I reject both “designed” and “primary”. Fingers and tongues work well for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.
This is false. Your source is lying to you. AIDS started among heterosexuals in Africa. For the first years (exactly how many is uncertain) it was primarily confined to heterosexual Africans. While the ratios are different in America, America is not the world and a moral argument that applies only to one country is not a very good one. I suggest that you find a more accurate source.
As I said, your source is lying to you. Lying by omission in this case. 1981 may possibly have been the first case in America; it was not the first case worldwide. You are not going to win many arguments with such faulty data.
My sources are the CDC, WebMD, and an official bipartisan White House report. What is your source that you believe trumps all of these? And why do you provide no specific stats, such as proportions, for your claims? Am I the first one that has requested that you back up your claims with actual stats?
I explained my use of the term “designed” earlier in that post. I also pointed out the only human organ whose purpose - based only on a reasonable evaluation of its physical features - is the penetration of the vaginal canal. Unless you can point to another specific purpose which is fulfilled by all of the physical features of an erect penis, its most suitable purpose is that which I specified in my previous post, hence the term “primary”.
See WHO stats:
How convenient, you ignore any figures that contradict your position. It is very easy to win an argument that way: “In the last US Presidential election everyone voted for Ron Paul, if you ignore all the people who voted for anyone else.” Not exactly very convincing.
Your stats don’t even attempt to distinguish between heterosexuals VS homosexuals with AIDS. You have not refuted the stats that I offered which are:
So, by your own repeated stats the “first cases” in “gay men” were in the USA, so we can deduce that all earlier cases in Africa, the US ans elsewhere were in non-gay non-men.
Look at the sourced link I gave for the timeline. It’s a global timeline for the AIDS epidemic. Here’s the CDC link again:
In the African continent, yes. The fact that AIDS in the U.S. remains a predominantly male homosexual (not heterosexual) health problem should tell you something. Spread to the heterosexual population since the early 80’s is reported to be due to bisexual men and intravenous use.
Pleasure in the sex act is indeed a bonus in the conjugal bed. I see beauty in the divine wisdom of our Creator, the one God, not multiple gods as Buddhists are permitted to believe. He made pleasure to go along with His command to be fruitful and multiply. He made it compatible with the continuity of life and a healthful, joyful existence in having offsprings from the sexual union. For continuity of life, the pairing is necessarily a man and a woman uniting as one with their well designed bodies suited to the other, opposite, not same, down to the gamete level. It is a masterful design. It explains the end of the natural order.
I am glad we are agreed.
It tells me that the argument from AIDS and homosexuality is specific to the USA, and some other countries, and hence that argument cannot be used as support for a general worldwide moral law, or are you saying that homosexuality is not immoral in Africa?
I do not accept that you have the right to impose the morality of your religion on me. Buddhist morality has many similarities to Abrahamic morality, but it is not identical.
You insist on a singular “purpose”. Is your God incapable of designing things with multiple purposes? Obviously not, since He is omnipotent. Why do you limit His creation to only a singular purpose, and not allow Him to have multiple purposes? Are you limiting your God?
Do you think that a loving relationship between a homosexual couple is worthless? Wherever same sex marriage is allowed, there are couples getting married who have been together 20, 30 or even 40 years. I think that is a good fruit to have gained.
It certainly is contrary to their nature. Humans are humans.
Do you really need explanation? Opposite sex attraction is correctly ordered.
So we ought to disambiguate here. Same-sex attraction has nothing to do with behavior, either; if we mean SSA by “homosexuality”, then homosexuality is a disposition not dissimilar to left-handedness. (Left-handedness does have to do with behavior, in the same sort of way).
What is the “homosexual act”?
So, we are agreed that sexual attraction to males is a part of human nature. We are also agreed that sexual attraction to females is part of human nature.
That is not my position. I am arguing that it is an error to derive moral judgements from a specific disease. You will note that I, jokingly, referred to the Jehovah’s Witnesses refusal of blood transfusions as being justified by AIDS being transmitted that way. AIDS is just as much a moral argument in favour of condoms as it is an argument against unprotected intercourse.
I agree. We cannot derive moral consequences from nature; there are examples of both ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ behaviour in nature so we cannot draw any firm conclusions about morality from it.
Isn’t it obvious this is just a verbal dispute? By “nature”, fix means “the proper order of things, established by God”. By “nature”, you mean “occurring in nature”. Pedophilia is also natural in this sense, as is rape, as is mate-eating.
OK, sure. But consider the sexual act with a condom. Isn’t sex supposed to be about intimacy? But now, there is not even skin-to-skin contact!
This was something I mentioned earlier in the thread, post #9; the difference between the “Law of Nature” and “Natural Law”. The first is what we actually observe in nature, and it can tell us nothing about morality. The second is what some people think we ought to observe in nature and they tend to draw their morality from what they want to see. That is obviously subjective and I reject it as a basis for argument.