Stupid post of the day

[Nick M]

Subsribers post of the day isn't always good. Check out this whopper.

MaryContrary, whom repented of homosexual behavior, said being a homo isn't healthy.

But I'll give it brief once over anyway: It's destructive and unhealthy. Physically, emotionally and socially

And this is what this retard said back.

Care to provide evidence for these claims? I know a few homosexuals who are very healthy physically and emotionally. In fact, they are healthier now that they embrace their homosexuality then before when they denied it and kept it hidden. In both cases, the reason for them to keep it hidden is because of their parents bigotry and intolerance. After coming out, they were disowned. But this was easier for them to deal with, then to keep their love, thoughts, and feelings repressed.

And why else would they seek to keep it hidden if it weren't for people like you who encourage them to keep it that way, and keep them in denial? You encourage repression and are outright hostile to their interjections that they just may be gay and that there's nothing you can do about it.

It seems that if any social destruction arises out of homosexuality, it is entirely because of you and your idea's (because you were/are the majority).

Aside, PB is entirely right. Even if god exists and finds humans by nature and homosexuality sinful, by what measure does that give you the right to stick your nose into the bedroom lives of others? If this god exists, you are just as disgusting and worthless and therefore, just as worthy of his love, as any homosexual is. Maybe you shouldn't forget that considering you believe in this god.

Loser, learn a little first before you comment on the subject matter.

High risk, by category, is females that have sex with males, who have sex with males. The CDC puts them in a different group than males who have relations with males. For the record, the "other" category, is extremely small.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Plus one to the catholics for trying to be moral. Now, go be righteous through Jesus please.

And finally, what makes your statement to her extra stupid, you bumbling buffoon, her signature. Informing you she can speak authoritatively on the subject.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1702501#post1702501

 

[pozzolane]

Subsribers post of the day isn't always good. Check out this whopper.

MaryContrary, whom repented of homosexual behavior, said being a homo isn't healthy.


And this is what this retard said back.



Loser, learn a little first before you comment on the subject matter.

High risk, by category, is females that have sex with males, who have sex with males. The CDC puts them in a different group than males who have relations with males. For the record, the "other" category, is extremely small.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Plus one to the catholics for trying to be moral. Now, go be righteous through Jesus please.

And finally, what makes your statement to her extra stupid, you bumbling buffoon, her signature. Informing you she can speak authoritatively on the subject.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1702501#post1702501

Maybe critical thinking is not your forte. So, Nick the genius, if homosexual activity is detrimental to ones health, why are lesbians so much less of a risk than heterosexual couples for STD's?

 

[Rusha]

And finally, what makes your statement to her extra stupid, you bumbling buffoon, her signature. Informing you she can speak authoritatively on the subject.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1702501#post1702501

She can only speak of *her experience* which is no more or less relevant than the experience of other homosexuals or self-proclaimed reformed homosexuals.

IF a still practicing homosexual were to declare that they were disease-free, emotionally and physically healthy, and in a long-term, thriving relationship with a same-sex partner, would you declare *their* experience as being relevant?

 

[Rusha]

Maybe critical thinking is not your forte. So, Nick the genius, if homosexual activity is detrimental to ones health, why are lesbians so much less of a risk than heterosexual couples for STD's?

Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

 

[pozzolane]

Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

*Puts on his Nick M thinking cap*

:drool:

Darr....Yah!

 

[icilian fenner]

If it wasn't good for her, then it's good to get out. I'd encourage anyone who is down because of it to try to do the same, if it's a result of that, not social stigma, shame or other environmental motivators.

 

[Cracked]

Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

No.

 

[Rusha]

I'd encourage anyone who is down because of it to try to do the same, if it's a result of that, not social stimga, shame or other environmental motivators.

Same here ... I support anyone that makes *their own* decisions and personally applies them to their lives for a positive result.

However, that doesn't mean their decision is right for others.

 

[Lighthouse]

Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

Yes.

There are certain things that can happen to cause diseases when one engages in homosexual behavior, even if the two engaging in it were disease free when they started.

 

[Rusha]

Yes.

There are certain things that can happen to cause diseases when one engages in homosexual behavior, even if the two engaging in it were disease free when they started.

Please explain how one disease-free person can pass on a disease he/she does not have to another disease-free person.

 

[Lighthouse]

Please explain how one disease-free person can pass on a disease he/she does not have to another disease-free person.

It's not about passing on, it's about creating.

How do you think diseases are created?

P.S.
Your question didn't ask if it could be passed on...

 

[Rusha]

It's not about passing on, it's about creating.

How do you think diseases are created?

We aren't discussing *created* we are talking about how they are spread.

P.S.
Your question didn't ask if it could be passed on...

Originally Posted by Rusha Another question: Can two, disease-free, monogamous homosexuals sprout AIDS or any STD just by being gay?

What exactly do you believe is meant by *passed on*? How do you believe that diseases such as AIDS are spread?

Do you believe that being attracted to the same sex causes some type of mystical calamity that infests a gay person's body?

Explain to me how a person can catch AIDS without coming into contact with bodily fluids that are already contaminated with the virus.

 

[MaryContrary]

Maybe critical thinking is not your forte. So, Nick the genius, if homosexual activity is detrimental to ones health, why are lesbians so much less of a risk than heterosexual couples for STD's?

STD's are the only reason homosexuality is unhealthy? Where'd you get that idea?
And if that were true...how do you explain this study showing lesbians have a roughly 34% higher mortality rate than the rest of the female population...despite the fact that they're less likely to contract STD's from their partners than heterosexuals? In fact, that's just a tad higher than even the male homosexual mortality rate is! How does that work?
:doh:

 

[Ktoyou]

Please explain how one disease-free person can pass on a disease he/she does not have to another disease-free person.

to put it polietly, it is about using the wrong hole:vomit:

 

[pozzolane]

STD's are the only reason homosexuality is unhealthy? Where'd you get that idea?
And if that were true...how do you explain this study showing lesbians have a roughly 34% higher mortality rate than the rest of the female population...despite the fact that they're less likely to contract STD's from their partners than heterosexuals? In fact, that's just a tad higher than even the male homosexual mortality rate is! How does that work?
:doh:

:nono:

Here's a quote from the abstract of the very paper you just posted.

Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified.

Maybe you should have read it before you just blindly posted it. As for lighthouses comments on this matter, all I have to say is that I can't believe someone as stupid as him manages to feed or clothe themselves, much less figure out how to use a computer in order to post the insane rambling babble that he just did. Wow.

 

[MaryContrary]

"Frisch M, Brønnum-Hansen H.
Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk

OBJECTIVES: We studied overall mortality in a demographically defined, complete cohort of gay men and lesbians to address recent claims of markedly shorter life spans among homosexual persons. METHODS: We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) starting 1 year after the date of same-sex marriage for 4914 men and 3419 women in Denmark who married a same-sex partner between 1989 and 2004. RESULTS: Mortality was markedly increased in the first decade after same-sex marriage for men who married between 1989 and 1995 (SMR=2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.01, 2.50), but much less so for men who married after 1995, when efficient HIV/AIDS therapies were available (SMR=1.33; 95% CI=1.04, 1.68). For women who married their same-sex partner between 1989 and 2004, mortality was 34% higher than was mortality in the general female population (SMR=1.34; 95% CI=1.09, 1.63). For women, and for men marrying after 1995, the significant excess mortality was limited to the period 1 to 3 years after the marriage. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population. The excess mortality is restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage. Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."

Here's a quote from the abstract of the very paper you just posted.

Maybe you should have read it before you just blindly posted it.

Maybe you should read the study rather than just the last line, moron. If you did you'd find the entire study completely contradicts the conclusion attached to it, specifically that last sentence that you quoted.
:doh:

 

[pozzolane]

"Frisch M, Brønnum-Hansen H.
Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, 5 Artillerivej, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark. mfr@ssi.dk

OBJECTIVES: We studied overall mortality in a demographically defined, complete cohort of gay men and lesbians to address recent claims of markedly shorter life spans among homosexual persons. METHODS: We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) starting 1 year after the date of same-sex marriage for 4914 men and 3419 women in Denmark who married a same-sex partner between 1989 and 2004. RESULTS: Mortality was markedly increased in the first decade after same-sex marriage for men who married between 1989 and 1995 (SMR=2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.01, 2.50), but much less so for men who married after 1995, when efficient HIV/AIDS therapies were available (SMR=1.33; 95% CI=1.04, 1.68). For women who married their same-sex partner between 1989 and 2004, mortality was 34% higher than was mortality in the general female population (SMR=1.34; 95% CI=1.09, 1.63). For women, and for men marrying after 1995, the significant excess mortality was limited to the period 1 to 3 years after the marriage. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population. The excess mortality is restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage. Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."



Maybe you should read the study rather than just the last line, moron. If you did you'd find the entire study completely contradicts the conclusion attached to it, specifically that last sentence that you quoted.
:doh:

Well you know what they say. There are lies, filthy lies, and then statistics. Why are so many here willing and ready to use statistics for their argument without a single thought applied to the numbers produced. It's because they want to believe those statistics. And you gotta wonder why someone would want homosexuals to die younger, from disease or not, than a heterosexual person.

Anyways.

If you did a study on the mortality rates of men with different types of facial hair, I'm sure that you would find that men with handlebar mustaches die younger than men with beards, goatees, soul patches, chin straps etc... The obvious question to ask yourself if this was the case - before you immediately told all your male friends to shave their mustaches off (they must be sac religious!) - is, what is it about mustaches that lead to a higher mortality rate? And if you did a little digging you might find that the great percentage of men who had these mustaches rode in motorcycle gangs, smoked heavily, drank heavily etc... When you factor this discovery into the study, you might have a little trouble concluding that it was the mustaches which were directly attributed to premature death of the subjects.

Well, even though MC doesn't know any better, the people in the study she supplied did. And hence:

"Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."

 

[Rusha]

to put it polietly, it is about using the wrong hole:vomit:

Even though that practice disgusts you (and on a *personal level*, myself as well), that still does not equate to spreading a disease that is NOT present.

 

[pozzolane]

Yes.

There are certain things that can happen to cause diseases when one engages in homosexual behavior, even if the two engaging in it were disease free when they started.

Translation:

Lighthouse

Holy spontaneously spreading and infectious sexually transmitted diseases Batman!

 

[MaryContrary]

Well, even though MC doesn't know any better, the people in the study she supplied did. And hence:

"Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified."

And you accept this statement. Without a lick of evidence, not one single bit...not even a hint of evidence...to support it.
Just because it's tacked onto the end of this abstract, it must be true. Never mind that all the information we are given completely contradicts it.

I think I'll save a copy of this post of yours to toss back at you.
Because you do realize you have completely and totally discredited yourself here, right?