Dumbledore is gay

[Scuzzy]

You've detracted from the various tangents you've tried to go off in, I'd like to take a moment to redirect.

Zydell's First Point:

Originally Posted by Zydell

There is no scientific evidence or logical explenation that anal sex would be associated with more health risks than having vaginal sex.
...
Read what I said Scuzzy, there is NO single article telling you that THE ACTIVITY anal sex is asociated with more health risk THAN THE ACTIVITY vaginal sex
...
Luckely for me your statements were completely wrong and based upon nothing.
...
As stated above, there is no increased medical risk in anal intercourse in comparison to vaginal sex.

I have provided you with articles and plenty of literature that contradict your statements above. Do you concede this point or do you refute the research? We can close this particular tangent very quickly with a "Yes Scuzzy, you're medical opinion was right and my medical opinion was wrong, there is plenty of research that concludes homosexual anal intercourse is more dangerous then heterosexual intercourse."

Zydell's Second Point

Originally Posted by Zydell

Now give me one good reason why homosexual behaviour (intercourse) is wrong

This split off into two tangents, this is the first one. I gave you medical reasons why the behavior of anal sex is harmful. I then asked you to give me one "good reason" why homosexual intercourse is "good". Now, since you're asking me in what I take to mean a compare and contrast between homosexual and heterosexual intercourse behaviors I've asked you the same thing. You've stated that respecting the autonomy of an individual is a reason. I think this matter is closed, it started out as yours, I think your answer is generic enough you could say that about any activity (smoking, bestiality, watching the superbowl), but I'm not interested in following the point further.

Zydell's Third Point

Originally Posted by Zydell

Now give me one good reason why homosexual behaviour (intercourse) is wrong
...
I am totally not saying that something is wrong because a majority of people think so
...
believing that homosexual behaviour is wrong only because it says so in the book (without argumentation, and you cannot give argumentation because ‘God only knows’) that it is a abomination in the eyes of God is the most narrow-minded idea I've come across in this thread.
...
Definition of wrong: Morally wrong.

OK, so you want to know "one good reason" why Christians believe that homosexual behavior (specifically anal intercourse or not) is wrong. Wrong, according to you, can not be defined as what God has stated in the bible because that is too narrow minded. Wrong can not be defined by the will of the majority of people either. Wrong can not be defined by a greater medical risk as opposed to other alternatives. I've tried to answer your question statistically, religiously, etc and none of those answers have appeased you. I need you to give me a clear tangible definition and the way you are measuring morality in your mind.

Scuzzy

[Zydell]

Don't repeat yourself Scuzzy, reply to my latest post. I also see that you still haven't found out what ‘health risk’ means so you can't understand what I mean with my point.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Don't repeat yourself Scuzzy, reply to my latest post. I also see that you still haven't found out what ‘health risk’ means so you can't understand what I mean with my point.

I have clearly responded to your post. The above are the points we started discussing. Every time I prove you wrong, you try to manipulate it into another discussion. For example the "No Evidence" statement to "No, I obviously meant No One Article" argument. After bringing that to your attention you merely ignore the facts like they don't matter.

I've been very patient and carefully outlined the discussions we've had, how they've progressed, and the point at which we were at. I think you're refusing to acknowledge it now because you know I'm right about the medical information and it just burns your ass, no pun intended.

You can either respond to my post above, or we're done, I'm not going to jump off into any more tangents until we tie up some loose threads. If you want to answer the above throughly (and using your word, 'proper') you are welcome to add additional questions to the end of your post which I will address once the first set of issues has been completed. It makes no sense to try and carry on 5 different conversations, let's make this a little more productive, shall we?

Scuzzy

[Zydell]

No Scuzzy, you suddenly break off the discussion and try to formulate points which I may have made earlier but which I am clearly not defending anymore, I've learned a lot and moved on and with all the respect you seem to be stuck repeating yourself.

First of all

Yes Scuzzy I agree with you, unprotected anal sex will result in more infections than unprotected vaginal sex. That does not mean that there is a significant (public) health risk and that's what I've been asking you to prove, that's where the term DALY comes into play. And I will now finally show you that you've been wrong all along, and that even if there is a minor health risk, it simply does not mean that homosexual behaviour is (morally) wrong.

DALY: Disability Adjusted Life Years: Most important measurement to describe loss of lifeyears due to mortality (years lost due to early death) and disability (loss of disability weighted years).

I've yet to find the first article to list homosexual behaviour as a significant health risk (measerable prefereably by a major loss DALYs), in no way homosexual behaviour causes long-life damage.

So even if you have a point

I am not going to deny that there are (but mostly minor and individual) health risks related to homosexual behaviour. The funny thing is, however, that there are several arguments why this health risk is justified. And it is for these reasons that I believe that there is nothing morally wrong with homosexual behaviour:

1) It's preventable.
2) It is their own choice
3) It doesn't cause damage to others.

That's three reasons that justify the minor health risk that you're so eagerly trying to prove. Besides this I also brought up s the respect for autonomy argument and this justifies it also.

You endlessly tried to make a point with pedophilia and I also explained the big difference, but you're not going to counter this argument either, you're repeatedly trying to make a point about what I said about the law, it's irrelevant and I explained countless times why. You're avoiding my argumentation why there is a big difference, because giving into pedophilic urges means causing severe psychological damage and loss of DALYs (because a child is young) as a result of it. It is in no way comparable to homosexual behaviour where the health risk is minor, preventable and totally the choice of the two persons involved.

Just repeating something since you completely ignored it

Believing that homosexual behaviour is wrong only because it says so in the book (without argumentation, and you cannot give argumentation because ‘God only knows’) that it is a abomination in the eyes of God is the most narrow-minded idea I've come across in this thread. Because if something is wrong, it is because it goes against moral values. I totally respect the fact that christians believe that abortion is wrong, even though I disagree with it. I respect the fact that christians value life so highly that they believe it is wrong. I respect it because it is backed up with argumentation, and if your only argument comes down to ‘because it is wrong in Gods eyes’ then this time Scuzzy, you're the one who's making me laugh.

So concludingly, my points are:
And they look a bit different from the three that you state

• Comparing homosexual behaviour with pedophilic behaviour does not make sense because there are major differences. In pedophilic behaviour for example there has been supported severe psychological damage (and major loss of DALY's) for the child.
• There is no major health risk caused by homosexual behaviour.
• The minor health risk because of homosexual beahaviour is justified because the risk is preventible, because homosexual persons themselves choose to accept their individual health risk and because it does not cause any (health) damage to others at all.
• By respecting homosexual behaviour you respect the autonomy of individuals.
• There is no argumentation in the bible against homosexual behaviour backed up by argumentation based on moral values. It is simply stated in the bible, without any argumentation at all, that it is wrong in gods eyes, for no reason whatsoever.

Oh and on a sidenote…

You've been personally attacking me on several fronts, the best one was attacking me for my spelling, then claiming how you didn't know that English is (one of my) second language(s) when you clearly do know what country I come from (also omg subtitle???)

[Rutabeggar]

All I saw was anal sex, and I knew that this thread had derailed.


What does anal sex have anything to do with an imaginary character being homosexual...rofl, you guys amuse me.

[Demasu]

Originally Posted by Rutabeggar

All I saw was anal sex, and I knew that this thread had derailed.


What does anal sex have anything to do with an imaginary character being homosexual...rofl, you guys amuse me.

You gotta wonder about them, really.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Yes Scuzzy I agree with you, unprotected anal sex will result in more infections or whatever than unprotected vaginal sex.

Good, thank you for conceding that point.

Originally Posted by Zydell

That does not mean that there is a significant (public) health risk and that's what I've been asking you to prove

I'm not making the assertion that homosexual behavior is a public health risk, why would I try to prove something I'm not arguing? As I made clear, my only point in the health aspect of this was to prove your assertion that homosexual sex wasn't anymore dangerous then vaginal was completely wrong, you've finally admitted you were wrong and I'm satisfied.

Originally Posted by Zydell

I believe there is morally nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour:

Ah, hold on, you're getting ahead of yourself now. Define "morally" wrong. You've said that it isn't what the majority of people say or what God says, so what exactly is "morally" wrong? What is your standard of measurement for something to be morally wrong?

Originally Posted by Zydell

1) It's preventable.
2) It is their own choice
3) It doesn't cause damage to others.

Here are a few other things that meet your criteria:

• Masturbating completely nude in a public place.
• Engaging in sex with animals (if they're willing) in a public place.
• Commiting Suicide in the center of Times Square

Originally Posted by Zydell

You endlessly tried to make a point with pedophilia and I also explained the big difference

No, you didn't read carefully enough Zydell. I was speaking of Pedophile urges and Homosexual urges, not the act of committing a pedophile or homosexual act. You agreed that both urges are not the choice of the person and in that aspect there is no difference between them. You expect the pedophile to control his urges but not the homosexual. My question to you is this: If both pedophilia and homosexual urges are both not the choice of the person, is the existence of those urges a flaw in the human or not?

Originally Posted by Zydell

you're repeatedly trying to make a point about what I said about the law, it's irrelevant

Then ya really shouldn't have brought it up as a defense then.

Originally Posted by Zydell

Believing that homosexual behaviour is wrong only because it says so in the book (without argumentation, and you cannot give argumentation because ‘God only knows’) that it is a abomination in the eyes of God is the most narrow-minded idea I've come across in this thread. Because if something is wrong, it is because it goes against moral values.

Again Zydell, you're talking about the broad sociological foundation of "morally wrong", who's "Morally wrong" are you talking about? The majority of the population? Gods? Yours? Whos?

Originally Posted by Zydell

Comparing homosexual behaviour with pedophilic behaviour does not make sense because there are major differences. In pedophilic behaviour for example there has been supported severe psychological damage (and major loss of DALY's) for the child.

I do not disagree in the least that there are significant differences between pedophile acts and homosexual acts.

Originally Posted by Zydell

There is no major health risk caused by homosexual behaviour.

Originally Posted by Zydell

The minor health risk because of homosexual beahaviour is justified because the risk is preventible, because homosexual persons themselves choose to accept their individual health risk and because it does not cause any (health) damage to others at all.

I disagree that because something is preventable that it's morally OK. Also considering how AIDS spread like wildfire in the homosexual community and increase risk of aids because of homosexual behavior I think it's safe to assume two things are more then likely true. One, the homosexual community isn't preventing it and homosexual behavior is a primary cause of the spreading of aids.

Originally Posted by Zydell

By respecting homosexual behaviour you respect the autonomy of individuals.

Originally Posted by Zydell

There is no argumentation in the bible against homosexual behaviour backed up by argumentation based on moral values. It is simply stated in the bible, without any argumentation at all, that it is wrong in gods eyes, for no reason whatsoever.

I'll tell you what, I've give you a twist here. Where is homosexual behavior defined as moral?

Originally Posted by Zydell

You've been personally attacking me on several fronts, the best one was attacking me for my spelling, then claiming how you didn't know that English is (one of my) second language(s) when you clearly do know what country I come from (omg subtitle)

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not that important to me. I didn't look at your sub-title, I didn't remember you were "Mr Netherlands" from the other thread simply because you hadn't made that great an impact on me. In a few weeks when you attack me for a position I didn't have (like you started this thread out as) I'm not going to have the faintest idea who you are. Sorry Chief.

As fond as you are of saying that the dangers of homosexual behavior are preventable and therefor OK might I point out that your spelling errors, via use of the spell checker built into this forum, are also preventable. You chose not put on the spellchecker-condom, so don't go harping on me for your behavior. However, I do invite you to bring up the "you insulted my spelling" argument at least three more times in this thread, it's very effective in making you look like a victim.



Scuzzy

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Good, thank you for conceding that point.

I never countered it.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'm not making the assertion that homosexual behavior is a public health risk, why would I try to prove something I'm not arguing? As I made clear, my only point in the health aspect of this was to prove your assertion that homosexual sex wasn't anymore dangerous then vaginal was completely wrong, you've finally admitted you were wrong and I'm satisfied.

No Scuzzy you weren't, I was. The only reason why I would say that there is something wrong with homosexual behaviour is if there is a major health threat related to it. Glad we agree that there isnt. I did not state that homosexual sex is not more dangerous than vaginal sex, I was talking about HEALTH RISK not a vague term like more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Ah, hold on, you're getting ahead of yourself now. Define "morally" wrong. You've said that it isn't what the majority of people say or what God says, so what exactly is "morally" wrong? What is your standard of measurement for something to be morally wrong?

I suggest you follow a basic/introduction course on ethics if you don't understand what morally wrong is. That'll save me some time too!

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Here are a few other things that meet your criteria:

• Masturbating completely nude in a public place.
• Engaging in sex with animals (if they're willing) in a public place.
• Commiting Suicide in the center of Times Square

False on point three I made, completely rediculous and unrelated comparison.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

No, you didn't read carefully enough Zydell. I was speaking of Pedophile urges and Homosexual urges, not the act of committing a pedophile or homosexual act. You agreed that both urges are not the choice of the person and in that aspect there is no difference between them. You expect the pedophile to control his urges but not the homosexual. My question to you is this: If both pedophilia and homosexual urges are both not the choice of the person, is the existence of those urges a flaw in the human or not?

You're not making a point here Scuzzy. I have a problem with pedophiles not controlling their urges, I have no problem with homosexuals not controlling their urges for reasons made pretty clear. The origin of the urges I do not know and I do not see them as flaws I see them as variations.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Then ya really shouldn't have brought it up as a defense then.

I didn't, you made it look like I did, (as explained about three times before) I just brought it up because the law is based upon the same argument as I have. If I stated it initially wrong then I'm very sorry but I've explained about three times what I ment with it.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I do not disagree in the least that there are significant differences between pedophile acts and homosexual acts.

Then what's your point.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I disagree that because something is preventable that it's morally OK. Also considering how AIDS spread like wildfire in the homosexual community and increase risk of aids because of homosexual behavior I think it's safe to assume two things are more then likely true. One, the homosexual community isn't preventing it and homosexual behavior is a primary cause of the spreading of aids.

If something is preventable it means that there is something you can do about it in order to not result in that what might be seen as morally wrong (disease) as such you can prevent wrong from happening.

At this moment homosexual behaviour is not the primary cause of the spreading of aids, for example 67% of HIV infected individuals live in africa, so you're saying that this 67% are all homosexuals? And do you really believe that the homosexual community is not trying to preven it? I can't say anything about America but here in the NL they are.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Hey that smiley reminds me of me reading your posts! Just take my advice and take that basic ethics course Scuzzy.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you're not that important to me. I didn't look at your sub-title, I didn't remember you were "Mr Netherlands" from the other thread simply because you hadn't made that great an impact on me. In a few weeks when you attack me for a position I didn't have (like you started this thread out as) I'm not going to have the faintest idea who you are. Sorry Chief.

Sure Scuzzy, I totally believe you and if I did I'm gonna cry salty rivers because I've not made an impact on random_american_christian_from_da_internet, sorry mr random_god_obeyer_no.01123581321345589144 I hope that you don't mind me sleeping tight tonight.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

As fond as you are of saying that the dangers of homosexual behavior are preventable and therefor OK might I point out that your spelling errors, via use of the spell checker built into this forum, are also preventable. You chose not put on the spellchecker-condom, so don't go harping on me for your behavior. However, I do invite you to bring up the "you insulted my spelling" argument at least three more times in this thread, it's very effective in making you look like a victim.

I really can't be bothered to go into this, instead of numbering all your insults I'll just ignore them. That'll reduce your posts to 50% of the original content and I have more time to study or play soccer or something! So go ahead and blame me for making spelling errors in my second language, I'll start blaming you for not having had any proper education.

So anyways

What's left of your argumentation? We agree that there's no major health risk related to homosexual behaviour, you're trying to counter my arguments with the strangest unrelated things imaginable and you've not even tried to go into my point on how the bible does not give any argument for the fact(?) that God perceives homosexuality (and not homosexual behaviour) as an abomination (I like that word).

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

I suggest you follow a basic/introduction course on ethics if you don't understand what morally wrong is. That'll save me some time too!

I see no difference between Christians saying homosexuality is immoral because "it's in the book" and you saying that it is moral "just because". Christians judge morality by God's word, you judge morality by... ?

Originally Posted by Zydell

We agree that there's no major health risk related to homosexual behaviour

Really? Where'd you see I said that? I saw that we agreed that homosexual behavior in the form of anal sex is more of a health risk then vaginal sex, but I don't remember ever stating anything about homosexual behavior as a whole.

Originally Posted by Zydell

you've not even tried to go into my point on how the bible does not give any argument for the fact(?) that God perceives homosexuality (and not homosexual behaviour) as an abomination (I like that word).

Was I supposed to? Why was I supposed to? What exactly about God's view on homosexuality mentioned in the bible do you disagree with?

Scuzzy

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I see no difference between Christians saying homosexuality is immoral because "it's in the book" and you saying that it is moral "just because". Christians judge morality by God's word, you judge morality by... ?

You don't? Poor thing! I'm not saying ‘just because’, I've been giving you clear argumentation all along, pity the fool who doesn't understand it.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Really? Where'd you see I said that? I saw that we agreed that homosexual behavior in the form of anal sex is more of a health risk then vaginal sex, but I don't remember ever stating anything about homosexual behavior as a whole.

Here comes to term ‘health risk’ into play again, tsk tsk tsk when will you ever learn.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Was I supposed to? Why was I supposed to? What exactly about God's view on homosexuality mentioned in the bible do you disagree with?

No Scuzzy, you're totally not required to give argumentation for your point of view on things, but the consequence of not giving argumentation is that with all due respect, I believe you have made no point at all.

It's been a entertaining and learnfull discussion inbetween my busy daily routine and I thank you for it!

[zSilver_Fox]

Step right up, step right up! $.25 a bag!

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

You don't? Poor thing! I'm not saying ‘just because’, I've been giving you clear argumentation all along, pity the fool who doesn't understand it.

Um, that's a lie, you've never defined how you measure morality Zydell, you've only stated that it is moral because you believe it's moral. I've asked you several times for a way to judge this "morally wrong" you've cited several times and you're completely unable to do so. If not, help a poor fool and finish this sentence "Something can be defined as morally wrong when..."

Originally Posted by Zydell

Here comes to term ‘health risk’ into play again, tsk tsk tsk when will you ever learn.

I don't think that "health risk", as translated from your language to english, means whatever you think it means.

Originally Posted by Zydell

No Scuzzy, you're totally not required to give argumentation for your point of view on things, but the consequence of not giving argumentation is that with all due respect, I believe you have made no point at all.

It's odd that we've had such a long discussion and you no longer remember them, maybe that's part of the communication problem we've had. Here's a recap:

1) You assumed that I felt homosexuality was a choice, I explained you are wrong.
2) You said in your medical opinion that homosexual anal sex was not more of a health risk then vaginal sex. I proved you wrong given the research that physicians and scientists have done around the world.
3) You asked what I would do confronted with a friend with a "variation" in their sexuality. I explained that I'd encourage them to speak with their pastor and their doctor (preferably one that knew the subject matter and the risks involved).
4) You asked how Christian Belief applies to daily life. I stated "A Christian believes in loving his neighbor as himself. In not judging others. Christians live to spread his word and praising him by helping others."
5) I asked you what "morally wrong" could be defined as to understand the code you measure Christians being wrong on the answer. The only explanation I received was essentially "Morally wrong is not determined by mass opinion or God", which really didn't help the conversation.

Originally Posted by Zydell

It's been a entertaining and learnfull discussion inbetween my busy daily routine and I thank you for it!

Indeed, I'm glad that I could teach you a thing or two about the risks of anal sex that you didn't know and that your patients will benefit from this discussion. Take care and good luck,

Scuzy

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Um, that's a lie, you've never defined how you measure morality Zydell, you've only stated that it is moral because you believe it's moral. I've asked you several times for a way to judge this "morally wrong" you've cited several times and you're completely unable to do so. If not, help a poor fool and finish this sentence "Something can be defined as morally wrong when..."

That's because explaining it to you would take a lot of my time, which is why I advised you to take a basic course on ethics. In my opinion you also seem (with all due respect) to lack logical thinking and reasoning which makes discussing with you very tiresome sometimes.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I don't think that "health risk", as translated from your language to english, means whatever you think it means.

I don't need to translate from dutch to english; why on earth would I if I can directly transform my thoughts to the english language? I gave you a definition and I told you to look up and try to understand the term DALY, not my fault that you didn't. Don't attack me or tell me I state things wrong when it's you that lacks understanding of the definitions I use.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

It's odd that we've had such a long discussion and you no longer remember them, maybe that's part of the communication problem we've had. Here's a recap:

1) You assumed that I felt homosexuality was a choice, I explained you are wrong.
2) You said in your medical opinion that homosexual anal sex was not more of a health risk then vaginal sex. I proved you wrong given the research that physicians and scientists have done around the world.
3) You asked what I would do confronted with a friend with a "variation" in their sexuality. I explained that I'd encourage them to speak with their pastor and their doctor (preferably one that knew the subject matter and the risks involved).
4) You asked how Christian Belief applies to daily life. I stated "A Christian believes in loving his neighbor as himself. In not judging others. Christians live to spread his word and praising him by helping others."
5) I asked you what "morally wrong" could be defined as to understand the code you measure Christians being wrong on the answer. The only explanation I received was essentially "Morally wrong is not determined by mass opinion or God", which really didn't help the conversation.

Nah not really, the best (only) argument you've given so far is that homosexual behaviour is linked with increased personal health risks, and I've explained why and how that's justified. You've been trying to prove a point when I asked you about general, public health; since you alread y said yourself that there is no significant relation to that I wholehartedly agree with you.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Indeed, I'm glad that I could teach you a thing or two about the risks of anal sex that you didn't know and that your patients will benefit from this discussion. Take care and good luck,

I've learned through you, not from you. I never denied risks associated with homosexual behaviour and in one of my first points I explained how I would inform homosexuals if I were asked (hypothetically) as a doctor. If you want me to go into detail on that then you could've just asked me. There are many thinks associated with an increased individual health risk and that doesn't mean they're wrong.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

I've learned through you, not from you.

If that's what it took to educate you then that's what it took, one is glad to be of service.

Originally Posted by Zydell

There are many thinks associated with an increased individual health risk and that doesn't mean they're wrong.

What would make something wrong?


Scuzzy

[Zydell]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If that's what it took to educate you then that's what it took, one is glad to be of service.

Very typical of you to claim that we're in a relation where you stand higher than I, your last cheap shot at me I presume. I thank you again for your time.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

What would make something wrong?

Course.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Zydell

Very typical of you to claim that we're in a relation where you stand higher than I, your last cheap shot at me I presume. I thank you again for your time.

I wasn't claiming anything, you said you learned through me and I said if that's what it took to educate you great. What's wrong with that? If that's what it took, that's what it took. You're reading way to much into things.

Originally Posted by Zydell

Course.

Hey! I finished the course. You're incorrect about the definition of "morally wrong", my hypothesis was right afterall. Thanks for the advice, very informative.

Scuzzy

[Demasu]

Oh my god, they're down to two paragraphs, I think it's almost over.

[CatzEyes93]

aw heck.. someone say something! quick!

Oh wait.. I know what will stir this pot....

While there is a definition to the word Moral, there is no true definition of what exactly IS moral or is NOT moral. (outside of religion) there is no bible on what is or isnt moral.

this is why we have religion... cuz as a human we insist on putting the lables "right" and "wrong" on everything.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by CatzEyes93

this is why we have religion... cuz as a human we insist on putting the lables "right" and "wrong" on everything.

I respectfully disagree. Some things that are wrong are also self-evident. Case in point...pineapple in cottage cheese. It's wrongness is self evident.

[BinaryLife]

Innoc is my favorite.

At least for right now.