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

[1robin]

Then why does my claim about Jesus stand, without anyone being able to counter it?

No one has dented my claim that Jesus supports homosexuality.

It does not stand on its own, with help, or at all. There needs be no critic to defeat what was never true to begin with.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It does not stand on its own, with help, or at all. There needs be no critic to defeat what was never true to begin with.

If anyone could counter my claim that Jesus loves homosexuality, they would attempt to do so. But no one is even trying to argue against it.

So Jesus loves homosexuality. No one can dent that shining truth.

 

[Me Myself]

Bringing more humans into this world would be morally condemnable today by robin1 standards, because it brings way more problems than wellbeing.

We have too many humans today. Reproduction is not a benefit in today's world.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Bringing more humans into this world would be morally condemnable today by robin1 standards, because it brings way more problems than wellbeing.

We have too many humans today. Reproduction is not a benefit in today's world.

Not only that, but 1robin believes it is immoral to have sex unless the purpose is to have a child.

So he considers it immoral for married couples to have sex if 1) the woman is past menopause, 2) the husband has had a vasectomy, 3) they are too old to have children, 4) they are using birth control, 5) the woman is pregnant, and 6) many other instances.

So he considers it immoral for a married man and woman to have sex, in more cases than not. I find it an amusing moral stance.

 

[Me Myself]

Not only that, but 1robin believes it is immoral to have sex unless the purpose is to have a child.

So he considers it immoral for married couples to have sex if 1) the woman is past menapause, 2) the husband has had a vasectomy, 3) they are too old to have children, 4) they are using birth control, 5) the woman is pregnant, and 6) many other instances.

So he considered it immoral for a married man and woman to have sex, in more cases than not. I find it an amusing moral stance.

I am amused that by his moral standars, it would be best if most people in the world today ceased to have children .

Children are the worst justification for sex in the world as it is today.

 

[1robin]

Bringing more humans into this world would be morally condemnable today by robin1 standards, because it brings way more problems than wellbeing.

We have too many humans today. Reproduction is not a benefit in today's world.

Good lord man. I have never seen a preferred concept defended so badly, rationalized so absurdly, and no subject any less worthy of any defense than homosexuality. It is a special kind or wrong to defend death for the sake of lust and then tell the guy who wants to prevent that death that he is the one who is wrong. We are truly living in morally insane times.

Before I said I would not mention the word lying without knowing if you knew what you said was wrong or not. Here you do know what you said is wrong yet did it anyway. You made sure I could not help but say you are lying here. I never claimed any one of these things, I have never thought them, they can't be derived from my claims, and you know this. Yet made this crap up anyway. If lying is necessary to defend something (and this is no defense whatever anyway) then what your defending does not deserve to be defended. The defense of homosexuality has been as disgustingly dishonorable as the behavior physically is. This kind of junk only makes it even more obvious that something is dreadfully wrong in the homosexual community and in defending it and therefor misery and suffering. I am done.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Good golly gosh....175 pages? :cover:

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Good golly gosh....175 pages? :cover:

Probably more like five pages on loop.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Probably more like five pages on loop.

Seems like it. But isn't that what most same sex relationship/marriage debate threads turn into anyway?

 

[Me Myself]

Good lord man. I have never seen a preferred concept defended so badly, rationalized so absurdly, and no subject any less worthy of any defense than homosexuality. It is a special kind or wrong to defend death for the sake of lust and then tell the guy who wants to prevent that death that he is the one who is wrong. We are truly living in morally insane times.

Before I said I would not mention the word lying without knowing if you knew what you said was wrong or not. Here you do know what you said is wrong yet did it anyway. You made sure I could not help but say you are lying here. I never claimed any one of these things, I have never thought them, they can't be derived from my claims, and you know this. Yet made this crap up anyway. If lying is necessary to defend something (and this is no defense whatever anyway) then what your defending does not deserve to be defended. The defense of homosexuality has been as disgustingly dishonorable as the behavior physically is. This kind of junk only makes it even more obvious that something is dreadfully wrong in the homosexual community and in defending it and therefor misery and suffering. I am done.

Of course you did not say it. I didnt say you said it, I said that is where youor reasoning leads to.

There ate too many people on Earth. If sex is only moral when the benefits outweight the "risks" then sex is altogether immoral in today's world. If anything immoral for anyone who already has one kid.

Unless you want to argue that humanity needs more people.

Children is the worst justification for straight sex in today's world.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This kind of junk only makes it even more obvious that something is dreadfully wrong in the homosexual community and in defending it and therefor misery and suffering. I am done.

You were done after your third or fourth post to this thread, but like a dead frog, you have continued to jerk in response to our proddings.

We are easily amused.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Seems like it. But isn't that what most same sex relationship/marriage debate threads turn into anyway?

I dunno, but I know it's what a lot of marriages turn into -- four or five pages on loop.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh, is he "done" again? What do you know.

Pobably was too much of a blow to find out his standards would make most straight sex immoral too.

More humans in the planet are not a good thing today.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When no compensating gain exists to justify a single life lost how many are lost is irrelevant. In the US the 4% of us that are gay create 60% of the aids cases. It has no justification for 1% but it produces 60%. Why should I compare anything with a race? A race is what someone is, sex is something a person does. What does geography have to do with this?

Do you mean that homosexuality is not solely responsible for all the aids cases, which I never claimed to begin with? Homosexuality most certainly did have something to do with aids in Africa. This is a thread on homosexuality, not on needle sharing, promiscuity, sanitation, condom use, lack of medicine, living conditions, research grants, or anything else that might add to the aids problem. This thread is about homosexuality and the massive increase in suffering, deaths, and costs it has and it's lack of any compensating benefits that justify it's cost. It has been one irrelevant rationalization after another. When we are discussing aids in African then this data may be applicable, it has not the slightest impact on justifying homosexuality.

Since you want to dodge all my other points fine.


Why should someone give up their entire sexual identity when they can have a normal, safe and disease free sex life that is both healthy and natural? The psycholocial implications of opressing your sexuality is in some cases even worse than AIDS. We have methods of treating AIDS but not the psychological concequences of supressing sexuality.

And again the chances of monogomus homosexual males that use condoms or only have sex with 1 partner whom they know does not have HIV has no other negative effects than a normal heterosexual couple.

Homosexual females have it even better off as they have an even lower rate of STD. So are you arguing against women? Or is that not the right thread because obviously this thread was decidated specifically to male on male homosexuality?

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

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.

very odd.:no:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

very odd.:no:

I agree. Why does he think that orgies are wicked?

 

[someoneuseful]

Oh he exist alright!

There is black and there is white.
There is good and there is evil
There is night and there is day
There is right and there is wrong

So, therefore...there is a God and there is a Devil...whether you want to believe it or not!
Youtube this movie, "Meeting in God's Office" you'll find him them both actually having regular conversations, but this time in color.

Oh yeah! They both exist...we are living proof!

Get you some brownie points, but leave out the nuts! lol***

 

[1robin]

Since you want to dodge all my other points fine.


Why should someone give up their entire sexual identity when they can have a normal, safe and disease free sex life that is both healthy and natural? The psycholocial implications of opressing your sexuality is in some cases even worse than AIDS. We have methods of treating AIDS but not the psychological concequences of supressing sexuality.

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.

And again the chances of monogomus homosexual males that use condoms or only have sex with 1 partner whom they know does not have HIV has no other negative effects than a normal heterosexual couple.

Yes it does.

Homosexual females have it even better off as they have an even lower rate of STD. So are you arguing against women? Or is that not the right thread because obviously this thread was decidated specifically to male on male homosexuality?

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.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That is completely false. I will not accuse you of lying because I do not know your motivation but what you claimed is simply not true. I work with a Navy corpsman. Since gays have been allowed to serve he has spent much time and money on just the non-STD side of homosexual physical damage. However even STDs occur with condom usage. Do you want me to find him on Monday, he can give you quite a list of disgusting medical damage he has seen since gays have been allowed in the military?

I'd like you to find him for me so I can recommend to his superiors that he be reprimanded and/or fired for disclosing people's confidential medical information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Forget my claims for a second, and be honest here. If something is so morally wrong that nature, most theologies, all the major concepts of God, and most cultures have shunned it or punished it, do you actually think a condom (even if it did what you claimed which it does not) makes the act morally right? Come on.

The organs themselves are designed or intended for a specific function. The distortion of proper purpose and design is the basis for what most societies term as wrong. If the human race strictly practiced homosexuality, it would cease to exist. How is that grounds for thinking it right even if my arguments had never been made? The contentions against my actual arguments are so ineffectual I am having to look other places for a challenge.

My earlobes were not "designed" to have holes in them, yet I have pierced ears. Is ear piercing thus immoral?

Human skin was not "designed" to be drawn on, yet many people have tattoos. Are tattoos immoral?

Human veins were not "designed" to hold needles, and yet thousands of people receive life-saving IV treatments every day. Is life-saving IV treatment immoral?

If all the children born from this day forward were girls, the human race would eventually and inevitably die out. Would that make being a girl immoral?