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

[SkepticThinker]

prove that. Just kidding.

.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In what way is what occurs within 1/1000th of animal types justification for assuming human homosexuality is valid. Most species live underwater is that evidence we should? BTW none of them are purely homosexual. To be fair I would not waste time responding to me because I have exhausted every facet of the homosexual debate I can take in a thread on it, but this one claim always struck me as so unjustifiable. I will not re-open Pandora's box but could not resist this single comment. I actually just realized that I am back in that thread. The nightmare has begun. I am bugging out of here.

The very fact that it exists at all in the animal kingdom makes it valid.

 

[1robin]

The very fact that it exists at all in the animal kingdom makes it valid.

So any action that occurs in one aspect of nature is justifiable in any other? Once said, explains quite a lot I guess. Try gliding off a ten story building and see if nature supports your thesis.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So any action that occurs in one aspect of nature is justifiable in any other? Once said, explains quite a lot I guess. Try gliding off a ten story building and see if nature supports your thesis.

I used the word you did ... I said it makes it VALID.

If we had wings similar to other creatures in the animal kingdom, we might be able to fly off a ten storey building. But we don't, so it's not a very good comparison, in my opinion.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

The following is from another thread. 1robin does not mind if I cut and paste what he says between various threads, and forums, and I will notify him about this post, which quotes what he said recently at another forum.

You refused to reply to many of my arguments when you got into trouble. You retreated to saying that no one had adequately refuted your main points, but you did not adequately refute my main points, and you claimed victory over points that I never contested in the first place, such as your CDC statistics, which I never disputed. Homosexuality is an important problem, but what should be done about it? One very comical issue was that I asked you what your recommended solutions were for homosexuality. You said that you have no responsibility to provide any solutions, but yet you tried to provide solutions on many occasions, such as your absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, including lesbians, who actually have less risks than heterosexual men and women do, and homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

From a secular moral perspective, no practice is morally wrong if there are not any viable alternatives. I showed you research that shows that having sex has proven health benefits, and that that long term abstinence has proven risks. That obviously makes long term abstinence an even more ludicrous, and preposterous recommendation for lesbians, and for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Why didn't you recommend abstinence for heterosexual black Americans (who have very high risks), black Africans (who have the highest risks in the world), people who live in poverty, and women over 45 years of age? I asked you about those groups of people, and you said that you do not recommend that any of them practice abstinence. Your moral values are suspect, at least regarding the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Surely women over 45 do not need to have sex in order to maintain adequately populations in most countries, and your argument is especially suspect regarding women over 45 having sex in overpopulated countries. In addition, it is often risky for women over 45 to have children.

How big a threat are homosexuals to heterosexuals? Not nearly as big a threat as heterosexuals are to themselves, since heart disease alone kills about 40 times more, or about 4,000% more people a year in the U.S. than AIDS does. Heart disease is often preventable.

In another thread, you said that there are successful reparative therapy clinics all over the world. That is definitely false, especially since the Christian founder of the recently disbanded reparative clinic Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about becoming a heterosexual, and said that over 99% of homosexuals who came to his clinic failed to change their sexual orientation.

I think that it was this thread where you claimed that sexual identity is a choice, and refused to provide any scientific evidence to support your claim. Do you claim that sexual identity is a choice? If it is a choice, it is quite odd that the majority of time, children who are raised by homosexuals choose to become heterosexuals. Some homosexuals have said that if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to escape bigotry against them, but were not able to change their sexual identity. In another thread, you said that there are examples of where homosexuals have changed their sexual identity, but I have studied the scientific literature extensively, and have made a number of posts about it in various threads, and the evidence shows that such changes are very rare. In addition, as I wrote about sex expert Dr. Throckmorton in another thread, he said that on many occasions, so-called "converted" homosexuals were not converted at all, and were defining "change" merely as a reduction in same-sex attraction, not actual conversions to heterosexuality.

But by all means, please do continue to argue against homosexuality since that helps to cause more dissension, and disorganization among Republicans. The majority of Republicans now support same-sex marriage. The more that religious conservatives make an issue out of homosexuality instead of sticking to far more important issues such as the economy, obamacare, and immigration, the more it angers Republicans who support same-sex marriage, and the more dissension it causes in the Republican party.

I almost did not see which thread this was and re-engaged on this subject. I do not care if you quote me as long as you represent what I said accurate in response. I am getting out of here before I get stuck again. This was too close.

Everything that you have said in this thread is available for anyone to read if they want to. Based upon everything that you and I have said in this thread, I easily won the debates. You know that my arguments in this post are good, and that you are not able to adequately refute them.

 

[ametist]

There are groups of people with specific experiences and realities regarding life. Only they would know what to do and how to choose when specific time comes. I cant understand being a homosexual biologically and psychologically and how it is when you are faced with society and religion until I am you. So as a person now I cant say anything. But I believe a god unbound by time and capable of knowing me like I am you. So I believe it is good for 'you' to not to but being myself now I wouldnt interfere with you or treat you any different if you did.

 

[tpw0307]

well..God didn't design anyone to be gay and the act itself is an abomination in his eyes. But he hates all sin so, this whole God hates gays thing is completely untrue..he wants them like every other human alive who is a sinner to come to repentance/salvation through his Son Jesus Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit turn away from sin. things do happen through our sinful world that lead people to being attracted to the same sex, im not denying that attraction doesn't exist but it's because of sin/our lusts/ and whatever social or personal reasons we don't naturally feel attracted to the opposite sex or only to them..whether it's fear, or a traumatic experience we've been through that's warped our mind/ whatever the reasons are, they don't come from God.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

well..God didn't design anyone to be gay and the act itself is an abomination in his eyes. But he hates all sin so, this whole God hates gays thing is completely untrue..he wants them like every other human alive who is a sinner to come to repentance/salvation through his Son Jesus Christ and with the help of the Holy Spirit turn away from sin. things do happen through our sinful world that lead people to being attracted to the same sex, im not denying that attraction doesn't exist but it's because of sin/our lusts/ and whatever social or personal reasons we don't naturally feel attracted to the opposite sex or only to them..whether it's fear, or a traumatic experience we've been through that's warped our mind/ whatever the reasons are, they don't come from God.

So, you feel that homosexuality is either a choice, or because you were traumatized?
Do you think it's possible for someone to be attracted to the same sex with no real trauma in their past?
What is your justification for this?

 

[1robin]

Everything that you have said in this thread is available for anyone to read if they want to. Based upon everything that you and I have said in this thread, I easily won the debates. You know that my arguments in this post are good, and that you are not able to adequately refute them.

This is precisely the reason I gave it up. This is like staring at a greasy stain on the coliseum floor and hearing it yell victory. As much as it appalls me I will have to leave the greasy stain to it's thoughts. I said you can use what I said as long as accurately used. To what are you objecting?

If you want to fantasize you or anyone else even dinted my 2 primary claims then have at it but I did not leave because I was challenged. I gave up because I could not even inspire a challenge of any kind and I ma not being sucked into the vortex of futility again. Reminds me of what Crow said in gladiator. His second in command saw that their emissary of peace was beheaded by the Galls and suggested people should know when they are whipped and Crow asked if he would.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you want to fantasize you or anyone else even dinted my 2 primary claims then have at it but I did not leave because I was challenged.

I utterly destroyed your 'two primary claims,' and you refused to continue discussing it.

So I guess I'm having the same fantasy as everyone else who has opposed you in this thread. It looks to me like you fled the debate because you realized that you had no arguments.

 

[1robin]

I utterly destroyed your 'two primary claims,' and you refused to continue discussing it.

So I guess I'm having the same fantasy as everyone else who has opposed you in this thread. It looks to me like you fled the debate because you realized that you had no arguments.

Yeah that was probably it, the Spartans could not fight, Rome was the height of disorganization, Alli was a pansy, and Obama is a patriot. Good grief man, what next?

 

[Agnostic75]

This is precisely the reason I gave it up. This is like staring at a greasy stain on the coliseum floor and hearing it yell victory. As much as it appalls me I will have to leave the greasy stain to its thoughts. I said you can use what I said as long as accurately used. To what are you objecting?

If you want to fantasize you or anyone else even dinted my 2 primary claims then have at it but I did not leave because I was challenged. I gave up because I could not even inspire a challenge of any kind and I ma not being sucked into the vortex of futility again. Reminds me of what Crow said in gladiator. His second in command saw that their emissary of peace was beheaded by the Galls and suggested people should know when they are whipped and Crow asked if he would.

The following is from your post #1987:

Here is the conclusion I promised at the end of answering all remaining points at this time.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

After discussing many issues for months, you knew that you were in trouble, so you chose to try to limit discussions to topics that you think are easier for you to defend. Some of the issues that you conveniently did not want to discuss any more are in this post, and they are important issues since they deal with morality.

Regarding item 1, I never said otherwise, but many homosexuals do not cause suffering, death, and cost.

Regarding item 2, homosexuality is definitely justified for lesbians, who have less risks of getting STDs than heterosexual men and women do, and for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least 10 years.

I have already made similar arguments on a number of occasions, and you have never adequately refuted them. Regarding lesbians, some time ago, you said that I should not separate homosexuals into segments, but separating groups into segments is exactly what lots of scientific research does so that it can better treat affected people. It would be absurd for anyone to lump gay men, and lesbians together since risks from STDs are clearly far less for homosexual women than for homosexual men.

Regarding monogamous homosexuals, you questioned whether many homosexuals are completely monogamous for many years, but what documented research do you have about those statistics, if there are any? Many homosexuals claim that they have been monogamous for many years, and you cannot provide any documented evidence to the contrary.

Research shows that the vast majority of homosexuals in the U.S. never get AIDS, and that far smaller percentages of them who live in Australia, and New Zealand get AIDS.

If, as you claimed, all homosexuals should practice abstinence, so should heterosexual black Americans, black people of any sexual preference in Africa, people who live in poverty, and women who are over 45 years of age, but you said that none of those groups of people should practice abstinence. Why not? All of those groups are high risks groups, and black Africans are the highest risk group for AIDS in the world.

I have provided you with evidence on many occasions that having sex provides significant health benefits, and that long term abstinence has serious risks. That means that it would be especially ridiculous for lesbians, and monogamous homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least 5 years to practice abstinence since many of them would end up needing medical attention because of their sexual abstinence.

You once said that you did not have sex for I think two years while you were in the military, but that was an absurd comment since there is obviously a lot of difference between practicing abstinence for two years, and for 50 years.

Homosexuality is a serious problem, especially for gay men. The fact that promiscuity is so tempting to gay men makes it very commendable when some of them have long term monogamous relationships.

You made the utterly absurd argument that all homosexuals should practice abstinence because you know that very few ever will, and you wanted to find a way to make all who don't look bad, but you failed as far as many millions of people around the world are concerned, including millions of Christians. No rational person would ever claim that a lower risk group (lesbians) should practice abstinence and higher risk groups (heterosexual men and women, black Americans, black Africans, people who live in poverty, and women over 45 years of age) should not practice abstinence.

You have argued that homosexual men and women need to have sex in order to maintain the population, but that does not apply to women over 45 years of age, at least not in most countries. Heterosexual men and women who are promiscuous certainly need to practice abstinence if they are not going to practice monogamy, and there are millions of them in the U.S. Regarding heterosexual men and women who are monogamous, and die prematurely from heart attacks, cancer, and obesity, those whose cases were preventable, who are quite numerous, are not in any position to criticize homosexuals. It has been forecast that by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, which will add over 500 billion dollars to health care cost.

After we subtract all of those people, how many people are left to criticize homosexuals? Obviously, very few. A few years ago, 40 times, or 4,000% more people in the U.S. died from heart disease than from AIDS. Heart disease is often preventable.

Did you once claim that sexual identity is a choice? All major medical organizations say that it is not a choice. Sexual identity is sexual urges, not sexual actions.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah that was probably it, the Spartans could not fight, Rome was the height of disorganization, Alli was a pansy, and Obama is a patriot. Good grief man, what next?

And 1robin is a mighty debater!

Yeah.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my post #2094.

 

[1robin]

And 1robin is a mighty debater!

Yeah.

I am not being drug back into this pit of futility again but at least this was humorous.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: You have refused to reply to my post #2094 because you know that I made some good arguments. That has to be the case since you love to debate many topics, even in threads that last a long time, and would never miss an opportunity to win a long debate if you thought that you could.

You have replied to my arguments, but you have not "adequately" replied to them.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: You have refused to reply to my post #2094 because you know that I made some good arguments. That has to be the case since you love to debate many topics, even in threads that last a long time, and would never miss an opportunity to win a long debate if you thought that you could.

You have replied to my arguments, but you have not "adequately" replied to them.

Do you know how futile it is to guess (always in your favor I might add) at another's motivations? I am not getting placed on the event horizon of ineffective responses to my claims here again but I can assure you that my motivations are 100% the exact opposite of what you wish them to be. Since I am the greatest human expert in history on my motivations you would be wise to accept it and since I have taken every single challenge you have given me regardless of them being repeated and your being periodically inexhaustible you would be a fool to deny it. I only refuse the lack of a challenge and my greatest desire is to be challenged. It just could not be achieved to any extent on this issue in my sincere opinion. You are free to believe as you wish despite this, as apparently you are well aware.

 

[Tiberius]

Is 1Robin still using the same tired arguments?

 

[Sees]

Is 1Robin still using the same tired arguments?

Show was cancelled after a few episodes, nothing but reruns.