|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 18:10:02 GMT -5
What am I supposed to be "proving"?
The reason I say that you should not use the Bible to prove to me that homosexuality is a sin is because A. I don't believe in sin and B. I don't believe in the Bible. Do you believe in secular literature? Do you believe in science? Do you believe in biology? If so, I fail to see why they are not valid tools of reasoning for this argument.
My point is that "the Bible says so!" is a boring debate. Because we'll keep going back to:
You: Bible! Me: But I don't believe in the Bible. You: Bible! Me: Yeah...but...agnostic.
If you want to keep doing this, by all means, carry on using the Bible as your argument. But it becomes boring from my side of the screen. That's all I'm saying.
PS: Your song is cute but man, there's just something about "The Last Resort." I've loved it for years.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 13, 2006 18:13:57 GMT -5
Valentine, what do you see as determining factors for morality? What makes something right and what makes something wrong?
|
|
|
Post by valentine on Apr 13, 2006 18:33:10 GMT -5
Jesse, I've answered that before. Multiple times. I will not answer it again. But what I will say is this... I have been wanting to make this post for quite some time. I hope that all the admins read it because it's the first thing I thought of when I saw all of your homosexuality threads (or "homosex" as you say). I have a question for all of you. WHY?Of all the sins in the Bible, why is this the one you speak of so vehemently? Why are there not six thousand threads about rapists or murders? Why do you keep bringing up homosexuality in every thread, even ones that have nothing to do with the subject? Why does this seem to be your number one priority, when in the Bible this sin didn't even make the top ten? Why does it upset you so much more than other sins? Moreover, why is it a group of single men who seem so upset about this "sin"--and why do the women on this website tend to stay out of this debate, except to refute you? I have an article for you all to read that you may find exciting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanismIf you do not want to read the whole thing, I will simply quote the relevant bit: Projection. Attributing to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognize it.Isn't that interesting?
|
|
|
Post by Evan on Apr 13, 2006 19:18:52 GMT -5
Again Valentine, You have given no credible refutation to anything anyone has said. And again I pose the question to you, Where do you get your moral standard from? Unless of course you dont believe in morals.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 13, 2006 21:31:02 GMT -5
Valentine, I don't believe I ever recieved an adequate answer from you. But there have been a lot of posts, you'll have to refresh my memory.
Is it feelings? Whatever feels right is what is right?? Is it whatever you personally like? How do you decide what is morally right and what is morally wrong?
Let's just do this one question at a time. The other posts have become very long and complicated because it is so many questions at once. Let's do this one question/answer/topic at a time.
What are the defining factors you use to determine your ethical system? Or to word it differently, how do you decide right from wrong morally speaking?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 13, 2006 21:57:12 GMT -5
Quite comment for Valentine:
The reason we preach so much against homosexuality is because it is such a big issue of today. A preacher is to preach against the sins of the day. Martin Luther preached against salvation by works primarily. Billy Sunday preached against alcohol primarily. Whatever are the most prevelent sins are the ones that need to be hit the hardest.
I have heard the rediculous claim, "those who preach strongly against homosexuality often times are homosexuals themselves." That would be like saying, "the democrates who speak so strongly against the republicans are actually republicans themselves."
Anyways, back to the question about how you determine morality.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 13, 2006 23:13:15 GMT -5
I am pretty sure the whole issue of homosexuality was resurrected and perpetuated by you guys (our favorite hecklers) anyway. Before you all came to our quiet humble abode we were all tangled up discussing deep theology. I have seen in these threads, on our part, trying to get more to the very root of morality not just the branches like homosexual sex. You guys have, I think, brought somewhat of a sense of unity back to these boards; Now we are mostly focused on doing what we have been called to do... Preach the Gospel! Not just debate doctrine (which is good to do, don't misunderstand me) For all of this I praise GOD!
(Sorry, just wanted add that thought. Now, back to the issues at hand)
Miles
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 14, 2006 8:46:23 GMT -5
Alright Valentine and M. I'll play your game.
You don't want us to argue from the perspective of morality. So let's argue, instead, from the perspective of the public good. Regarding the whole homosexual issue, let's approach it from the angle of: "What is good for our community?"
Homosexuality, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe . Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.
Further, the unhealthy element and its consequences influence people who are not involved in the behavior itself (ie: it hurts other people). This is important, because there's a minimalist ethic that says I can do what I want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But you see, homosexual practices do hurt other people. They spread AIDS to non-homosexuals, for one.
Now, I'm not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality because it presents a threat to the public good. But it seems to me that, minimally, if we have an activity that is dangerous and harmful to the public good--in this case, to the public health--then why should we go out of our way to encourage it with granting same-sex marriages and the same rights as dependents on insurance policies, etc.?
Want some facts to rock your world? Fasten your seatbelts and here we go:
Due to homosexual activity we have seen the rapid rise of HIV and AIDs cases in the USA alone. In June of 2001 more than 457,000 people died of AIDS or related illnesses. (CDC figures for June 2001) 470,000 in 2003 and there were 43,171 new cases of HIV/AIDs reported in 2003 (CDC figures).
This is almost 5 times the US casualty rate of the entire 10 year Vietnam war. Approximately another 1/2 million are living with AIDS right now or are HIV infected. In light of these figures we can't afford the luxury of being blase and shrugging off homosexual behavior as "what's done between two consenting adults doesn't hurt anyone else" nonsense.
Here is a quote from the Executive Director: Peter Piot presented at the 12th meeting of the UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) in May of 2002:
"AIDS represents the most devastating epidemic in human history...Over the past two decades, more than 60 million people have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Worldwide, (AIDS) is the fourth biggest killer. At the end of 2001, an estimated 40 million people where living with HIV. Of the estimated 5 million who became infected in 2001, about half were young people between the ages of 15 and 24."
Innocent victims of the AIDS crisis are also increasing in number: preborn infants, spouses with infected partners, hemophiliacs, and surgical patients all face the possibility of HIV infection. The blood supply in many countries, including the USA, is anything but perfectly safe. It is estimated that 90%, or some 15,000 of the hemophiliacs in the USA were infected with HIV between 1981 and 1984 (Wall Street Journal, March 17, 1993).
With these alarming statistics here's where we're headed friends...if no AIDS cure is discovered, if homosexuals and heterosexuals continue their behaviors unchanged, then the virus will spread throughout the general population and the death toll could realistically reach into the tens of millions in the USA alone.
Ever see the movie/documentary: "And the Band Played On"? It's about the first diagnosis and discovery of AIDS in the early 80s. Let me refresh your memory of how the virus got spread so quickly...a Scandinavian male flight attendant (I think he was Swedish) basically was doing with other adult consenting males behind closed doors what you are advocating should be ok. But he slept with many men in many different countries and all the cases of AIDS were traced back to him somehow.
Sounds like a real morbid game of "Six degrees of separation" doesn't it? Yeah, he thought he wasn't hurting anyone else either. Now look where the world is with HIV/AIDS. Look how many people have lost their lives beginning with one homosexual flight attendant who was satisfying his lust with other consenting adults thinking he was hurting no one with his behavior either.
Know how the movie got its name "And the Band Played On?" From the HMS Titanic. Here was a ship going down in the middle of the icey Atlantic and yet many of the passengers thought the ship was unsinkable therefore they didn't believe the warnings of the crew to put on the lifevests and get to the lifeboats. No, they wanted to be entertained, so the band kept playing while people were heading toward their deaths.
You guys can both mock and jeer all you want. That's your right, you don't have to believe all this Bible stuff. God gives you that choice, but He will hold you responsible to pay the consequences of your choice. So you can choose to ignore our warnings to put on your lifevests and get to the lifeboats all you want, but remember this ship is going down. You're mocking, laughing and jeers are just like them, asking the band to play while you wait to be destroyed.
Oh, and FYI: I am a heterosexual. Happily married to a member of the opposite sex for almost 9 years now.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 14, 2006 8:56:38 GMT -5
WHY?Of all the sins in the Bible, why is this the one you speak of so vehemently? Why are there not six thousand threads about rapists or murders? Why do you keep bringing up homosexuality in every thread, even ones that have nothing to do with the subject? Why does this seem to be your number one priority, when in the Bible this sin didn't even make the top ten? Why does it upset you so much more than other sins? Moreover, why is it a group of single men who seem so upset about this "sin"--and why do the women on this website tend to stay out of this debate, except to refute you? I have an article for you all to read that you may find exciting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanismIf you do not want to read the whole thing, I will simply quote the relevant bit: Projection. Attributing to others, one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety in the way that it allows the expression of the impulse or desire without letting the ego recognize it.Isn't that interesting? Valentine, Please, from reading your posts you seem like an intelligent person. Lost and misguided, but intelligent. So don't debase and lower yourself by going down the "all people who don't approve of homosexuality are homophobes and are therefore really closet homosexuals themselves" road. It's an ad hominem attack and it's the lowest common denominator in debating. It says the the person who lobs this type of attack really has no logical points or reasonable points in their argument therefore they attack their opponents personally. It's a pathetic last ditch effort to get a jab in when all else fails. Rise above it Valentine!
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 14, 2006 9:04:37 GMT -5
Oh and one more answer to your question Valentine:
Why is this more of an issue rather than rape or murder, or any other sin for that matter?
Well, all sins are abhorrent in the eyes of a Holy God so no one sin is worse than another including homosexuality.
However, murder and rape aren't being shoved down our throats by the government and the media as being "OK" and an "alternate lifestyle" like homosexuality is.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2006 11:13:52 GMT -5
I can't recall the last ralley I saw for "a mans right to rape" or "a persons right to murder" (except for abortion). But homosexuality has been discussed and disguised as "the right to equality". That is why it's a major issue to preach about today. I wish every preacher in every pulpit would rail against this sin in our society.
All morality comes from God. Why is homosexuality wrong? Because God says so.
|
|
|
Post by Jules on Apr 14, 2006 19:12:05 GMT -5
If you do not have the ultimate presupposition of "in the beginning God" you are reductio ad absurdium - reduced to absurdity. Ok, I am going to guess that you are not a Latin scholar. So far I have noticed that you use this particlar phrase over and over: "reductio ad absurdium." Is this to make your argument seem smarter? Each time you quote the Latin phrase, you immediately follow it with it's english translation. If you want to say that someone is reduced to absurdity, you should just do it in English, because you are doing it improperly in Latin. The phrase in Latin does not mean that you are "reduced to absurdity" it is the "reduction to absurdity" of a logical supposition. People cannot be " reductio ad absurdum" (And that is the appropriate spelling, there is no "i" in absurdum). Only arguements can be reductio ad absurdum. window merely needed to be closed in order to increase that these things even exist." (Quoting Jesse) , therefore your argument is reductio ad absurdum. I've noticed many comments criticizing spelling grammar and points of communication, all in attempt to make themselves appear more educated and knowledgable than others - is this childish behavior necessary? I mean come on guests, the Christians on here are on here because we all share a common passion: to see the lost saved. We don't have time to spell check, take Latin, etc. It's all good and nice you guys know these things, but WHERE WILL YOUR SOUL BE WHEN YOU DIE? THAT is what we care about, and you should too. So why are you wasting time deflecting attention off ridiculous arguments and avoiding the challenge many have given you guys: REPENT And TRUST Christ!
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 14, 2006 23:00:13 GMT -5
Oh goodness... I'm so lost. School and such has kept me away. I feel left out! Everyone's going to be like, "And who do you think you are?" x.x Oh, and am I considered a heckler? =( I don't wanna be a heckler...
Let's see what I noticed to comment on... sorry if I repeat what someone else may have already said. I think I'll just stick to the most recent posts, mainly.
Hmmm.... how do I determine morality? Well... by this, for instance. By keeping an open heart and mind and letting anything that will pierce straight through. So I guess you could say I let everything attempt to shape my beliefs.
At the end of the day, though, it's the light of my heart that makes up who I am, ya know? Just doing my all to remove the things that hide that light - that's what I call sin. I usually refer to the 7 Deadly Sins to judge against.
I do look to the Bible. I think there are about 7 places that are commonly used to argue against homosexuality. And I also know the arguments of the other side of the story - I've cited many of them here before.
Homosexuality, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe . Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed.
To be clear, you mean in anal sex. Homosexuality is when one man is attracted to another... seems to me like two men would be safer in a dark alley rather than a man and a woman =D Kidding - just a joke.
I think the same thing can be said about regular sex, though. The exact same thing. The only difference is that the anus isn't as convenient for penetration as the vagina. But at least you don't get pregnant? Hmm... in that sense, they're about the same, lol.
luvofchrist: Now, I'm not suggesting that we outlaw homosexuality because it presents a threat to the public good. But it seems to me that, minimally, if we have an activity that is dangerous and harmful to the public good--in this case, to the public health--then why should we go out of our way to encourage it with granting same-sex marriages and the same rights as dependents on insurance policies, etc.?
Then why don't you teach safe-sex? Arguing against the legalization of gay unions (I'm not worried about marriage - that's the church's business, not the law's) isn't going to reduce the number of gay men and women in the world. Besides that, abstinence isn't working - statistics have shown that. Cuz people don't stick to it. And they won't. So teach something that works.
Jesse: All morality comes from God. Why is homosexuality wrong? Because God says so.
You keep saying that, but I've repeatedly pointing out where the verses you've sited aren't necessarily true and good translations.
Now, you can say that the Bible is %100 correct and I'll tell you you're wrong. There are a lot of contradictions, as I've cited before. I like to cite the Gospels especially, cuz John is so much different from the other three that it makes reconsiliation unrealistic.
However, on another side of the argument, we can say the Bible is just as God intended it. What if he meant for there to be inconsistencies and errors in it for us to work out?
Jules: I've noticed many comments criticizing spelling grammar and points of communication, all in attempt to make themselves appear more educated and knowledgable than others - is this childish behavior necessary? I mean come on guests, the Christians on here are on here because we all share a common passion: to see the lost saved. We don't have time to spell check, take Latin, etc. It's all good and nice you guys know these things, but WHERE WILL YOUR SOUL BE WHEN YOU DIE? THAT is what we care about, and you should too. So why are you wasting time deflecting attention off ridiculous arguments and avoiding the challenge many have given you guys: REPENT And TRUST Christ!
Yeah, I think I've done that at least once, so I'm sorry, you're right.
Once again, though, I don't agree about worrying where my soul is going... but I'm sure you all don't want to hear me bring that up again.
Have a nice night all. Take care - I'll post when I can, it's just getting to be a very busy time for me
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Apr 14, 2006 23:51:21 GMT -5
There are no contradictions in the Word of God, only supposed contradictions. Some scriptures may look like contradictions at first glance, but when you put just a little bit of thought into it you realize it is not a contradiction at all.
Which supposed contradictions were you talking about?
I think that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 saying "Homosexuals" and also "Sodomites" "will not inherit the Kingdom of God" was plain enough.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 14, 2006 23:58:15 GMT -5
I accept and value the contradictions in the Bible. It always makes me curious about people who can't seem to do the same...
As I cited in another post, the day in which Jesus was put on the cross.
For a very obvious one, check the geneologies of Jesus in the Gospels - they aren't the exact same. So one seems to be wrong...
Genesis. It didn't happen two different ways, it happened one or the other. The compilers couldn't choose, so included 'em both. I don't have anything against either one of 'em - I like the uncertainty factor.
Maybe I'll try to find more later - I gots plenty, especially on the Gospels.
Corinthians doesn't say 'homosexuals' - the word didn't exist back then. And Sodomites refers to rapists. You know, the sin committed in Sodom? Of course, you'd have to have been paying me half-attention to know my interpretation of that...
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 15, 2006 2:39:50 GMT -5
To say "prove the bible without using the bible" is as absurd as saying "prove the bible is wrong without using the bible". Or like saying "prove my statement to be false without reading my statement." At some point, to try and prove or disprove the bible, one must look and see what the claims of the bible actually are. Could you prove science is true without using science? Could you prove reason is good without using reason? Could you prove history is accurate without using history? I'm sure you see my point. No, I'm not sure that I do see your point. I think that I do understand the basics of what you are trying to say, however. Allow me to address these points. Actually, I don't find this suggestion absurd at all. As a matter of fact, it has been what I've been asking you to do all along. You continuously claim that the Bible is completely true. If that is the case, it should be reflected in real life. For instance, suppose I had a history book that said that in 1775, the colonies revolted against Great Britain in a revolutionary war. Now suppose also that it is 2106 (or 2525, for that matter, if man is still alive) and all historical records have been lost. No one knows what took place in history to get us where we are today. One history book survived. A certain group of people believe this book, but there are some doubters. Whenever the doubters ask the believers to prove that the American Revolution happened, the believers merely say that the history book says so, that's enough for me and it should be enough for you. Furthermore, they ask, "how can we prove that the Revolution happened without using the history book?" Well, in this case it is simple. If the American Revolution did happen, there will be evidence for it outside of the history book. It can be found in excavations, in political divisions which might still last until that day, it could be perhaps discovered in geneaologies as well. When we ask for proof beyond "the Bible says so," we are merely asking for you to use non-Biblical claims to justify your absolute belief in the Bible. That IS NOT THE SAME AS, or nearly as absurd as, saying prove the Bible is false without reading the Bible, or prove your arguement false without hearing your arguement. If someone is to claim that the Bible is ultimately true, or not infallible, they must have read it. I am not asking you to forget all that you know about the Bible, I am not even asking you not to reference the Bible. I am just asking you to back up your claims with evidence from life--Again, if the Bible accurately describes life, you should not be hard-pressed to find evidence in support of your Biblical claims. I believe it was in this thread that someone brought up the issue of vantage points. If you are on the Bible train, everyone on the train seems to be moving at the same speed as you (even if it's zero), but in order to determine the train's actual speed, you need to look at something outside, like at history or science. Oh, and one other thing. Please do not assume that I have not read the Bible. I have read most, if not all, of the Bible, so I am farmiliar with the claims that it makes, although, I must admit I am not as farmiliar as some of you appear to be. Once again, though, I do not view the Bible as the ultimate authority on things, and I never have. Science, n. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena. Well, science is a method, it is a set of knowledge. Therefore I can prove its existence without using science, by which you are probably referring to the scientific method. I can use reason and logic to determine this. So, science works in this manner. Observations are made, a hypothesis is proposed, experiments are undertaken, conclusions are drawn. If this follows, we can determine that science is true. Do you see any flaws in the current system as described? If you take issue with a particular conclusion, it can easily be disproven by using the same method. Reason, n. 1) The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. 2) A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction. 3) An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurance. I suppose that you'll need to use your skills of reason to interpret this, but I must ask, is there something you find particularly ungood about this definition? Yes. I can most-definitely do that. History, n. 1) A narrative of events, a story. 2A) A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events. 2B) A formal written account of related natural phenomena. 3) The branch of knowledge that records and analyzes past events. You see, history is the record of events, not the actual past. Therefore, we use sciences like anthropology and archaeology to determine what actually happened. We must use something other than history to prove the past, and to authenticate said historical records. I'm sure you see my point.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 15, 2006 2:55:58 GMT -5
I have heard the rediculous claim, "those who preach strongly against homosexuality often times are homosexuals themselves." That would be like saying, "the democrates who speak so strongly against the republicans are actually republicans themselves." Ok, the political parties reference shows your misunderstanding of the issue. The general hypothesis is that because of repressed feelings, closeted homosexuals demonstrate a higher level of homophobia as a defense mechanism. This could be for several reasons. One, they could be trying to be so anti-gay that people would never even begin to think that they might be homosexual. Second, they might actually be trying to deny their own inner urges, by reacting (often violently) against those who are tempting them to be open and honest with themself by having happy lives as gay people. I'm sure that there are other hypotheses as well. The correlation was proven, however, by a study conducted by the University of Georgia. The entire study results can be found at www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf . The study, entitled "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?" was conducted by Henry Adams, Lester Wright, Jr., and Bethany Lohr; researchers at the Unviersity of Georgia. It was conducted in 1996. The abstract of the study has been included in this post.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 15, 2006 3:28:38 GMT -5
Homosexuality, is a practice that is dangerous. These dangers are inherent to its practice. Homosexuality entails activities that are not only dangerous to personal health, they cannot be made safe. Let me repeat that: Homosexuality cannot be made safe . Some of the unsafe elements can be minimized, or lessened somewhat. But the danger cannot be removed. Actually, that is not at all true. Homosexuality is NOT a practice that is dangerous. It is not actually a practice. Homosexuality is an orientation, a part of one's being. Homosexuality does NOT entail activities that are dangerous to personal health. Homosexuality is, once again, only an orientation. One does not ever have to have homosexual intercourse to be homosexual. What is dangerous to personal health which cannot be made safe about being attracted to someone of the same gender? Also, you should be more clear as to your definition of sex. You see, just as there are a variety of ways for heterosexuals to engage in intercourse, there are a variety of ways for homosexuals to do so also. Not all create a risk for STIs. Not all gay couples engage in anal intercourse. Yes, it is true that homosexuals are capable of spreading the HIV and AIDS viruses to other homosexuals and to heterosexuals. Similarly, heterosexuals are capable of spreading it to other heterosexuals and to homosexuals. Not all homosexuals are promiscuous, many are in long-term, committed relationships. Anyone, including heterosexuals and homosexuals, who spreads an STI knowingly is culpable, and is in some cases legally liable for so doing. And 42,000 American's die in car accidents every year, too. Should we promote drivers licences? Everybody is gaurunteed equal treatment under the law. That is all that homosexuals are requesting. Ok, first off, the AIDS rate is also due to heterosexual sexual activity. One of the largest obsticles to AIDS prevention is the idea that only gay men have HIV/AIDS. As a result, many heterosexual couples do not take the approprate precautions. Unqualified statements such as yours only worsen the situation. Gays are dedicated to the cause of eradicating HIV/AIDS at least as much as the heterosexual community, if not more so. Far too many of our friends and loved ones have died of this terrible killer. Furthermore, it has been suggested that hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved if the US government had taken more rapid steps to confront the HIV/AIDS epidemic early on. It is believed that the Reagan Administration moved slowly to combat AIDS because it was percieved to only affect gay men. Once people realized that it affected the lives of heterosexuals as well, they began to care. It was at this point that the Reagan Administration began to step up their campaign against HIV/AIDS, but by this point it was already 1987. Homophobia on the part of the electorate, if not on the part of the Adminstration allowed the HIV epidemic to spread much faster than it could have, and thus caused many deaths and subsequent infections. Today, dramatic action must be taken, especially in Sub-saharan Africa, where the heterosexual population and homosexual population have been decimated alongside children. You are right to fear the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but please remember that the homosexual community is not solely responsible for spreading this virus. Once again, the homosexual community is dedicated to the eradication of HIV/AIDS. No, I have not seen "And the Band Played On." We are indeed responsible for what we do, but that does not make all homosexual sexual activity immoral. There is a difference between promiscuity and monogomy in both heterosexuality and homosexuality, and not every person infected with AIDS was infected directly by this flight attendant. I imagine that quite a few of the infectees got HIV/AIDS from heterosexual intercourse as well. This is not a time to lay blame, but a time to work for a cure. I am not mocking you, and I am not jeering. I hope that I can help to clarify some issues, but my main purpose here is to gain an understanding of your viewpoints. I also wish to express my views. One thing that I have learned from my countless years of debate experience, is that you can learn quite a bit about yourself by expressing your views to someone else. Once again, though, I would like to see evidence beyond "the Bible says so." Congratulations. If you have further questions about this topic, I recommend a book called "Is It a Choice? Answers to the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Gay and Lesbian People" by Eric Marcus, HarperSanFransico, 1993.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 15, 2006 3:34:04 GMT -5
Ok, I am going to guess that you are not a Latin scholar. So far I have noticed that you use this particlar phrase over and over: "reductio ad absurdium." Is this to make your argument seem smarter? Each time you quote the Latin phrase, you immediately follow it with it's english translation. If you want to say that someone is reduced to absurdity, you should just do it in English, because you are doing it improperly in Latin. The phrase in Latin does not mean that you are "reduced to absurdity" it is the "reduction to absurdity" of a logical supposition. People cannot be " reductio ad absurdum" (And that is the appropriate spelling, there is no "i" in absurdum). Only arguements can be reductio ad absurdum. window merely needed to be closed in order to increase that these things even exist." (Quoting Jesse) , therefore your argument is reductio ad absurdum. I've noticed many comments criticizing spelling grammar and points of communication, all in attempt to make themselves appear more educated and knowledgable than others - is this childish behavior necessary? I mean come on guests, the Christians on here are on here because we all share a common passion: to see the lost saved. We don't have time to spell check, take Latin, etc. It's all good and nice you guys know these things, but WHERE WILL YOUR SOUL BE WHEN YOU DIE? THAT is what we care about, and you should too. So why are you wasting time deflecting attention off ridiculous arguments and avoiding the challenge many have given you guys: REPENT And TRUST Christ! Fair enough. I understand your frustration. I typically overlook small mistakes. I usually only make a note of grammatical errors when they pose a hurdle to understanding. I believe you may be referring to a post I made about a LegalEagle post. That post was full of fragments, and I was not sure what was being said. As to the latin arguement, I only launched into that debate because Jesse constantly says that people are reduced to absurdity. When I bothered to look up what it meant, I discovered that he was mis-using it. Ten minutes of reading a wikipedia article could have clarified that. I don't mind at all if Jesse continues to use latin phraseology, I just think it looks bad when you misuse it. My commentary was intended to be constructive. It was not meant to be hurtful, although I did include a tone of slight sarcasm. I apologize. I wish for this discussion to remain civil. I will attempt to tone down my grammatical antagonism.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 10:10:10 GMT -5
The last three posts here were pretty fantastc. Wanderingtrekker did a wonderful job of expelling any homosexual "myths" that have been ciruclating around this board. Unfortunately, I have my doubts as to whether or not any of them will be capable of a response.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Apr 15, 2006 12:16:48 GMT -5
As a side, I have a question. For those of you who don't see the Bible as having any authority (if in fact you don't believe it to be authoratative), why do you go to painstaking lengths to try to say that it does not condemn homo sex (or that it does not condemn anything for that matter). Even if YOU could be shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible said something absolutely, would it matter to you?
Miles
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 15, 2006 12:39:39 GMT -5
Wanderingtrekker,
Let's look at the real statistics shall we? You said,
Here is a copy of the REAL truth direct from the CDC (that's Centers for Disease Control) website. I suggest you read their statistics on the HIV/AIDS epidemic and stop listening to the unqualified statements you've been hearing and repeating and thus making the situation worse.
AIDS Cases by Exposure Category
Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.
Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2004*
Male-to-male sexual contact: 441,380 Injection Drug Use: Male:176,162; Female:72,651: Total:248,813 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 64,833 Heterosexual contact: Male:59,939; Female:99,175; Total:159,114 Other**: Male:14,085; Female:6,636; Total:20,721
As you can plainly see the male to male sexual contact figure for HIV/AIDS is over 2 and a half times the rate of heterosexual contact! Yes, heterosexual contact is partially responsible for the AIDS rate. Another good reason for abstinence until marriage! But as you can see, the homosexual rate of the disease is still much higher.
A problem the government would never had had to deal with in the first place if people lived by a Biblical ethic and weren't so selfish in indulging their flesh and rather thought about others.
I agree, the homosexual community is not solely responsible for spreading the virus but it began there. When the virus was first "investigated" it was because gay men who frequented San Francisco homosexual bath houses were presenting with strange symptoms that most people with healthy immune systems wouldn't have. At first, the thought was some virus or health issue in the bath house sanitary system was the cause then the gruesome truth was discovered.
No, they didn't all get it directly from this flight attendant but indirectly, yes. If all the AIDS cases in the early 80s could be traced to him then everyone infected since then is inextricably linked to this man whether directly or indirectly.
I agree, but the point I'm trying to make is that behavior that goes against God's design (only monogamous, heterosexual, married sex) has consequences that we can't even begin to imagine even though we'd like to delude ourselves into thinking we're not hurting anyone.
Admirable. But the only realistic way for the homosexual community to do that is to stop engaging in homosexual sex otherwise their concern is disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by drsocc on Apr 15, 2006 12:58:11 GMT -5
Admirable. But the only realistic way for the homosexual community to do that is to stop engaging in homosexual sex otherwise their concern is disingenuous. I am not following that last part. Why can't a married/ civil union/ life partner gay couple who waited until they met their life partner to be intimate and then choose to remain monogamous remain healthy? I mean, the AIDS does not just magically happen.
|
|
|
Post by evanschaible on Apr 15, 2006 13:55:56 GMT -5
I got a shocker for the homosexual advocates here.
Homosexuals wont go to hell just for their homosexuality, but also for their lying, stealing, cheating, drunkenness, pornography, pride, lust, hatred, murder, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, as Paul would say.
Homosexuality is just one branch on the tree of abomination.
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 22:34:23 GMT -5
As a side, I have a question. For those of you who don't see the Bible as having any authority (if in fact you don't believe it to be authoratative), why do you go to painstaking lengths to try to say that it does not condemn homo sex (or that it does not condemn anything for that matter). Even if YOU could be shown that beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Bible said something absolutely, would it matter to you? Miles To answer your last question first, no it really wouldn't matter to me. But I know that YOU do believe in the infallibility of the Bible, so I find it frustrating to say the least that you denounce homosexuality so strongly, when it is mentioned so few times and is never directly addressed in specific enough terms to be sure what the word is saying about it. Every time it's addressed, the verses could easily be interpreted as talking about rape, child molestation, and other such crimes, rather than mutually desired affection between consenting adults.
|
|
|
Post by hopefulheart on Apr 15, 2006 22:36:38 GMT -5
Evan: I got a shocker for the homosexual advocates here.
Homosexuals wont go to hell just for their homosexuality, but also for their lying, stealing, cheating, drunkenness, pornography, pride, lust, hatred, murder, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, as Paul would say.
Homosexuality is just one branch on the tree of abomination.
Now you're assuming that a homosexual has to be involved in all of those other things. Wow... but what was the shocking part?
|
|
|
Post by Morluna on Apr 15, 2006 22:38:03 GMT -5
Evan: I got a shocker for the homosexual advocates here.
Homosexuals wont go to hell just for their homosexuality, but also for their lying, stealing, cheating, drunkenness, pornography, pride, lust, hatred, murder, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine, as Paul would say.
Homosexuality is just one branch on the tree of abomination. Now you're assuming that a homosexual has to be involved in all of those other things. Wow... My thoughts exactly. These kind of generalizations have seriously got to stop, you guys.
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 16, 2006 9:16:54 GMT -5
Hopefull,
Now you're the one making assumptions. The assumption is not being made that every homosexual is involved in all those things.
The point Evan is making is that homosexuals, along with every other person on the face of this planet who still has breath in their lungs will be judged by a righteous, holy God for all sins. Not just the sins of sexual deviances.
If you've even told one lie, you are guilty of lying. If you even hate another human in your heart, God sees you guilty of murder. Lust and God sees you guilty of adultery.
God sees the sins of our youth (which we conveniently forget) as though they happened 2 seconds ago. He does not forget. In fact, the Bible says God will judge us for every idle word that comes out of our mouths and for every thought and attitude. Our actions aren't the only things God will judge.
So what Evan is saying is that the "rap sheet" for each one of us is so incredibly long that there is so much more God could judge and condemn us for without even taking sexual conduct into account.
Let's just take 50 years of your life for example. Let's say from age 20 to age 70 you sin once an hour in either thought/word or deed (and I'm being conservative here, my guess is most people have more than one bad thought, attitude etc., an hour). By the time you die at age 70 you will have racked up an impressive 438,000 sins. What judge would let you off with a rap sheet like that?!!!!
|
|
luvofchrist
Full Member
"Gibson" the wonder pup
Posts: 233
|
Post by luvofchrist on Apr 16, 2006 10:04:24 GMT -5
Admirable. But the only realistic way for the homosexual community to do that is to stop engaging in homosexual sex otherwise their concern is disingenuous. I am not following that last part. Why can't a married/ civil union/ life partner gay couple who waited until they met their life partner to be intimate and then choose to remain monogamous remain healthy? I mean, the AIDS does not just magically happen. Tragically, your hypothetical situation is rare to non-existent in the homosexual community.... Homosexual Promiscuity. Studies indicate that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime: · A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.[1] · In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners.[2] · A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners.[3] · In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that "few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners."[4] Promiscuity among Homosexual Couples. Even in those homosexual relationships in which the partners consider themselves to be in a committed relationship, the meaning of "committed" typically means something radically different from marriage. · In The Male Couple, authors David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison reported that in a study of a hundred-fifty-six males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to thirty-seven years, Only seven couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.[5] · In Male and Female Homosexuality, M. Saghir and E. Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[6] Unhealthy Aspects of "Monogamous" Homosexual Relationships. Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed "monogamous" do not necessarily result in healthier behavior. · The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse with greater frequency than those without a steady partner.[7] Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. · The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most "unsafe" sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.[8] Human Papillomavirus (HPV). HPV is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts, or papillomas, on various parts of the body. More than twenty types of HPV are incurable STDs that can infect the genital tract of both men and women. Most HPV infections are subclinical or asymptomatic, with only one in a hundred people experiencing genital warts. · HPV is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."[9] · HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies."[10] · The link between HPV and cervical cancer. Citing a presentation by Dr. Stephen Goldstone to the International Congress on Papillomavirus in Human Pathology in Paris, the Washington Blade reports that "HPV is believed to cause cervical cancer in women."[11] Hepatitis: A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer. · Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: "Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world."[12] · Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM are at increased risk for hepatitis B.[13] · Hepatitis C is an inflammation of the liver that can cause cirrhosis, liver failure and liver cancer. The virus can lie dormant in the body for up to thirty years before flaring up. Although less so than with hepatitis A and B, MSM who engage in unsafe sexual practices remain at increased risk for contracting hepatitis C.[14] Gonorrhea: An inflammatory disease of the genital tract. Gonorrhea traditionally occurs on the genitals, but has recently appeared in the rectal region and in the throat. Although easily treated by antibiotics, according to the cdc only "about 50 percent of men have some signs or symptoms, and "many women who are infected have no symptoms of infection."[15] Untreated gonorrhea can have serious and permanent health consequences, including infertility damage to the prostate and urethra. · A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM," indicating that "safe sex" practices may not be taken as seriously as the aids epidemic begins to slow.[16] In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.[17] · The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge . . . and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)."[18] Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea--15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men.[19] Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death. The initial symptoms of syphilis are often mild and painless, leading some individuals to avoid seeking treatment. According to the National Institutes of Health, the disease may be mistaken for other common illnesses: "syphilis has sometimes been called 'the great imitator' because its early symptoms are similar to those of many other diseases." Early symptoms include rashes, moist warts in the groin area, slimy white patches in the mouth, or pus-filled bumps resembling chicken pox.[20] · According to the CDC, "transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex."[21] In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.[22] · The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring hiv infection when syphilis is present."[23] Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS):[24] The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes."[25] Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause gbs are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, " exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner . . . The most direct route is oral-anal contact."[26]
· Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis that are widespread among homosexuals.[27] The Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "roctitis occurs predominantly among persons who participate in anal intercourse."
· Enteritis is inflammation of the small intestine. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, "enteritis occurs among those whose sexual practices include oral-fecal contact."[28] Enteritis can cause abdominal pain, severe cramping, intense diarrhea, fever, malabsorption of nutrients, weight loss.[29] According to a report in The Health Implications of Homosexuality by the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, some pathogens associated with enteritis and proctocolitis [see below] "appear only to be sexually transmitted among men who have sex with men."[30]
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
· Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases.[31]
· Homosexuals with HIV are at increased risk for developing other life-threatening diseases. A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer."[32]
Civil society itself has an obligation to institute policies that promote the health and well-being of its citizens. -- I repeat myself from another post: Homosexual behavior cannot be made safe.
Let's just face reality. The human male and female organs are obviously created for reproduction of life. That is the natural function. Any scientist clearly sees that.
Homosexual behavior does not reproduce life. Hence, homosexual behavior is not natural no matter how hard someone tries to "spin it" otherwise.
If you want the footnotes to the statistics I'll be happy to provide them for you. I left them out only because this post would be too long.
|
|
|
Post by wanderingtrekker on Apr 18, 2006 0:24:31 GMT -5
Luvofchrist, I apologize for not responding sooner. Apparently I lost this thread when it was moved, so I didn't realize that you had responded. You didn't respond to the first part of my post. Wanderingtrekker, Let's look at the real statistics shall we? You said, Here is a copy of the REAL truth direct from the CDC (that's Centers for Disease Control) website. I suggest you read their statistics on the HIV/AIDS epidemic and stop listening to the unqualified statements you've been hearing and repeating and thus making the situation worse. AIDS Cases by Exposure CategoryFollowing is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate. Exposure Category Estimated # of AIDS Cases, Through 2004* Male-to-male sexual contact: 441,380 Injection Drug Use: Male:176,162; Female:72,651: Total:248,813 Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 64,833 Heterosexual contact: Male:59,939; Female:99,175; Total:159,114 Other**: Male:14,085; Female:6,636; Total:20,721 As you can plainly see the male to male sexual contact figure for HIV/AIDS is over 2 and a half times the rate of heterosexual contact! Yes, heterosexual contact is partially responsible for the AIDS rate. Another good reason for abstinence until marriage! But as you can see, the homosexual rate of the disease is still much higher. You will recieve no arguement from me on that point. I know the figures. I am not an advocate of promiscuity for either heterosexuals or homosexuals. What I was actually referring to in the part where you quoted me, was the fact that since HIV/AIDS has been stigmatized as a gay disease, many heterosexuals engaging in promiscuity are not protecting themselves. I am not condoning promiscuity, but it happens already, and I think our society would benefit if everyone knew that they were susceptible also. Yes, that may be true, but the disease did happen, and the government left the gay community to basically fend for itself. As a result, the straight commuity was affected in greater numbers. That is unacceptable for me, I'm surprised it isn't unacceptable to you too. I was making a reference to the fact that straights were also responsible for the spread of the disease during its early stages. No one can predict the consequences of their actions to any degree of accuracy, including heterosexuals. Many heterosexual marraiges fail today, leaving many children in precarious situations. I don't think you are capable of understanding the importance of intimate relationships between people of all orientations. It's not that I don't think you are smart, I just think your judgement is clouded. Gay sex will always occur, no matter what you legislate. It is important that gays be encouraged to be monogamous and practice safer sex. (Yes, I know it's not 100%, but it's better than the 0% alternative.) Luvofchrist, Thank you for offering a civil discussion relying on facts. This is a first for me on this board and I appreciate it greatly. I look forward to a continuance of our discussions.
|
|