biology, not your subjective "feelings"

[Lon]

Wrong. HIV is no more inherent to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality. Though both hold the possibility to contract it.
Do you understand what inherent means?

Oh! You are happy with platitudes that mean nothing then. Gotcha. It IS the liberal take so kudos on you for ignoring the pertinent and making up something droll that we can sweep actuals under the rug. :up:

WHO CARES about inherent? :idunno: We are dealing with ACTUAL statistics. Why do you want to say 'well, it isn't inherent anyway...."

SO WHAT for crying out loud. How crass are you? (I know from your abortion stance and discussion, just trying to show you that you have very little humanity or love of it, in you).

This is no more than your typical, self-righteous bluster.

You have very little humanity left in you, quip. I'm trying to reach what is there before it is too late. Goats will be goats BUT maybe you are meant to be a sheep. EVER think that? EVER?

 

[quip]

Oh! You are happy with platitudes that mean nothing then. Gotcha. It IS the liberal take so kudos on you for ignoring the pertinent and making up something droll that we can sweep actuals under the rug. :up:

WHO CARES about inherent? :idunno: We are dealing with ACTUAL statistics. Why do you want to say 'well, it isn't inherent anyway...."

SO WHAT for crying out loud. How crass are you? (I know from your abortion stance and discussion, just trying to show you that you have very little humanity or love of it, in you).



You have very little humanity left in you, quip. I'm trying to reach what is there before it is too late. Goats will be goats BUT maybe you are meant to be a sheep. EVER think that? EVER?

You have serious issues Lon...deal with them.

 

[dodge]

Hardly...

The only problem is that common sense is not so common any more.

If one has gender confusion then all they have to do is drop their drawers/panties and look between their legs. Problem solved.

 

[glassjester]

There is the genetic disorder thing...which is likely the driving force behind the taboo and laws against.

Otherwise, it's none of my biz. :idunno:

Yet non-incestuous couples with hereditary disorders are still allowed to marry. Do you think incestuous couples are unfairly stigmatized?

Should they be given "marriage equality" ?

Should they be represented in parades and children's movies, and taught about in public schools?

 

[Selaphiel]

WHO CARES about inherent? :idunno: We are dealing with ACTUAL statistics. Why do you want to say 'well, it isn't inherent anyway...."

Are you serious? If you want to argue that homosexuality is damaging, then you have to be able to demonstrate that homosexuality qua homosexuality is damaging. Statistics demonstrate correlations, it does not establish causal relationships. To assume that it does is a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There might be a 1000 different reasons (and obviously it doesnt have to be just one of them) why homosexual men have a high frequency of HIV. Please demonstrate how an essential attribute of homosexuality is damaging.

If correlation is your sole criteria, then you might as well argue that not shaving directly causes coronary disease and stroke: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/157/3/234/71268/Shaving-Coronary-Heart-Disease-and-StrokeThe

 

[ok doser]

There might be a 1000 different reasons (and obviously it doesnt have to be just one of them) why homosexual men have a high frequency of HIV.

i think it's pretty well established in the medical field that male homos have a high frequency of HIV and other STDs because of anal sex

lesbians don't have high rates of HIV



but you and quip go right on pretending that it has to with factors unrelated to their perversion :chuckle:

 

[serpentdove]

[Sodomites :vomit:] What was his argument from authority?

God's word is the final word. oly: Lev 18:22, 20:13, 1 Ki 14:24, Ro 1:24, 26, 27

 

[ClimateSanity]

You have serious issues Lon...deal with them.

Then all real Christians have serious issues. We all agree with lon.

 

[serpentdove]

biology, not your subjective "feelings"

If biology "trumps" subjective feelings, we'd better be all prepared to have "gender" police patrolling the public washrooms...

Do you need a police officer to help you out? lain:

 

[Selaphiel]

i think it's pretty well established in the medical field that male homos have a high frequency of HIV and other STDs because of anal sex

lesbian don't have high rates of HIV

Heard of contraception? There is a slightly higher chance of contracting HIV through anal sex compared to vaginal sex, but not enough to account for the numbers. There are other more plausible reasons to explain it. Male sexuality tend to be more promiscious (if unchecked, males take sex when and where they can get it), thus far more sexual partners and then add bad decision making when contraceptives are not available. But is homosexuality per se that is the issue then? Or is it promiscuity and not using condoms? There are plenty of faithful homosexual relationships, doubt they have any significantly higher risk of contracting STDs.

 

[serpentdove]

they're redefining "gender" and "orientation" in order to accommodate perversion

Right. It used to be called sex.

"I prefer clarity to agreement." ~ Dennis Prager

 

[Lon]

Are you serious? If you want to argue that homosexuality is damaging, then you have to be able to demonstrate that homosexuality qua homosexuality is damaging. Statistics demonstrate correlations, it does not establish causal relationships. To assume that it does is a fallacy (post hoc ergo propter hoc). There might be a 1000 different reasons (and obviously it doesnt have to be just one of them) why homosexual men have a high frequency of HIV. Please demonstrate how an essential attribute of homosexuality is damaging.

If correlation is your sole criteria, then you might as well argue that not shaving directly causes coronary disease and stroke: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/157/3/234/71268/Shaving-Coronary-Heart-Disease-and-StrokeThe

As I said before, Canada is STILL publishing their census material. Okay, you are worried about mincing worlds of correlation vs derivatives. It doesn't matter if 50% of all HIV dying from aids, aren't in your proof set. "What we are seeing" is 50% of all living and dying with transmitted diseases ARE homosexual. You are simply trying to wave off statistics as if there is no connection. That is false. NO MATTER WHAT YOU COME UP WITH, 50% of all who are dying of communicable disease are homosexual (understand that???). You can treat data flippantly or carelessly or even seriously and it just doesn't matter. It doesn't erase the numbers being seen: 1% of the population accounts for 50% of ALL communicable diseases. That's a statistic. Go ahead and explain it, but you can't erase that figure. It doesn't go away. Let's talk about the median age of homosexuals: 42. This is 30 years cut off their lives by this lifestyle. "IF" you do not face up to facts and simply let them do what is more than obviously destructive, THEN you don't give a care. "LET 'EM DIE!" Am I lying? Making it up? No. I'm not.

 

[serpentdove]

Stripe needs sex to be yes/no because he needs things to be heaven/hell as well.

"Sex? Yes please." ~ Austin Powers

 

[Lon]

You have serious issues Lon...deal with them.

See? You don't care. You really don't. One day, I PRAY you become a 'human' being. You are about the closest thing to a spiritless thinking animal I've ever seen. That's sad. Its heart-breaking. You REALLY have to hear this, quip. You just aren't seen as a humane being or human being on TOL. You DO NOT display that at all.

 

[ok doser]

Heard of contraception? There is a slightly higher chance of contracting HIV through anal sex compared to vaginal sex, but not enough to account for the numbers. There are other more plausible reasons to explain it. Male sexuality tend to be more promiscious (if unchecked, males take sex when and where they can get it), thus far more sexual partners and then add bad decision making when contraceptives are not available. But is homosexuality per se that is the issue then? Or is it promiscuity and not using condoms? There are plenty of faithful homosexual relationships, doubt they have any significantly higher risk of contracting STDs.

disappointed in you, cellophane :nono:

 

[Selaphiel]

As I said before, Canada is STILL publishing their census material. Okay, you are worried about mincing worlds of correlation vs derivatives. It doesn't matter if 50% of all HIV dying from aids, aren't in your proof set. "What we are seeing" is 50% of all living and dying with transmitted diseases ARE homosexual. You are simply trying to wave off statistics as if there is no connection. That is false. NO MATTER WHAT YOU COME UP WITH, 50% of all who are dying of communicable disease are homosexual (understand that???). You can treat data flippantly or carelessly or even seriously and it just doesn't matter. It doesn't erase the numbers being seen: 1% of the population accounts for 50% of ALL communicable diseases. That's a statistic. Go ahead and explain it, but you can't erase that figure. It doesn't go away. Let's talk about the median age of homosexuals: 42. This is 30 years cut off their lives by this lifestyle. "IF" you do not face up to facts and simply let them do what is more than obviously destructive, THEN you don't give a care. "LET 'EM DIE!" Am I lying? Making it up? No. I'm not.

It is quite amusing that you think writing some words in capital letters strengthens your argument. The point remains, there are other possible explanations (and those are not hard to find if you are interested). If it is so blindingly obvious that there is a direct causal link, then why are you not able to present it? Is promiscuity, not using condoms and drug use inherently homosexual behavior? (In that case, explain how same sex attraction necessarily leads to those things) Of course it isn't, there are plenty of faithful homosexual relationships where neither party uses drugs. Argue your case, don't ramble and simulate screaming in your writing, only makes you seem highly unstable.

 

[Lon]

It is quite amusing that you think writing some words in capital letters strengthens your argument.

It is MORE amusing that you think emphasis means it strengthens an argument rather than just drawing you attention to what I feel you really need to pay attention to. Can we stop with trying to assert some feigned superiority? I have a few degrees, let's not disdain them, no?

The point remains, there are other possible explanations

No. There are not. I'm going to not use caps, but listen: The only fact you need to pay attention to is that these particular individuals die a lot sooner than the rest of the population. A scientific approach is not going to stop the outcome. You simply advocate their deaths that way.
"Let's study it." No, let's not. They are dying and we do know, per fact, that something about their particular lives is killing them off. We know it. "We don't know what 'it' is." I disagree. If you accept scriptures, you have a head-start. If not, oh well, but 'Let's study it' is the crass answer. You already know something about it, in particular, causes more suicides, more death-causing diseases, 50% of all 'sexually' transmitted diseases (here's your sign), etc. Some things are their own correlation and you simply miss it for being daft.

and those are not hard to find if you are interested). If it is so blindingly obvious that there is a direct causal link, then why are you not able to present it? Is promiscuity, not using condoms and drug use inherently homosexual behavior? (In that case, explain how same sex attraction necessarily leads to those things) Of course it isn't, there are plenty of faithful homosexual relationships where neither party uses drugs. Argue your case, don't ramble and simulate screaming in your writing, only makes you seem highly unstable.

Depends on the audience. Most people, when you say 'STD' (in this case Canada), they actually know the correlation. Oh, I'm sure some of them are transmitted other ways, but then they would be called something else by the Canada's version of the CDC.

 

[quip]

Yet non-incestuous couples with hereditary disorders are still allowed to marry. Do you think incestuous couples are unfairly stigmatized?

Should they be given "marriage equality" ?

Boy, you're really trying too hard.

Anyway, wholly unlike homosexual marriage, there's actually a practical reason (hereditary disorders) for them not be allowed to marry.

Should they be represented in parades and children's movies, and taught about in public schools?

If they feel the desire. I suppose the short answer is simply 'meh'.

 

[quip]

Then all real Christians have serious issues. We all agree with lon.

I couldn't agree more, now deal with them.

 

[glassjester]

Boy, you're really trying too hard.

Anyway, wholly unlike homosexual marriage, there's actually a practical reason (hereditary disorders) for them not be allowed to marry.

Why should marriage be all about reproduction? You old puritan, you!

If they feel the desire. I suppose the short answer is simply 'meh'.

So you'd vote "yes" on incest marriage equality?