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

[1robin]

Since the Bible contains many questionable claims, including at least some errors, interpolations, and forgeries, even if a God inspired the originals, it is impossible to know, for example, whether or not the originals contained anything about same-sex behavior.

As a matter of cat it is very easy to know what was original. That is why virtually all scribal errors are known and indicated in every modern Bible. The Bible has a textual tradition so unimaginably massive and comprehensive it is not that hard to know what was original and exactly when changes occurred. I can spell out why but it takes a while. I will just say the Bible is the most accurate text of any kind in ancient history by many many times over (and I mean many). Pick any ancient work and I will demonstrate. It may say wrong things (I doubt it) but what it said is almost certain.

The flood story in the book of Genesis is a good example of a questionable claim. The story is confusing since it does not clearly indicate whether the flood was global, regional, or a myth, allegory, or parable. The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but the flood story is confusing.

That gets into interpretation issues not textual accuracy issues and only does so because it concerns prehistoric events. Verses on homosexuality are usually emphatic and direct and come from later periods.

The story of Adam and Eve is another confusing story, and so are the stories of the Ten Plagues in Egypt, and the Exodus.

See above, however the evidence for the Exodus seems to increase daily. There is some good new evidence out there. The textual issues are not as ambiguous as the interpretation ones. If you pick a verse we can examine it.

Jesus supposedly said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery. Lots of evidence shows that in many cases, not getting divorced is its own punishment, so your argument is not valid.

What argument? I have not been in this thread in weeks.

Genetics alone does not determine sexual identity, but as I showed in my post #1213, it is an important part of it. Please reply to that post.

For the heck of it tell me what percentage of it that it mandates. Your argument is that homosexuality is not chosen. I think you have mortally wounded that claim but I was curious.

What evidence do you have that environment primarily determines sexual identity?

People claim they were straight or homosexual but chose the opposite at some point. There is no good reason to believe it is mandated by biology. Most other things generally shunned by society over history are choices why is this one special? Twin studies seem to suggest it is not predetermined. I will grant that the jury is still out but that does not help your case much. If I get ten people together and we insist we were born attracted to trees and rocks on what basis should I not marry a rock or tree? A line must be drawn somewhere. Why is it always just beyond what a person wishes to do?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

As a matter of cat it is very easy to know what was original. That is why virtually all scribal errors are known and indicated in every modern Bible.

But scribal errors does not show which Scriptures God inspired. What evidence do you have that God inspired some Scriptures about same-sex behavior?

For the heck of it tell me what percentage of it that it mandates. Your argument is that homosexuality is not chosen.

No, I have said many times that homosexuality is partly cause by genetics, and partly caused by environment, and that genetics is partly caused by environment.

My post #1213 has lots of scientific evidence that supports my arguments. Do you disagree with the evidence?

People claim they were straight or homosexual but chose the opposite at some point. There is no good reason to believe it is mandated by biology.

What you need is documented evidence, not what some unidentified people said.

Plenty of GLBT people are bisexual to varying degrees. It is not unusual for many of them to try one way for a while, and another way for a while, but it is very unusual for homosexuals who have no sexual interest at all in the opposite sex to give up same sex behavior permanently, and not have any more strong same-sex urges.

Twin studies seem to suggest it is not predetermined.

My post #1213 clearly shows that twin studies show that genetics, and environment are both involved, and that genetics is an important part of homosexuality. Environment alone, or primarily environment, could not be responsible for sexual identity.

As some homosexuals have said, if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.


Even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

If I get ten people together and we insist we were born attracted to trees and rocks on what basis should I not marry a rock or tree? A line must be drawn somewhere.

Quite obviously, societies all over the world draw lines wherever they want to. For example, zoophilia is legal in a number of U.S. states, and in a number of countries, but I am not aware of anywhere in the world where people marry trees and rocks.

Why is it always just beyond what a person wishes to do?

Well, sexual identity is about what people want to do about sexual urges, usually urges that just happen, and are not chosen. Since having sex is a strong urge in most people, and since having sex provides a number of physical, and emotional benefits, a sizeable majority of people have sex.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that heterosexual women who are 45 years of age and over should practice abstinence? Consider the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6A94TK20101110

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.

"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

Do you believe that black Americans who live in black American communities should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

Do you believe that people who live in poverty should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

You have said that practicing long term abstinence is not very difficult. Research shows otherwise, but if you are right, it would not be very difficult for the groups of people that I mentioned to practice abstinence, and lots of STDs, and deaths, would be prevented, and lots of money would not have to be spent on medical treatment.

There is no need for homosexuals who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years to practice abstinence.


You have said that homosexuals have health problems other than STDs. That is true, but millions of homosexuals have health that is favorable as compared with the majority of heterosexuals, and there are not any good reasons why they should practice abstinence. If you wish to discuss health issues other than STDs, those issues must include heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are three of the leading health problems in the U.S., and in the rest of the world, and much of those problems is preventable. Heart disease alone is easily a far bigger health problem than AIDS is since it is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. In 2010, about 15,000 people died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people, or about 4000% more people, died of heart disease. By 2030, experts have predicted that 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs.

According to your philosophy, anyone who has any serious health problem should abstain from various kinds of behaviors. That would be a large percentage of the people in the world, none of whom would have a right to criticize homosexuals.

How do you propose that healthy people should treat unhealthy people? Should they reject them as friends, refuse to hire them, refuse to work with them, and refuse to vote for them?

Regarding homosexuals who have health problems other than STDs, many of those problems can be overcome by using standard medical treatment, or simply by abstaining from certain things, such as abuse of alcohol, or drug, or by eating healthier foods, or getting more exercise.

Of course, the majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, do not about drugs, and are note pedophiles.

Do you know what percentage of homosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem, and what percentage of heterosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem?

Regarding homosexuals who have medical problems other than STDs, in many cases, since many heterosexuals also have many of those problems, it is impossible to know which homosexuals have those problems because they are homosexuals. Such being the case, if, for example, a monogamous homosexual named John Smith is an alcoholic, it is impossible to know whether or not he is an alcoholic because he is a homosexual. If John tries abstinence for two years, and his general health becomes worse off that it was before, that is reasonable evidence that his sexual behavior did not cause his alcoholism, and that he should go back to practicing safe sex.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Practicing long term abstinence has proven health risks. I have posted that evidence many times in various threads, and I will post it again if you wish.

Based upon your absurd post #304, it is no wonder that you believe that homosexuals are generally much worse off than they are.

Many homosexuals will never get any STDs, let's call them Group A. Many homosexuals will get STDs, let's call them Group B. For your plan to work, both Group A, and Group B would have to practice abstinence. Group A have no need of practicing abstinence. Since Group B is not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. It is obvious that most of both groups will never practice abstinence, so your only option is to claim that all homosexuals are morally wrong for having sex, and for not practicing abstinence for life. Unfortunately for you, a great many people, philosophers, college professors of ethics, medical experts, and Christians, disagree with your personal opinion.


In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Obviously, heart disease is a much bigger health problem than AIDS is, and it is often preventable by doing nothing more that eating healthier foods, and getting more exercise. Regarding heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, their greatest threat is obviously themselves, not homosexuals.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Agnostic75]

As a matter of cat it is very easy to know what was original. That is why virtually all scribal errors are known and indicated in every modern Bible.

But scribal errors does not show which Scriptures God inspired. What evidence do you have that God inspired some Scriptures about same-sex behavior?

For the heck of it tell me what percentage of it that it mandates. Your argument is that homosexuality is not chosen.

No, I have said many times that homosexuality is partly cause by genetics, and partly caused by environment, and that genetics is partly caused by environment.

My post #1213 has lots of scientific evidence that supports my arguments. Do you disagree with the evidence?

People claim they were straight or homosexual but chose the opposite at some point. There is no good reason to believe it is mandated by biology.

What you need is documented evidence, not what some unidentified people said.

Plenty of GLBT people are bisexual to varying degrees. It is not unusual for many of them to try one way for a while, and another way for a while, but it is very unusual for homosexuals who have no sexual interest at all in the opposite sex to give up same sex behavior permanently, and not have any more strong same-sex urges.

Twin studies seem to suggest it is not predetermined.

My post #1213 clearly shows that twin studies show that genetics, and environment are both involved, and that genetics is an important part of homosexuality. Environment alone, or primarily environment, could not be responsible for sexual identity.

As some homosexuals have said, if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

If I get ten people together and we insist we were born attracted to trees and rocks on what basis should I not marry a rock or tree? A line must be drawn somewhere.

Quite obviously, societies all over the world draw lines wherever they want to. For example, zoophilia is legal in a number of U.S. states, and in a number of countries, but I am not aware of anywhere in the world where people marry trees and rocks.

Why is it always just beyond what a person wishes to do?

Well, sexual identity is about what people want to do about sexual urges, usually urges that just happen, and are not chosen. Since having sex is a strong urge in most people, and since having sex provides a number of physical, and emotional benefits, a sizeable majority of people have sex.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Do you believe that heterosexual women who are 45 years of age and over should practice abstinence? Consider the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6A94TK20101110

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.

"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

Do you believe that black Americans who live in black American communities should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

Do you believe that people who live in poverty should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

You have said that practicing long term abstinence is not very difficult. Research shows otherwise, but if you are right, it would not be very difficult for the groups of people that I mentioned to practice abstinence, and lots of STDs, and deaths, would be prevented, and lots of money would not have to be spent on medical treatment.

There is no need for homosexuals who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years to practice abstinence.


You have said that homosexuals have health problems other than STDs. That is true, but millions of homosexuals have health that is favorable as compared with the majority of heterosexuals, and there are not any good reasons why they should practice abstinence. If you wish to discuss health issues other than STDs, those issues must include heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are three of the leading health problems in the U.S., and in the rest of the world, and much of those problems is preventable. Heart disease alone is easily a far bigger health problem than AIDS is since it is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. In 2010, about 15,000 people died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people, or about 4000% more people, died of heart disease. By 2030, experts have predicted that 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs.


According to your philosophy, anyone who has any serious health problem should abstain from various kinds of behaviors. That would be a large percentage of the people in the world, none of whom would have a right to criticize homosexuals.

How do you propose that healthy people should treat unhealthy people? Should they reject them as friends, refuse to hire them, refuse to work with them, and refuse to vote for them?

Regarding homosexuals who have health problems other than STDs, many of those problems can be overcome by using standard medical treatment, or simply by abstaining from certain things, such as abuse of alcohol, or drug, or by eating healthier foods, or getting more exercise.

Of course, the majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, do not about drugs, and are note pedophiles.

Do you know what percentage of homosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem, and what percentage of heterosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem?

Regarding homosexuals who have medical problems other than STDs, in many cases, since many heterosexuals also have many of those problems, it is impossible to know which homosexuals have those problems because they are homosexuals. Such being the case, if, for example, a monogamous homosexual named John Smith is an alcoholic, it is impossible to know whether or not he is an alcoholic because he is a homosexual. If John tries abstinence for two years, and his general health becomes worse off that it was before, that is reasonable evidence that his sexual behavior did not cause his alcoholism, and that he should go back to practicing safe sex.

Having sex has proven health benefits. Practicing long term abstinence has proven health risks. I have posted that evidence many times in various threads, and I will post it again if you wish.

Based upon your absurd post #304, it is no wonder that you believe that homosexuals are generally much worse off than they are.

Many homosexuals will never get any STDs, let's call them Group A. Many homosexuals will get STDs, let's call them Group B. For your plan to work, both Group A, and Group B would have to practice abstinence. Group A have no need of practicing abstinence. Since Group B is not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. It is obvious that most of both groups will never practice abstinence, so your only option is to claim that all homosexuals are morally wrong for having sex, and for not practicing abstinence for life. Unfortunately for you, a great many people, philosophers, college professors of ethics, medical experts, and Christians, disagree with your personal opinion.


In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Obviously, heart disease is a much bigger health problem than AIDS is, and it is often preventable by doing nothing more that eating healthier foods, and getting more exercise. Regarding heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, their greatest threat is obviously themselves, not homosexuals.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

But scribal errors does not show which Scriptures God inspired. What evidence do you have that God inspired some Scriptures about same-sex behavior?

Did you not notice I said as a matter of cat?

Yes scribal errors showed which things were added later and were not original. It would take several posts of it's own to explain why it is thought God revealed the scriptures. Some examples are Christ reference to them, the inclusion of unknowable knowledge like 2500 prophecies, the non-human aspects to their demands and incite, etc... I can do that but it will be the only thing I can if done. Why don't you save me the trouble and look into evidence for inspiration. Start with the Chicago statement of faith.

No, I have said many times that homosexuality is partly cause by genetics, and partly caused by environment, and that genetics is partly caused by environment.

The only relevant issue is if it can be controlled by choice and I believe it can. You must prove it can't be helped.

My post #1213 has lots of scientific evidence that supports my arguments. Do you disagree with the evidence?

That's' 70 posts ago. I will look at it when I am through here.

What you need is documented evidence, not what some unidentified people said.

Ok if I provide that documented evidence (which I gave you a link to that you refused to access) then you must concede the point. If not what is the point. Deal?

Plenty of GLBT people are bisexual to varying degrees. It is not unusual for many of them to try one way for a while, and another way for a while, but it is very unusual for homosexuals who have no sexual interest at all in the opposite sex to give up same sex behavior permanently, and not have any more strong same-sex urges.

Good grief do they have their own acronym now? You are really attempting to stack the deck but I bet I can even meet this standard if you agree with the above.

My post #1213 clearly shows that twin studies show that genetics, and environment are both involved, and that genetics is an important part of homosexuality. Environment alone, or primarily environment, could not be responsible for sexual identity.

Then genetics do not mandate that anyone is homosexual. By the way how would genetics make you half gay or 1/4 gay? What gene arrangements makes a person gay any way. Where is the genetic test and what is it based on? Why can't it predict sexuality if it is true?

As some homosexuals have said, if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.

Things are not this black and white when the spiritual element is included. There are many reasons to think the back side of the force has effects on us all and unevenly. Their main goal is to subvert truth and cause us to gratify healthy desires in unhealthy ways. I have spent many years looking into spiritual warfare and you have no idea what documented evidence exists that is far more disturbing than homosexuality or at least more direct. Have you ever researched spiritual warfare. I am no fan of Catholicism but their modern work in the demonic and miracles is very very well carried out and documented. Throw that in the mix and all kinds of things normal people just can't ever get like genocide, serial killers, psychopathy, etc... start to make sense.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Never heard of that person. If it only occurred once that would prove both that either God exists, there is a solution, and it may not be genetic or all three. How many cases of success is enough?

Even some conservative Christian experts have admitted that even the majority of religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

You realize that now your are copying parts of your posts inside the same posts now. Why are you so redundant? You have remarkable potential as a debater but will never get but so far with all these repetitions and the subjects you specialize in and the very bizarre claims about my theoretical loosing to professionals etc....

Quite obviously, societies all over the world draw lines wherever they want to. For example, zoophilia is legal in a number of U.S. states, and in a number of countries, but I am not aware of anywhere in the world where people marry trees and rocks.

I was not speaking about actualities necessarily but about what can be justified by using the argumentation for homosexual marriages. Historically marriage has been either Holy covenant or to protect child bearing families. If it no longer means that then why can't I marry a tree and have it on my insurance and getting my spousal VA benefits.

Well, sexual identity is about what people want to do about sexual urges, usually urges that just happen, and are not chosen. Since having sex is a strong urge in most people, and since having sex provides a number of physical, and emotional benefits, a sizeable majority of people have sex.

Are you suggesting everyone has the right to gratify all urges? Are urges a justification for anything, ever? Even as insane as we already are if people acted on all their urges they would create a moral worm hole and suck reality inside out and the universe would be better off for it. Can you imagine Urge based laws?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The reason it isnt allowed is because a half dozen self righteous old men were sitting around one day and each were saying how much they hated and were disgusted by homosexuality. Then one of them had the great idea of saying that god hated and was disgusted by it too - none of them paused for even a moment before accepting the assertion, after all they were righteous men and if they didnt like gays then that was righteous and since it was righteous their god must agree.

And since in those times people made up stories to explain why they thought as they did they explained this righteous hate and disgust with a tale in which god reveals his righteous hate and disgust with homosexuality, which was later interpreted as literal truth.

 

[Agnostic75]

Yes scribal errors showed which things were added later and were not original. It would take several posts of it's own to explain why it is thought God revealed the scriptures. Some examples are Christ reference to them, the inclusion of unknowable knowledge like 2500 prophecies, the non-human aspects to their demands and incite, etc... I can do that but it will be the only thing I can if done. Why don't you save me the trouble and look into evidence for inspiration. Start with the Chicago statement of faith.

We could debate that for years and get nowhere.

The only relevant issue is if it can be controlled by choice and I believe it can. You must prove it can't be helped.

You have claimed that sexual urges, aka sexual identity, can frequently be changed. I have provided lots of evidence that reasonably proves that sexual identity cannot frequently be changed, and you have not provided any valid evidence that it can be changed. I provided the evidence in my post #1213, which you continue to refuse to reply to. I provide evidence, you refuse to reply to it, and then claim that I have to prove something. That is ridiculous.

That's 70 posts ago. I will look at it when I am through here.

When I made the post is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you have easy access to it, and it adequately refutes your claim that environment primarily causes sexual identity. I provided documented research from medical professionals, and you did not provide any documented research from medical professionals.

Ok if I provide that documented evidence (which I gave you a link to that you refused to access) then you must concede the point. If not what is the point. Deal?

What link are you referring to that claims that environment primarily causes sexual identity?

As I showed in my post #1213, twin studies, which are the best way to study this issue, conclusively show that environment cannot primarily be responsible for sexual identity. As one of the studies that I posted said, the results were exactly what would be expected if genetics was largely, but not solely the cause of sexual identity. In other words, the highest concordance was among identical twins, followed by fraternal twins, followed by non-twin siblings.

Then genetics do not mandate that anyone is homosexual.

That is correct, neither genetics nor environment solely mandate sexual identity, and I have never claimed otherwise.

By the way how would genetics make you half gay or 1/4 gay?

I am not aware of any research that quantifies gayness by percentages.

What gene arrangements makes a person gay any way? Where is the genetic test and what is it based on? Why can't it predict sexuality if it is true?

As you know, all major medical associations have said that the exact causes of homosexuality are not known, but we do know that environment alone does not primarily cause sexual identity. If it did, twin study research would have had the results that it did.

As some homosexuals have said, if sexual identity was a choice, they would have chosen to become heterosexuals in order to avoid persecution.?

Things are not this black and white when the spiritual element is included.

No, spiritual warfare, and demons cannot explain the results of twin studies.

Alan Chambers, the founder, and former president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest organization of its kind in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99.9% of homosexuals who came to his organization for help did not change their sexual identity. Even some conservative Christian experts who strongly oppose homosexuality have admitted that the majority of the time, even religiously motivated homosexuals fail to change their sexual identity.

Never heard of that person. If it only occurred once that would prove both that either God exists, there is a solution, and it may not be genetic or all three. How many cases of success is enough?

Whether or not you ever heard of him is irrelevant. What is relevant is that his former organization was the largest ex-gay organization of its kind in the world. No expert who I know of has claimed that a solution never exists, but a sizeable majority of experts have said that a complete change of sexual identity is rare. It is obviously quite rare, and it is rare even for religiously motivated people.

You realize that now your are copying parts of your posts inside the same posts now. Why are you so redundant?

Sometimes I am redundant when you continue to refuse to reply to my posts, such as my post #1213. You have claimed on a number of occasions that you have already replied to what I said, but you do the same thing. That post reasonably proves that environment does not primarily cause sexual identity, but you do not want to discuss it since the evidence does not agree with you.

You have remarkable potential as a debater but will never get but so far with all these repetitions and the subjects you specialize in and the very bizarre claims about my theoretical losing to professionals etc.......

Repetition is reasonable when you refuse to reply to my posts.

I was not speaking about actualities necessarily but about what can be justified by using the argumentation for homosexual marriages.

But actualities are what life is primarily about. No political presidential, or congressional debate is about people marrying trees, or rocks.

Historically marriage has been either Holy covenant or to protect child bearing families.

That has nothing to do with whether or not all homosexuals should practice abstinence since many homosexuals are not married, and do not want to get married. However, if you wish, I will be happy to debate same-sex marriage with you from a secular perspective in a new thread that I could start. I enjoy debating homosexuality, and I have lots of time to conduct the necessary research.

If it no longer means that then why can't I marry a tree and have it on my insurance and getting my spousal VA benefits.

Democratic societies are free to legislate anything that they want to legislate. As far as I know, no society has debated legislating the right for humans to marry trees. I assume that very few people would compare same-sex marriage to humans marrying trees.

 

[Agnostic75]

Are you suggesting everyone has the right to gratify all urges? Are urges a justification for anything, ever? Even as insane as we already are if people acted on all their urges they would create a moral worm hole and suck reality inside out and the universe would be better off for it. Can you imagine Urge based laws?

We are not talking about all urges, we are talking about having sex. Having sex has proven health benefits. Long term abstinence has proven health risks.

Do you believe that heterosexual women who are 45 years of age and over should practice abstinence? Consider the following:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...6A94TK20101110

For the few women who manage to get pregnant after age 45, both they and their babies have a higher risk of complications, Israeli researchers have found. For instance, they are about three times more likely than younger women to experience diabetes and high blood pressure during their pregnancies, the researchers report in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Older women also have higher rates of preterm births and placenta previa, in which the placenta blocks the opening to the birth canal.

"Increasing age leads to less (healthy) individuals, and less healthy individuals do have higher pregnancy risks," Dr. Maximilian Franz of the Medical University of Vienna, who did not participate in the study, told Reuters Health.

Do you believe that black Americans who live in black American communities should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

Do you believe that people who live in poverty should practice abstinence since they are a high risk group?

You have said that practicing long term abstinence is not very difficult. Research shows otherwise, but if you are right, it would not be very difficult for the groups of people that I mentioned to practice abstinence, and lots of STDs, and deaths, would be prevented, and lots of money would not have to be spent on medical treatment.

There is no need for homosexuals who have practiced monogamy for at least ten years to practice abstinence.


You have said that homosexuals have health problems other than STDs. That is true, but millions of homosexuals have health that is favorable as compared with the majority of heterosexuals, and there are not any good reasons why they should practice abstinence. If you wish to discuss health issues other than STDs, those issues must include heart disease, cancer, and obesity, which are three of the leading health problems in the U.S., and in the rest of the world, and much of those problems is preventable. Heart disease alone is easily a far bigger health problem than AIDS is since it is the leading cause of death for heterosexuals, and for homosexuals. In 2010, about 15,000 people died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people, or about 4000% more people, died of heart disease. By 2030, experts have predicted that 50% of Americans will be obese, which would add over 500 billion dollars to health care costs.

According to your philosophy, anyone who has any serious health problem should abstain from various kinds of behaviors. That would be a large percentage of the people in the world, none of whom would have a right to criticize homosexuals.

How do you propose that healthy people should treat unhealthy people? Should they reject them as friends, refuse to hire them, refuse to work with them, and refuse to vote for them? Should people who have heart disease, or are obese, be called bad people?

Regarding homosexuals who have health problems other than STDs, many of those problems can be overcome by using standard medical treatment, or simply by abstaining from certain things, such as abuse of alcohol, or drug, or by eating healthier foods, or getting more exercise.

Of course, the majority of homosexuals are not alcoholics, do not about drugs, and are note pedophiles.

Do you know what percentage of homosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem, and what percentage of heterosexuals have any serious preventable medical problem?

Regarding homosexuals who have medical problems other than STDs, in many cases, since many heterosexuals also have many of those problems, it is impossible to know which homosexuals have those problems because they are homosexuals. Such being the case, if, for example, a monogamous homosexual named John Smith is an alcoholic, it is impossible to know whether or not he is an alcoholic because he is a homosexual. If John tries abstinence for two years, and his general health becomes worse off that it was before, that is reasonable evidence that his sexual behavior did not cause his alcoholism, and that he should go back to practicing safe sex.

Based upon your absurd post #304, it is no wonder that you believe that homosexuals are generally much worse off than they are.

Many homosexuals will never get any STDs, let's call them Group A. Many homosexuals will get STDs, let's call them Group B. For your plan to work, both Group A, and Group B would have to practice abstinence. Group A have no need of practicing abstinence. Since Group B is not even interested in practicing safe sex, they would obviously be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life. It is obvious that most of both groups will never practice abstinence, so your only option is to claim that all homosexuals are morally wrong for having sex, and for not practicing abstinence for life. Unfortunately for you, a great many people, philosophers, college professors of ethics, medical experts, and Christians, disagree with your personal opinion.


In 2010, about 15,000 Americans died of AIDS, and about 600,000 people died of heart disease. Heart disease is the leading cause of death for homosexuals, and for heterosexuals. Obviously, heart disease is a much bigger health problem than AIDS is, and it is often preventable by doing nothing more that eating healthier foods, and getting more exercise. Regarding heterosexuals who get heart disease, cancer, and obesity, their greatest threat is obviously themselves, not homosexuals.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[philbo]

The only relevant issue is if it can be controlled by choice and I believe it can. You must prove it can't be helped.

So you're intentionally avoiding the overwhelming evidence that for (nearly all) homosexuals it is not a matter of choice, just so that you can hold on to your bigotry.

Nice. A very "Christian" attitude. </sarcasm>

 

[1robin]

So you're intentionally avoiding the overwhelming evidence that for (nearly all) homosexuals it is not a matter of choice, just so that you can hold on to your bigotry.

Nice. A very "Christian" attitude. </sarcasm>

Apparently you just ignored the last ten thousand words I have posted on this issue. I am judging homosexuality on secular standards though I have no idea why I must. It was the person arguing for homosexuality and doing it infinitely better than any other that said genetics are only potentially part of the equation if any. I posted much that indicates it isn't genetic at all but the jury is still out. I also have stated that just a single person (of which there are probably many thousands) ever chose to leave homosexuality or heterosexuality and did so completely it would prove it is chosen. Not to mention that hating what is increasing human suffering without any justification while loving even those that do it is perfectly Christian and far more benevolent that what the homosexuals are using to justify what they do. They don't care how much it costs in money, lives, and suffering those who do not practice it, sheer lust is enough to do it anyway. That is truly unchristian. I don't think you said anything correct here at all.

 

[philbo]

I also have stated that just a single person (of which there are probably many thousands) ever chose to leave homosexuality or heterosexuality and did so completely it would prove it is chosen.

That just shows your inability to use logic. When you learn to think, maybe we can continue this discussion, until then please go back to school.

 

[1robin]

That just shows your inability to use logic. When you learn to think, maybe we can continue this discussion, until then please go back to school.

My Lord what a bunch of crap. I hope I never do whatever it is that continues something began as badly as what you did here. How petty.

 

[philbo]

My Lord what a bunch of crap. I hope I never do whatever it is that continues something began as badly as what you did here. How petty.

You said that if one homosexual "chose to leave homosexuality" then that meant it's a personal choice for all of them. That is crass stupidity, and if you can't see why, you're beyond hope, 'cause you're just too damn thick to argue coherently.

 

[1robin]

You said that if one homosexual "chose to leave homosexuality" then that meant it's a personal choice for all of them. That is crass stupidity, and if you can't see why, you're beyond hope, 'cause you're just too damn thick to argue coherently.

I have not the time for this trifling mess. I never report anything but this post violates about 3 forum rules and common courtesy. I would not try it with a non-Christian. If this is all you got we are done here.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #1309, and #1310.

 

[philbo]

I have not the time for this trifling mess. I never report anything but this post violates about 3 forum rules and common courtesy. I would not try it with a non-Christian. If this is all you got we are done here.

I apologise if I hurt your feelings, but it was a crassly stupid thing to have said.

Why not try working out why rather than going off in a huff?

 

[garrydons]

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.

because it is sodomy. Man is for woman and vice versa not man for man or woman for woman. It is against the Law of God and against the internationally accepted standard norm, as simple as that.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

because it is sodomy. Man is for woman and vice versa not man for man or woman for woman. It is against the Law of God and against the internationally accepted standard norm, as simple as that.

That's not what Sodomy means...