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

[1robin]

I didn't reject the statement that was a reply to- I couldn't make any sense of it one way or the other, which is why I asked you to try it again. Perhaps you should go back and read what you had posted- it was clearly a typo, or something, because it was simply incoherent.

Ok here is what I said.

Then you must reject every claim except we think because they all can be wrong.

It would have been clearer if I had said:

Then you must reject every claim with the exception of "We think" because they can all be wrong. I didn't do so because I had used the "I think" argument so many times I thought your would know that is what I meant.

The site in question was a basic logic 101 tutorial, and you would find the exact same material in any introductory source on logic you care to pick; could he be wrong? Unlikely, but possible. Was he wrong regarding the basics of his field of expertise? Nope.

I have long ago lost all trust in these musings that make no sense. I saw nothing at that site that indicates anything of value is going on there. My arguments make perfect sense and are about as simple as is possible to get. When you objected I thought you did so as a matter of logic (as in reason), if I had realized you were talking about the rigorous "official" logic used in academia I would never have went to the site. I see no value in that stuff. I concentrate on the reliable parts of science and philosophy and regard the extremely theoretical parts as a self created mess with no relevance or application outside academia and it should not be tolerated there. Logic is even worse because it is not even about a natural reality anywhere in many cases. It is about what is preferred. The same way Grammar is. Not putting a capital at the beginning is not actually wrong, it is against convention, and convention is opinion separated from fact. I see no use in it. I am sure rigorous logic has useful parts to it but what I read at that site quickly indicated they must reside else where. Now instead of retreating back to academic opinion about what can't be tested or dressing up a pile of useless garbage in fine linen. For once can't you simply state what is wrong with my two simplistic points other than and you do not like them and they may or may not offend the OPINION of an Oxford professor.

No, it isn't. The definition of logical (in)validity is not up-for-grabs; it means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, or, in other words, that it's possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, or, in other words, the negation of the conclusion is consistent with the premises.

I was not aware you were retreating into rigorous semantics so soon already. I thought you meant my conclusions did not reasonably follow from the premise. If I had realized you had jumped back into an encyclopedia I would have told you I do not care what rigorous logic as is used in a classroom but almost no where else says about anything. I will admit that it is not impossible for my premise to be true and my conclusion to be false. I just don't care. Formal logic is one of the most obscure and useless disciplines I can think of. In thousands of hours of debates I have watched and had this is the first time anyone has ever brought it up. Even the formal philosophers in professional debate circuits do not use it that I can tell. It is just another meaningless dept. that is funded by the money from far more applicable and important departments.

Your utter disregard for truth and accuracy is showing again.

In what way was even your logical objection to my argument not a semantic technicality. You know what, don't answer that. I am only setting you up to burrow further into technicality/ Instead supply what I asked for above, and actual reason my claims are invalid, not what arbitrary rule some dusty old professor was violated.

That you want "nothing whatever to do" with logic is hardly surprising, and pretty instructive.

I want nothing to with whatever was at that site. It is meaningless. If the entire field disappeared forever nothing would suffer at all. There are two meanings I use for the world logic. I use it many times in the same way rationality or reason is used (the way 99.9% of humanity would use it), and then there is what exists in a few formal programs on logic as regimented and systematic dogma. It has no basis in reality the way physics and math do as most of us apply them. It can't be verified, it is almost useless even if true, it is obscure and unrequired for almost all degrees, mush of it is arbitrary and pure assumption.

Again please state actual reasons (not rules of an obscure dept. of academia). If they were right you will suffer no loss in doing so but I imagine you won't for three reasons. You never do. You prefer abstract rules and technicality to common sense dialogue. And whatever principle you are referring to is either wrong or misapplied. I want to know why my argument is invalid not why some academic who has never had to be right about anything said it was, if they actually did.

I would love to see a judge and a jury handle an objection to my claims based on your complaint against it.

BTW I typed much more than what you responded to. Where did it go?

 

[1robin]

Well according too all those versus...for women...it's alright.

If you look at the full list at that site it is not. I thought I had included the ones about women but maybe I didn't. God did not make the same mistake.

 

[1robin]

I think 1robin approves of lesbianism. After all, it has justification and does no harm.

He just seems focused on male anal sex, so it seems to me.

It is not possible for you to be as wrong as frequently as you are unless you are trying to be. I have dealt with lesbianism time after time after time and I am not for it as a moral behavior. I am on the verge of just giving up on this whole thread. It takes to much work to repeat everything I have said 20 times without the slightest indication it has ever been understood. This is like a bad dream. I can't even remember the last time anyone actually posted anything in defense of homosexuality even if it was wrong. This is just weird and I think you are actually getting worse.

 

[Tiberius]

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.

I love this. You say gay is bad because it spreads disease. Then you say that even if straight spread more disease it would be okay.

Sounds to me like you are just looking for some justification for your homophobic attitude.

 

[Tiberius]

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

The problem is that there ARE no other links in what you provided!

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.

Here's what you don't seem to get:

You are using the data to show that a particular thing is bad because of the number of people who are harmed because of it, even though there are other things that produce far HIGHER levels of suffering that you are happy to ignore.
You are saying that the activity is wrong because it causes harm, despite the fact that there are several cheap and easy ways to minimize that risk. You remain uninterested in these.
You claim that gay people spread disease while refusing to consider that it is a particular subgroup of gay people - namely promiscuous gay people who have unprotected sex. You use this flawed logic to claim that ALL gay sexual activity is wrong.

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?

No, I'm saying that you are not living up to the agreement that we made.

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).

And none of those sources are easily checked, are they? There is only a link for one of those sources, and the link is dead

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.

Seems to me that you are claiming that it immoral to participate in sexual activities that spread disease.

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

I see sarcasm is lost on you.

I did not understand this.

It's not that complicated. You are trying to apply something in an area where it does not apply.

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

By this logic we can never do anything. Everything we do has risk.

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.

Would you agree that ALL sex carries some risk?

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

See? Your bias is blinding you again.

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

I was pointing out that it was another instance of your bias skewing your perceptions.

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 ‘epidemic’ HIV rates

And did I ever dispute this? My claim has always been that since there are EASY, CHEAP, AND READILY ACCESSIBLE WAYS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE DISEASE, WE CAN'T SAY IT IS WRONG. It's like saying that car crashes kill lots of people while ignoring the widespread availability of seatbelts and airbags.

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.

Well, you did. Let me show you.

"It [gay sex] causes millions of deaths by spreading aids alone."​

From Post 1826

Now, as per our agreement (which you have broken several times already), provide a source that backs up this claim.

 

[Tiberius]

IO guess that since you have no serious argument you are trying to blame the lack on me. This is typical. That was one long commentary without a shred of evidence. Why is that worth typing.

Complain as much as you wish but my two primary claims have not even been dented.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.
2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Try again, give up if you want, but sarcastic commentaries are just a waste of time.

Alcoholism produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.
It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Oh, and gay people want to be loved just like any straight person. To deny them this right is inhumane.

Also, lesbian sex (mutual masturbation, oral sex, etc) is actually one of the SAFEST forms of sexual activity, as it does not involve much if any swapping of bodily fluids.

And once again I will point out that if your concern is with the disease, you should be saying that it is sexual acts that spread disease that is immoral! Gay people can have safe sex just like anyone else!

 

[1robin]

I love this. You say gay is bad because it spreads disease. Then you say that even if straight spread more disease it would be okay.

Sounds to me like you are just looking for some justification for your homophobic attitude.

I am truly in some strange new land where no one has a memory over an hour. I just got through saying for at least the twentieth time that I can not get another person to include both parts of a two sentence argument at the same time ever. Then you do exactly that in a post within a few minutes. I just give up. If you and others can't even remember both sentences of a two sentence claim after thousands of words explaining what both mean, and what proves one or the other, and the fact that one of the two is always lost in the response then what possible motivation can there be to state it for the 21st time. I just can't do this any longer.

 

[Tiberius]

Well here are just a few of the many from the 99.9% of the Bible you apparently did not read.


Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

1 Corinthians 6:9

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.



1 Timothy 1:10

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,


Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.


Romans 1:26-28

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.


1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.


Jude 1:7

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.


1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.


Romans 1:32

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.


http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

Many more can be found there.

Are we debating this topic using the Bible now? Can I beat your arguments with the Bible now? Please say yes.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Less that 1% of my posts have anything dark in them. Over 90% of them are fluffy good stuff to contradict claims about dark stuff.

Sure. Quoting verses about how homosexuals should be killed -- that's some fluffy good stuff, man. Makes me want to break out in my Happy Dance.

 

[Uberpod]

Junk Science Example: 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]

Here we have a study population that consisted of HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. This was in no way representative gay men in general.

This is a common tactic among anti-gay "researchers". They want their views to be backed by scientific research, but they misuse data and make claims unsupported by it. They feel good about the footnote and hope no one fact checks it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Formal logic is one of the most obscure and useless disciplines I can think of

He says without a trace of irony. Tell me, how often is theology used to, say, program a computer?

BTW, how does your foot taste?

I want nothing to with whatever was at that site. It is meaningless.

Again, that you find a basic tutorial on logic meaningless is pretty sad, but pretty telling all the same.

... logic as regimented and systematic dogma.

Clearly nonsense, but that you would say something this silly is also very telling.

 

[1robin]

The problem is that there ARE no other links in what you provided!

How in the world can you claim this? Are you aware of every web site and every book and paper ever published and every study ever done?

I have given up on this thread. I however wanted to get some closure before I call it quits. I will answer these mast posts and then post a conclusion.

Here's what you don't seem to get:

You are using the data to show that a particular thing is bad because of the number of people who are harmed because of it, even though there are other things that produce far HIGHER levels of suffering that you are happy to ignore.
You are saying that the activity is wrong because it causes harm, despite the fact that there are several cheap and easy ways to minimize that risk. You remain uninterested in these.
You claim that gay people spread disease while refusing to consider that it is a particular subgroup of gay people - namely promiscuous gay people who have unprotected sex. You use this flawed logic to claim that ALL gay sexual activity is wrong.

Apparently there are only 5 or 6 terrible arguments
used to defend homosexuality and a belief that if repeated long enough they will eventually work.

This is a thread on homosexuality and pointing at something even more wrong does not make what your defending right. If it did the only people in prison would be the serial killer who had killed the most people. Homosexuality is not right even if something else is more destructive. That is not an arguments it is rationalization. A device to lower risk is not justification. It is good but not capable of making something right. I am not for attempted homicide because no one actually died. I am not for babies with guns even if locks for guns exist. Gluttony is still wrong even if the food eaten has less calories.

No, I'm saying that you are not living up to the agreement that we made.

Which part. I supplied sources. I was in a hurry and will agree that some may have not been the strongest. Some of my references are strong and i offered to supply more if shown a weak one. In what way is that sufficient?

And none of those sources are easily checked, are they? There is only a link for one of those sources, and the link is dead

Was arbitrary level of easiness part of the bargain? I have given up on this thread but always fulfill my agreements if possible, so send me any stat that had BAD sources and I will provide more if you send it in a PM. I am out of here.

Seems to me that you are claiming that it immoral to participate in sexual activities that spread disease.

Once again you left out 50% of a two sentence argument. I have never seen this level of forgetfulness before. The second sentence of my claim deals with justification. Heterosexuality has it, homosexuality does not.

I see sarcasm is lost on you.

I am so frustrated by this thread because of what I stated above I am more sensitive and impatient than normal.

It's not that complicated. You are trying to apply something in an area where it does not apply.

Are you saying you know I understood what you said and am lying? What is my motive?

By this logic we can never do anything. Everything we do has risk.

Again with 50% of a two sentence argument. Even if everything has risk most have sufficient justification. I did not say risk, I said causing massive increases of death, suffering, and costs without sufficient justification.

Would you agree that ALL sex carries some risk?

I know of no reason not to. Some might not have any but I will agree they all do to see where you are going.

See? Your bias is blinding you again.

So anytime I think your wrong, given your omniscience I must be biased. Convenient.

I was pointing out that it was another instance of your bias skewing your perceptions.

I see that every time I point out a mistake I think you made that I am wrong and biased. What kind of a debate is that. You should have said you were perfect and ended there.

And did I ever dispute this? My claim has always been that since there are EASY, CHEAP, AND READILY ACCESSIBLE WAYS TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF THE DISEASE, WE CAN'T SAY IT IS WRONG. It's like saying that car crashes kill lots of people while ignoring the widespread availability of seatbelts and airbags.

Yes they exist and no they do not stop tens of thousands of deaths, millions of people who must suffer, and billions that people who do not even practice the behavior must pay for caused by homosexuality. If I devised a weapon that cut serial killing in half is serial killing good?

Well, you did. Let me show you.

"It [gay sex] causes millions of deaths by spreading aids alone."​

From Post 1826

I think that is true but just guessed, I also do not think it was part of what was in our original agreement but could be wrong.

Now, as per our agreement (which you have broken several times already), provide a source that backs up this claim.

Situation and trends

1.7 [1.5–1.9] million people died of AIDS-related illnesses worldwide in 2011
WHO | Number of deaths due to HIV/AIDS

That is in a single year.

Global Statistics

Since the beginning of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, 60 million people have contracted HIV and 25 million have died of AIDS-related causes.
In 2008, an estimated 2 million adults and children died from AIDS, a 10% reduction from the peak number of AIDS-related deaths in 2004.
As of 2008, 33.4 million people were living with HIV/AIDS worldwide.
The annual number of new HIV infections declined from 3.2 million in 2001 to 2.7 million in 2008. Still, more than 7,000 people contract HIV every day.
More than half of new infections are among those under 25 years of age.
HIV/AIDS Facts

The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic
Oct 10, 2013

Overview
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, “acquired immunodeficiency syndrome”1, 2, 3 has become one of the world’s most serious health and development challenges. The first cases were reported in 1981 and today, more than 30 years later:

There are approximately 35 million people currently living with HIV and tens of millions of people have died of AIDS-related causes since the beginning of the epidemic.1, 3, 4
The Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Now per our agreement I expect an admission of being wrong.

That is the one thing I have no confidence will happen. Anything else can and will occur but no way no how is an admission of error going to come from this. Try and prove me wrong.

Remember I have had it with this thread. That was a cumulative conclusion and long over due and is not a conclusion that is due to you specifically. This has been worse than trying to put a cat in a trash can and has worn me out.

 

[1robin]

Alcoholism produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.
It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Exactly, you really messed up here. You have said my argument is valid because you used it to condemn alcoholism, so you at the same time condemned homosexuality.

Beyond that this is not an alcoholism thread, make one and I will condemn it here as well. Beyond that pointing out Y is worse than x does not make x ok.

Oh, and gay people want to be loved just like any straight person. To deny them this right is inhumane.

They may love anyone they wish, as I love my male friends very much. What they can't do is practice a behavior that kills and costs others and use love as an excuse. I and 40 friends may love robbing banks more than any thing on earth. Is that right?

Also, lesbian sex (mutual masturbation, oral sex, etc) is actually one of the SAFEST forms of sexual activity, as it does not involve much if any swapping of bodily fluids.

Less risk is still risk. There are problems with oral sex that are so disgusting I had copied a list of them but could not post them because they were repulsive, but it is very easy to find them if you wish. I can't debate every single aspect of a behavior. It would require infinite time. I am discussing a behavior in general and less risk with no justification is still immoral.

And once again I will point out that if your concern is with the disease, you should be saying that it is sexual acts that spread disease that is immoral! Gay people can have safe sex just like anyone else!

MY concern is the damage all the STD's and other types of damage the behavior massively increases. No that is not what I should say. For the third time in two posts you ignored one half of a two sentence argument. This is an example of why I am winding up my participation in this thread. I should not say what you did because some risks have justifications for them. The continuation of the human race is about as powerful a justification as is possible and homosexuality has nothing similar to justify it.

Remember I am done here except for my Pm offer and am just winding things up.

 

[1robin]

Are we debating this topic using the Bible now? Can I beat your arguments with the Bible now? Please say yes.

I knew for certain that one or more people from you side would ask this. I almost typed a suggestion that no one waste time doing so.

I have one central argument consisting of two sentences and it is a secular argument. I responded to a biblical claim with biblical information. It has no part in my general claims.

 

[1robin]

Sure. Quoting verses about how homosexuals should be killed -- that's some fluffy good stuff, man. Makes me want to break out in my Happy Dance.

I never said it was fluffy. Your creating claims out of this air and insinuating I made them and then dismissing them. Convenient but not very honorable.

I hate the suffering immorality produces. I could not care about a God that does not do so as well. Your so inconsistent it appalling. You will not allow a righteous God to condemn what is a perversion of the natural use of sex but you will allow that perversion the right to kill millions. That is a form of morally insanity.

BTW I know this is a Biblical claim, but is independent of my completely secular main two sentence argument. I am done here but wanted to answer the last few posts and post my conclusion and then I calling it quits. This has been the worst defense of anything I have ever seen.

 

[1robin]

Junk Science Example: 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]

Here we have a study population that consisted of HIV/AIDS patients, excluded monogamous participants, was predominantly urban, and consisted only of those under the age of thirty. This was in no way representative gay men in general.

This is a common tactic among anti-gay "researchers". They want their views to be backed by scientific research, but they misuse data and make claims unsupported by it. They feel good about the footnote and hope no one fact checks it.

Well that is the worst example of argumentation by proxy I have ever seen. You find a study you claim was not valid to condemn any use of any study that does not provide convenient data for you. Is the CDC or WHO biased as well? Half my claims came from them. This is why I am closing out my participation in this thread.

 

[1robin]

He says without a trace of irony. Tell me, how often is theology used to, say, program a computer?

Is the test for what is valuable it's ability to program a computer. No information of any complexity can exist without mind, so God is necessary for a mind to human mind to exist to program anything but that is not relevant to the topic.

BTW, how does your foot taste?

Ask you rear end. Sorry could not resist.

Again, that you find a basic tutorial on logic meaningless is pretty sad, but pretty telling all the same.

The whole subject is extremely of very little use, that is why so few majors require it. When I fell in love with philosophy I also was fascinated by logical law. I intended to use it in argumentation so I began to study it. I concluded it was a tempest in a tea pot and so arbitrary as to contain little merit. I have all kinds of argument from the deep end of science, an example of this is quantum conclusion from extremely respected scholars that claim mind is independent of matter. I however have held off because the science it is based on is so speculative.

Clearly nonsense, but that you would say something this silly is also very telling.

I can't debate with an objection devoid of even the attempt of justification.

I am closing out the last responses I will give in this thread, I will post a conclusion at the end of doing so and be done here. I have never seen something defended this ineptly before and it has worn me out.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Is the test for what is valuable it's ability to program a computer. No information of any complexity can exist without mind, so God is necessary for a mind to human mind to exist to program anything but that is not relevant to the topic.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Hear that sound? That was the point sailing right over 1robin's head...

 

[m.ramdeen]

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.

Sure you can have a relationship with other men! Anything is possible as long as you put willpower and determination in.

"Why can't we fly like the birds?" never stopped the wright brother from building a plane



I'm just gonna lay down 3 conditions to follow:

1. Accept that you're not doing society justice
2. Accept that it's not normal
3. Don't force the average joe / lawmakers to accept / make exceptions for this lifestyle (a.k.a gay agenda :help

BUT

Sure enough, with the direction morals are going these days and the vibe from this thread, I'm gonna take a stab and say that nobody is in agreement with them conditions :no:. So I guess we're right back where we started huh