• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

This is Why Homosexuality is Wrong. . .

Ramona

If you can't see my siggy, I've disappeared ;)
Site Supporter
Sep 4, 2006
7,498
672
Visit site
✟78,432.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour

You seem to have forgotten that 50%+ of homosexuals are lesbians and they have much lower incidence STDs than heterosexuals.

You using of biased data says a lot about what you really think of homosexuality.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You seem to have forgotten that 50%+ of homosexuals are lesbians and they have much lower incidence STDs than heterosexuals.

You using of biased data says a lot about what you really think of homosexuality.
Biased data? You don't even have data. You claim the CDC is biased? Prove it.

I have not studied the distribution of homosexuality in male vs female much, but Homosexualities , Bell & Weinberg suggests that about two thirds of homosexuals are male.


Well, what a scientific analysis you have. All five or so of your friends with SSA I am sure is a much more scientific analysis than the Center for Disease Control is capable of. So, what did you use as a control group? Can I see transcripts from your interviews? What was your hypothesis and where is your abstract? Time and time again I show these scientific statistics to people and they wave their hands and shake their heads and say "I know three gay people and they're nothing liek that hurr (or so I think, truth be told I've never asked). So my opinion > the science of experts." It's like the Holocaust deniers. It's an affront to reality. It's an affront to common sense. Every time they do that I can almost picture the embodiment of ignorance, arch-backed and snaggle-toothed, hopping up and down in a dance of victory.

I gave you proper citations. The Journal of Sexual behavior is a peer-reviewed scientific publication and is available through just about any university library or from multiple online database such as EBSCO, so waving your hand and saying "liar, liar" will not work. Since the citations are properly done I will not run and do your work for you and say "here, see!" for you just to come up with another lame excuse to not face reality. Actually, here you go: http://www.cdc.gov .There ya go.
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟28,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

These facts indicate a need for more safer sex practices, more AIDS testing, and less promiscuity. Using these as a basis for banning homosexuality would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

These statistics ignore heterosexuals and make no comment about lesbians, which makes an interesting statement about the beliefs of the person who posted them. Which is the most interesting part of the post, IMHO.

From TheManeki's Book Pile: An interesting "thought-experiment" regarding throwing out the baby with the bathwater is investigated in Norman Spinrad's Journal of the Plague Years.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Biased data? You don't even have data. You claim the CDC is biased? Prove it.

.

You were collating data for male homosexuals and making it look as though it realted to the whole community of homosexuals, or at least not making it clear that it wasn't.

You should know that Lesbians have a very low instance of STDs but that doesn't fit in with your gay bashing agenda so rather than be even handed you left it out.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
These facts indicate a need for more safer sex practices, more AIDS testing, and less promiscuity. Using these as a basis for banning homosexuality would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't think we should be making laws to ban Same Sex dating, so we are in agreement there.
These statistics ignore heterosexuals and make no comment about lesbians, which makes an interesting statement about the beliefs of the person who posted them. Which is the most interesting part of the post, IMHO.
Yeah. It says that they were some random stats grabbed from my repository of articles, and that the person who posted them (me, in case you were wondering --your post is ambiguous), believes there is nothing wrong with throwing some random stats onto the table for investigation.
And actually there is this that I posted

So you either deliberately ignored that or missed it. I'm a nice guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it.
 
Upvote 0

KarateCowboy

Classical liberal
Site Supporter
Aug 6, 2004
13,390
2,109
✟140,932.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
You were collating data for male homosexuals and making it look as though it realted to the whole community of homosexuals.
Now you're just lying. I clearly said:
Just some random stats.
I did not say anything like the assertion you claim I made. I left the floor open for discussion.
You should know that Lesbians have a very low instance of STDs but that doesn't fit in with your gay bashing agenda so rather than be even handed you left it out.
That may or may not be true. But you still do not provide any statistics to support that.

There is a word for people like you.
Yeah. We call them "Stat-posters". The word for people like you is "People-who-refuse-to-back-up-their-claims-with-facts".
I don't have to debunk your data and its sources, I see that other people have already done that adequately.

Good day
There we have it: the mind of the Baggins. "My opinion > the CDC's scientific findings". I really don't think Bilbo would agree with you.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour

If you don't have a gay bashing agenda why would you post a few stats thats concentrate on the prevelence of aids in the male homosexual community in one country? Do you just like stirring up discord on an already heated thread?

Why not post stats about the low levels of aids in Lesbian communities in the USA, or the higher levels of aids in heterosexual communities throughout the majority of the world.

It just seems a either a rather smug thing to do or a rather nasty thing to do.

Are the stats you post always one sided and designed to create discord?

Do you have a specifically anti-gay agenda in posting those stats?

If not why did you post them?
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟28,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


I didn't comment on this directly the last time because it wasn't even relevant to your misguided case. Quoting your local temperature and windspeed would have been as relevant. Why, you ask?

* Your sound bite failed to address how this survey took into account false responses, ie people who answered they were faithful or never had extramarital sex when the opposite was actually true. If you want to bring such facts to the table, you should address this.
* These studies are about heterosexual extramarital sex, which doesn't compare well with homosexual extramarital sex (because of that whole lack of gay marriage thing). A much better comparison would be using statistics on premarital heterosexual sex.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You know that broad brush you use to condemn other people with that you claimed not to use? Here it is, found it for you. You are condemning homosexuals, not the act, right here. I even bolded where you did so for easier perusal.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know that broad brush you use to condemn other people with that you claimed not to use? Here it is, found it for you. You are condemning homosexuals, not the act, right here. I even bolded where you did so for easier perusal.
The Bible judges the act and not the person. Read Gallatians chapter 5 verses 16-25
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
41
✟33,445.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Bible judges the act and not the person. Read Gallatians chapter 5 verses 16-25
That verse has nothing to do with homosexuality:




I'm guessing you're referring to the part about "sexual immorality," but I don't see any reason to believe that Paul is referring to homosexuality here.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The Bible judges the act and not the person. Read Gallatians chapter 5 verses 16-25
See that atheist icon next to my name? I put as much stock in what the Bible says as I would in LOTR when someone is trying to convince me that orcs exist.

Oh, and I second Jane's comment. Reps for Jane!!
 
Upvote 0

TheManeki

Christian Humanist
Jun 5, 2007
3,376
544
Visit site
✟28,834.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible judges the act and not the person. Read Gallatians chapter 5 verses 16-25

Posting a reference to a vague passage doesn't help your case, LN. If anything, it just shows to what degree this belief of yours that homosexuality (or homosexual acts, if you prefer) is sinful colors your readings of the Bible.

"Sexual immorality" (to use the NIV translation's phrase) is a catch-all concept, which allows it to be defined a host of ways. Unfortunately, Paul or the Galatians aren't here to specify exactly what he meant. Adultery? Using sex to manipulate someone? Non-missionary position intercourse? There are many more options than just homosexuality.

You still haven't come up with a solid argument against homosexuality from the Bible and science.
 
Upvote 0

KomissarSteve

Basileus
Feb 1, 2007
9,058
351
41
✟33,445.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Posting a reference to a vague passage doesn't help your case, LN. If anything, it just shows to what degree this belief of yours that homosexuality (or homosexual acts, if you prefer) is sinful colors your readings of the Bible.

Agreed. This seems to be a common theme with social conservatives in general - because they're so convinced that homosexuality is a sin, suddenly every mention of impurity or sexual immorality must be referring first and foremost to teh gayeez.
 
Upvote 0

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
174
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,660.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is not a vague passage. It is supported through a thorough reading of the entire Bible. Sexual impuity is sexual impurity. Homosexuality, is a modern term that was established to replace sodomy among the human population. Sex that is performed for a purpose other than as an attempt at procreation is being applied improperly. Sex can be gratifying, but it does not exist to gratify. Sex can be enjoyable; however, it does not exist to be entertainment. People who are applying it as such are abusing its created intent.
 
Upvote 0

IzzyPop

I wear my sunglasses at night...
Jun 2, 2007
5,379
438
51
✟30,209.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And the problem with this, as has been stated a few times before, is that you are also including heterosexual infertile couples into the mix. The sex that have cannot result in a child. So by using the same logic, you are calling any sexual interaction between them immoral as well.
 
Upvote 0