Why debate Homosexuality?

[Brieuse]

You are right, it does affect all (now), thanks.

now and before.

 

[BAFRIEND]

now and before.

You mean Ryan White ?

 

[eolculnamo2]

We debate to come to an understanding and there maybe some people that don't understand homosexuality. So, if we have to explain and debate with them a little bit, then won't it be worth saving them from a sin?

James 5:20
let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins

 

[eolculnamo2]

There is no prejudice. That means to prejudge a person based on objective characteristics such as skin color or nationality.

A person who leads a gay lifestyle sins and is in fact in perpetual sin. I judge the behavior not the person.

Nicely handled

 

[MrPirate]

I believe I did answer that question even before you asked it in post number 12:

No you did not answer the question at all.

You use HIV/AIDS in an attack against homosexuals.

I asked that since HIV/AIDS basically affects people with dark skin does that make it OK to use HIVAIDS to justify racism?

Still no answer from you.

So is it YES it is morally justifiable to use HIV/AIDS to justify racism?
Or is it NO it is not morally justifiable to use HIV/AIDS to justify racism?

Here are some facts about what the homosexual lifestyle institutes:

Consider just these few facts: Owing to the filthy practices in which they engage, the bulk of all bowel diseases in

America is carried by homosexuals. They also have a higher incidence of STDs, tuberculosis, and hepatitis A and B as well as account for the vast majority of all AIDS cases. The average life expectancy for homosexuals is approximately thirty-four years shorter than the average life expectancy for married non-homosexuals. (Source: Rev. Ralph Ovadal)

well lets see.

“The average life expectancy for homosexuals is approximately thirty-four years shorter” The last claim is one of the better known lies spread by Christian hate groups. It was first told by Paul Cameron founder of the Family Research Council after he was expelled form the APA for ethics violation (he made up data and lied about the legitimate research of others)

“the bulk of all bowel diseases in America is carried by homosexuals” That is amazing considering 52% of all cases of colon cancer are in women over the age of 65
75% of rectal cancer occurs in women over the age of 65.
women are twice as likely to have inflammatory bowel disease as compared to men
Ref: American Cancer Society, Mayo Foundation
maybe Rev Ovadal is confused about the meaning of the word “bulk”

“They also have a higher incidence of STDs” love to see the good rev back that claim up with actual facts

“Tuberculosis” strange…Rev Ovadal better call the CDC…they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to Tuberculosis…they seem to think that foreign born individuals account for the majority of cases. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5511a3.htm


as well as account for the vast majority of all AIDS cases.” Does the World Health Organization know this? they seem to think that the majority of cases of HIV/AIDS is in heterosexual women. http://www.who.int/hiv/en/

In 2005, the Center of Disease Control reported that over 70% of all new cases of AIDS in the USA were reported by men admitting to be homosexuals.

Fascinating…considering that 32% of all new cases of HIV were in women who contracted the virus though heterosexual sex. Another 15% were man who contracted HIV though heterosexual intercourse…and then there is another 18% that contracted HIV though IV drug use
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/women/index.htm
so far we are up to 138% and this isn’t including the infants born with HIV.

 

[ReformedChapin]

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
-Romans 3:23

You are saying there are different degrees of sin, and that maybe your sin is not as bad as the sin of a gay man?

In other words, both of you fell short of God, but you at least fell a little closer?

I doubt it works that way.

Didn't say it did, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Not only that but that verse isn't refering to different values of sin.

That verse is speaking in terms of perfection of God. Even the smallest sin falls away from perfection (God's glory). That doesn't mean that some sins aren't worse than others. Why is then that denial of the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin then?

 

[eolculnamo2]

No you did not answer the question at all.

You use HIV/AIDS in an attack against homosexuals.

I asked that since HIV/AIDS basically affects people with dark skin does that make it OK to use HIVAIDS to justify racism?

Still no answer from you.

So is it YES it is morally justifiable to use HIV/AIDS to justify racism?
Or is it NO it is not morally justifiable to use HIV/AIDS to justify racism?


[/FONT][/COLOR]

well lets see.

“The average life expectancy for homosexuals is approximately thirty-four years shorter” The last claim is one of the better known lies spread by Christian hate groups. It was first told by Paul Cameron founder of the Family Research Council after he was expelled form the APA for ethics violation (he made up data and lied about the legitimate research of others)

“the bulk of all bowel diseases in America is carried by homosexuals” That is amazing considering 52% of all cases of colon cancer are in women over the age of 65
75% of rectal cancer occurs in women over the age of 65.
women are twice as likely to have inflammatory bowel disease as compared to men
Ref: American Cancer Society, Mayo Foundation
maybe Rev Ovadal is confused about the meaning of the word “bulk”

“They also have a higher incidence of STDs” love to see the good rev back that claim up with actual facts

“Tuberculosis” strange…Rev Ovadal better call the CDC…they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to Tuberculosis…they seem to think that foreign born individuals account for the majority of cases. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5511a3.htm


as well as account for the vast majority of all AIDS cases.” Does the World Health Organization know this? they seem to think that the majority of cases of HIV/AIDS is in heterosexual women. http://www.who.int/hiv/en/




Fascinating…considering that 32% of all new cases of HIV were in women who contracted the virus though heterosexual sex. Another 15% were man who contracted HIV though heterosexual intercourse…and then there is another 18% that contracted HIV though IV drug use
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/women/index.htm
so far we are up to 138% and this isn’t including the infants born with HIV.

NO just because a higher percentage of people from one race have it does not mean they have to spread it.

Race is the way you are.

Homosexuality is something that you do.

 

[MrPirate]

NO just because a higher percentage of people from one race have it does not mean they have to spread it.

Race is the way you are.

Homosexuality is something that you do.

Unprotected sexual intercourse is something one does
Sharing needles for IV drug use is something one does
Giving pregnant while HIV positive is something one does

Sexual oriention is not something you do. People are gay or straight or bi whether they are having sex or not, whether they are a virgin or not, whether they are celibate or not. Being homosexual is not different from being black.


At hand we have the use of the existence of a virus to justify prejudice against a minority. You don’t seem ot have any problems with the morality of that. yet you seem offended by the suggestion that the exact same argument could used to justify prejudice against a different minority.
Can you explain why?

 

[ReformedChapin]

Unprotected sexual intercourse is something one does
Sharing needles for IV drug use is something one does
Giving pregnant while HIV positive is something one does

Sexual oriention is not something you do. People are gay or straight or bi whether they are having sex or not, whether they are a virgin or not, whether they are celibate or not. Being homosexual is not different from being black.


At hand we have the use of the existence of a virus to justify prejudice against a minority. You don’t seem ot have any problems with the morality of that. yet you seem offended by the suggestion that the exact same argument could used to justify prejudice against a different minority.
Can you explain why?

Homosexuality is a sin and you have no evidence to prove it's genetic. Why don't you just admit it's your assumption that you will never give up? And you will manipualte the Gosple at all costs to fit your view?

Again, any rights that are genetic and biblical are justifable...nothing else.

 

[MrPirate]

Homosexuality is a sin

Technically shaving and wearing wedding rings are also sins

and you have no evidence to prove it's genetic.

I made no claims here about genetics

Why don't you just admit it's your assumption

My assumption is that bigotry is never justified. What is your assumption?

that you will never give up? And you will manipualte the Gosple at all costs to fit your view?

And where in this thread did I quote the bible?

Again, any rights that are genetic and biblical are justifable...nothing else.

That is an interesting statement.
Can you explain it?

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Technically shaving and wearing wedding rings are also sins.[/SIZE]

Technically you are wrong. Both of those requirements applied ONLY to Israelites, NOT gentiles converts, see Acts 15, et al.

 

[Dannager]

Homosexuality is a sin and you have no evidence to prove it's genetic.

Actually, it's influenced strongly by hormonal levels during gestation. Whether it's genetically influenced as well remains to be seen, but the fact that sexual orientation is often a predisposition from birth is pretty well agreed-upon.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]Actually, it's influenced strongly by hormonal levels during gestation. Whether it's genetically influenced as well remains to be seen, but the fact that sexual orientation is often a predisposition from birth is pretty well agreed-upon.[/SIZE]

I believe he said "evidence" not your unsupported opinion. The "hormonal levels" is only an unproven theory. And these studies disprove the "its genetic" argument, now and forever.

Since monozygotic, i.e. identical, twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual, virtually 100% of the other twins should also be homosexual. These studies show between 38% and 52% of the second twin are homosexual.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

 

[Dannager]

I believe he said "evidence" not your unsupported opinion. The "hormonal levels" is only an unproven theory. And these studies disprove the "its genetic" argument, now and forever.

No, they don't. In fact, they aren't even evidence against it. Genetic predisposition doesn't mean that homosexuality is guaranteed. It just means that a person is more likely to be homosexual. This is the sort of thing we could reasonably expect to see if genetics or hormonal levels played a part in sexual orientation.

Since monozygotic, i.e. identical, twins are genetically identical, if one twin is homosexual, virtually 100% of the other twins should also be homosexual. These studies show between 38% and 52% of the second twin are homosexual.

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among brothers

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

Better research, however, was based on twins who were recruited for other reasons, and only subsequently asked about their sexual orientation. These are known as "registry" studies, and they similarly gave a concordance rate between identical twins of less than 50%. There have been two major published registry studies (4,5), one based on the Minnesota Registry, the other on the Australian Registry. The larger of the two registry studies is the Australian one, done by Bailey, Martin and others at the University of Queensland. Using the 14,000+ Australian twin collection, they found that if one twin was homosexual, 38% of the time his identical brother was too. For lesbianism the concordance was 30%. Whether 30% or 50% concordance (snowball samples), all the studies agree it is clearly not 100%.

The critical factor is that if one identical twin is homosexual, only sometimes is the co-twin homosexual. There is no argument about this in the scientific community.

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead2.html​

Well, first, since this is a discussion about influencing factors (not determinant factors), it's not expected that identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation. And besides, identical twins are identical genetically, but I wasn't talking about genetics.

Second, your argument is that identical twins share homosexual orientation a little less than 50% of the time that one twin is homosexual? So...if my brother and I are twins, and he turns out gay, there's a nearly 50% chance that I'm gay too? That's what you're saying, right? And yet you're arguing that homosexuality isn't a predisposed aspect of a person?

Unless you believe that roughly 50% of the world's population is homosexual, you're arguing against yourself.

 

[Der Alte]

[SIZE=-1]No, they don't. In fact, they aren't even evidence against it. Genetic predisposition doesn't mean that homosexuality is guaranteed. It just means that a person is more likely to be homosexual. This is the sort of thing we could reasonably expect to see if genetics or hormonal levels played a part in sexual orientation.[/SIZE]

What I would reasonably expect to see are some peer reviewed studies to back up any of this wild speculation.

[SIZE=-1]Well, first, since this is a discussion about influencing factors (not determinant factors), it's not expected that identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation. And besides, identical twins are identical genetically, but I wasn't talking about genetics.[/SIZE]

That was not you that said something about "genetically influenced" in the post I quoted?

[SIZE=-1]Second, your argument is that identical twins share homosexual orientation a little less than 50% of the time that one twin is homosexual? So...if my brother and I are twins, and he turns out gay, there's a nearly 50% chance that I'm gay too? That's what you're saying, right? And yet you're arguing that homosexuality isn't a predisposed aspect of a person?

Unless you believe that roughly 50% of the world's population is homosexual, you're arguing against yourself.[/SIZE]

Twins grow up in the same home, attend the same school, learn to go potty at the same time, have the same parents, siblings, friends usually, etc. etc. so unless you can squeeze half the world in there, your "50% of the world's population" is nonsense. But you already knew that didn't you?

The Australian study is even more reliable, it involved 14,000 sets of twins and only 38% of the second twin where homosexual.

 

[Dannager]

What I would reasonably expect to see are some peer reviewed studies to back up any of this wild speculation.

Sure.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

That was not you that said something about "genetically influenced" in the post I quoted?

I said "remains to be seen". Given that the previous sentence discussed how hormonal factors are evidenced to influence sexual orientation, it's pretty clear that was not the focus of my post.

Twins grow up in the same home, attend the same school, learn to go potty at the same time, have the same parents, siblings, friends usually, etc. etc. so unless you can squeeze half the world in there, your "50% of the world's population" is nonsense.

Oooh, I'm glad you went down this route. See now you've made a prediction. You've decided that the high percentage of shared homosexuality between twins is environmental. The wonderful part is that now you've made a prediction! Does the science burn? Now we can test your prediction by looking at percentages of shared homosexuality among similarly-aged siblings! If the percentage of shared homosexuality among similarly-aged siblings is significantly less than the percentage of shared homosexuality among twins, we can effectively rule out the common factors (including environment!) as having complete control over sexual orientation - which, of course, means that a predisposed condition must exist! Do you follow so far, Der Alter?

But you already knew that didn't you?

I was certainly hoping you'd take the bait and make a prediction, yes. How fortunate that you did!

The Australian study is even more reliable, it involved 14,000 sets of twins and only 38% of the second twin where homosexual.

Which is still an extremely high percentage! Even more fodder for our testable prediction! Fantastic!

 

[Der Alte]

. . .[SIZE=-1]Oooh, I'm glad you went down this route. See now you've made a prediction. You've decided that the high percentage of shared homosexuality between twins is environmental[/SIZE]. . . .

I made no predictions, I merely pointed out some few factors not present in your out of thin air 50% of the world population. Everything else in your post is building on your own false assumption. You want to go tripping off down this yellow brick road, of your own invention, knock yourself out, I have better things to do.

That was a nice link, what do you expect me to do with it? If you think something at that link proves or disproves something, quote the two passages you think contradict and I might consider responding. If not, I got links of my own. Have fun.

 

[Dannager]

I made no predictions,

Yep, you did. I explained the one you inadvertently made. Don't worry, you don't need to acknowledge it. It's been made and that's the important thing. Now we can explore it!

I merely pointed out some few factors not present in your out of thin air 50% of the world population.

You were the one who brought up the nearly-50% figure from one of the studies. Would 38% suit you better? It really doesn't matter. Either way, it's really, really high.

Everything else in your post is building on your own false assumption.

Which assumption? You gave me the study I'm using to show that you're wrong. If anything, you should be chiding yourself.

You want to go tripping off down this yellow brick road, of your own invention, knock yourself out, I have better things to do.

That's fine. I've already got what I need from you - the study and your prediction. You can stand on the sidelines if you'd like.

That was a nice link, what do you expect me to do with it?

...wow, you really didn't look at it, did you? The link I pasted back to you was the link I copied out of your post. Amazing.

If you think something at that link proves or disproves something, quote the two passages you think contradict and I might consider responding. If not, I got links of my own. Have fun.

Sure, that sounds like a fine idea.

Most of us call monozygotic twins identical and dizygotic twins fraternal. The difference is more complex, and more interesting, than whether the twins have matching faces. Because they come from the same egg, identical twins get identical genetic material—barring, say, the occasional mutation. Fraternal twins, from different eggs, are as genetically close as any other siblings—about a 50 percent match. But, like identical twins, they share what scientists call a “twinned” environment. They develop in exactly the same amniotic fluid, equally exposed to whatever the mother eats or drinks. They age at the same rate, playing more closely than siblings separated by many years. Identical or fraternal, they are treated by others as a unit in the way that other siblings are not. If you want to search for heritable influences by comparing the tightly matched genetics of an identical twin to the standard genetic link between siblings, fraternal twins are the best way to do so. They let you filter out environmental interference.

Emphasis mine. Followed, of course, by this beautiful little gem later in the same link:

Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families.

Ohhhhhh, snap! Again, emphasis mine.

Hmmm, something distinctive in families is involved, but we've ruled out environmental factors. What could it be?

 

[Der Alte]

. . . [SIZE=-1]hmmm, something distinctive in families is involved, but we've ruled out environmental factors. What could it be?[/SIZE]

I am not interested in your guesses, suppositions, assumptions, etc. From my link.

“The essential genetics may not directly code for homosexuality at all, but something correlated with it,” Bailey emphasizes. “Something that’s advantageous. What is it? We don’t know. The alternative idea is that it’s simply darned hard for biology to guarantee heterosexuality every time, that it’s not a stable system. The problem with that [theory] is that if it’s hormones that set sexual orientation, they don’t seem to have much problem guaranteeing that men get penises. So, why can’t they keep sexual orientation straight? On the other hand, homosexuality is very rare…in other words, we don’t know.”​

 

[Dannager]

I am not interested in your guesses, suppositions, assumptions, etc. From my link.

“The essential genetics may not directly code for homosexuality at all, but something correlated with it,” Bailey emphasizes. “Something that’s advantageous. What is it? We don’t know. The alternative idea is that it’s simply darned hard for biology to guarantee heterosexuality every time, that it’s not a stable system. The problem with that [theory] is that if it’s hormones that set sexual orientation, they don’t seem to have much problem guaranteeing that men get penises. So, why can’t they keep sexual orientation straight? On the other hand, homosexuality is very rare…in other words, we don’t know.”​

Well, gosh, Der Alter. You don't seem to like the one conclusion the evidence is pointing to - that it's heritable, or at the very least dependent upon biology.

And either way, it's clearly not environmental. We ruled that out.

I know you don't like the idea that your preconceived, closely-held religious beliefs are wrong. Believe me, I know. But it's staring you in the face. It's right there. It's the only thing there. And if you're not willing to accept that, fine. I don't need to convince you. I've already demonstrated that your position is incorrect. Everyone else will be able to see that.

By the way, I didn't make any guesses or assumptions. I asked you a question. What could it be, Der Alter?