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

[Agnostic75]

It is precisely in the 50% of my 2 primary points given dozens of times. Heterosexuality is necessary for the promulgation of the race. It has benefits that compensate for it's harm. Homosexuality does not.

Lesbians have less risks than heterosexual men and women do. What compensation does heterosexual men and women over 40 having sex provide that justifies the risks? You have said that any deaths at all does not justify the risks. So, according to your philosophy, heterosexuals over 40 years of age in all countries that are not underpopulated should practice abstinence, and so should at least half of all heterosexuals of any age who live in overpopulated countries, all heterosexual black American men and women who live in the U.S., all black heterosexual men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk. Do you believe that all of those groups of people should practice abstinence?

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean. I think your premise is sort of true but of no practical value for your argument.

If you think that my premise is sort of true, then you do have an idea what it is. You are an intelligent person, so you know exactly what I meant. You know that you once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, and will not have harmed anyone.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, and they will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, and they will avoid the risks of long term abstinence.

Let me put it another way. Let's call homosexuals who will never get any STDs Group A, and homosexuals who will get STDs Group B. In order for your proposal to work, both groups must practice abstinence. Even if Group A practiced abstinence, Group B would not, which means that Group A is not responsible for Group B's sexual behavior.

Only sex within marriage is right no matter how inconvenient or undesirable that is.

Based upon what secular evidence?

Lots of homosexuals are married. You can argue that same-sex marriage is harmful to society if you wish, but you will not get anywhere since homosexuals getting married does not prevent heterosexuals from getting married, and no sociological evidence that you can provide would reasonably prove that same-sex marriage has significantly harmed heterosexual marriage, especially with the longtime high divorce rates among heterosexuals. Correlation does not necessarily reasonably prove cause.

In the U.S., Baptists have had a higher divorce rate than atheists do for many years, and same-sex marriage did not have anything to do with that.

You could argue that secularism is harming society, but that would be a secular argument.

Research has shown that homosexuals who are married are better off in some ways than homosexuals who are not married, and that if they have any children, the children are better off in a number of ways than would be the case if the parents were not married. Many monogamous, or married homosexuals do not choose to have children, so none of your arguments regarding homosexuals adopting children would apply to them.

Please reply to my post #1036. In that post, I provided reasonable evidence that genetics is an important part of sexual identity. Some of it is evidence that I have not posted before in any thread. I have asked you many times to provide evidence that sexual identity is primarily caused by environment, but you have never provided any as far as I recall.

If half of reality (the theological half) was not excluded then I could give greater explanation for the reasons behind these claims but even in only a secular realm the argument works.

No, none of your secular arguments work against all homosexuals.

Even if a God inspired the original Bible, there is not any reasonable evidence that there was anything about same-sex behavior in the originals. When I brought that up before, you said that I was using an argument from convenience. However, I wasn't since even if a God inspired the originals, there are many other things that are in the Bible that God might not have inspired.

Even if we had exact copies of the originals, what evidence do you have that God inspired all of them? Please read Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon. As Dr. Carrier shows, the formation of the New Testament canon was questionable.

Although I did make some comments about religion, I am not going to discuss religion any more since religious debates seldom provide an agreed upon resolution, whereas secular debates about homosexuality often have a valid resolution. At the History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts forum at the FRDB, many of the members on both sides have been there for over 10 years, and as far as I know, no one has changed their minds. Most of them know a lot more about the Bible than you and I do, and a number of them are fluent in New Testament Greek. Several understand ancient Hebrew well, and some have degrees in religion, or philosophy. After years of endless arguments about the basics, now, on many occasions both sides debate trivia with great passion like alcoholics who cannot help themselves.

So from now on I will only discuss secular issues about homosexuality with you. However, I still stand by my claim that God does not have free will. You and I have been discussing that issue in another thread, and you have not replied to my most recent two replies to you.

 

[1robin]

And it isn't just heterosexuals over 40 years of age in the U.S. who should practice abstinence, but heterosexuals over 40 years of age all over the world, all heterosexuals in countries that are overpopulated, black American heterosexual men and women, black heterosexual men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women in the world who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk, and you main secular argument against homosexuals is risk.

Ok agnostic this is the one argument you have made that can't be summarily rejected by evidence or logic. I have been busy lately but have spent some time thinking on this one. I will list the points that occurred to me.

1. The flaw you have pointed out in my logic is not an absolute problem. It is only a problem of context. I adopted a secular context out of courtesy and to see if in secularism alone could the argument be made. It was successful in 95% of it's purpose but you have posted the one fault I have seen in it. It is not a fault in my position but a fault in my position if it is restricted to secularist arguments alone. As it so often occurs God is required for sufficient moral foundations to evaluate moral issues. To dismiss your claim I must use theological truth. I can diminish your claims impact without doing so but can't reject it outright. I have no burden that requires I remain in a secular context so your claim is rejected by God's purposes for marriage and sex but here after I will only diminish it with secular arguments.

Your claim is not rejected by secular arguments but by the following points it is far less of an impact on the overall argument.

1. You can't define childbearing age to 40. People have had children much much later in life than that. While far less likely there is always the hope of having Kids far after the 40th year of life.
2. Sex even in a secular sense produces trust through intimacy that unites and binds a family unit. A homosexual family does not have these exact same relationships so my point is far more true of only heterosexual families bound by biology.
3. Heterosexual sex within a marriage that is more than a year or two old has no meaningful health risks. At least for male on male homosexual sex even within a "marriage" still has high risks for non STD related medical issues.


I could add a few more but will not steal your thunder further. keep in mind my last three points are not a refutation of your argument but only show it's impact is not as great as you may have thought. As is almost always true God must be introduced to achieve full moral clarity. If God exists then would not arguing within a secular context be invalid from the start? The likely hood that he does exist would seem to make secular arguments an invalid request if moral truth is the goal.

Let me ask you a question. Is not the very design of our sexual anatomy not an iron clad argument for what it's purpose should be? Is not using it outside design an argument that homosexuality is a perversion of nature and possibly of God? I imagine your response would be that a few species practice it but would that not be just as good evidence that nature is broken and distorted? Since over 90% of species are strictly heterosexual why would you use the exception to argue against the rule?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Does the 90% of species include those who produce asexually, through parthenogenesis, and the other types of reproduction?

 

[1robin]

Does the 90% of species include those who produce asexually, through parthenogenesis, and the other types of reproduction?

I have no idea. I meant within species that reproduce sexually and my 90% was a guess. I did not think that was necessary to point out. The point was using the few species that exhibit homosexual tendencies are not strictly homosexual to begin with and comprise a small minority of species. So the argument that these few species justify Human behavior is invalid and actually the opposite of what nature demonstrates.

 

[idav]

I have no idea. I meant within species that reproduce sexually and my 90% was a guess. I did not think that was necessary to point out. The point was using the few species that exhibit homosexual tendencies are not strictly homosexual to begin with and comprise a small minority of species. So the argument that these few species justify Human behavior is invalid and actually the opposite of what nature demonstrates.

It isn't supposed to justify the behavior, it is to show that all animal behavior, including human behavior, is natural. Nature demonstrates that everything is natural which includes everything humans do. Saying whether something is natural or not doesn't say whether something is bad or good, nature can be either.

 

[1robin]

It isn't supposed to justify the behavior, it is to show that all animal behavior, including human behavior, is natural. Nature demonstrates that everything is natural which includes everything humans do. Saying whether something is natural or not doesn't say whether something is bad or good, nature can be either.

I am quite well acquainted with the concept that anything that is known, unknown, or will ever be known is consistent with evolution to a non-theist. While I am sure evolution occurs I do not endow it with omniscience nor omnipotence and find many things that conflict with it, but on to the immediate issue. No, most absolutely nature is not a justification for all behavior. Over predation occurs in hyena prides. Does that make mass murder ok for Stalin? Cats torture for fun so was Hitler right? No not everything observable in one species is ok for another. Especially not behavior in a tiny minority of creatures that do not even practice the behavior as homosexuals do. There exists no justification for homosexuality in the animal kingdom, even if it did we would have no way of correlating them at least at this time. Did you understand that was never my argument. It was an argument from someone defending homosexuality. My comments were to point out the massive flaws in their argument. Since the more progressive secularists do not believe in actual right and wrong nor have a foundation for it even if they did I did not mention them. Morality is not a given common ground when I talk with secularists. Morality means almost nothing without God.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[dgirl1986]

I cannot believe this thread is still going

 

[payak]

Bonobo monkeys do it, so that's how its justified.

That is rubbish anyway, they do it to show who has the power, prison mentality,not because of attraction.

On this basis I could eat my young and say hey judge, other animals do it.

When your behaviour is such that the only way you can justify it is to compare yourself to monkeys that also have sex with their young, well, that says it all.

 

[Agnostic75]

Bonobo monkeys do it, so that's how its justified.

No, I was not trying to justify homosexuality since many animals do it. I brought that up since many opponents of homosexuality claim that it is not natural, but it is natural since it is common in nature. Humans should not do everything that animals do, but animals should not do everything that humans do. No animal has the potential to destroy all human life on earth, but humans do, and they might do it through global warming. It all gets down to what is beneficial, and what is harmful. Safe sex among homosexuals is generally not harmful. Having sex has significant health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

That is rubbish anyway, they do it to show who has the power, prison mentality, not because of attraction.

You are misinformed. Some of homosexuality among animals is dominance behavior, but some of it is not. Consider the following:

Homosexual behaviour and female-male mounting in mammals—a first survey - DAGG - 2008 - Mammal Review - Wiley Online Library

Mammal Review

Volume 14, Issue 4, pages 155–185, December 1984

Abstract

Information from the literature is given on the presence or absence of homosexual behaviour and female-male mounting in 125 species of mammals, both captive and wild. Such behaviour occurs in the male and often female young of many species soon after their birth. It is more common in young, often in play, than in adults. Adult homosexual behaviour is widespread in male and female mammals (recorded in 63 and 71 species respectively), but common in few species. In males it is most likely to be correlated with dominance and thus to occur in species with hierarchies such as terrestrial monkeys and members of the sheep and goat tribe. In females it is often correlated with sexual condition; a female in heat most often mounted another female, and one in heat was next most likely to be mounted by another female. Anoestral females rarely mounted other anoestral females. Females of 43 species mounted males, which often excited them sexually. Captive mammals tended to mount animals of the same sex more often than did wild ones when comparative data were available. Domestic animals also mounted more man did wild ones, with several exceptions. Some phylogenetic groups of animals displayed similar degrees of homosexual mounting, but there was often considerable variation between closely related species. Nor could homosexual mounting be always correlated with the social structure of a group. The four reasons for, or contexts of, homosexual and female-male mountings were social play (in 34 species), aggression (19 species), sexual excitement (36 species), and physical contact—non-play (30 species). This last category included a state of tension, getting attention, greeting, grooming, caressing, reassurance and appeasement. There was some overlap between categories. Homosexual pair-bonds occur in captive mammals and have been observed throughout the year in non-captive female Japanese monkeys.

Are you suggesting that sexual identity in humans is a choice?

In another thread, you told someone that if their religion works for them, they should not change it. Wikipedia says:

".......within many religions there are also people who view the two sexual orientations positively, and many religious denominations may bless same-sex marriages and support LGBT rights, and the amount of those that do are continuously increasing around the world as much of the developed world enacts laws supporting LGBT rights. Historically, some cultures and religions accommodated, institutionalized, or revered, same-sex love and sexuality; such mythologies and traditions can be found around the world. For example, some denominations of Hinduism do not view homosexuality as a religious sin. In 2009, The United Kingdom Hindu Council became one of the first major religious organizations to support LGBT rights when they issued a statement 'Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality."

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I have no idea. I meant within species that reproduce sexually and my 90% was a guess. I did not think that was necessary to point out. The point was using the few species that exhibit homosexual tendencies are not strictly homosexual to begin with and comprise a small minority of species. So the argument that these few species justify Human behavior is invalid and actually the opposite of what nature demonstrates.

Many species that reproduce sexually also reproduce in the other manners that I mentioned.

Are those against nature?

Parthenogenesis has been shown in species of reptiles, avians, insects, flatworms, snails, crustacians, and sharks.

It can also be induced in mammals but that is certainly not by a natural mean.

Some who do practice homosexuality are not homosexuals either, there are bisexuals too and those who are considered MSM.

 

[Agnostic75]

And it isn't just heterosexuals over 40 years of age in the U.S. who should practice abstinence, but heterosexuals over 40 years of age all over the world, all heterosexuals in countries that are overpopulated, black American heterosexual men and women, black heterosexual men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women in the world who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk, and you main secular argument against homosexuals is risk.

Ok agnostic this is the one argument you have made that can't be summarily rejected by evidence or logic.

No, there is also the issue of millions of homosexuals who will die over the next 100 years without ever getting any STDs.

You can't define childbearing age to 40. People have had children much much later in life than that. While far less likely there is always the hope of having Kids far after the 40th year of life.

But I was not defining child bearing age, I was replying to your argument that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. Heterosexuals over 40 do not need to have sex in order to main the population, especially in overpopulated countries.

You conveniently left out all heterosexual black American men and women who live in the U.S., all heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women of any race who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk.

Sex even in a secular sense produces trust through intimacy that unites and binds a family unit. A homosexual family does not have these exact same relationships so my point is far more true of only heterosexual families bound by biology.

Research has proven that safe same-sex behavior provides significant physical, and emotional benefits, and that long term abstinence has proven health risks for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Having sex is normal. Practicing long term abstinence is abnormal.

Heterosexual sex within a marriage that is more than a year or two old has no meaningful health risks.

Homosexual sex for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years has no meaningful health risks. I am no more obligated to provide research to back up my claim than you are to back up your claim.

At least for male on male homosexual sex even within a "marriage" still has high risks for non STD related medical issues.

You need to provide medical statistics that only deal with monogamous homosexuals.

There are roughly 140 million homosexuals in the world. It is reasonable to assume that at the very least, the health of 1%, or 1.4 million of them, compares favorably with heterosexuals in general. Logically, there are not any good reasons for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.

Let me ask you a question. Is not the very design of our sexual anatomy not an iron clad argument for what it's purpose should be? I imagine your response would be that a few species practice it but would that not be just as good evidence that nature is broken and distorted? Since over 90% of species are strictly heterosexual why would you use the exception to argue against the rule?

Where is your evidence that 90% of species are strictly heterosexual? What about primates? I assume that all species of primates practice homosexuality.

A few species practice it? No, over 1500 species of animals, and birds practice it, and all bonobo monkeys are bisexual. If naturalism is true, it someone caused homosexuality. Even if humans were the only species that practiced homosexuality, sexual identity is not a choice, and the millions of homosexuals who will die without ever getting any STDs will generally be much better off enjoying the significant health benefits of having sex than they would practicing abstinence, which have prove health risks.

You have said that you do not have anything personally against homosexuals who have died, and never had any STDs since they did not harm you. Well, a hundred years from now, millions of other homosexuals will also not have harmed anyone.

I have no idea what it is even supposed to mean. I think your premise is sort of true but of no practical value for your argument.

If you think that my premise is sort of true, then you do have an idea what it is. You are an intelligent person, so you know exactly what I meant. You know that you once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, and will not have harmed anyone.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence. Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, and they will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, and they will avoid the risks of long term abstinence.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: In my posts #1036, and #1037, I provided reasonable proof that genetics are an important part of sexual identity. What evidence do you have that sexual identity is primarily caused by environment?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Thoughts]

Obviously one who need to explain such thing for you

He need to talk deep but I don't know whether it is acceptable
In this forums or not

Men body were not created to adopt such thing

If you want to do exact thing with man of your gender

Someone must get hurt and it will effect on you masculinity

 

[1robin]

Many species that reproduce sexually also reproduce in the other manners that I mentioned.

Are those against nature?

Parthenogenesis has been shown in species of reptiles, avians, insects, flatworms, snails, crustacians, and sharks.

It can also be induced in mammals but that is certainly not by a natural mean.

Some who do practice homosexuality are not homosexuals either, there are bisexuals too and those who are considered MSM.

I do not see the point of your claims. Before I debate what they are, to what purpose are you using them? Nothing any minority of species does is a reasonable argument for human behavior.

 

[1robin]

No, I was not trying to justify homosexuality since many animals do it. I brought that up since many opponents of homosexuality claim that it is not natural, but it is natural since it is common in nature. Humans should not do everything that animals do, but animals should not do everything that humans do. No animal has the potential to destroy all human life on earth, but humans do, and they might do it through global warming. It all gets down to what is beneficial, and what is harmful. Safe sex among homosexuals is generally not harmful. Having sex has significant health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

What is natural for a monkey (grating that what they do is natural) has nothing whatever to do with what is natural for a human to do.

 

[1robin]

No, there is also the issue of millions of homosexuals who will die over the next 100 years without ever getting any STDs.

My claim concerned what I thought was a good argument not what you do. I can't see that argument as useful for anything at all. I do not see it as bad or good but meaningless.

But I was not defining child bearing age, I was replying to your argument that heterosexuals need to have sex in order to maintain the population. Heterosexuals over 40 do not need to have sex in order to main the population, especially in overpopulated countries.

I do not think your opinions on who should be allowed to reproduce are applicable or binding for in our context. I will not just accept who you think should be allowed to breed.

You conveniently left out all heterosexual black American men and women who live in the U.S., all heterosexual black men and women who live in sub-Saharan African countries, and all heterosexual men and women of any race who live in poverty since all of those groups are at risk.

At risk of what? I do not understand what you are saying here.

Research has proven that safe same-sex behavior provides significant physical, and emotional benefits, and that long term abstinence has proven health risks for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Having sex is normal. Practicing long term abstinence is abnormal.

Even if I grant this bizarre claim they do not justify the suffering hey produce. I have no idea what benefit you refer to but I have no need to. Whatever it is does not justify the millions that die and suffer lifelong with the negative effects. It is like saying a ten year old who has a gun develops motor skills faster. So what?

Homosexual sex for homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least ten years has no meaningful health risks. I am no more obligated to provide research to back up my claim than you are to back up your claim.

Oh yes they do and many of them. However they are not primarily of the STD type. They are so disgusting I will not describe them but have posted their labels at least once so far.

You need to provide medical statistics that only deal with monogamous homosexuals.

There are roughly 140 million homosexuals in the world. It is reasonable to assume that at the very least, the health of 1%, or 1.4 million of them, compares favorably with heterosexuals in general. Logically, there are not any good reasons for those homosexuals to practice abstinence.

That is not in the least true if I understood it correctly. Most of the non STD risks I provided once (and will not do again as they disgust me) are not even applicable to heterosexuals. In fact I am not discussing this issue again, it is uncomfortable to me and brings up repulsive images when considered.

Where is your evidence that 90% of species are strictly heterosexual? What about primates? I assume that all species of primates practice homosexuality.

I was guessing but I think that number is low.

A few species practice it? No, over 1500 species of animals, and birds practice it, and all bonobo monkeys are bisexual. If naturalism is true, it someone caused homosexuality. Even if humans were the only species that practiced homosexuality, sexual identity is not a choice, and the millions of homosexuals who will die without ever getting any STDs will generally be much better off enjoying the significant health benefits of having sex than they would practicing abstinence, which have prove health risks.

Well you messed up and gave the numbers to use. There are 8.7 million species total. There are according to you 2000 or less homosexual species. That is far less than 1% just doing it in my head.

If you think that my premise is sort of true, then you do have an idea what it is. You are an intelligent person, so you know exactly what I meant. You know that you once said that you do not have anything personal against homosexuals who have died, and did not harm you, or anyone else. A hundred years from now, millions of homosexuals who have died will never have had any STDs, and will not have harmed anyone.

Repeat and almost an accusation of dishonesty which I do not tolerate too long. If I said I do not get something I didn't.

Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence, that would not affect the behavior of homosexuals who get STDs, so nothing practical would be gained if homosexuals who will never get any STDs practiced abstinence. Even if homosexuals who will never get any STDs should not play the game at this time, they will beat the odds, and they will enjoy many health benefits from having sex, and they will avoid the risks of long term abstinence.

I am not writing laws, I am not making a constitution, I am not a counselor of non-Christian homosexuals, I am not discussing solutions. Murder is still wrong even if we can't stop everyone from killing. I have practiced long term abstinence (every naval man must, an most soldiers of all kinds must). I have never even noticed a problem with abstinence of any type among fellow soldiers who had the slightest self control, after a while you actually almost forget about it. I have noticed nothing but benefits outside a little frustration for the first few weeks.

 

[Thoughts]

God created human with the ability to think

Allah differentiate human from animal by giving him the ability to
Think

Now you are trying to imitate monkey ?!


So wired

 

[payak]

What causes one to be attracted to the same sex, we are attracted to the opposite for obvious reasons,our chemical and physical make up is designed to encourage reproduction.

Therefore if that is not happening and you begin looking at the same sex in this way its natural yes, however there is a flaw in the way you were created, not your fault, just like retarded people,they cannot help it but it cannot be said that's normal and the way they should be, they have obvious flaws.