Author Topic: Any secular arguments against homosexuality-related subjects?  (Read 282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1733
  • Darwins +183/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Any secular arguments against homosexuality-related subjects?
« Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 03:29:51 PM »
oh, i thought your OP mentioned arguments against... and i quote "homosexual anything"... 


It looks like you've taken a single clause form the OP and chosen to selectively apply your argument as if it's inclusion in the OP was intended to be the entirety of OAA's question. That's pretty obviously not the case.

Quote
but now it seems the question has changed to "homosexuality as a whole"...
It's always been addressing "homosexuality as a whole". You seem to be the only one who doesn't see it.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4843
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Any secular arguments against homosexuality-related subjects?
« Reply #30 on: Yesterday at 03:39:22 PM »
you forgot to factor that homosexual men who engage in male to male sexual intercourse only represent 2% of the population... better run the calculations again.
You're the one making the claim that it's "extremely more likely".  How about you run the calculations instead of trying to get other people to do the work you should have done in the first place?  Or if you already have them, post them in the first place instead of playing this inane 'gotcha' game of yours, waiting for other people to say something and then jumping on it with the data you already had in an asinine attempt to "prove them wrong", presumably to buff your own credibility at the expense of others.

My calculations are quite accurate - out of every three persons infected with HIV through sexual means in the USA in 2010, approximately two were infected by MSM behaviors.  The numbers you belatedly provided do not change that in any way.  Furthermore, your statistics are questionable; the site you provided claimed that MSM represent about 2% of the population, while aids.gov estimates it at 4%.  It also estimated that MSM represents 78% of new infections and 52% of all infections over the course of the epidemic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6510
  • Darwins +849/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Any secular arguments against homosexuality-related subjects?
« Reply #31 on: Yesterday at 06:20:21 PM »
Although there is a higher risk of AIDS among gay men, most gay men will still never get it if they avoid injecting drugs with needles, or having unprotected sex. Same as anyone else. Someday there will be a vaccine or cure for AIDS and the point that frank is trying to make will be moot.

Gay men, like straight men, gay women, and straight women can get married (or not), have kids (or not) and live perfectly normal lives (or act like freaks) as they see fit in more parts of the world than ever.  AIDS as a disease that affects gay men seems to be about all that the anti-gay people have left. Okay. Give them that. What else have they got? Oh yeah, gays are icky. &)

Since gay women are the least likely of anyone in the population to contract AIDS, I am still wondering what the non-religious arguments against female homosexuality might be..... :?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12057
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Any secular arguments against homosexuality-related subjects?
« Reply #32 on: Yesterday at 07:06:12 PM »
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/

Quote
In the United States
According to a study published in 2011—
•In 2006, 49% of pregnancies were unintended—a slight increase from 48% in 2001.
•Among women aged 19 years and younger, more than 4 out of 5 pregnancies were unintended.
•The proportion of pregnancies that were unintended was highest among teens younger than age 15 years, at 98%.


Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3338192/

It seems to me a person could argue that the act of unprotected heterosexual sex puts you in the highest risk category for having an unwanted pregnancy, which is why... for secular reasons... I make a case against heterosexual sex.

Carry on.


Yeah! I root for lesbians[1]...and those other guys.

-Nam
 1. as long as I can watch...okay, even if I can't. Mmmmm lesbians (drools)
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Polyatheist
And now for something completely different...

I only have anecdotal information; years ago I was watching an episode of a tv drama about homosexual people called 'Queer as Folk' (both male and female, but the central characters were male), and an older gay man in the room with me commented that the show depicted (for him) a very accurate portrayal of what it is like to be a young, homosexual man - in regards to promiscuity and multiple partners.

I have nothing against any of this, none at all. However, it would seem to me that the more partners a person has, the higher the probability of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

But if everyone is a willing partner, and all parties are informed, then I can't condone it. Also, I am of course aware that heterosexual people can spread themselves around just as much.

Really, I can't find fault with homosexuality at all. Dunno why I just posted all that... Oh well, that's my two cents.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Polyatheist
Since gay women are the least likely of anyone in the population to contract AIDS, I am still wondering what the non-religious arguments against female homosexuality might be..... :?

Pfft, if you DO happen across any arguments, let us know, eh? Fucks me off the way lesbians are 'sexy'.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10942
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
But if everyone is a willing partner, and all parties are informed, then I can't condone it.

...You mean condemn, right?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline natlegend

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1651
  • Darwins +65/-0
  • Polyatheist
But if everyone is a willing partner, and all parties are informed, then I can't condone it.

...You mean condemn, right?

Oh, yeah, sorry.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10942
  • Darwins +284/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Oh, yeah, sorry.

It's alright. I was just confused.

Also, as for your comment about homosexual women being considered "sexy", I'm guessing it's the same logic behind why (many, from my experience) women watch (and enjoy) homosexual pornography. Heterosexual men like women. One woman is good. Two is better.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12057
  • Darwins +308/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Read this at Huffpo[1]:

Quote
Allowing Gay Men To Donate Blood Could Save Over 1 Million Lives, Study Finds

Reuters 09/19/14 05:57 PM ET

By Jennifer Chaussee

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 19 (Reuters) - Lifting a ban on blood donations from gay men would increase the amount of available blood by hundreds of thousands of pints (liters) each year and save more than a million lives a year, a California study showed on Friday.

The U.S. Federal Drug Administration has banned gay men from donating blood since 1983, when it was discovered that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was being transmitted through transfusions.

Eliminating the ban could bring in roughly 615,300 pints (291,145 liters) of blood annually, while allowing donations from gay men who had not had a sexual partner in a year could yield 317,000 pints (150,000 liters), the study estimated.

With a five-year policy, nearly 300,000 pints (142,000 liters) could be collected, according to the study by the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"The American Red Cross suggests that each blood donation has the potential to be used in life-saving procedures on three individuals," said study co-author Ayako Miyashita. "Our estimates suggest that lifting the blood donation ban ... could be used to help save the lives of more than 1.8 million people."

The American Medical Association, the American Red Cross and the American Association of Blood Banks in a statement this summer called the FDA ban discriminatory and not based on sound science."

HIV has targeted a disproportionate number of gay men since the 1970s, with 72 percent of new HIV infections in 2010 affecting gay and bisexual male youth.

The United Kingdom allows gay men to donate blood if they have not had a sexual partner in 12 months. In Canada, the cut-off is five years.

An FDA spokeswoman said the agency was continuing to re-evaluate policies but does not plan to lift the ban until scientific evidence can show that won't increase the risk of infection for patients receiving blood transfusions.

"We applaud the critical contributions made by blood donors and we are sensitive to the concerns of potential donors and other individuals affected by current blood safety policies," said the spokeswoman, Jennifer Rodriguez.

-Nam

 1. not posting link because their mobile links do not transfer to regular links -- they're different, so, it's pointless.
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Online frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 200
  • Darwins +3/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
My calculations are quite accurate - out of every three persons infected with HIV through sexual means in the USA in 2010, approximately two were infected by MSM behaviors.  The numbers you belatedly provided do not change that in any way.  Furthermore, your statistics are questionable; the site you provided claimed that MSM represent about 2% of the population, while aids.gov estimates it at 4%.  It also estimated that MSM represents 78% of new infections and 52% of all infections over the course of the epidemic.

Your statement that - out of every three persons infected with HIV through sexual means in the US in 2010, approximately two were infected by MSM, is indeed correct.  But, you tried to use that statement to say that it wasn't that much more likely for homosexual men to contract HIV when compared to heterosexual men.  Whereas if both groups represented an equal percentage of the population, I would agree with you.  Of course that's not the case.  You know that, so your statement was deliberately misleading.  It is in fact 44 to 60 times more likely for a homosexual man to contract HIV through MSM.

The stats I used came from the center for disease (CDC) control website.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift