Male Homosexuality Peanut Gallery:

[Gadarene]

Well done, Freodin

About the level of dishonesty I'd anticipated would come up.

 

[Oafman]

Disappointingly one-sided. TCMD wasn't even able to marshall nonsense into any kind of order.

If your worldview is based on ignorance and hate, the lest you can do is liner up your hatreds. He failed to even manage that.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I would have loved TCMD to explain how he makes the following distinction:

- behaviour A comes with risks, therefore society and the individual needs to take care that these risks are minimized (hetero-sex, driving cars, owning guns etc. etc.)
vs.
- behaviour B comes with risks, therefore it´s inherently a threat to society, depraved, perverted and whatnot, and needs to be prohibited.

Without clear rational criteria for this distinction all his arguments do not support a certain risky behaviour to be B.

It´s obvious that "homosexuality is B" is TCMD´s premise, not his conclusion.

Then , you kind of missed the whole point of the Debate and why I wanted to expose Male Homosexuality highlighting the concrete objective medical consequences (which all my Opponent could do is flat out deny, try to minimize, and interject extraneous excuses in a lame attempt to demean the hard medical facts of Homosexual acts) .

Re: Your scenario : The Debate wasn't about the truth that there is a measure of risk involved in many common daily tasks that we undergo such as driving a car , stepping into an airplane, grocery shopping, or working under our automobiles ; there is risk and chance we take in simply living out our Lives normally, and by faith, we do them (perhaps) understanding the risk to us albeit very rare . We greatly, if not totally, eliminate such risk on the majority of daily routines if we implement the prescribed absolute moral laws , high ethics, Godly principles, Godly wisdom, given by our Creator which is for the expressed purpose of providing Us with a maximized /fulfilling/ reasonably safe / , kind of existence ; based on our willful obedience to our Creator (viz.God) we can avoid a huge amount of grief in our independent lives as well as civility and harmony resulting for an entire Nation. That is what I see relating to your Scenario 'A' .

Scenario 'B' I see relating to willful disobedience to Gods prescribed moral laws and ethics , etc....and void of Godly wisdom , Godly discernment, Godly actions , and most of all...Godly authority over our lives ; instead, its THE PERSON who desires and excercises HIS/HER own authority based on urges, feelings, desires, whims , and even addictive neurosis' acted out (i.e. Homosexuality) toward Lifestyle Choices involving our sexual nature in particular whereby it is used haphazardly, with perversion, in a deviant manner, etc... In the debate, I clearly listed the common medical consequences from specific most popularly performed Male Homosexual acts --- yet the consequences don't seem to add caution to the Addict . Of course, this is one of the repercussions from an intense addiction to something that is absolutely very wrong....Humans try to justify the continuing addiction , will round up many people in support which lends 'justification' to doing it repeatedly in the Mind , and when we have even the President of a Large country cheering it all on at every turn.... it has a desensitized effect on the general Populace which springboards apathy at great sustaining levels.

Concluding, we can get a very good idea as to what is objectively wrong behavior thru a few true and time tested ways , which can serve as our criteria (so long as its not willfully vetoed) :

a. Most of all, does the behavior line up with absolute truth which is the very absolute nature , character, and Person of our Creator. Absolute truth is defined as : Fidelity to the Original . The Original is always the Creator of the Universe...OUR Creator. Does the behavior violate his infinite purity, holiness, morality, sacredness, and intentional design ?

b. Does it line up with our God given Moral Conscience ,,,, the inherent knowing that some things are really objectively wrong while some are correct. This requires of the Person , to NOT suppress the Moral Conscience to get what he desires (which is the catalyst by the way for all moral degradation in America today) . In short, we have to be WILLING and WANTING to live according to it (hence God) , and it has to trump temporary fixes thru perverted wrong behavior should we desire that.

c. Do we see a cause and effect taking place from the specific behavioral outcome ? If we keep doing 'a cause' .... and it responds in a bad effect....it should cause us to stop and evaluate what keeps on occurring to Us so we can make changes . The wrong thing to do , is to keep on doing it regardless. That is a symptom of a reprobate Mind which doesn't learn, nor cares to because the pleasure received trumps the fallout which is occurring (whether known or unknown presently , to the Individual) .

d. What does the unbiased scientific evidence have to say on the fallout from any specific behavior ? What do the Polls indicate from people involved in a specific Lifestyle have to say on the fallout from it ? When we consider the '78/2' statistic which is 78% of ALL fatal AIDS is coming from just 2% Population in America (the Male Homosexual)... we should be able to process this as being an extremely dangerous Lifestyle , and when we dig deeper into WHY it is so thru the most popular sex acts involved , then it should allow us to conclude its best to stay far away from it. That's what reasonable , caring, smart People do...but opposite People who don't care continue to blindly go forward suffering the consequences .

e. Does the behavior result in something that could be identified as objective perversion to how something (our Human Anatomy) was originally designed for ? In the case of Male Homosexual popular acts, does the result of Gay Bowel Syndrome where the Person needs a Butt Plug or is forced to wear an adult diaper , daily, to prevent the outward flow of disease and smelly feces because the muscles in his rectum have been stretched and distorted , sound like something that could be considered 'objectively perverted '? I would certainly think so.

I submit that the above 5 criteria is whats required to acquire an accurate conclusion on a Lifestyle , an act, or behavior. It would be great if the general Populus would use this kind of objective rationale (nearly all divine by nature) ...but alas... this is something that the majority of People find an offense to their pride and ego because they think they know better.

I believe that succinctly answers your questions . I shall not be continuing this dialogue , as I have another Formal Debate in which I must prepare . But thanks for your question . , and I trust that you will choose to move closer in Gods direction which will also mean, counter-culture (and for good reasons) End.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Scenario 'B' I see relating to willful disobedience to Gods prescribed moral laws and ethics , etc....and void of Godly wisdom , Godly discernment, Godly actions , and most of all...Godly authority over our lives ; instead, its THE PERSON who desires and excercises HIS/HER own authority based on urges, feelings, desires, whims , and even addictive neurosis' acted out (i.e. Homosexuality) toward Lifestyle Choices involving our sexual nature in particular whereby it is used haphazardly, with perversion, in a deviant manner, etc...

This is what it mostly comes down to. You had no such medical evidence establishing some inherent harm -- emphasis on inherent -- but simply point to tangential risks and clumsily conclude outrageous bans and hostile attitudes in a way we rarely see for other harms. The real reason, as you reveal here, is because you had some religious gripe of disobedience. That's it. Everything else is contrived post-hoc reasoning. You should have thrown in the towel sooner because it's clear you have no real secular argument against it.

 

[quatona]

Well, TCND, in your debate with Freodin all you did was trying to provide evidence that sex between man comes with health risks.
You never even tried to give arguments for what you actually argued for (or for what would have to be shown in order to make your case): that it is an inherently "wrong" behaviour.

Thanks for at least trying to do this now that your debate is over. Maybe someone will have the patience to address your arguments.

 

[Jack Russell]

Hi Freodin,

I was wondering if you could provide some additional information for me regarding this debate.

David mentioned several medical studies, polls, and some scientific research to justify his claim that male homosexuality is harmful to the human body.

I'm wondering if you countered this with some of your own references to medical/scientific research studies on homosexuality? I did see you reference statistics on smoking and obesity, but I'm not positive that you posted some scientific research about homosexual behavior, specifically.

You mentioned a "scientific consensus" which disbelieves the evidences David provided. I wonder if you could provide some names of scientists or scientific/medical institutions that disagree with the evidences David provided.

I would also like to ask one or two more questions later on, if possible. (This is my first post on this website, and I don't have an internet connection in my house, so should you respond, I don't know what my response time would be, but I hope you can answer all my questions.)

Thank you. :]

I also want to thank you and David for agreeing to this debate. I believe this is definitely a subject that should be discussed more in the public square.

 

[Freodin]

For a recent study about homosexuals and their practices, you could start with New study finds gay and bisexual men have varied sexual repertoires

As for the "several medical studies, polls, and some scientific research" that David mentions... it is in fact just one piece, a study made by a Dr. Paul Cameron, using the title Dave constantly cites. Search for it and you will get tons of references - by Christian and "family" organizations.

For the "scientific consensus" that disbelieves this piece of "evidence": the American Psychological Association expelled him in 1983 for unethical behaviour in his research, the American Sociological Association condemned his studies for constantly misrepresenting existing sociological research. That is quite a lot of disagreement.

 

[Jack Russell]

Thank you, Freodin. Later on I'd like to ask a few more questions about the info you posted, if possible. But first I'd like to get to the second of three questions I originally wanted to ask you. (I didn't want to overwhelm you with them all at once.

My second question has to do with the subject of bigotry and how you and many in the pro-gay crowd might judge it. Your debate partner here, TCMD, mentioned that there are about 85 countries that criminalize sodomy/sapphism, and after your response, he mentioned that you were insinuating that all of these countries were simply bigoted, to which you replied:

"Are all the countries that penalize homosexuality "BIGOTED"? I don't think so, and I cannot remember having made that argument."

And yet in your third and final post in the debate you made this statement:

"That is what the "Homosexual Agenda" is fighting against. The incitement of fear, the lies...all of that backed up with shoddy "scientific studies"... They fight this BIGOTRY..." (Caps mine.)

I believe you can see my confusion over this contradiction of statements, so I'm wondering if you could clarify your belief system regarding bigotry here.

Are you saying that these anti-gay countries (including over 95% of the world muslim population) are not bigoted, in your worldview?

Yet are you simultaneously saying that TCMD is being bigoted here for citing scientific studies in a debate to show the harm of sodomy? It seems that, according to you, citing scientific studies in a debate about sodomy is bigoted, but the entire Islamic world (all 38 muslim countries, over 1 billion muslims) that repudiates and criminalizes homosexuality is not bigoted?

You can see how your belief system regarding bigotry might need to be clarified for some readers here.

 

[Jack Russell]

Hi, Freodin. I'm going to go ahead and ask my third and final question regarding the Male Homosexuality debate, before hopefully getting to comment a bit on the information you posted which I requested.

My third question has to do with your views on unhealthy behaviors, their health consequences, and how society handles them regarding the law.

You made an argument that obesity and smoking affect more people than the adverse effects of male homosexuality, and also have a greater financial toll on America, then stated that these habits are not criminalized or socially demonized as much as sodomy.

According to your argument, while smoking affects 18% of the population and obesity affects 30% of the population, sodomy only affects less than 2% of the population, so it shouldn't be looked down on as much as it is regarding health problems, since smoking and overeating are way deadlier and costlier.

I wonder if you'd considered this fact before making your statement:

Murder also affects "only" 2% of the population, and has a significantly less financial burden on the U.S. than both smoking (18%) and obesity (30%).

So, in your mind, according to your logic, should murder also be less criminalized and socially demonized than smoking and obesity since it affects less people and has less of a financial impact on America?

Obviously you would have to answer "no". I'm just clarifying the faulty logic you used in that statement.

 

[justneverendingproblems21]

I'm confused by these threads... Homosexual sex can be safer than heterosexual sex. Anal sex can be straight or gay sex... It's not gay sex. Actial gay sex is safer than straight sex for obvious reasons.

I hope the person for the motion that male homosexuality is harmful takes a bit more of a sophisticated avenue than simply stating:

Premise (1): Homosexual sex is risky.
Premise (2): Risky behavior is immoral.
Conclusion: Therefore, homosexual sex is​

immoral.

Both of these premises, after all, are false as written. Some homosexual sex is risky, as is some heterosexual sex, not to mention many nonsexual activities. Some risky behavior is immoral, but much is not. After all, driving is riskier than walking, football is riskier than chess, coal mining is riskier than accounting, and so on, but we do not conclude immorality or a public health crisis on its basis.

I also hope not to see the silly "universalizing" argument that if everyone were homosexual there'd be no society. That would be as absurd as claiming being religiously celibate is immoral because if everyone practiced it there would be no society. Or if everyone became an English teacher there'd be no society (no doctors, no agrarians, farmers, ranchers, people that transport said food to us, etc.).

Let's keep this sophisticated, guys.

 

[FireDragon76]

I could think of much better critiques of uncritical acceptance of homosexuality than the heavy use of discredited studies and uncritical arguments presented.

I really object to the use of the term "gay bowel syndrome". This is something that credible gastroenterologists no longer recognize as a syndrome. When I read this, I have to think the debater has a low standard for what they consider credible.

 

[Freodin]

Thank you, Freodin. Later on I'd like to ask a few more questions about the info you posted, if possible. But first I'd like to get to the second of three questions I originally wanted to ask you. (I didn't want to overwhelm you with them all at once.

My second question has to do with the subject of bigotry and how you and many in the pro-gay crowd might judge it. Your debate partner here, TCMD, mentioned that there are about 85 countries that criminalize sodomy/sapphism, and after your response, he mentioned that you were insinuating that all of these countries were simply bigoted, to which you replied:

"Are all the countries that penalize homosexuality "BIGOTED"? I don't think so, and I cannot remember having made that argument."

And yet in your third and final post in the debate you made this statement:

"That is what the "Homosexual Agenda" is fighting against. The incitement of fear, the lies...all of that backed up with shoddy "scientific studies"... They fight this BIGOTRY..." (Caps mine.)

I believe you can see my confusion over this contradiction of statements, so I'm wondering if you could clarify your belief system regarding bigotry here.

Are you saying that these anti-gay countries (including over 95% of the world muslim population) are not bigoted, in your worldview?

Yet are you simultaneously saying that TCMD is being bigoted here for citing scientific studies in a debate to show the harm of sodomy? It seems that, according to you, citing scientific studies in a debate about sodomy is bigoted, but the entire Islamic world (all 38 muslim countries, over 1 billion muslims) that repudiates and criminalizes homosexuality is not bigoted?

You can see how your belief system regarding bigotry might need to be clarified for some readers here.

I apologize for taking so long to respond here... somehow it escaped my notice that this thread had been updated.

The problem we have with bigotry may come from a slightly different definition of these terms in English and German.

From the english wiki page I got:

Bigotry is the state of mind of someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics.

That emphasizes the bigot's feelings based on his prejudices.
On the respective german wiki page, "Bigotterie" is defined as

Bigotterie oder Scheinheiligkeit ist die Bezeichnung für ein übertrieben frömmelndes, dabei anderen Auffassungen gegenüber intolerantes, gehässiges und scheinbar ganz der Religion oder einer religiösen Autorität (Person oder Instanz) gewidmetes Wesen oder Verhalten, wobei der tatsächliche Lebensstil nicht eigentlich religiös oder streng sittlich gehalten wird. Der Duden bezeichnet Bigotterie als Scheinheiligkeit und „kleinliche, engherzige Frömmigkeit und übertriebene(n) Glaubenseifer“.

(bigotry or sanctimony is the term for an exaggerated pietistics behaviour. It is intolerant against different positions, hateful and ostensibly totally devoted to the religion or religious authority. Yet in reality this lifestyle does not keep up to this religious or rigorously ethical ways.
The "Duden" (the standard german dictionary) identifies bigotry as sanctimony and "petty, narrow-minded piety and exaggerated zeal". (my translation and my emphasis)

So as I see and use(d) it, the core of bigotry is the falsehood of the approach.
An attempt to outlaw homosexuality because it is against faith, religion or culture might be intolerant, arrogant, authoritarian... false. But it is not bigot.
To argue against homosexuality based on falshood, slander and evident lies, all the while claiming to do so out of concern... that is bigotry.

 

[Freodin]

Hi, Freodin. I'm going to go ahead and ask my third and final question regarding the Male Homosexuality debate, before hopefully getting to comment a bit on the information you posted which I requested.

My third question has to do with your views on unhealthy behaviors, their health consequences, and how society handles them regarding the law.

You made an argument that obesity and smoking affect more people than the adverse effects of male homosexuality, and also have a greater financial toll on America, then stated that these habits are not criminalized or socially demonized as much as sodomy.

According to your argument, while smoking affects 18% of the population and obesity affects 30% of the population, sodomy only affects less than 2% of the population, so it shouldn't be looked down on as much as it is regarding health problems, since smoking and overeating are way deadlier and costlier.

I wonder if you'd considered this fact before making your statement:

Murder also affects "only" 2% of the population, and has a significantly less financial burden on the U.S. than both smoking (18%) and obesity (30%).

So, in your mind, according to your logic, should murder also be less criminalized and socially demonized than smoking and obesity since it affects less people and has less of a financial impact on America?

Obviously you would have to answer "no". I'm just clarifying the faulty logic you used in that statement.

You misunderstood my reasoning and the core of my argument here.

The comparison of homosexuality (in the form TCMD argued) and obesity and smoking was made only to show the falsehood of David's argument: that homosexuality is and should be persecuted because of the huge danger it presents for humanity.

But when you compare it with other - even greater - dangers to humanity, and compare the actions that are/ought to be taken against these, the double standard becomes obvious.
In conclusion, we can see that it is not the concern about health that is the cause for anti-homosexual activity.

If you then realize another difference between the mentioned healthrisks (which are in themselves dangerous) and homosexuality (which is not), this faulty anti-homosexual reasoning becomes even more obvious.

Your comparison with murder is rather far fetched. No human society persecutes murder because it is unhealthy nor because it is expensive.


As an addendum: if you are still interested in the "scientific" basis for David's posts, I have found a link that deals in depth with the mentioned study. Find it here at box turtle bulletin article: Point By Point: A Look At Paul Cameron’s Medical Consequences of What Homosexuals Do

Part 1: “What Homosexuals Do”


Thanks for your patience and again my apologies for taking so long.

 

[whitebeaches]

Mod Hat On​

This thread, like the Formal Debate, has run its course. It is now closed.​

Thank you for participating.​

Mod Hat Off​