biology, not your subjective "feelings"
- Thread starter Tambora
- Start date
Lon
Well-known member
Well, lest either of us forget, it is TOL and the tenor.... I will endeavor to reach you with what is most effective. -Lon
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
replace "they (homosexuals)" with pedophiles
makes your "argument" look pretty poorly reasoned, doesn't it?
Replace 'the ignorant' and 'the bigot' with ok doser and it makes perfect sense.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Lon said:
But is that number due to unprotected anal sex being that more risky than unprotected vaginal sex or is it due to the potential amount of partners in males seeking male partners? That is two people with an underlying biological incentive to seek sexual activity with as many as possible. From what I understand, the risks of STDs of unprotected anal sex and unprotected vaginal sex, excluding all other factors, are not that different. So most of that disproportionate number is due to promiscuity.
Homosexuality is not necessarily promiscuous. It could be argued that the effort should be put into promoting responsible sexual behavior, that is seeking faithful exclusive relationships and using protection, among homosexuals, not forbidding or repressing homosexuality as such.
Of course they can choose abstinence, so can heterosexuals. That is not the issue. The issue is that if they choose to express their sexuality, which is no less biological than that of a heterosexual, they experience condemnation for it by ignorants and bigots. That is on the bigots and the ignorants, not the homosexuals.
I'm not disputing that we should act on the statistics nor the the accuracy of them. I'm disputing your solution to them, and your explanation of them (being due to homosexuality per se, rather than an accidental feature of it)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Selaphiel
Well-known member
:doh:
better stick with philosophy, your ignorance of basic bio is profound
Maybe you should learn some basic mathematics. Those differences, even if they are significant, don't account for the discrepancy as large as 50% of all cases being attributes to >1% of a population. Especially when considering that anal sex is performed by heterosexuals as well.
More importantly, these are numbers for unprotected sex. I do not think anyone here is advocating the idea that unprotected anal sex is a smart thing. But is not using protection and being extremely promiscuous an essential part of homosexuality?
And you really shouldn't talk about biology as if it were something that you have any understanding of. You still believe the earth is around 10 000 years old with humans existing from the beginning, right?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ClimateSanity
New member
He is European. They self destructed long ago. Guilt is a powerful emotion.
ClimateSanity
New member
Learning from your mistakes does no good when you learn the wrong lessons.
Lon
Well-known member
Both. The anatomy is not meant for that and it is harmful in a hetero sense as well. However, the occurrence is prevalent among male as well as females from the 1%. It is also not sterile as is the other, if no STD's are present. There is also a greater harm risk among the minority group. I'm being careful not to describe in any great detail what is of concern. I try hard to keep the PG level on TOL and I think a vagueness is sufficient for conveyance. If any of this is too vague, let me know.
It is, like 97%. 1/3 have had over 1000 partners if one statistic is accurate. Lately, studies show that one in three children in homosexual homes are sexually abused. We are going to have to rethink giving free passes to all of society based primarily upon the actual risks of said freedoms. It means roughly one in three homosexuals are also criminal pedophiles. I don't know about you, but when I see .gov and .edu reports like this, the obvious opening the flood gates on this behavior and caving to social pressure rather than solid study, has been a horrible
'move-ahead-as-if' with our heads in the sand. I just can't do that. All the stats are red-level alerts and concerns.
:nono: The ONLY abstinent homosexuals are actually just celibate Christians at present. I realize that I'm an oddball in being abstinent until marriage but it is the goal of our faith. Most importantly, however, is that we do not cave simply based off of "everybody else is doing it." We need to encourage all orientations to avoid health risk behaviors, whether they do so or not. We are not hormone-police, but we can ensure our voices are heard through policy. What I'm advocating is simply telling homosexuals that the behavior causes ill health and early deaths. I was celibate for a long time. My head didn't explode or anything.
Not sure I'm following then. If you agree or at least acknowledge the likelihood of such data as factual, what do you propose? For me: I don't think encouraging 1% of the 1% in exclusive behavior fixes a few of these health concerns. We are only talking about a few thousand at that point. Their partnerships aren't as exclusive as the majority of the rest of marriages, nor is yet, the behavior good for them, no matter how much they protest or march. Their quality of life, including digestive and Depends brand wear later in life, is reduced from the acts. Do we need to do anything that reduces our life? If so, what is acceptable? Would you, for instance, remove suicide from being illegal? The law surely does not stop the behavior, but I really don't want to celebrate suicide with 60% of currently produce media. I wouldn't want any kind of celebrity appointed to the one who will commit suicide, that it'd become a celebrated ritual in America. We, as a nation, chase fads, often blindly, sometimes as a misguided love and desire for another's 'freedom.' I wish we would think more, act less. Who was it who said it is better to "just do it and ask for forgiveness later." I think that guy had no patience and was a victim of impulse. We are very much into instant gratification, but I don't think such is a right. A lot of bad governments were started by lack of patience and throwing out traditional rules and laws. Tyrants are another thing altogether, but I'm saying we should be slow to speak, slow to act, quick to listen, as scripture calls us to do as well. -Lon
glassjester
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Actually you show you dont understand scripture, AGAIN. (we both know you know this, but would rather cast doubt on scripture and God rather than admit youre wrong- says much for your heart condition)
You do know thats about women and men (women who for the first time was allowed to hear the scripture teachings) were calling (across to the husbands since the women and men sat on opposite sides of the meetings) and were calling out loud to their husbands - so they were told to ask their husbands their questions at home, not to disrupt.
In other words women were empowered and could hear the word along with the men, and like all students (all men learing torah were told to learn in silence and submission to their teachers and were forbidden to teach while a student also.
Then you have women could openly prophecy in the church and conditions given, one at a time etc.. cant prophecy if you cant speak, show you show your ignorance right there.
Shameful how you try to trick others when you know what it says, slighting the Lord, for your flesh.
Lon
Well-known member
:first: I think this an excellent treatment from scripture study. I've come to some of the same conclusions but forgot that in synagogue, women were separated from men. :up:
As a Christian you should encourage all that are going against God's design for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) to seek spiritual and if need be, psychological help.
While you're at it: Tell those Trump supporters who pretend that they're conservative, that they're not fooling anyone.
Lon
Well-known member
Would not have said otherwise. My point is all of society needs to be concerned, whether they share our Christian values or not. It is logically and physically a harmful way of life.
On this, I don't tend to think that politics express our Christianity well. Rather, we aim for what we believe is the better.
I have a very hard time voting Democrat these days because of their pendulum swing on separation of church and state.
So, rather than voting with allegiance, I vote thinking of specific issues that need to be corrected or addressed. I voted for the senator from Tennessee. I don't begrudge Christians who voted for others as their convictions were voiced. We tend to get really odd ideas that politics somehow reflect one's sincerity or viability as Christians. I rarely see that as being the case. Rather, bad judgement or voting for something beside what I am voting for, or what have you. Just a thought or two -Lon