1robin said:
I know that humanity at large would be better off without homosexuality. That fact is evident from unending statistics and common sense. I would think that homosexuals in particular would be better off but I do not think they would agree. They apparently place more value on fulfilling their desires than the risks they produce. So they would move heaven and earth to make it seem like there were all sorts of devastating costs to not practicing homosexuality. IMO they would be making up most of them, a few would have merit, but none would justify the cost regardless.
I would think the most logical way to go about it would be to initially label the practice as wrong, and not require anyone else to pay the costs of those who engage in it but not criminalize what people do in private. Civil unions may be ok but I would restrict them in any way where others are involved and must pay for them.
I said:
"In your opinion, are some homosexuals better off practicing homosexuality than practicing long term abstinence?"
You did not answer the question. Please do so. I want to know if your position is that all homosexuals who practice homosexuality are at fault.
I agree with you that it would be better if everyone was a heterosexual, but that is not what we have been debating. The most important issue is what should be done about homosexuality. I would agree that homosexuals who practice unsafe sex would be better off if they practiced abstinence, but the same thing would also apply to heterosexuals who practice unsafe sex.
Homosexuals who have been monogamous for at least five years, and are strongly committed to monogamy, have no need of practicing abstinence. In addition, having safe sex has proven health benefits, and practicing long term abstinence has proven health risks.
Some homosexuals who have tried long term abstinence ended up worse off than they were before, and had to get medical treatment as a result. For those homosexuals, trying abstinence increased costs, and suffering, and was therefore a failure.
Holding, touching, kissing, and having sex are highly prized by most humans, and have many physical. and emotional health benefits. It would be very unfair for anyone to say that long term, monogamous homosexuals, who are strongly committed to monogamy, should practice abstinence for life.
You need to understand that lesbians have much lower risks for some things than gay men do. For example, lesbians have much lower risks than gay men of getting HIV, and AIDS. An Internet article at a website of the American Psychological Association said:
New data on lesbian, gay and bisexual mental health
"A study found lesbians reported equally strong levels of mental health as their heterosexual sisters and higher self-esteem."
"A new study of gay and lesbian youth finds that they are only slightly more likely than heterosexual youth to attempt suicide, refuting previous research that suggested much higher rates."
Statistics can be misleading if they are not used properly. Some legitimate scientific research has shown that higher percentages of homosexuals have certain problems than heterosexuals, sometimes much higher. However, in most cases, the statistics do not apply to the majority of homosexuals, and in some cases, not even to 10% of homosexuals.
Is your position that enough homosexuals have serious medical problems to warrant all of them practicing long term abstinence? If so, which medical problems, and what percentages of homosexuals have them?
You have no secular moral basis to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risks groups should not practice abstinence. I am referring to black American heterosexuals, who have high risks, black African heterosexuals, who have much higher risks, heterosexuals who live in poverty, and heterosexual women 45 years of age and older, many of whom have sex only for pleasure, and in most countries do not need to have sex in order to maintain the populations. You have even less of a moral basis since you also said that any deaths at all from AIDS is too many when I asked you how many deaths is too many.
Regarding heterosexuals having to pay some of the medical costs for homosexuals who have STDs, that is not a valid argument since if everyone was a heterosexual, heterosexuals who never get heart disease would still have to pay some of the medical costs for people who get heart disease. Heart disease is often preventable, and so is obesity. Some researchers have predicted that by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, and that that will add 500 billion dollars a year to medical costs. It often costs a good deal more to treat a case of AIDS than it does to treat a case of heart disease, but collectively, it costs far more to treat heart disease since far more people get it. In 2010, about 40 times more Americans, or about 4,000 per cent more Americans, died from heart disease than died from AIDS.
In your opinion, where should the money come from for the treatment of AIDS for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals who have AIDS? How about in Africa, where in some places, AIDS is more prevalent among heterosexuals than it is among homosexuals. How about in the Caribbean, where two thirds of AIDS cases are from heterosexuals?
If all homosexuals practiced abstinence, medical costs would drop a lot, but if all heterosexuals had better diets, and got more exercise, medical costs would drop far more.
1robin said:
Not validate it by a covenant that only Christianity is the foundation for (marriage).
I do not understand what you meant.
1robin said:
While these type measures are enforced I would study it in detail and without bias of any kind to get at what it's true nature is and what measures are available to deal with it. I think that the issue is far too politically involved to get much good science concerning it done. We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise.
If scientists should not be trusted to conduct the research, who should conduct it?
I made my post 866 in August of last year. As far as I know, you did not reply to it. I said:
"When homosexuality was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, no Christian opponent of homosexuality would have claimed that political pressure, or liability were involved."
You replied:
"That has nothing to do with whether or not it belonged there."
Why did it belong there? If political pressure was involved when homosexuality was removed from the DSM, why wouldn't you also conclude that political, and religious pressure were involved when it was put in the DSM? That valid argument never occurs to conservative Christians who complain that political pressure from homosexuals was part of the reason why homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Conservative Christians can be as political as anyone else.
You also said:
"These official statements [about zoophilia from the American Psychiatric Association] are not good representations of what is rational. These people have liability issues involved, political pressure, and a whole different criteria than people in a forum."
I replied:
"If homosexuality was harmful, major medical associations that support it would be [legally] at risk, so your arguments are absurd."
I said:
"If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is unhealthy, you would be quoting them."
You replied:
"I probably would but I would have entertained the comments I made if you had made them instead."
If you would be quoting all major medical organizations if they said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and is harmful, wouldn't that contradict your comments that ".......the issue is far too politically involved to get much good science concerning it done. We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise"?
1robin said:
We should assume it is a choice until persuaded reliably otherwise.
Are you saying that initial sexual identity at puberty is a choice? If so, based upon what evidence? Some time ago, you said:
"I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality."
Do you have any scientific research that supports that claim?
The majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals? How do you explain that if environment is the main cause of sexual identity?
The vast majority of people are heterosexuals. That is largely because their predominant sexual urges at puberty were heterosexual. Similarly, homosexuals who have always practiced exclusively same-sex behavior became homosexuals largely because their predominant sexual urges at puberty were homosexual.
You must know that 1) when teenagers reach a certain age, most of them have sexual urges that they did not ask for, and did not cause, that 2) for the majority of teenagers, the sexual urges are predominantly heterosexual, and that 3) for a minority of teenagers, the sexual urges are predominantly homosexual, or bisexual.
Also, you must know that some teenagers who have same-sex urges are raised as conservative Christians by parents who strongly oppose homosexuality, and the teenagers also strongly oppose homosexuality, but still have strong, predominantly same-sex urges. That proves that in those cases, sexual identity was not a choice.
Many if not the majority of homosexuals who were strongly religiously motivated to change their sexual identity were not able to do so. Even if a complete change of sexual identity sometimes occurs, that is rare.
