I've yet to have that problem.
I would even accept that homosexuality is immoral if someone could make a rational argument as to why that ultimately wasn't based on wisdom of repugnance or religious dogma.
Homosexuality and Christianity II
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
- Status
I've yet to have that problem.
I would even accept that homosexuality is immoral if someone could make a rational argument as to why that ultimately wasn't based on wisdom of repugnance or religious dogma.
One can eaisly say the same thing about many beliefs or topics, but that doesn't solve anything. However; I would point out that those who pratice homosexuality do tend to find themselves more at risk for different diseases, but what you are asking, is sort of like asking why lying is immoral beyond the opinion of some people.
Which you'll find that most homosexuals tend to take part in. Being promiscuous is actually quite a bit more common among homosexuals than it is among even hetrosexual couples. Do you deny this?
Actually, lesbian women often find themselves at a greater risk for breast cancer and Gynecological Cancer Don't believe me? Here is a link (written by a gay and lesbian group, so you can't throw it out as bias) that says just that.
One can say the same for hetrosexuals or for anybody for that matter. If you really don't believe me numbers, go and look it up and see what category of people tend to find themselves at a higher risk and you'll find that it tends to be homosexuals. I would also love for you to quote were you got that from, since it seems to be merely an assertion and nothing more.
Judging by how you actually did not know that lesbian women are in the highest risk category for breast and Gynecological Cancer's, I'd judge that you actually don't know as much on this topic as you think you do. I also see that you totally ignored the other part of my post, in which I asked you to prove (beyond dogma) that something like lying, is wrong. Is it wrong to lie and why is it wrong to lie?
Being promiscuous puts you at a greater risk of disease, not being homosexual. Thank you for agreeing with me. Whether or not homosexuals as a group practice promiscuity more is irrelevant. It is not the practice of homosexuality that leads to a greater risk, but the practice of promiscuity.
Correction. Lesbians are at greater risk for such cancers because they don't get checked out for such cancers. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation is the first rule of statistics. Nothing in that study indicates that lesbians are at a greater for cancer because they practice homosexuality. You should read what you present in your arguments. How would homosexuality increase the prevalence of such cancers?
Homosexuals are 50 times more likely to contract HIV. This is fact resulting from promiscuity, not from homosexuality. And the lack of an institution like marriage to dictate social norms regarding sexual behavior accounts for a great deal of the difference. Heterosexuals who practice promiscuous unprotected sex also share increased risk.
Do you know what this statement means...
"Correlation does not necessarily equal causation."
If not, then you should read up on it. Basically it means, just because there is a relationship between two variables does not mean that one variable causes the other. Just because lesbians have higher rates of those cancers does not mean that homosexuality caused those cancers.
Your original argument was irrational, and you have conceded that it is promiscuity, not homosexuality, that leads to increased risk for certain diseases. Your latter argument regarding lesbians being at an increased risk for cancer is also fallacious, as it is based on a correlation, not causation. Do you have anything else, or is that the best you have?
It would seem that there is a strong correlation between homosexuality and promiscuity.
Often times marijuana is defended as a drug, with the exception that it is often a 'stepping stone' onto more dangerous drugs. Similarly, the practice of homosexuality seems to be strongly correlated with greater promiscuity and greater carelessness about health/disease (cf. the lesbian cancer problem) - as it were a 'stepping stone' onto dangerous practices.
If one use the same arguement which one uses against smoking, it would seem that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. Moreover, the public recognition of such practice places the young in danger of developing a lifestyle which may ultimately place them at 50 times greater risk of contracting serious diseases.
If one admit the arguements against the advertisment of smoking and against smoking in outdoor public places, where there is not any significant risk of exposing people to secondhand smoke, one should admit the arguements against the practice of homosexuality.
(awaiting Satya's reply - this post is intended for his reading).
Often times marijuana is defended as a drug, with the exception that it is often a 'stepping stone' onto more dangerous drugs. Similarly, the practice of homosexuality seems to be strongly correlated with greater promiscuity and greater carelessness about health/disease (cf. the lesbian cancer problem) - as it were a 'stepping stone' onto dangerous practices.
If one use the same arguement which one uses against smoking, it would seem that the practice of homosexuality is immoral. Moreover, the public recognition of such practice places the young in danger of developing a lifestyle which may ultimately place them at 50 times greater risk of contracting serious diseases.
If one admit the arguements against the advertisment of smoking and against smoking in outdoor public places, where there is not any significant risk of exposing people to secondhand smoke, one should admit the arguements against the practice of homosexuality.
(awaiting Satya's reply - this post is intended for his reading).
Last edited:
And yet, the facts show that those who pratice homosexuality and promiscuity are at a greater risk for STD's. Are you denying this?
Do you have any evidence that shows that they are at great risk because they dont' get checked out?
Actually, it is from homosexuality because the risk of AID's transfer is due to homosexuality. Men are normally less likely to contract AID's though sex with women than women are from men. That is a fact and yet... what do homosexual men often pratice?
And yet... you didn't read that it says 'over 40' and still haven't responded to this part:
4. Gynecological Cancer
Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers. What they may not know is that having a yearly exam by a gynecologist can significantly facilitate early diagnosis and a better chance of cure.
Why?
I have done no such thing, I have said that promiscuity + homosexuality leads to an increased risk and what groups tends to be among the biggest praticers of promiscuity?
The only argument you have brought forward is that 'they don't get checked out as much'. Hummm... and yet... why are they at a greater risk? Many hetrosexual women don't get checked out as much and yet... they are not in a higher risk, why? I have also seen that you still haven't even addressed the second part of my argument, why?
Last edited:
That is true, but I would be quick to also point out that homosexuality is not anymore or less sinful then, let's say, permateral sex. I admit, I have done this, so what does that mean? It means that we all fall short and we shouldn't hold something over somebodies head. Being a hetrosexual does not make us anymore or less sinless, for all have sinned (including me) and all fall short (including me). But, that is the beauty of grace.
Ah, the public health risk argument. It's been awhile since I heard this one.
Homosexuality is the gateway to more dangerous sexual behaviors eh? Interesting argument. Only one problem. You haven't proven that homosexuality leads to promiscuity, only that it is correlated to it. The fact of that matter is that the societal stigma associated with homosexuality could lead to higher rates of promiscuity, not homosexual behavior in itself. As society condemns homosexuals for their sexual behavior, they may act to the label of a deviant group and practice more dangerous sexual behaviors. It may be society's condemnation of homosexuality that is the public health risk.
So FA, how do you feel about the possibility that you may be adding to a public health risk? I know for a fact that I am not because I do not practice promiscuous, unprotected anal sex.
Ah, the arguement used by every tobacco company in every court case in the last 50 years. A classic.
I would encourage every homosexual not to practice anal sex. I'm right with you there.
Last edited:
Do you always get this hostle with people whenever they are trying to be respectful with you?
Sin is sin. It is written, "He that knows to do good and does it not, to him it is sin". That may be written in the Bible less than six times but I have no problem with it.
Every thread regarding Christianity ends up being challenged by homosexuality here. I do not plan to spend my day on this. It is not because I have no concern; quite the contrary. I would love to be able to put this to rest.
Self-denial is not self-justification. I am a sinner. I do not attempt to try and cover that up. I will not try and justify my way of life to those that may see my sin. It is what it is. Some may disagree. I would never expect everyone to see eye to eye.
Jesus stopped the killing of a woman being stoned to death. He asked who among them was without sin to throw the next stone. They dropped their stones and went away. Sin is sin. He did, however, tell her to go and sin no more.
edit to state this was moved from the "What is Christianity?" thread. I did not place this here.
Every thread regarding Christianity ends up being challenged by homosexuality here. I do not plan to spend my day on this. It is not because I have no concern; quite the contrary. I would love to be able to put this to rest.
Self-denial is not self-justification. I am a sinner. I do not attempt to try and cover that up. I will not try and justify my way of life to those that may see my sin. It is what it is. Some may disagree. I would never expect everyone to see eye to eye.
Jesus stopped the killing of a woman being stoned to death. He asked who among them was without sin to throw the next stone. They dropped their stones and went away. Sin is sin. He did, however, tell her to go and sin no more.
edit to state this was moved from the "What is Christianity?" thread. I did not place this here.
Last edited:
Yes. Lesbians are at the lowest risk, no matter how promiscuous they are.
The same study your presented to me. That is why I said you should read it. And the fact that it is reasonable to assume that people who do not get checked out for a cancer are more likely to contract it, but it makes absolutely no sense that having lesbian sex causes cancer. Can you present any evidence that having homosexual sex causes cancer in lesbians? A correlation is not evidence.
So you agree that it is unprotected anal sex that leads to HIV transmission? Is it possible for two clean, monogamous homosexual men to give HIV to one another? Homosexuality has nothing to do with HIV, risky sexual behaviors are what lead to HIV transmission. Whether your are willing to admit it or not, a monogamous homosexual couple practicing unprotected anal sex will not get HIV over their entire lifetime. It is not their homosexuality that causes HIV, it is having promiscuous sex that causes it.
If you had actually read the study instead of simply googling for anything that would support your beliefs you would have read this...
"there is evidence that lesbians smoke more and drink more. It is also more likely they are overweight, which adds significant health risks."
The fact of the matter is that racial groups also have higher risks of cancers...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/36679.php
http://www.fccc.edu/cancer/minorities/index.html
Are you going to argue that the color of their skin makes them more likely to develop cancers? Or could it be other factors? Higher levels of poverty? Higher alcoholism and smoking rates? Higher levels of obesity? Higher levels of depression? All factors common among minority groups in America.
Let's cut to the chase. The primary means by which HIV spreads is through anal sex. Do homosexual men practice anal sex more than any other group? Yes. Do lesbians practice it is less of any group? Yes.
It is not homosexuality, but anal sex, that leads to the spread of HIV. For your formula to be correct it should be, Anal Sex + Promiscuity = increased risk. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have anal sex. When you argue that HIV is a "gay" problem, you are spreading ignorance that is very dangerous. You are suggesting that heterosexuals who practice anal sex are not at risk, when in reality they are the second highest risk group to gay men when it comes to sexual behavior. The rampant spread of HIV in Africa is the result of the cultural practice of anal sex as birth control among heterosexuals on that continent.
Actually I have presented several arguments.
1. They are minority group that faces societal stigma which leads to greater depression rates. Depression leads to consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and excessive food, which in turn puts them at a greater risk for certain cancers.
2. Not getting checked out by a physician can lead to not catching health factors that increase their risk of certain cancers.
And I'll get to your lying argument as soon as you present a decent rational argument that homosexuality is immoral. So far you have made a good argument that promiscuity and unprotected sex is immoral. Of course, arguing that homoesxuality is immoral because homosexuals may be more likely to practice promiscuity and unprotected sex, is not very rational.
FA and I have history. He has made it clear in the past that he feels that anyone who practices homosexuality is stupid. I felt a great deal of respect until he made that comment, and to this day he has not changed that stance. I do not respect those who choose to disrespect others.
Fine with me. It's not my favorite activity. I prefer other sexual activities much more.
It is the elephant in the room. Nobody is going to ignore it. As long as Christians choose to condemn homosexuality I have every right to condemn Christians for their irrationality.
So Old Testament: an eye for an eye...did I condemn the act of not doing good?
it is not in my room.
edit to state this was moved from the "What is Christianity?" thread. I did not place this here.
Last edited:
It is rather hypocritical - rather like health insurance companies being allowed to exclude or penalise smokers. This in turn keeps smokers from seeking medical attention - or even medical assistance in quitting the habit. The government should stop hypocritically trying to dissuade people from smoking by banning advertising and increasing taxes. The government should make tobacco illegal.
Similarly, sodomy (anal sex) should remain - as it currently is in most countries - illegal.
If I mistated myself "way back when", I think that the practice of homosexual sex is stupid. But I think we clarified that back then didn't we - I think you're just an angry person who only respects people you can get what you want from.
Last edited:
Sigh...you become increasingly conservative every time I chat with you. I give up. You, FA, in your infinite wisdom are correct. Homosexuality is a horrible sin! It should be banned! We should throw people in jail for daring to have gay sex! That is where the gays belong. In prison!
I'm sorry, but you have now managed to lose all my respect. Good luck with your church state and stripping people of all liberty.
I'm an angry person who is sick of irrational people. If you want to condemn others based on your misguided belief system, then have at it. Hate the sin, lock up the sinner.
- Status