Quote:
If you had a child, and that child had a friend who was constantly beating him up and making fun of him, and was leading him into bad habits that could harm him, would you sit by and do nothing, letting it happen?
What exactly is that bully supposed to be an analogy of? Other religions or gay people? Doesn't seem accurate of either.
I appolgize in advance if I seem more harsh and blunt. I have most of what I need for Kenji. But interaction between Rico and his father is somethign else I need to work on. :3
And Kaul? What exactly is misinterpreted? Wraith doesn't seem to think anything is. What are your views on how we can keep religion alive? So far we been debating that you cannot survive unless you adapt, Wraith doesn't agreed with this. Your view?
~Rico
Quote:
What exactly is that bully supposed to be an analogy of? Other religions or gay people? Doesn't seem accurate of either.
By that example I'm taking it to extremes just to prove a point, however the bully would represent anybody who is not doing god's will and purposely refusing to listen to his voice. If your son's friend would listen to your concerns and cease being a bad influence on your son, surely you would then have no problem with them being friends, but until the bully ceases his harmful actions, you would be quite justified, and indeed a good father, to limit your son's interaction with him. So too with god and wilful sinners: keyword "wilful". If they are doing these things by accident then this example does not apply, as they simply do not realise the harm they are causing.
And I believe Kau has a point...there are a lot of scriptures from the bible that many have taken in a false light, believing, either accidentally or wilfuly, that they mean something different to what they do, and it is true that many have become distracted or dissolutioned with religion because of this. The bible is clear on it's message, but many are being taught falsehoods today that are not doctorines from it, like, as mentioned earlier, the doctorine of hell. These falsehoods only paint god in an evil, bad light, and as such draw people away from him, but it is not the bible itself that is at fault, it is those who claim to "know" it and teach it to others. I myself take simply the bible as the first and last word on everything, nothing more, nothing less.
And you have yet to detail this harm.
~Rico
As I have stated already, with homosexuality there is the physical and mental problems, the unclean standing with god and possibly other problems that we do not yet know about. With the religion issue the problem of not giving god the true honor he deserves, instead mocking him by giving that honor to nonexistant Human-invented gods. If you choose to ignore these details then that is your choice Rico, and I cannot force you to do otherwise, however I believe the problems are clearly there for all to see.
And wether someone does choose to see the details or chooses not to, either way, surely the most important thing is to please god by doing as he asks, no? So even if one were not nessecerily to fully understand the reasons, surely it would be better to err on the side of caution and follow the guidelines simply because god says so. He created us, so even if we cannot see all of his reasons, if they are not a problem or against morallity to follow, then we should do so.
It has been claimed that these guidelines are not from god. In responce I say how could they possibly not be? For one, as has already been discussed, if god was more powerful than Satan then he would never let Satan corrupt every copy of his word with evil messages. And also you only have to look at the bible's scientific, archeological, and even prophetic accuracy to see clearly that it really is the word of god! It's plausabillity as god's letter to Humans is beond repute, and if you wish I will give you a couple of examples that have proved this to me. Up to you.
This is what I tell a lot of people: It is incredibly important in this day in age where most things are laid out for you, that you discover for yourself, with a clear and open mind, what you believe in and what feels right for you. Never -EVER- believe in something because that is what you have been told to belive, or because that is what you have been told is the right thing to believe. Explore, discover, listen, think, and look deep inside yourself for what is truely the Divine in us all. It saddens me when I see people who are blinded by zealous faith. It brings me great joy when people have stopped, and carefully anylized the whole spectrum of the aether, and discovered for themselves what resonates with them. Your beliefs, your own faith, is a unique jewel that only you posses, and it is a dynamic and changing thing that moves with the flow of the cosmos.
Quote:
with homosexuality there is the physical and mental problems
Which ones? I know several people like myself who were "diagnosed" with Social Anexity Disorder. Whether a byproduct of "gay disease" or from stress from christianity, the fact remains that while my straight friend is still on paxil and losing jobs. I overcame it through my own will. You could it was the medtation and breathing excercises but the fact remains. What are the "gay diseases?"
Quote:
And wether someone does choose to see the details or chooses not to
How can I see something you avoid stating?
Quote:
the unclean standing with god and possibly other problems that we do not yet know about
Why is it unclean, god never says? And I realize that christianity is superstitious by nature but putting people down for problem that don't exist? Come on, that reason is so thin its anerexic. Why don't we just outlaw sex if thats the case.
Quote:
With the religion issue the problem of not giving god the true honor he deserves, instead mocking him by giving that honor to nonexistant Human-invented gods
We're talking about people that don't think like you do. Whether you admit it or not, not everyone is the same. The question was why bully these people if they aren't hurting your religion. I'm unsure of what country you live in but the United States was founded on freedom of religion. Unless Bush as repealed that too.
Quote:
And also you only have to look at the bible's scientific, archeological, and even prophetic accuracy to see clearly that it really is the word of god!
It's not really fair to call you down for lack of tangible evidence, as its a faith and not a fact. But attempting to volunteer evidence is something no christian should do. It's rather like shooting yourself in the foot, with a hollowpoint.
Well rather than pick this apart piece by piece, since my time has suddenly grown short as I need to do actual work, let me tell you, for the third time (at least), what I haven't seen.
-Actual harm that these things (other religions,gay people) have caused to your religion to make you treat them so badly it negates peace?
Well, thats it. Can you answer this? I mean I can see where they would have in single digit A.D. but in post year 2000? I really can't fathom what possible harm letting a few people worship their own way is going to do to your religion. Of course the United States' founding fathers asked that same question when they got punted outta England. Well I guess the left of their own accord but the reason still applies.
As for gay people, well, again I understand the christian superstition and fear of the unknown, but, other than the "It's nasty" reason there aren't any. As far as I know the bible just says, "its a nono". And if God gives reasons for all his rules then, again, might this not be one?
~Rico
Okay first of all, please note that nowhere in any of my posts have I advocated causing harm to homosexual people or people of other religions, and nowhere have I suggested a course of action that purposefully "negates peace". God is a god of peace, and would never advocate persecuting anyone, and does not tell his followers to do so either. To shun a sinner does not mean persecute them, it simply means avoiding association with such a one, perhaps not talking to them or going out somewhere with them, for the protection of your own spirituallity and standing with god.
In responce to this:
Quote:
Actual harm that these things (other religions,gay people) have caused to your religion to make you treat them so badly it negates peace?
I think I realise what you mean now...you're assuming that I am a Christian? It is true that there are some in the Christian faith who are hypocritical, claiming certain things and then doing others. We are not aphilliated with them however. My religion (and I have refrained from mentioning it until now simply so that nobody can accuse me of trying to convert anyone, as has happened on forums in the past) is Jehovah's Witness. We think of ourselves as Christians, because we believe Jesus is god's son and that he died for us, but we are not part of the officially recognised "Christian" church, and our philosophies are distincly different in many ways.
And yes, it is true that many professed Christian religions do preach the persecution of homosexuals and other religions. We however do not, as it is not a bible teaching. Not associating with such ones, yes, but not persecuting them or causing them harm.
Quote:
What are the "gay diseases?"
It is a well known fact that unnatural sexual practices can cause various sexually transmitted diseases. I admit that I don't know many names because quite frankly it is not a topic that I find particularly appealing so I haven't gone any deeper than I need to with my reaserch, however the fact that abnormal sexual relations can cause and transmit these diseases cannot be questioned. Why is there so much worry about aids in Africa, for example?
And I don't deny that these diseases can also be transmitted by normal sexual relations too, however the prospect of such happening is greatly reduced by the bible's council of hetrosexual relations and having only one partner for life, rather than many.
Plus there are the emotional problems too. I have a friend who was abused as a child and then went on to become homosexual because of it, and he is still dealing with the emotional reprocussions of his experiences now, not only the abuse, but also his time as a homosexual. He has told me himself that it makes him depressed to the point of suicide on occasion. Now granted some are able to deal with such emotional problems better than others, some perhaps even believing that such problems do not exist, but there are many who do suffer with them.
Quote:
Why is it unclean, god never says?
Because it is a perversion of the natural system that god set into motion. We only have to look at the way males and females are built to see that it is not the way Humans are designed. By practicing something so unnatural, we also dishonor god and imply that he was wrong to create us in such a way.
Quote:
The question was why bully these people if they aren't hurting your religion
But as I have stated many times, we do not bully them. God does not expect us to, and we do not.
Quote:
But attempting to volunteer evidence is something no christian should do. It's rather like shooting yourself in the foot, with a hollowpoint.
May I ask, did you know that bible prophecy foretold a succession of "World Powers" or nations that would rule over vast areas of the Earth one after the other, leading all the way up to our day and beond, all of which so far have come true? Allow me to explain.
The prophecy is recorded in Daniel chapter 2, where the king of the current world power, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, is given a vision in a dream from god. Verse 31 tells us that the dream was of "a certain immense image." and verse 32 says "As regards that image, it's head was of good gold, it's breasts and it's arms were of silver, it's belly and thighs were of copper, it's legs were of iron, it's feet were partly of iron and partly of moulded clay." Nebuchadnezzar believed the dream to mean something, so he called in the prophet Daniel to see if he could explain what the dream ment. Daniel, after explaining that he knew what the dream ment thanks to god's help and not his own, explained in verse 29 that "your own thoughts came up as regards what is to occur after this," basically a prophecy of the future.
So what id the dream mean Daniel explains in verse 37 "You, O king, the king of kings, you to whom the god of heaven has given the kingdom...you yourself are the head of gold." He then went on to say that the other pieces of metal represented other kingdoms which would rise up after the Babylonian kingdom, one of which would be "inferior to" he Babylonian power, one of which "would rule the whole Earth", and in verse 40 he says "And as for the fourth kingdom, it will prove to be strong like iron. Forasmuch as iron is crushing and grinding everything else, so, like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these." Lastly about the image's feet of iron and clay, he says "the kingdom itself will prove to be devided, but somewhat of the hardness of iron will prove to be in it."
Now at first glance this may just seem a lot of nonsence, but just think about proven archeological history for the moment. The empire of Babylon was overthrown in 539 BCE by the empire of Medo-Persia, under the command of king Cyrus, as proven in writings found from that time period. Intrestingly, the bible even fortold the name of king Cyrus no less than 200 years before Babylon was overthrown, in Isiah 45 verse 1! Archeology also proves that the Medo-Persian empire, being made up of the two different nations of Media and Persia, were not nearly as powerful or expansive as Babylon, as foretold by Daniel.
After that, it was foretold that another kingdom would defeat Medo-Persia and "rule the whole Earth." Again, archeology tells us that the Medo-Persian empire was defeated by the armies of Greece under the comman of Alexander the Great in 331 BCE, and that Greece rapidly expanded it's empire to contain virtually all of the known world of the time!
Moving on, the empire symbolised by the legs of iron were said to "be strong like iron," and Daniel said about it "like iron that shatters, it will crush and shatter even all these." Archeology agrees that the next empire to rise and crush the Greek empire, Rome, was indeed excptionally strong amd powerful, far moreso than anything that had been seen before. It's armies crushed any resistance with ease, and it was practically unstoppable! In fact, nobody ever actually overthrew it...it simply slowly decayed into decadence and slowly ceased to exist rather than being overthrown.
So what about the feet of partly iron and partly clay? Well after the decline of the Roman empire there has never really been a global power that controlled pretty much all of the known world, and instead the Earth has devided up into many different countries, some weak, some strong. And just like iron and clay can never properly stick together, so these various countries can't come together properly, and are always fighting each other and threatening each other, so iron and clay was an excellent description for them!
This is just an exceptionally brief overview of the prophecy...there are more details that I could go into, but there isn't time or room here. But the incredible accuracy of this prophecy in it's details and explanations has proved to me that the bible is indeed true, and the word of god, not a fraud or influenced by Satan. It is clear evidence that Jehovah god was inspiring the words that Daniel spoke and the writing he penned.
And this is only one of many. Did you know that 1914 was foretold as an important date in history for the beginning of what Jesus called "the time of the end", which indeed it proved to be...we only need look at WW1 for that. Or that revelation talks figuratively about the League of Nations set up after WW1, and it's successor the United Nations, even telling how it would fall during WW2 then rise again? These plus many more perfectly accurate prophecies have convinced me that the bible is indeed the word of god.
Odd, most Jehova's I've run into aren't this long... winded. Oh well, its a moot point, you argued for them so I assumed. Oh well.
Okay.. this is a beauty of a novel here. Trying to wade around and find stuff that actually relates to the question.
Ah, Shun vs Persecute. The likeness is that all shunning is persecuting, but not all persecuting is shunning. Shunning is avoiding all contact with someone; aka the grade school "silent treatment". Persecute is avoiding contact with people, or insulting them, or beating them. See? It's just a broader term, and a cooler one.
If you avoid everyone you think is gay, and everyone that isn't your religion or that you THINK isn't your religion (add the instance where I thought you were Christian because of your agruements)... Well, you're not going to have much of a social life outside church. Your choice there, I prefer judge people on talking and interacting with them. You know, the book, not the cover.
And I guess I must be your exception that proves the rule. I've overcome everything that was thrown at me, have no crippling mental diseases, evil gay buttsex plague, nor did I "turn gay" due to some mental strife.. You don't turn gay, its most likely a combo of your natural predispostions due to your brains wiring at birth and the furtherment of that wiring through your childhood.
As for your buddy, mental and physical hardships do many things to a person. They cause massive changes to the neural pathways via the intense electrical energy that extreme emotions generate on the brain. To say "Bad things happened and I turned gay so it must be of the devil" is as ridiculous as saying, "Bad things made that guy lift a car (his wife was under it) so it must be evil and he's a warlock so lets burn him!" Same thing.
And you went into Gays causing Aids? Thats... well, no. Just no. I would direct you to Cycle's mom or aunt or whichever one is a doctor that works at the HIV institute. Because saying gays caused AIDS reall makes you look... well, not well read.
Okay! On the bully stuff. Yes, they do. Why is Bush trying to ban gay marriage? Why are people suddenly saying that America was created to be a christian nation? Because they are BULLYING people. I don't know another term for that, what is the shun form of bullying? Convert?
The rest... I'm not reading it, sorry, I've seen a LOT of the history channel things on this subject and they really don't prove anything but that people are use any old prophecy to make it say anything. Da Vinci Code anyone?
And this is rapidly becoming unhelpful now. Most of your replies and because God says so, which really means the books that mideval church leaders picked to become the christian bible say so. I have that. And the same thing over and over doesn't really help me. Just annoys me.
So, lets end this on a civil note. Say, good game, and make this the first non-flamewar debate in marble garden history.
As for me? I've learned something too. Become Buddist. D=
Quote:
Okay! On the bully stuff. Yes, they do. Why is Bush trying to ban gay marriage? Why are people suddenly saying that America was created to be a christian nation? Because they are BULLYING people. I don't know another term for that, what is the shun form of bullying? Convert?
But as he said, that has nothing to do with him. Wraith doesn't support such behavior (Bush and the fundamentalists) as they are against everything Witnesses stand for. Convert also has nothing to do with shun. Shun can be considered bullying, but don't confuse it with every other kind of bully.
Thats I put them in separate paragraphs.
I guess its just me. I've never understood the whole witnessing thing. *shrug*
EDIT: Ack, never realised I forgot to switch accounts >.> This is Wraith on an alt.
I disagree that shunning is persecution. The Cambridge English Dictionary describes "Persecute" as: "To harass with unjust punishment, to afflict for adherence to a particular creed". This is what I define persecution as...an active harassment, either physical or emotional. Simply "shunning" someone is certainly not that.
Quote:
Your choice there, I prefer judge people on talking and interacting with them. You know, the book, not the cover.
I choose to have god's view on all things. I accept if others don't agree though.
Quote:
To say "Bad things happened and I turned gay so it must be of the devil" is as ridiculous as saying, "Bad things made that guy lift a car (his wife was under it) so it must be evil and he's a warlock so lets burn him!"
Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression, that wasn't what I was trying to say.
Quote:
And you went into Gays causing Aids?
No, agin I appologise if my wording gave the wrong impression. I was using Aids as an example of a sexually transmitted disease, as I don't really know the names of many others. I wasn't implying there was a link between Aids and homosexuality. Note when I mentioned Aids specificly I was refaring to "unnatural sexual practice" in general.
Quote:
The rest... I'm not reading it, sorry, I've seen a LOT of the history channel things on this subject and they really don't prove anything but that people are use any old prophecy to make it say anything. Da Vinci Code anyone?
As you wish, of course. You'll forgive me for making the observation that this strikes me as a little closed-minded, however it's your call to make. The main point of that example, though, was that I have proved to myself through numerous lines of reaserch that the bible is true and there is indeed evidence to support this, if anybody is willing to investigate it.
Quote:
So, lets end this on a civil note. Say, good game, and make this the first non-flamewar debate in marble garden history.
Very well. Thanks for an intellectual and interesting discussion 
and even though we couldn't reach an agreement, I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I guess we'll have to agree to differ lol.
Quote:
But as he said, that has nothing to do with him. Wraith doesn't support such behavior (Bush and the fundamentalists) as they are against everything Witnesses stand for.
Word 
lol
Quote:
I've never understood the whole witnessing thing. *shrug*
On a final note, just to explain, we witness to people for the reason that I stated in an earlier post...Jesus commanded that the truth about god Jehovah was to be told "in all the inhabitted Earth, for a witness to all the nations". (Matthew 24:14) Also, when we call on people's doors, we do not bully them or force them to convert. We simply explain the truth about the bible to them, and let them make a choice if they want to learn more. If they do, then we oblige, if they don't, then we simply accept their decision and leave. We do not force our faith on anyone, as that is not what Jehovah would want.
And that, as they say, is that
I skimmed it, its nothing I haven't hear before. But forgive me for being the same but it strikes me as a little hypocritical for someone against gays to call someone close minded.
I don't shun you for your beliefs. I just don't believe them.
~Rico
Not to stir the pot, Wraith, but you say Aids results from unnatural sexual practices? Can't Aids be passed on to a child from a mother, and then passed from that child to his wife in consensual, post-marital, face-to-face intercourse?
My personal stand is that, as a lifestyle, homosexuality is not my cup of tea. It's not something I like to think of in too much detail. It has it's risks and isn't, as you say, natural in the grand scheme of things.
That said, I do believe homosexuality is natural to a specific person. I don't think people have the choice as to whether or not they are gay unless they are bisexual. It's intrinsic and natural to some people. There aren't many people I know of who 'go gay' just to be different.
I think God loves everyone. I may shun the homosexual lifestyle, that doesn't mean I shun homosexuals. They're people too, and some of them are wonderful people.
-Jake
Quote:
Not to stir the pot, Wraith, but you say Aids results from unnatural sexual practices? Can't Aids be passed on to a child from a mother, and then passed from that child to his wife in consensual, post-marital, face-to-face intercourse?
What you say is true, and I didn't deny that that was the case as well Kau. I was merely pointing out that unnatural sexual practice is the main cause of sexual diseases in general. Some diseases can be passed on by other methods too, and I didn't debate that, but one of the main causes is unnatural sexual practice. That was my point.
Ummm, no, its not.
If by "unnatural" you mean alot of it with alot of people then yes, otherwise, no.
My sources are not in the net, so I can't link directly to them, but here's a direct quote from one article:
Homosexuality, on the other hand, can only be detrimental to ones physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being.
The AIDS crisis is an example of how unhealthy the homosexual life-style is. In North America, homosexual men are by far the most likely to contract the illness. But AIDS is just one of an array of ailmentshepatitis, liver infections, gonorrhea, syphilis, and gastrointestinal parasitesthat commonly afflict homosexuals. What fuels this spread of disease? Explains Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: The compulsive, addictive elements of the gay life-style have been documented by many writers. One extensive study revealed that 28 percent of homosexual males [have] had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. . . . Almost half of the white homosexual males . . . said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners.
~from the Awake! magazine of Feb. 22, 1995, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.
It is true that multiple partners would increase the potential for disease immensely, but the fact that homosexuallity in itself increases the risk is apparent too.
It may be less about multiple partners and more about exactly how Aids is tansmitted. The HIV virus is most capable of surviving in blood and in semen rather than in vaginal fluids. So it is very unlikely that a woman with Aids could pass it to her partner, even less likely if her partner was same-sex. So in lesbian relationships, Aids is really far less of a problem... as are most sexually transmitted infections.
It is more likely that Aids is transmitted to a woman through a man with Aids, since the virus is so prevalent in semen. Transmission of Aids is even more likely in male-male sexual encounters, particularly in the practice of anal sex, where both semen and blood is involved (the anus is full of small, easily ruptured blood vessels and it is very easy for semen to enter the bloodstream).
Granted, I have no source for this information, this was all spouted off from memories of prior research, so take it with a grain of salt. If someone can find a link, post it, and I'll search and do the same if I have the time.
The relevance, of course, is that this supports Wraith's argument that the 'unnatural sexual practice' of anal sex among males does contribute greatly to the spread of Aids, but also brings up the point that it seems that male-female relationships are more prone to sexual diseases than female-female realtionships, which obviously fall in the 'unnatural' category.
-Jake
Yes, because we all know there is no exchange of fluids in normal sex. Like all straight couples have normal sex anyway. XD
Quote:
from the Awake! magazine of Feb. 22, 1995, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.
An 11 year old magazine written by religious people? What, couldn't you get more a recent Fox news report? 
With all due respect Rico, I'm not the one that needs convincing. I have said already that the field is not my cup of tea, and I have no desire to reaserch into it any more than nessecery. You asked me to present the evidence that convinced me, which I have done, so might I be so bold as to suggest now that you go ahead and reaserch it further yourself? If you believe my sources to be biased, then by all means feel free to find other such sources that you believe you can trust and use them for reaserch.
I do not want to sound inflamitory with this post or anything, that is certainly not my intent. I must confess, however, that I am beginning to feel that this debate is degenerating somewhat from the intellectual and thought-provoking discussion it started out as, so with that in mind, I think that this would be a reasonable point to bring this debate to a close. As I have said, my stance is baised on god's words, and backed up by scientific evidence...this is the basis for my belief, and I accept others may have differing viwpoints. If they wish to disagree, then they are perfectly within their grounds to do so, but to simply dismiss any and all evidence out of hand without really considering it, simply because of the source, seems to me to defeat the objective of the debate, so I see no further use in continuing. As I say, I am not trying to insult or anger anyone, I am merely voicing my views on the situation as I see it.
I thank you all again for an interesting and thought-provoking debate, and hope you all enjoyed it as much as me I also hope it gave you something to think about, as it also did for myself.
EDIT: Ugh, I should really pay more attention to which acount I'm logged in under lol 
You don't need to scrape and attempt to seem like the sensible individual here, I don't particularly care to try to manipulate what people think about me. I state it bluntly and clearly, if people aren't intelligent enough to read it and see it for its merit then thats their issue, not mine.
Sadly, no it gave me nothing to "think" about. Anymore the other people that tried these same excuses did. Jimro was the only one to do it right and just say out and out. "Bible says it, therefore its truth. Thats what faith is."
I believe he said something to the effect that if you needed proof to believe, then you didn't really have faith.
Just remember that in America your right to freedom of religion ends when you adversely affect others rights. They haven't written that outta the consitution, yet.
~Rico
Then you're doing it wrong. "With all due respect Rico, I'm not the one that needs convincing."
Rico doesn't need to find a second source to make it clear yours is as heavily biased as it could possibly be, because it's obvious to any level headed person.
I'm not saying you're wrong to bring up that you back up your claims with "scientific evidence" though I will say it's a shabby attempt at justification for your argument. So far all you've brought up is just what Rico said: "An 11 year old magazine written by religious people" and it's contents based on some obscure survey that about a fourth of gay people have sex with 1000 different people. 😀 I don't know quite how wrong that is, but I will point out that the notion of being gay leading to rampant bouts of anonymous sex is a weak assumption made by a biassed journalist for his biased publication's biased audiance and in no way supports your claim of "scientific evidence".
Grace your way out if you want, but let it be clear to you that you've left after stating your initial opinion, claiming to have evidence and then decrediting your entire stay in this topic with non-evidence.
=O
Quote:
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi: The compulsive, addictive elements of the gay life-style have been documented by many writers. One extensive study revealed that 28 percent of homosexual males [have] had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. . . . Almost half of the white homosexual males . . . said that they had had at least 500 different sexual partners.
Questions that come to mind are what time period was the survey taken in, how was the group of subjects collected (were they people more likely to be promiscuous), how did they define homosexual, did the survey include control groups? I also question the bias of anybody who would make a statement like "gay life-style" because that's a description of a culture, not homosexuality itself.
Some people claim homosexuality is genetic because of the size of the hypothalamus. I say, what other explanations are there? Maybe the sample of gay men in both studies were promiscuous because the stigma of the era made gays less likely to come out, or the hypothalamus was enlarged for some other reason. Not that those are more likely, but it's something to consider. Statistics and studies should not be taken as hard proof without a lot of experimentation.
BTW, studies on homosexuality that get publicity have a preoccupation with the male side. That's kind of predictable since society tends to have more of an objection to gay men, but such pandering to cultural values calls studies into question even more.
Why does every topic about religion turn into homosexuality? Just leave it out of religion topics if you can.
What else is a religion other than a set of beliefs and guidelines pertaining largely to things like sexual behavior? I'm being rhetorical.
Vec, remember I tried that. It turned into that anyway. I remember purposely straining to add other topics into the thread and they got ignored. Everyone knows that male gays are new witches. People are just mad because burning them is illegal. :3
~Rico
Quote:
Yes, because we all know there is no exchange of fluids in normal sex. Like all straight couples have normal sex anyway. XD
I don't know if I didn't explain myself properly or if you need to re-read what I wrote... Male homosexuals are more at risk due to the fact that they are, indeed, both males (and thus both more capable of passing Aids-- or any type of STI, for that matter-- in the first place). I'm not saying at all there is no fluid exchange in male-female sex, of course there is. And it's a darn good way to pass Aids.
But moving off the homosexual topic and on to the topic of 'blind faith' mentioned, I am of the personal belief that if you don't question your faith you're a fool. I can't imagine what a disservice I'd be doing to my God if I believed everything everyone who claims to know Him said about Him. I'm not saying you should create your own faith, but learn what your faith is about and THINK. I'm not going to Hell because I don't oppose legally binding gay marriage.
-Jake
I kind of like my sexual partner to not have AIDS. Does being gay usually make me not care about that?
Quote:
I kind of like my sexual partner to not have AIDS. Does being gay usually make me not care about that?
...What?
-Jake
Your whole post was about how two gay men are more likely to transmit AIDS to one another. What makes you think any level headed person is going to have sex with someone who has AIDS, gay or not?
Can I make ONE more humorous post? Cause I'm going to anyway.
Because gay people are evil and secrete AIDS from their bodies! 
~Rico
Did you guys read kaul's post? He explained it.
Quote:
What makes you think any level headed person is going to have sex with someone who has AIDS, gay or not?
What makes you think any level-headed, sex-deprived man, homosexual or not, would willingly tell a potential partner he had Aids? Or if he would, what makes you so sure he would know about it?
-Jake
And Kaulimus, people are generally tested to know if they have it or not. If the people we're talking about are incideous enough to lie about having AIDS or silly enough to not be tested after a bit of sexual activity, then the problem shouldn't be attributed to homosexuality but dishonesty and foolishness.
Vec, unless I'm confused on sex and biology all his post said was that taking it up the butt is more likely to give you STD's than putting it in the slot. To me that means he's saying certain kinds of sex is bad. Again, something not attributed to homosexuals but certain sexual practices. Unless he's saying all straight couples use one certain sexual position and gay couples use one certain sexual position. And even someone like me knows that is just simply not the case.
It's just yet another thin excuse to blame the problems of the world on the current scapegoat.
~Rico
I thought I made my position very clear... I'm not against homosexuality nor more creative forms of sexual intercourse. I'm simply regurgitating research (secular, by the way) that states that homosexuals are more likely to engage in anal sex.
Take offense if you wish, I'm just trying to help you find some answers.
-Jake
Not taking offense, am I trying to virtually throttle you? I'm just wondering if HIV really can travel through different bodily fluids better.
Not that it matters as transfer is transfer, but it does make me curious. Has there been a CSI episode dealing with this yet? :3
~Rico
Okay, Acrio, I apologize if I seemed defensive. I just wanted to make it very clear that I was not attempting to blame the world's problems on homosexuals, as you said but I've lost the quote in copy-and-paste confusion. I'm not a gay-basher.
I've did a bit of research and found this site in particular that deals with the subject thoroughly. Pay particular attention to the statistics.
I will say that I could not find anything on the prevalence of HIV in specific bodily fluids, other than that they do exist in them (which is obvious). I'll continue searching and edit my post if I can.
EDIT: Okay, this site is a good one on transmission with an easy, question-and-answer approach.
Moving on...
-Jake
That was Rico who said that. 😯 Also I still combat the point of sexual technique/transfer likleyhood's relevence with the fact a responsible person will be sure about their partner's health and won't lie about their own either. Otherwise, I see lack of responsibility as the bigger player in the scenario than homosexuality.
Quote:
Otherwise, I see lack of responsibility as the bigger player in the scenario than homosexuality.
Me too. You'd be surprised how irresponsible a majority of people are in this world. Why are sexual diseases so darn rampant these days, period? Aids, homosexuality, and all other discussion topics aside?
But that's a totally different issue. Some people are more responsible than others. I agree, lack of responsiblity is a huge, huge factor... I was describing the biological aspects, though.
Quote:
That was Rico who said that. 😯
Sorry guys... 
So far all you've brought up is just what Rico said: "An 11 year old magazine written by religious people" and it's contents based on some obscure survey that about a fourth of gay people have sex with 1000 different people.
Personally if I were given a survey question that read
Quote:
How many people have you had sex with?
[ ] None
[ ] 1
[ ] 2-10
[ ] 11-100
[ ] 100-999
[ ] 1000+
I would, without any hesitation, pick the last one. And I'm pretty sure I'm not gay.
Quote:
Why are sexual diseases so darn rampant these days, period? Aids, homosexuality, and all other discussion topics aside?
I'm going to take that to mean to mean "Why are STD's other than AIDS so rampant any more, and don't say homosexuals."
Thats a rather simple question. Each generation needed something to rebel against "the man" with. Rock and Roll, violence, sex, etc. As the stakes for making sexual themes shocking rose, so did the danger of exposure to STDs. The more they need to do to one up the previous generation, the more danger there is. My 2c.
~Rico
Quote:
Why are sexual diseases so darn rampant these days, period?
Who says they are as rampant now as any pre-modern era? I'd guess they're less so in industrialized countries.
Why are sexual diseases so darn rampant these days, period?
Probably no more rampant than they were 500 years ago. Difference is they have names now.
Actually that would be the media. Bad news gives you ratings, right?
Being Christian myself and having read quite a bit of the Bible, I have to say that it contradicts itself on many, many an occasion.
Christ loves all but burn the gay people? Come on...
You've got to look at the bigger picture and understand that God didn't write the Bible. A single man didn't even write it. And think of how many times it's been revised! To say that it isn't riddled with contradictions is to not know your material, frankly. No offense, of course.
-Jake
