self on the net or even in this thread. I am starting to suspect you are using a delaying tactic here. This stuff is not a mystery.

If you can't find the link in that post I quoted, mentio0ning where you had the dead link, I don't think I can help you. I also point out that NONE of that section of your post had any links.

Yes but you apparently can't comprehend mine. You kept listing information you thought I was making up or something as silly without agreeing to my conditions for providing it. At the very end of that list you finally did agree and so I indicated I had then to go back and supply the data because the condition was agreed to at the end of the list. Which I did and surprise surprise weird contentions about whether I copied and pasted were brought up but he agreement not adhered to.

I comprehend yours just fine. Don't think I lack comprehension just because I disagree with you.

Sources almost always are footnoted at the bottom of research. This is not utube or Wikipedia this is scholarship. The source names and works WERE provided. Just going by what you said only one source was untraceable and I will bet I can do it anyway. I provided sources as promised even if they took a few seconds to access. What do you think? Did I invent authors and books to justify made up data? I am far too lazy for that, and have no need.

But you do render them uncheckable, unless I go to the trouble of tracking down the particular book you are referencing - sorry, I mean to say the particular book your cut-n-paste is referencing. If your source is valid, surely there will be an online source to back it up?

I did and you did not do your homework.

I'm sorry, did you provide the sources at any point during our discussion? Like I said, I'm not going to go through 1800+ posts looking for something.

That is exactly correct. I can hate and condemn murder whether I can solve it or not. Moral quality and solutions are two independent issues and you know this which makes that claim sensationalistic grandstanding not serious contention. .

I would think that someone who hates and condemns murder would at least say, "Hey, maybe we should ban it." You don't seem to be willing to do this regarding homosexuality.

Because actual genes have nothing to do with a genetic fallacy.

This is a poptart fallacy. Because poptarts have nothing to do with fallacies. The phrase <<random word>> fallacy means nothing. Can you explain to me the difference between a genetic fallacy and a regular fallacy?

On that basis if any topic is discussed and found inconvenient for the one erroneously defending it then all topics must be. That is like saying English lit must be explained in a physics forum.

Well, considering that you are looking at a very distorted view of reality, I think you should. What you are doing is like a person who studies physics and insists on applying it to the Star Trek universe.

I demanded perfection from nothing. It would be futile discussing anything with your side. If you do not stop mangling what I did say into a unrecognizable form that even then can't be contended I can't justify discussing this. If you want to argue with what you invent, I am unnecessary for that.

Then would you be happy with a method of protection that reduces the risk from gay sex to the risk comparible to the risk of things like drinking and smoking?

I had dealt with that in the 20 times I had posted my two sentence primary claim and I can't get a single one of you defenders of death to deal with more than 50% of a two sentence argument. Heterosexuality has justification, homosexuality does not even if both have risks. I never claimed promiscuity was right for either sexuality. The CDC does not tie a disease to a group unless that disease is spread by the specific habits of that group. Tell them they are wrong. It is they who did not even use the word promiscuity in the article I provided that linked Homosexuality (not promiscuity) with aids. So your claim here is not true, would be irrelevant even if true, and contradicts the greatest experts on disease in human history and an army of statisticians.

The only way you can claim that homosexuality has no justification is if the only justification for sex is producing children. Is this what you think, or are there other justifications for sex?

NO YOU HAVE NOT and no one else has either. My two primary claims are not effected by pointing at something worse, condemning something else, picking subgroups that have less risk, disagreeing with CDC data, claims that aids in Africa acts contradictory to aids in the US, or even complaints about what for sources are given in.

Yes we have. You are just too biased to see it. You keep pulling out justifications.

When my very first two arguments are even dented or have near misses I will require others until then they are standing as tall and unassailable as ever.

Ditto.

I did not say I have six arguments, I said in several thousand posts your side at best has six ineffective arguments. I have two that have not even been directly challenged. Assertions devoid of evidence are certainly never going to cut it. Utilize the sources (and give me the link that did not work), make arguments that apply to both my primary claims at once, make arguments that apply to either, provide evidence with assertions, or punt because I am bored to tears.

Okay, I'll grant that I misunderstood the six arguments thing. But your claim that no evidence has been provided is false. I've produced sources for my claims. I'm still waiting for you to produce a source for your claims that gay sex causes millions of deaths. You are breaking the terms of our agreement.

 

[Tiberius]

I made no claim about love. Love whoever you want. Just do so in a way that does not kill others, does not spread suffering like the plague, and do not ask me to pay for the misuse of organs that are intended for one purpose for another. Not that Love is an excuse as addicts love drugs, men love power, and mankind loves violence. Almost all immorality lies in the missuses of what has a legitimate use. Quit inventing arguments I never made unless you want to debate yourself and you would still loose.

I never denied love.
I never said homosexuality is worse than heterosexuality, I said it was immoral, and the defense of death for the sake of lust is moral insanity.
Not to mention that selfish love that risks the death of others without justification is not love to begin with.

Actually, did you know that in 1999, more people contracted HIV through STRAIGHT sex then through gay sex? And as per our agreement, here's my source: BBC NEWS | Health | Straight sex HIV cases rise

 

[Tiberius]

So by broad definitions of birth defect yes homosexuality is one. It doesn't seem to be genetic as children of homosexuals don't have any higher chance of being homosexual than that of strait parents. Though none the less they are born with it.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A condition can be genetic without genes for it being passed from the parents. Downs syndrome is an example.

 

[1robin]

Actually, did you know that in 1999, more people contracted HIV through STRAIGHT sex then through gay sex? And as per our agreement, here's my source: BBC NEWS | Health | Straight sex HIV cases rise

This is why I have the impression you do not comprehend the argument.

1. What happened in 1999 does not disprove what is true in general.
2. The CDC claims that the 4% of the US population produced 60% of aids cases. I find it very hard to believe that this extraordinarily lopsided dynamic reversed it's self in 1999.
3. Even if true that was only in England and only one year. That is cherry picking on steroids.
4. It was only a difference of about 80 cases anyway.
5.. The main problem is that you seem not to understand that even if heterosexuals produced twice as many aids cases it would not effect my argument. I said homosexuality does not have any justification for the deaths, suffering, and costs it produces even if it was less in one year in one country. Heterosexuality does have justification for it's cost. Your argument is irrelevant even if true. That is why I say you do not understand my position.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... homosexuality does not have any justification for the deaths, suffering, and costs it produces even if it was less in one year in one country.

 

[1robin]

If you can't find the link in that post I quoted, mentio0ning where you had the dead link, I don't think I can help you. I also point out that NONE of that section of your post had any links.

I do not have time to backtrack at this point. Forget that link and use all the other ones I gave if you wish. .

I comprehend yours just fine. Don't think I lack comprehension just because I disagree with you.

I am not saying your are not intelligent. There are many reasons to think you do not get my two primary claims based on what you respond with.

But you do render them uncheckable, unless I go to the trouble of tracking down the particular book you are referencing - sorry, I mean to say the particular book your cut-n-paste is referencing. If your source is valid, surely there will be an online source to back it up?

I have limited time to track down sources. I provided the sources in the form hey most commonly are provided. I really can't assume any greater burden than I have. Do you actually think my claims to data of statistics were wrong?

I'm sorry, did you provide the sources at any point during our discussion? Like I said, I'm not going to go through 1800+ posts looking for something.

I am really lost by your claims I did not provide sources you asked for. Here was that post.

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online CensusIn 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 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]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
4. "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases, glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!.
5. Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.
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.
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.
8. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

I would think that someone who hates and condemns murder would at least say, "Hey, maybe we should ban it." You don't seem to be willing to do this regarding homosexuality.

I can provide what I personally would suggest the solution is, but in what way would that be meaningful. It would not settle anything, prove anything, or make anything wrong or right. Why in the world is this important to you, it is independent of my claims about the morality of homosexuality.

This is a poptart fallacy. Because poptarts have nothing to do with fallacies. The phrase <<random word>> fallacy means nothing. Can you explain to me the difference between a genetic fallacy and a regular fallacy?

I have no idea what a regular fallacy is. Every fallacy is unique and has inherent dynamics. There is no norm concerning apostles.

Well, considering that you are looking at a very distorted view of reality, I think you should. What you are doing is like a person who studies physics and insists on applying it to the Star Trek universe.

I did not understand this.

Then would you be happy with a method of protection that reduces the risk from gay sex to the risk comparible to the risk of things like drinking and smoking?

Of course I would prefer any lessening of risk. However that has nothing to do with my argument. Until risk = 0 my argument stands.

The only way you can claim that homosexuality has no justification is if the only justification for sex is producing children. Is this what you think, or are there other justifications for sex?

There are other justifications for sex. With God they do not apply to homosexuals, but since I am making secular claims, the problem is the justifications that do not produce life cannot compensate for a loss of life. To even have a chance at defending homosexuality it must have SUFFECIENT justification for the cost. Fun, it feels good, or I like is not compensation for death.

Yes we have. You are just too biased to see it. You keep pulling out justifications.

No you have not. I have no idea what claim you erroneously think has any effect on my primary claims.

Ditto.

My statement can't apply to your argument. That makes no sense.

Okay, I'll grant that I misunderstood the six arguments thing. But your claim that no evidence has been provided is false. I've produced sources for my claims. I'm still waiting for you to produce a source for your claims that gay sex causes millions of deaths. You are breaking the terms of our agreement.

I did not say evidence was not provided. I said even if perfectly true they have no effect on my primary clams. They are simply impotent. I just can't keep supplying sources over and over and over again for every new poster. I will do so one last time.
LifeSiteNews Mobile | CDC warns gay men of &#8216;epidemic&#8217; HIV rates

I do not remember claiming millions die of homosexual problems. I am sure it is true but the number does not matter. If homosexuality only produces 100 deaths a year that is 100 more than it has justification for.

I appreciate your candidly admitting a misunderstanding of my statements about the 6 arguments. Civility and humility is far too rare.

 

[1robin]

An emoticon as a response just about sums up the quality of argumentation defending homosexuality. Why do you not treat a problem that causes massive increases and suffering with the seriousness it deserves? There is far too much triviality and futility used to justify whatever a morally corrupt person wishes to do.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course I copied and pasted the source, exactly what did you think I or anyone else would do? Almost all source material is given in textual form with no link. I would guess 95% plus are. That is how it has been done for over a thousand years. If you give me the data that had a dead link I will provide another source for it if I can't verify it. The list of sources is inexhaustible for this data. You can easily find it your self on the net or even in this thread. I am starting to suspect you are using a delaying tactic here. This stuff is not a mystery.

The internet hasn't been around for a thousand years. On the internet, people typically link the source they're referencing so the person on the other end of the conversation can easily find and read it. Not to mention the fact that your references are often incomplete and therefore almost impossible to find. And when you reference a secondary source who is referencing a primary source, it's an indication to me that you've never read the primary source and are taking the word of the secondary source that their quote is accurate. I personally don't like doing that because in a lot of cases, the secondary source is misquoting the primary source.

Furthermore, should the references not be to scientific studies rather than to just random people on the internet spouting off on things they don't know anything about, as in the case where you cited the white supremacist as some sort of authority on the gay lifestyle? What does he know about it, outside of his bigoted opinions on the subject?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Sources almost always are footnoted at the bottom of research. This is not utube or Wikipedia this is scholarship. The source names and works WERE provided. Just going by what you said only one source was untraceable and I will bet I can do it anyway. I provided sources as promised even if they took a few seconds to access. What do you think? Did I invent authors and books to justify made up data? I am far too lazy for that, and have no need.

Actually, Wikipedia's sources are footnoted at the bottom of the page.

Most of your sources are untraceable - I know this from spending a lot of time trying to track them down, to no avail. If someone were grading your academic paper and you provided what you did as a reference:
Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA., you'd lose marks for improper citation. What year was the thing published? What page is your quotation from? How is anybody supposed to find it? (By the way, scientific papers don't generally use footnote as sources are supposed to be paraphrased within the actual article. They generally just provide a list of references at the end of the article.)

Just sayin ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is why I have the impression you do not comprehend the argument.

1. What happened in 1999 does not disprove what is true in general.
2. The CDC claims that the 4% of the US population produced 60% of aids cases. I find it very hard to believe that this extraordinarily lopsided dynamic reversed it's self in 1999.
3. Even if true that was only in England and only one year. That is cherry picking on steroids.
4. It was only a difference of about 80 cases anyway.
5.. The main problem is that you seem not to understand that even if heterosexuals produced twice as many aids cases it would not effect my argument. I said homosexuality does not have any justification for the deaths, suffering, and costs it produces even if it was less in one year in one country. Heterosexuality does have justification for it's cost. Your argument is irrelevant even if true. That is why I say you do not understand my position.

You mean like the cherry picking you get caught up in when you think the only people spreading HIV/AIDS live in the US and won't even bother looking at the situation globally, where if you did, you'd find that the vast majority of people spreading the disease are heterosexuals? Like that?

Maybe that's one of the reasons why people can't understand your position.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Source: 2003-2004 Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online CensusIn 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 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]
In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[8]
4. "Largest Gay Study Examines 2004 Relationships," GayWire Latest Breaking Releases,glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!.
5. Adrian Brune, "City Gays Skip Long-term Relationships: Study Says," Washington Blade (February 27, 04): 12.
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.
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.
8. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).


.

See how that "source" says "glcensus.org - gl census Resources and Information. This website is for sale!?" That means there is nothing there to look at.

You would know this if you tried clicking on the link you provided, just once. Why should the rest of us have to scramble around trying to find your source material when you are admittedly too lazy yourself to even verify them?

 

[McBell]

Maybe that's one of the reasons why people can't understand your position.

I understand his position.
I also understand his position does not hold up to honest inspection.
Thus the reason I dismiss his position as nothing more than the wishful thinking it is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand his position.
I also understand his position does not hold up to honest inspection.
Thus the reason I dismiss his position as nothing more than the wishful thinking it is.

Well, of course there's that too. :yes:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

An emoticon as a response just about sums up the quality of argumentation defending homosexuality. Why do you not treat a problem that causes massive increases and suffering with the seriousness it deserves? There is far too much triviality and futility used to justify whatever a morally corrupt person wishes to do.

Your position is so silly (not to mention morally repugnant- which, given your illusory sense of moral superiority, is an irony of epic proportions) and your arguments so bad, little more is required. Offering a serious argument would be like trying to reason with a child- you're not offering cogent or serious arguments, so you hardly deserve cogent or serious rebuttals. The fact that some posters have ventured to try to reason with you like an adult nevertheless is a gigantic act of charity on their part.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually, this isn't quite true. A condition can be genetic without genes for it being passed from the parents. Downs syndrome is an example.

True. I meant "passed on genetically". I fumbled with my words. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[1robin]

The internet hasn't been around for a thousand years. On the internet, people typically link the source they're referencing so the person on the other end of the conversation can easily find and read it. Not to mention the fact that your references are often incomplete and therefore almost impossible to find. And when you reference a secondary source who is referencing a primary source, it's an indication to me that you've never read the primary source and are taking the word of the secondary source that their quote is accurate. I personally don't like doing that because in a lot of cases, the secondary source is misquoting the primary source.

Much of histories greatest research is not available by links. It exists in written form. I provided references in exactly the same form used for a thousand years. I can sympathize if it is to much trouble to look up (without a link) something I referenced but that does not mean the source is invalid. Why in the world are we discussing the philosophy of foot noting instead of homosexuality?

Furthermore, should the references not be to scientific studies rather than to just random people on the internet spouting off on things they don't know anything about, as in the case where you cited the white supremacist as some sort of authority on the gay lifestyle? What does he know about it, outside of his bigoted opinions on the subject?

Some times I am very pressed for time and constantly have to provide links means I can not vet them all. All you have to do is tell me what link was substandard and I wilt find a better reference for the data I claimed. Most of my sources in this thread have been the CDC and papers that derived their data from good respected authorities on a very few are weaker than desired and i have offered to provide better sources if required.

 

[1robin]

Actually, Wikipedia's sources are footnoted at the bottom of the page.

Most of your sources are untraceable - I know this from spending a lot of time trying to track them down, to no avail. If someone were grading your academic paper and you provided what you did as a reference:
Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA., you'd lose marks for improper citation. What year was the thing published? What page is your quotation from? How is anybody supposed to find it? (By the way, scientific papers don't generally use footnote as sources are supposed to be paraphrased within the actual article. They generally just provide a list of references at the end of the article.)

Just sayin ...

The only data I needed is one post I have provided many times from the CDC that indicates 4% of people who are homosexual create 60% of aids cases in the US. My two primary contentions have no need of additional data. I have tried to provide other data as a courtesy but as it was secondary and unnecessary to back up my main contentions I did so in a hurry. Supply the data claims hat have weak sources one at a time and i will provide better sources or better data, but that is an auxiliary effort and does not effect my primary contentions.

 

[1robin]

You mean like the cherry picking you get caught up in when you think the only people spreading HIV/AIDS live in the US and won't even bother looking at the situation globally, where if you did, you'd find that the vast majority of people spreading the disease are heterosexuals? Like that?

Maybe that's one of the reasons why people can't understand your position.

I have never claimed, thought or hinted that the only people spreading aids are from the US. That is an incoherent statement anyway and I do not understand it. My contention in that context is that 4% of us that are gay produce 60% of the aids cases in the US. The disparity of numbers on average would be similar world wide as diseases and an action's consequences are not significantly different depending on geography. I have provided data that illustrates the numbers are similar in several large nations. It is completely false that the majority of aids cases are caused by heterosexuality, I have proven that to be so several times. That is why the only data that could slightly effect my claims was for a single year, in a single and very small nation, and only had a difference in numbers of about 2%. On average homosexuals cause drastically more aids and other cases worldwide.

However just because it is interesting how many times you guys will make the same simple mistake with my two sentence core argument, lets pretend heterosexuals did cause more aids cases. For the 150th time in a single thread:

1. Homosexual practices would still be more destructive per person because there are far more heterosexuals in existence. But this does not matter.
2. What does matter and is apparently incomprehensible to many people here is that heterosexuality has justification for it's risks, homosexuality does not.

I only have two core arguments. Why in the world can no one include both in their argumentation?