toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[rexlunae]

A. If your child disobeys you do you not punish them?

My child is not a watch and I'm not his maker.

B. Q: What mistake did God make? A: None.

Um, ok. It seems like he wasn't that satisfied with the result. Normally, that would mean there's some design flaw.

C. You assume God made more of us... You assume wrong.

How did there get to be so many of us then?

X: We were broken, God fixed us, and we didn't have to do anything. DO you seriously have a problem with that?

Really? We don't have to do anything? So the whole conversion thing is all for show then?

Also, it was multiple choice. I was hoping you'd explain how a watchmaker thinks.

 

[Lon]

Now, could you come up with any numbers of your own, or are you just making this up as you go and repeating what you've heard before?

I don't care what lengths you go to in order to justify being an ignorant bigot, Lon, but at the end of the day, one can only wash the same filthy backwards hatred so many times. It still reeks. It's obvious to me that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are relying on the same uninformed armchair psychoanalysis Christians have been attempting to run on gay men and women for decades. All you're groping for is a justification for hatred. Why not just have the courage of your convictions?

* In a study of depression and gay youth, researchers found depression strikes homosexual youth four to five times more severely than other non-gay peers. (Hammelman. T.L. 1990)
* In a recent Australian study of 1500 gay and lesbian adolesents, 80% had not told their parents of their same sex attraction. Gay statistic studies over the past 7 years have indicated that 25% to 40% of young lesbians and gays have attempted suicide. ("Here For Life" Youth Sexuality Project)
*One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.
*The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA. ).
*33% of homosexuals have engaged in pedaphilia (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.)

...get your head out of the sand. I guess dealing with statistics is hatred in your book whereas turning a blind eye is 'tolerant' and benevolent?

 

[Lighthouse]

Not if it was my responsibility through caprice, incompetence or design for them to disobey and not if their disobedience to my orders was justified.

Neither of these is true in the case of God.

God created humans knowing they would falter and blames us for it and intends to (according to many Christians) punish us for it in the end. Born sick and commanded to be well.

No, He didn't. The Bible points, in all ways, to God not knowing what would happen.

That depends on your mileage.

What?

Actually, according to you we do. We have to be convinced that a human sacrifice took place on our behalf and accepted that such a sacrifice made us bound to its effects for eternity. We have to endorse the power of a blood sacrifice to safeguard our redemption from our own wretchedness which God also foresaw and allowed and/or directed in the first place.

God neither foresaw or directed our wretchedness. And what kind of God doesn't allow us the freedom of will? Yes He allowed it. So what? Would you rather be a mindless automaton?

Not to mention the method of being 'fixed' (by accepting Jesus sacrifice) also de facto condemns all Non-Christians for not being convinced. All adherents of other religions may believe in a different form of redemption or a different path towards heaven but according to you I suspect they are all condemned until they accept the specific sacrifice of Jesus. In addition, all non-religious people who don't believe in sin, vicarious redemption or any notable supernatural concept are also condemned. The method that you endorse to rectify these issues naturally condemns people to hell purely for what they think.

It's not about not being convinced. We're all convinced. Some of us just deny and reject it because we don't want to admit we need it, when we know we do.

So yes, I do have a problem with it.

People condemn themselves when they deny that which they know to be true. If you don't like it then stop lying to yourself.

My child is not a watch and I'm not his maker.

You're an idiot.

"This illustration isn't reality so I reject it."

You moron. That's what an illustration is, something not exactly like the situation that gives a perspective on the situation.

And you are your child's maker, whether you understand that or not.

Um, ok. It seems like he wasn't that satisfied with the result. Normally, that would mean there's some design flaw.

He said He was perfectly satisfied; I trust Him over you.

How did there get to be so many of us then?

We propagated.:dunce::duh:

Really? We don't have to do anything? So the whole conversion thing is all for show then?

Do you even know what conversion is? When your teacher showed you that 2+2=4 and you were convinced did you have to do anything?

Also, it was multiple choice. I was hoping you'd explain how a watchmaker thinks.

Your premise was flawed.

 

[Granite]

In a study of depression and gay youth, researchers found depression strikes homosexual youth four to five times more severely than other non-gay peers. (Hammelman. T.L. 1990)

I'm not surprised teens in the late 80s felt depressed considering the bigotry and homophobia they encountered; I'd be curious to see if more recent studies show this trending down what with greater tolerance about gay and lesbian youth.

* In a recent Australian study of 1500 gay and lesbian adolesents, 80% had not told their parents of their same sex attraction. Gay statistic studies over the past 7 years have indicated that 25% to 40% of young lesbians and gays have attempted suicide. ("Here For Life" Youth Sexuality Project)

See above. Put it another way: if a minority who was despised, loathed, feared, and often persecuted (or murdered) wasn't feeling at their wit's end, wouldn't you be a little surprised?

*One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

This study's what--huh. About thirty years old. Okay. So homosexual dudes have a lot of sex. (At least they did in the late Seventies when this study was conducted. Disco!) Ummm...okay. I fail to see the problem here.

*The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA. ).

Question: even if true, why would this statistic bother you?

*33% of homosexuals have engaged in pedaphilia (Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.)

Pure bunk coming from a notorious pseudo quasi scientific quack farm. This so-called "research institute" is known for peddling "facts" completely at odds with mainstream psych and medicine for the simple reason that this supposed "institute" is a fringe organization specifically founded to peddle homophobia.

So: as I said, you're peddling the same anti-gay agitprop the right wing's been circulating for literally decades. It's telling you can't offer anything more recent than a study conducted in 1990. Right around the time evangelicals started to really freak out about homosexual behavior. What a coincidence.

Try to do better, and get yourself a clue. You're no better than a Bircher handing out anti-commie leaflets at a family reunion in 1975. The ship sailed.

 

[rexlunae]

You're an idiot.

Thanks. And you're a paragon of Christian love. We're going for irony here, right?

"This illustration isn't reality so I reject it."

The analogy doesn't work, so I reject it.

You moron. That's what an illustration is, something not exactly like the situation that gives a perspective on the situation.

But your analogy doesn't work in terms of the exact principles that you're trying to illustrate. If God is like a watchmaker, then he's responsible for the watch. In any kind of engineering, if the product is not adequate, the engineer is at fault, not the product. So I'd say God is not much like a watchmaker.

And you are your child's maker, whether you understand that or not.

No. You don't build a child. You conceive a child. A child is a result of biological processes that you don't have much control over.

He said He was perfectly satisfied; I trust Him over you.

Except that he supposedly killed almost everyone on the planet. And that still wasn't enough. So the satisfaction seems to have worn off.

We propagated.:dunce::duh:

You really take the "creation" out of "creationist".

Do you even know what conversion is?

Yep. Did it once. However, I'm sure that however I describe it, you'll find something to object to about it, to justify your belief that I couldn't possibly have converted and then walked away from it.

When your teacher showed you that 2+2=4 and you were convinced did you have to do anything?

I had to accept the "free" gift of her knowledge. And if I hadn't simply accepted it, she would have pronounced me condemned. :AMR:

Your premise was flawed.

In what way?

 

[Skavau]

Neither of these is true in the case of God.

One of them is by definition true in the case of God. He designed us knowing we would disobey. We either designed us to 'naturally' sway that way or did it deliberately. To have it so that all offspring by Adam and Eve born 'broken' is a direct endorsement of the outdated and immoral ancestral guilt and curses people at birth for the actions of their predecessors.

No, He didn't. The Bible points, in all ways, to God not knowing what would happen.

Then God is incompetent and you are in a minority. Most Christians contend that God is omniscient.

What?

It depends on your mileage regarding God whether or not you think a mistake was made. I'm speaking hypothetically of course, but all accounts of our redemption appear to me each and every time to be absurd and immoral.

God neither foresaw or directed our wretchedness. And what kind of God doesn't allow us the freedom of will? Yes He allowed it. So what? Would you rather be a mindless automaton?

No. I'd rather not be told that I must be punished for eternity simply for saying Non Serviam or for not resolving my wretched state at birth through accepting vicarious redemption. That is a gross parody of punishment and justice and cannot be defended.

It's not about not being convinced. We're all convinced. Some of us just deny and reject it because we don't want to admit we need it, when we know we do.

Now look, I don't sit here and insist I know the private thoughts of your mind. I don't make analysis of what you really think and insist that you are secretly in denial, or secretly think this. I would appreciate it if you did the same for me and took my at my word. After all, I am me. You are you. You therefore have no say whatsoever in what I think. Understood?

That out of the way, your proposition is completely absurd. You think that all Muslims all secretly believe in vicarious redemption and pretend to accept Islam? Are you completely divorced from reality?

People condemn themselves when they deny that which they know to be true. If you don't like it then stop lying to yourself.

How am I lying to myself, sir? I despise the concept of vicarious redemption whether it is true or false and whether I believe it or not. For the record, I happen to not believe it as true and so am not lying to myself.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks. And you're a paragon of Christian love. We're going for irony here, right?

I love you enough to tell you the truth.

The analogy doesn't work, so I reject it.

I never compared your child to a watch, though. I remarked how a maker doesn't make broken things and is not responsible when they break.

Then I compared God's reaction to us to our reactions to our children.

Different comparisons.

But your analogy doesn't work in terms of the exact principles that you're trying to illustrate. If God is like a watchmaker, then he's responsible for the watch. In any kind of engineering, if the product is not adequate, the engineer is at fault, not the product. So I'd say God is not much like a watchmaker.

No analogy works in terms of the exact principles being illustrated.

The point of the analogy is that when people use things for which they are not intended it is not the fault of the maker when they break.

No. You don't build a child. You conceive a child. A child is a result of biological processes that you don't have much control over.

But you take part in it, and it is your biology that is involved, unless you adopt.

Except that he supposedly killed almost everyone on the planet. And that still wasn't enough. So the satisfaction seems to have worn off.

Being satisfied with the finished creation does not equate to being satisfied to the broken creation after the fact.

You really take the "creation" out of "creationist".

He designed His creation to propagate itself.

Yep. Did it once. However, I'm sure that however I describe it, you'll find something to object to about it, to justify your belief that I couldn't possibly have converted and then walked away from it.

I had to accept the "free" gift of her knowledge. And if I hadn't simply accepted it, she would have pronounced me condemned. :AMR:

You're a moron.

She showed you it was the case and you believed, not through any action or simple acceptance, but because you saw it. You converted from ignorance of the fact to knowledge of its truth. That is a conversion.

One does not convert by choice. Neither is it by force. They know the truth and it makes them free.

In what way?

In every way.

One of them is by definition true in the case of God. He designed us knowing we would disobey. We either designed us to 'naturally' sway that way or did it deliberately. To have it so that all offspring by Adam and Eve born 'broken' is a direct endorsement of the outdated and immoral ancestral guilt and curses people at birth for the actions of their predecessors.

No, it's not. God did not know. The Bible makes that clear. Adam and Eve fell and as a result all descendants are in their image. God didn't set that up to happen, as He did not know Adam and Eve would fall.

Then God is incompetent and you are in a minority. Most Christians contend that God is omniscient.

He is omniscient. But the Bible is clear that the future does not currently exist and therefore is not an object of knowledge.

It depends on your mileage regarding God whether or not you think a mistake was made. I'm speaking hypothetically of course, but all accounts of our redemption appear to me each and every time to be absurd and immoral.

So you don't have one? I should have known.

No. I'd rather not be told that I must be punished for eternity simply for saying Non Serviam or for not resolving my wretched state at birth through accepting vicarious redemption. That is a gross parody of punishment and justice and cannot be defended.

Who said anything about punishment? We all suffer the consequences of our decisions and choices, whether good or bad; you can't change that.

God resolved the issue already; you don't have to.

Now look, I don't sit here and insist I know the private thoughts of your mind. I don't make analysis of what you really think and insist that you are secretly in denial, or secretly think this. I would appreciate it if you did the same for me and took my at my word. After all, I am me. You are you. You therefore have no say whatsoever in what I think. Understood?

I know what God says, and I trust Him more than I trust you.

That out of the way, your proposition is completely absurd. You think that all Muslims all secretly believe in vicarious redemption and pretend to accept Islam? Are you completely divorced from reality?

I never said anyone was pretending anything. I said they know the truth and they deny it. Mostly to themselves. And they are convinced, on the surface. And they reject their consciences telling them what they know deep down because they are arrogant.

How am I lying to myself, sir? I despise the concept of vicarious redemption whether it is true or false and whether I believe it or not. For the record, I happen to not believe it as true and so am not lying to myself.

You despise things that aren't true, yes. But you also despise the truth of the matter. And that is why you lie to yourself. But you know, and just refuse to accept it.

 

[Skavau]

No, it's not. God did not know. The Bible makes that clear. Adam and Eve fell and as a result all descendants are in their image. God didn't set that up to happen, as He did not know Adam and Eve would fall.

Then God should rectify it by removing our taint and inherently condemned to hell.

He is omniscient. But the Bible is clear that the future does not currently exist and therefore is not an object of knowledge.

Fair enough. I rather agree.

So you don't have one? I should have known.

Have what? A redemption?

Of course I don't.

Who said anything about punishment? We all suffer the consequences of our decisions and choices, whether good or bad; you can't change that.

Call it a consequence if you like. I won't be told that eternal torment is a justified consequence for not serving God and accepting the 'sacrifice'.

I know what God says, and I trust Him more than I trust you.

So this discussion with you is pointless. You have me down as a constant liar on everything regarding God and Christianity and view my skepticism solely as a method of saving face or avoiding responsibility or some other low motive. Why bother even talking to atheists if you're going to take such an attitude?

I never said anyone was pretending anything. I said they know the truth and they deny it. Mostly to themselves. And they are convinced, on the surface. And they reject their consciences telling them what they know deep down because they are arrogant.

So every single Muslim on the planet that believes in a different path (yet similar) to heaven is actually battling their conscience to accept another similar road to redemption? I wonder again just how divorced from reality you are. What on earth would possess a religious group second only to Christianity with a similar method of attaining heaven from ignoring what they really believe? You are literally telling me that people would prefer to burn forever than lose their pride. It is completely absurd.

You despise things that aren't true, yes. But you also despise the truth of the matter. And that is why you lie to yourself. But you know, and just refuse to accept it.

Smeg off. You don't know me, nor anything I think.

 

[Lighthouse]

Then God should rectify it by removing our taint and inherently condemned to hell.

He did, and you want nothing to do with it.

Fair enough. I rather agree.

I'm a Bible believing Christian, not a mainstream church goer.

Have what? A redemption?

Of course I don't.

No, a mistake that God made.

As for redemption, it's yours if you want it. He's given it to you, take it.

Call it a consequence if you like. I won't be told that eternal torment is a justified consequence for not serving God and accepting the 'sacrifice'.

In the absence of God there is suffering and torment; not from outside sources, but from yourself. No one tortures you. You are tortured by the mere fact that God is not present and you have no access to Him or His attributes, and never will again. Why do you think there is weeping and gnashing of teeth? When do people generally do those things at the same time in the here and now?

So this discussion with you is pointless. You have me down as a constant liar on everything regarding God and Christianity and view my skepticism solely as a method of saving face or avoiding responsibility or some other low motive. Why bother even talking to atheists if you're going to take such an attitude?

No. I know you believe your lies. But I also know that you can only deny for so long, and denial does not negate your responsibility. You will come face to face with the truth at some point and will no longer be able to deny it; and if you deny it at that point you have only yourself to blame.

So every single Muslim on the planet that believes in a different path (yet similar) to heaven is actually battling their conscience to accept another similar road to redemption? I wonder again just how divorced from reality you are. What on earth would possess a religious group second only to Christianity with a similar method of attaining heaven from ignoring what they really believe? You are literally telling me that people would prefer to burn forever than lose their pride. It is completely absurd.

Yup.

Smeg off. You don't know me, nor anything I think.

I'm circumcised.

Yes, I know what smeg is.

 

[Nihilo]

I never said anyone was pretending anything. I said they know the truth and they deny it. Mostly to themselves. And they are convinced, on the surface. And they reject their consciences telling them what they know deep down because they are arrogant.

So every single Muslim on the planet that believes in a different path (yet similar) to heaven is actually battling their conscience to accept another similar road to redemption? I wonder again just how divorced from reality you are. What on earth would possess a religious group second only to Christianity with a similar method of attaining heaven from ignoring what they really believe? You are literally telling me that people would prefer to burn forever than lose their pride. It is completely absurd.

Good thoughts. :e4e:

 

[Skavau]

He did, and you want nothing to do with it.

The pseudo-solution you endorse results in most of the planet being tormented in hell for eternity for faults they had no idea they had and no reason to rectify. It also commands me to embrace servility and admit guilt for my ancestral taint that as we've discussed was imposed upon me without my consent.

Not to mention it requires a kind of endorsement for human sacrifice which I won't do. If this isn't discreetly tyrannical then what is?

No, a mistake that God made.

I only respond to what theists say. If they say something rather immoral or absurd and attribute it to God then any criticism from my end would be as if I am criticising God.

As for redemption, it's yours if you want it. He's given it to you, take it.

Non Serviam.

Also, I don't believe it.

In the absence of God there is suffering and torment; not from outside sources, but from yourself. No one tortures you. You are tortured by the mere fact that God is not present and you have no access to Him or His attributes, and never will again. Why do you think there is weeping and gnashing of teeth? When do people generally do those things at the same time in the here and now?

If what you say is true and I eventually do that then it wouldn't be me. Simply put. That God approved of a universe that involved the eventual permanent suffering of people who did not know him says something quite absurd about it all.

No. I know you believe your lies.

Then they wouldn't be 'my' lies. It would be me being honest and incorrect.

But I also know that you can only deny for so long, and denial does not negate your responsibility.

Responsibility towards what?

You will come face to face with the truth at some point and will no longer be able to deny it; and if you deny it at that point you have only yourself to blame.

And if I do come 'face to face' with the truth I won't deny it though depending on it I may still say non serviam. I separate my anti-theism from my atheism.

Yup.

You understand that with your supernatural conspiracy theory you will convince absolutely no-one and only succeed in alienating every single person you attempt to prostelyze to. People will observe you as a conceited conspiracy theorist with no real respect or understanding for their convictions and respond to you with contempt.

And rightly so.

I'm circumcised.

Yes, I know what smeg is.

Glad to hear it.

 

[Lighthouse]

The pseudo-solution you endorse results in most of the planet being tormented in hell for eternity for faults they had no idea they had and no reason to rectify. It also commands me to embrace servility and admit guilt for my ancestral taint that as we've discussed was imposed upon me without my consent.

Not to mention it requires a kind of endorsement for human sacrifice which I won't do. If this isn't discreetly tyrannical then what is?


I only respond to what theists say. If they say something rather immoral or absurd and attribute it to God then any criticism from my end would be as if I am criticising God.


Non Serviam.

Also, I don't believe it.


If what you say is true and I eventually do that then it wouldn't be me. Simply put. That God approved of a universe that involved the eventual permanent suffering of people who did not know him says something quite absurd about it all.


Then they wouldn't be 'my' lies. It would be me being honest and incorrect.


Responsibility towards what?


And if I do come 'face to face' with the truth I won't deny it though depending on it I may still say non serviam. I separate my anti-theism from my atheism.


You understand that with your supernatural conspiracy theory you will convince absolutely no-one and only succeed in alienating every single person you attempt to prostelyze to. People will observe you as a conceited conspiracy theorist with no real respect or understanding for their convictions and respond to you with contempt.

And rightly so.


Glad to hear it.

I've got better things to do on my birthday than sit here and argue with you.

As for my response, the Bible says it and I would be disingenuous if I didn't accept that, as I claim to be a Bible believing Christian.

 

[rexlunae]

I love you enough to tell you the truth.

Great. Let that light shine. I'll bet it illuminates the entire world. The love of Christ spread by calling people names. And I'm sure you're not actually trying to cover for a lack of substance.

That being said and done with, I'm gonna cut this down to the genuine issues that remain between us. Lets see if you can grasp what it is.

I never compared your child to a watch, though.

The point, again, is that if we are a Creation, as Christianity has always maintained, rather than a natural product of evolution and other natural forces, then the Creator's displeasure with the Creation is his own responsibility, not the fault of us, the Created. If you build a watch, and don't like how it tells time, you have no one but yourself to blame. And yet, Christianity teaches that we are to blame for our defects, that we are created sick and ordered to be well.

I remarked how a maker doesn't make broken things and is not responsible when they break.

As a maker of many things myself, I can tell you that your premise is wrong. I always make things broken, as do all fallible makers. I don't figure out how until I start using them. And when they break, it's my responsibility to figure out why and how to fix them, because the error was mine in the first place.

She showed you it was the case and you believed, not through any action or simple acceptance, but because you saw it. You converted from ignorance of the fact to knowledge of its truth. That is a conversion.

And if you disagree with her?

One does not convert by choice. Neither is it by force. They know the truth and it makes them free.

The Bible condemns unbelievers in the same chapter that it offers salvation and eternal life to believers. Sounds like a threat to me.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The Bible condemns unbelievers in the same chapter that it offers salvation and eternal life to believers. Sounds like a threat to me.

Kind of like telling someone, "Don't play with fire or you will get burned," and then teaching them how to build a campfire safely?

 

[Skavau]

Kind of like telling someone, "Don't play with fire or you will get burned," and then teaching them how to build a campfire safely?

I'll complete the analogy for you. The campfire is mandatory. God has set it up and allowed it so that we will all be burned by default but promises only to give people safe equipment to not get burned by it if they accept a bizarre event that they have no reason (from their perspective to accept). This campfire is also unique in that other safety equipment from other providers doesn't work. You must have God's trademarked equipment.

 

[Lon]

Pure bunk coming from a notorious pseudo quasi scientific quack farm. This so-called "research institute" is known for peddling "facts" completely at odds with mainstream psych and medicine for the simple reason that this supposed "institute" is a fringe organization specifically founded to peddle homophobia.

And you'd know this how? No. "I'll take Statistics for $400 Alec."

Show me those counter statistics. They just don't change that much in a few short decades and never have.

I'll say it again, get your head out of the sand. As far as commercialization and agenda, you've been agendized like any drone I've seen.

 

[Lon]

I'll complete the analogy for you. The campfire is mandatory. God has set it up and allowed it so that we will all be burned by default but promises only to give people safe equipment to not get burned by it if they accept a bizarre event that they have no reason (from their perspective to accept). This campfire is also unique in that other safety equipment from other providers doesn't work. You must have God's trademarked equipment.

Uhhh, your biased rejection is showing.

This is so typical of the atheist/agnostic: "I've been scarred so have lame excuses for my rejection." Go ahead and stick with powderpuff and lambast tackle, its just this goofy and I see direct correlation in conversation. Why post on a tackle football site when you hate it and prefer anything but?

"You big tackle meanies! I got hurt! Doesn't look like real football to me...real football woudn't be so mean! ...."

 

[Arthur Brain]

Kind of like telling someone, "Don't play with fire or you will get burned," and then teaching them how to build a campfire safely?

Except giving safety instructions isn't akin to perpetually holding a lit match against someones skin if they don't get it right.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Uhhh, your biased rejection is showing.

This is so typical of the atheist/agnostic: "I've been scarred so have lame excuses for my rejection." Go ahead and stick with powderpuff and lambast tackle, its just this goofy and I see direct correlation in conversation. Why post on a tackle football site when you hate it and prefer anything but?

"You big tackle meanies! I got hurt! Doesn't look like real football to me...real football woudn't be so mean! ...."

Um, I think you've misread Ska's context here Lon. From my reasoning he's addressing the concept of eternal torment, not personal scars as excuse for rejection. As such the objection is hardly lame. Plenty Christians object to the doctrine as well as atheists and agnostics.

 

[Granite]

And you'd know this how? No. "I'll take Statistics for $400 Alec."

Show me those counter statistics. They just don't change that much in a few short decades and never have.

I'll say it again, get your head out of the sand. As far as commercialization and agenda, you've been agendized like any drone I've seen.

Because this "institute" is notorious for its bad/pseudo science, Lon. And if you were willing to look into them and their background you'd know better than to rely on them. If you want to address the rest of my post, go on ahead, but so far you're just rehashing the same excuses the rest of you bigots use to justify hating people.