I was wondering if anyone who considers homosexuality a sin, could tell me what is wrong with it.
I'm talking in the sense of utilitarian morals. How does homosexual intercourse, or homosexual marriage, increase the suffering in the world?
Homosexuality
Moderator: Moderators
Re: Homosexuality
Post #181I think a statement like that requires an explanation.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 175 by shnarkle]
All of your anecdotes are falling into a correlation causation fallacy.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #182[Replying to post 178 by Sonofason]
Just because there is a correlation to something such as, gay parents have more academically successful children doesn't mean homosexuality causes better parenting.
this doesn't mean homosexuals are better parents. when you dig deeper, most child births are not planned nearly 99% of gay parents planned to have kids as a result were better prepared financially and emotionally.
so hence the term correlation is not causation
Just because there is a correlation to something such as, gay parents have more academically successful children doesn't mean homosexuality causes better parenting.
this doesn't mean homosexuals are better parents. when you dig deeper, most child births are not planned nearly 99% of gay parents planned to have kids as a result were better prepared financially and emotionally.
so hence the term correlation is not causation
Re: Homosexuality
Post #1831)
Cultural standards are irrelevant in determining the morality of this. Because rape is not inherent to homosexuality, just as it isn't in heterosexuality, there is nothing objectively condemnable about it. True, there are risks involved in any sexual activity, but when those risks are taken willfully, or when no precautions are used, you can't use that as grounds to condemn the activity, in the same manner you cannot use reckless driving as a reason to ban cars.
2)
Yahweh's standards are merely subjective decree. If this deity dislikes men to lie down with men as with women, good for him. Why should society care? Does society care what Zeus supposedly thought? Does society care about what Allah supposedly thinks? Why should anyone care about deified cultural norms of ancient history? How is it in any way, shape, or form applicable to today?
3)
4)
Sodomy, at least anal sex, was not. Many would engage in this to preserve the vaginal virginity of their lovers.
5)
Sex is as much about social bonding as it is reproduction. Although, this is not to say that because something is natural, it must be good -- same sex behavior is found in all manner of species. Gay partners help raise the young rather than add more young that cannot be provided for. Female creatures have sex with each other when not mating for the purposes of pregnancy. The same is true for males. There is nothing about homosexuality that is unexplainable in terms of evolution.
6)
7)
8)
9)
If your anecdote is true, they contracted AIDS because one was already infected and they engaged in unprotected sex.
And please, if you're going to call loving sex a lifestyle, please apply that same language to everyone.
There is no purpose to calling one's sex life a "lifestyle" other than to diminish and dehumanize the person. It is bigotry to think that straights engage in lovemaking with lovers, but gays practice a lifestyle with partners. This is a fundamentally retarded bias.
10)
11)
-
Homosexuality is described as consensual sexual relations between members of the same sex, or erotic and or romantic attraction for the same sex.shnarkle wrote:By current standards there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Cultural standards are irrelevant in determining the morality of this. Because rape is not inherent to homosexuality, just as it isn't in heterosexuality, there is nothing objectively condemnable about it. True, there are risks involved in any sexual activity, but when those risks are taken willfully, or when no precautions are used, you can't use that as grounds to condemn the activity, in the same manner you cannot use reckless driving as a reason to ban cars.
2)
shnarkle wrote:By biblical standards it is sin because it is against the purpose and will of God.
Yahweh's standards are merely subjective decree. If this deity dislikes men to lie down with men as with women, good for him. Why should society care? Does society care what Zeus supposedly thought? Does society care about what Allah supposedly thinks? Why should anyone care about deified cultural norms of ancient history? How is it in any way, shape, or form applicable to today?
3)
I would not cite Paul as an authority on sex since he supposedly abstained from marriage and masturbation. Using Paul as an authority on sex is like citing Mitt Romney as an expert on poverty, or the black experience.shnarkle wrote:Paul refers to it as putting aside the "function" of sex.
4)
I personally would not use truth and the Bible in the same breath, but let's just say it's a biblical opinion, because that much is clear -- homosexual relations, along with a whole host of other activities, was condemned.shnarkle wrote:This is not only a biblical truth. . .
Sodomy, at least anal sex, was not. Many would engage in this to preserve the vaginal virginity of their lovers.
5)
shnarkle wrote:. . .but a biological one as well.
Sex is as much about social bonding as it is reproduction. Although, this is not to say that because something is natural, it must be good -- same sex behavior is found in all manner of species. Gay partners help raise the young rather than add more young that cannot be provided for. Female creatures have sex with each other when not mating for the purposes of pregnancy. The same is true for males. There is nothing about homosexuality that is unexplainable in terms of evolution.
6)
I believe you will find the deleterious effects are not caused by the sex position but by unprotected sex between infected partners. You will also find that the vagina is not exactly the most disease free of all human orifices; in fact, it can be quite the cesspool of disease. The same is true for the penis. But disease doesn't spontaneously spring out of thin air after certain sex positions. That's what you call magic, not biology.shnarkle wrote:As far as evidence of harm due to homosexual behavior, one can check out the Centers for Disease Control websites which contain some quite graphic examples of the deleterious effects of sodomy on the human body.
7)
You mean like condoms, and lubricants, and tips like not having rough penetrative sex with a virgin? All good tips for anyone who fancies anyone to follow.shnarkle wrote:There are some homosexual websites and magazines that also go into graphic detail on the precautions one should take if pursuing a gay lifestyle.
8)
I'm terribly sorry; that is unfortunate.shnarkle wrote:I spent about a year working for two homosexuals who both came down with full blown AIDS.
9)
If you think AIDS sprouted into existence because they tried a sex position, I strongly advise that you read a biology book. Did you know a Christian discovered that spontaneous generation doesn't happen?shnarkle wrote:This was a direct result of their lifestyle choices, and the effects were absolutely devastating to their respective families as well as anyone who knew them for any length of time. They were both very nice, kind, loving, individuals with a lot going for them, but to see what it did to them and their families was horrific.
If your anecdote is true, they contracted AIDS because one was already infected and they engaged in unprotected sex.
And please, if you're going to call loving sex a lifestyle, please apply that same language to everyone.
There is no purpose to calling one's sex life a "lifestyle" other than to diminish and dehumanize the person. It is bigotry to think that straights engage in lovemaking with lovers, but gays practice a lifestyle with partners. This is a fundamentally retarded bias.
10)
Anal sex, by and large, is favored by straights. A lot of gay couples don't like anal sex. Turns out there are plenty of ways to have sex, so it's not a problem.shnarkle wrote:I also rented a room to a homosexual a few years later and he eventually had such significant damage to his sphincter that he no longer had control over his bowels. This isn't just a homosexual problem, the same problems can hit heterosexuals as well when they engage in the same behavior.
Obviously one has to be careful. You can't shove a large object into any virgin orifice without hurting them, especially when there is no lubrication involved. Even vaginal sex requires lubrication, as many women don't produce enough on their own.Wikipedia: Anal Sex wrote:Physical damage to the rectum and anus can manifest as generalized ano-rectal trauma, anal fissures, rectal prolapse, and exacerbating hemorrhoids Adequate lubrication and preparation reduces the risk of physical trauma, while the risk increases with use of alcohol or other drugs that dull sensitivity.
Loss of bowel control is not a likely result of anal sex, but may be caused by repeated injury or the insertion of large objects. Kegel exercises have been recommended to maintain muscle tone by a speaker at the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality and the American Association of Sex Educators, who noted he had never personally observed "loosening" in any of his patients.
A 1993 study published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found that fourteen out of a sample of forty men receiving anal intercourse experienced episodes of frequent anal incontinence.[102] However, a 1997 study published in the American Journal of Gastroenterology found no difference in levels of incontinence between homosexual men who engaged in anal sex and heterosexual men who did not, and criticized the earlier study for its inclusion of flatulence in its definition of incontinence.[103]
11)
I know you provide no statistics to back this up, but if it were true, I'd like to think this might be the result of how their parents and how society treats them. Drug addiction and early sexual experimentation is a direct result of abusive childhoods. This is why the Amish community has this problem, where strict and violent upbringings lead to overindulgence. It is not exclusively a gay problem. It's a parenting problem.shnarkle wrote:This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The problems are widespread and truly tragic, e.g. Homosexuals tend to live shorter lives. They tend to succumb to drug addiction in greater numbers(proportionately), etc.
-
Re: Homosexuality
Post #184[Replying to post 177 by DanieltheDragon]
My wife's sister got HIV when she lost her virginity to her first husband. HIV/AIDS is tragic and sad it is not caused by homosexuality.
shnarkle: If by homosexuality you mean sexual preference alone, I would agree. However I am not referring to sexual preference, but to sexual behavior as well as lifestyle. As a segment of society, those who participate in that type of behavior are getting sick and dropping dead in a much higher proportion than those who don't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting that people who don't participate in these behaviors don't get sick or drop in the same proportion; they're just getting sick and dying for different reasons also related to lifestyle choices, diet, etc. But there most certainly is a causative correlation to the behavior and sickness and death. This has been proven even when both parties are HIV negative to begin with. Again, this is well documented in the medical journals as well as the gay community itself, e.g. the effects on the immune system from semen deposited in the rectum; the effects of anal sex with respect to fecal contamination etc.
Quote:
Most people who participate in Anal sex are heterosexuals not homosexuals
shnarkle: That depends how you look at the statistics. If you look at gay men verses straight men proportionately, then participation is predominantly by gay men. If you look at it in terms of sheer numbers, then obviously the vast majority of anal sex acts are by heterosexuals. Gay men make up less than 2% of the population.
--------------------
Quote
Homosexuality consists of same sex behavior including men AND WOMEN. Why do theists always ignore female same sex relations?
Shnarkle: I'm not ignoring female relations. In fact, if you were to check out my reference to the Centers for Disease Control you would find out just exactly what it states concerning sodomy. The evidence for damage to the immune system is undeniable regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
----------------------------
Quote:
drug addiction has widely been linked to familial abandonment and depression(linked to bullying, oppression, and abandonment)
shnarkle: Sure, but in our enlightened society today there are plenty of homosexuals that are loved and accepted not just by their families and friends, but society as a whole. They're still getting into drugs just like everyone else. The big difference is that homosexuals tend to be a bit more sensitive and vulnerable to the effects.
---------------------------
Quote
Homosexuality doesn't cause addiction or shorter lifespans. It just so happens to correlate because homosexuals tend to get disowned,fired,bullied, etc. when they are open of their preference. This negative environment can cause higher rates of suicide and drug use.
shnarkle: This would have been a good point a dozen years ago, but homosexuals aren't getting disowned, fired, or bullied more than any other segment of the population. They're fighting back(good for them!), and even doing quite a bit of bullying themselves (not a plus for their cause).
Quote
Avg. lifespan is shorter more likely as a result of a higher than average suicide rate amongst teens. Not because of sexual preference.
shnarkle: it isn't just teens, the statistics look at not just sexual preference, but sexual behavior and lifestyle.
My wife's sister got HIV when she lost her virginity to her first husband. HIV/AIDS is tragic and sad it is not caused by homosexuality.
shnarkle: If by homosexuality you mean sexual preference alone, I would agree. However I am not referring to sexual preference, but to sexual behavior as well as lifestyle. As a segment of society, those who participate in that type of behavior are getting sick and dropping dead in a much higher proportion than those who don't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting that people who don't participate in these behaviors don't get sick or drop in the same proportion; they're just getting sick and dying for different reasons also related to lifestyle choices, diet, etc. But there most certainly is a causative correlation to the behavior and sickness and death. This has been proven even when both parties are HIV negative to begin with. Again, this is well documented in the medical journals as well as the gay community itself, e.g. the effects on the immune system from semen deposited in the rectum; the effects of anal sex with respect to fecal contamination etc.
Quote:
Most people who participate in Anal sex are heterosexuals not homosexuals
shnarkle: That depends how you look at the statistics. If you look at gay men verses straight men proportionately, then participation is predominantly by gay men. If you look at it in terms of sheer numbers, then obviously the vast majority of anal sex acts are by heterosexuals. Gay men make up less than 2% of the population.
--------------------
Quote
Homosexuality consists of same sex behavior including men AND WOMEN. Why do theists always ignore female same sex relations?
Shnarkle: I'm not ignoring female relations. In fact, if you were to check out my reference to the Centers for Disease Control you would find out just exactly what it states concerning sodomy. The evidence for damage to the immune system is undeniable regardless of gender or sexual orientation.
----------------------------
Quote:
drug addiction has widely been linked to familial abandonment and depression(linked to bullying, oppression, and abandonment)
shnarkle: Sure, but in our enlightened society today there are plenty of homosexuals that are loved and accepted not just by their families and friends, but society as a whole. They're still getting into drugs just like everyone else. The big difference is that homosexuals tend to be a bit more sensitive and vulnerable to the effects.
---------------------------
Quote
Homosexuality doesn't cause addiction or shorter lifespans. It just so happens to correlate because homosexuals tend to get disowned,fired,bullied, etc. when they are open of their preference. This negative environment can cause higher rates of suicide and drug use.
shnarkle: This would have been a good point a dozen years ago, but homosexuals aren't getting disowned, fired, or bullied more than any other segment of the population. They're fighting back(good for them!), and even doing quite a bit of bullying themselves (not a plus for their cause).
Quote
Avg. lifespan is shorter more likely as a result of a higher than average suicide rate amongst teens. Not because of sexual preference.
shnarkle: it isn't just teens, the statistics look at not just sexual preference, but sexual behavior and lifestyle.
Re: Homosexuality
Post #185Yes you just did that very thing.shnarkle wrote: [Replying to post 177 by DanieltheDragon]
My wife's sister got HIV when she lost her virginity to her first husband. HIV/AIDS is tragic and sad it is not caused by homosexuality.
shnarkle: As a segment of society, those who participate in that type of behavior are getting sick and dropping dead in a much higher proportion than those who don't. To be fair, I'm not suggesting that people who don't participate in these behaviors don't get sick or drop in the same proportion
Well done you.
I mean how could I possibly ever dismiss anything else you said without even reading it?
Because I can THINK, that is how.
Oh deary me, some people.
I'll tell you everything I've learned...................
and LOVE is all he said
-The Boy With The Moon and Star On His Head-Cat Stevens.
and LOVE is all he said
-The Boy With The Moon and Star On His Head-Cat Stevens.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #186[Replying to post 181 by shnarkle]
150 years ago life expectancy was about 33 does this mean a heterosexual lifestyle causes people to drop dead like flies?
do you see how faulty that logic is.
gay women were more likely to live longer before modern medicine than straight women care to venture a guess to why that was?
no Life expectancy or avg lifespan is calculated by taking the available information on when members of that population you are studying die and averaging the lifespans together. When you have a significantly large portion of that population dying in the teens it has a tendency to DRAMATICALLY lower avg. lifespanshnarkle: it isn't just teens, the statistics look at not just sexual preference, but sexual behavior and lifestyle.
150 years ago life expectancy was about 33 does this mean a heterosexual lifestyle causes people to drop dead like flies?
do you see how faulty that logic is.
gay women were more likely to live longer before modern medicine than straight women care to venture a guess to why that was?
Re: Homosexuality
Post #187[Replying to post 183 by DanieltheDragon]
Life expectancy or avg lifespan is calculated by taking the available information on when members of that population you are studying die and averaging the lifespans together. When you have a significantly large portion of that population dying in the teens it has a tendency to DRAMATICALLY lower avg. lifespan
shnarkle: No doubt, but then that isn't the only way of looking at statistics, i.e. averages. One can just as easily look at the exact age of each person as well as the cause of their demise. When you take into consideration those who are engaging in that behavior the numbers don't lie.
------------------------------
150 years ago life expectancy was about 33 does this mean a heterosexual lifestyle causes people to drop dead like flies?
do you see how faulty that logic is.
shnarkle: Yes, Very faulty. I wasn't drawing a comparison between death and sexual orientation. I was drawing a correlation between behavior and life expectancy.
----------------------
gay women were more likely to live longer before modern medicine than straight women care to venture a guess to why that was?
shnarkle: Modern medicine. In the US alone, modern medicine kills over a million people a year who take their prescriptions as prescribed by their doctors. I haven't seen anything to suggest that gay women live shorter lives than straight women or men, or gay men.
Life expectancy or avg lifespan is calculated by taking the available information on when members of that population you are studying die and averaging the lifespans together. When you have a significantly large portion of that population dying in the teens it has a tendency to DRAMATICALLY lower avg. lifespan
shnarkle: No doubt, but then that isn't the only way of looking at statistics, i.e. averages. One can just as easily look at the exact age of each person as well as the cause of their demise. When you take into consideration those who are engaging in that behavior the numbers don't lie.
------------------------------
150 years ago life expectancy was about 33 does this mean a heterosexual lifestyle causes people to drop dead like flies?
do you see how faulty that logic is.
shnarkle: Yes, Very faulty. I wasn't drawing a comparison between death and sexual orientation. I was drawing a correlation between behavior and life expectancy.
----------------------
gay women were more likely to live longer before modern medicine than straight women care to venture a guess to why that was?
shnarkle: Modern medicine. In the US alone, modern medicine kills over a million people a year who take their prescriptions as prescribed by their doctors. I haven't seen anything to suggest that gay women live shorter lives than straight women or men, or gay men.
-
DanieltheDragon
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Homosexuality
Post #188[Replying to post 184 by shnarkle]
The answer to my question was pregnancy. the leading killer of young healthy women before the 20th century was pregnancy. Using your logic "those who are engaging in that behavior" namely in this case heterosexual behavior lead to an early death.
As I mentioned before homosexual behavior doesn't increase your mortality rate. unprotected sex hetero or homo does. This is why your argument is fundamentally wrong. the correlation between women dying from pregnancy is directly and indisputably correlated to heterosexual behavior but that's not the cause is it?
"In the 19th and first half of the 20th century, everybody knew about death in childbirth, particularly those women who were about to go through the process"
Geoffrey Chamberlain
did you not say thisshnarkle: Modern medicine. In the US alone, modern medicine kills over a million people a year who take their prescriptions as prescribed by their doctors. I haven't seen anything to suggest that gay women live shorter lives than straight women or men, or gay men.
We can discuss modern medicine another day but life expectancy has more than doubled since it has come around. It would be a disgusting and insulting position to take the hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to helping others as killers.When you take into consideration those who are engaging in that behavior the numbers don't lie.
The answer to my question was pregnancy. the leading killer of young healthy women before the 20th century was pregnancy. Using your logic "those who are engaging in that behavior" namely in this case heterosexual behavior lead to an early death.
As I mentioned before homosexual behavior doesn't increase your mortality rate. unprotected sex hetero or homo does. This is why your argument is fundamentally wrong. the correlation between women dying from pregnancy is directly and indisputably correlated to heterosexual behavior but that's not the cause is it?
"In the 19th and first half of the 20th century, everybody knew about death in childbirth, particularly those women who were about to go through the process"
Geoffrey Chamberlain
Re: Homosexuality
Post #189[Replying to post 185 by DanieltheDragon]
We can discuss modern medicine another day but life expectancy has more than doubled since it has come around. It would be a disgusting and insulting position to take the hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to helping others as killers.
shnarkle: The road to hell is paved with hard working dedicated people with good intentions. Good intentions don't always help people. There are plenty of examples right in our hospitals today. If it doesn't work, they should try something else that does. What do these million people who have died as a direct result of using prescriptions as prescribed by their doctors have in common? They are being given pills to deal with their symptoms, and absolutely nothing to deal with the underlying problem. Don't get me wrong here. I understand that most people don't want to deal with the problem in the first place so what's a doctor supposed to do? Their patients don't listen to them if they do tell them to stop smoking and drinking, so they do what they can by giving them some pill to deal with the symptoms. Hospitals are becoming an efficient way to catch a lethal virus or bacterial infection these days.
-------------------------------------
The answer to my question was pregnancy. the leading killer of young healthy women before the 20th century was pregnancy. Using your logic "those who are engaging in that behavior" namely in this case heterosexual behavior lead to an early death.
shnakrle: I think that would be your logic. The answer is complications from pregnancy, but what were those complications? Just to take one prime example, we have doctors spreading disease from dead bodies they have just handled to women giving birth. This is well documented. My favorite example from history is the Black Death. The Black Death was widely thought to be caused by Jews since they weren't dying in anything close to the numbers of the gentile population. Why? Because they were observing their commandments to wash after coming in contact with blood or dead bodies. For the most part this was out of a desire to be obedient to their God, but their God does point out that these instructions he's given them are for their benefit. The gentile population, including Christians who mistakenly thought that the Mosaic law was done away with and no longer relevant; were dying not because their wives had become pregnant, but because they and their doctors were spreading disease. The pregnancy wasn't the cause of the problem. If we had the same population of homosexuals back then that we have now, they'd all be dead.
---------------------------
As I mentioned before homosexual behavior doesn't increase your mortality rate.
shnarkle: No, it hastens it. Homosexuals don't tend to breed that much so there isn''t going to be an increase of people who have no progeny. They just die off sooner than they would were they not engaging in acts of sodomy/ anal/oral etc.
------------------------------
unprotected sex hetero or homo does.
shnarkle: My statements aren't with regards to hetero or homosexual orientation, but to behavior. An inclination doesn't matter. It's what they are doing that matters. A virus doesn't care what someone's sexual orientation is. A virus is just looking for a way to live off its host, or the most healthy host it can find. It can't find a healthy host if it doesn't have a way to get into it. My statements are based in behavior regardless of sexual orientation.
-------------------------------
This is why your argument is fundamentally wrong. the correlation between women dying from pregnancy is directly and indisputably correlated to heterosexual behavior but that's not the cause is it?
shnarkle: See my comments above.
-------------------------
"In the 19th and first half of the 20th century, everybody knew about death in childbirth, particularly those women who were about to go through the process"
Geoffrey Chamberlain
shnarkle: But not everybody knew why there was this correlation, and it has been proved that this correlation wasn't the cause of their demise. Having children has been something that societies have sanctioned and condoned since practically the dawn of civilization. This continued despite the fact that so many women and children died during and as a result of childbirth. Sodomy doesn't serve the same purpose, there is no purpose to sodomy. There is no necessity for sodomy to further a society, nothing to warrant a society to sanction or condone it. That being said, I see no point in making it a criminal act either.
We can discuss modern medicine another day but life expectancy has more than doubled since it has come around. It would be a disgusting and insulting position to take the hard working men and women who have dedicated their lives to helping others as killers.
shnarkle: The road to hell is paved with hard working dedicated people with good intentions. Good intentions don't always help people. There are plenty of examples right in our hospitals today. If it doesn't work, they should try something else that does. What do these million people who have died as a direct result of using prescriptions as prescribed by their doctors have in common? They are being given pills to deal with their symptoms, and absolutely nothing to deal with the underlying problem. Don't get me wrong here. I understand that most people don't want to deal with the problem in the first place so what's a doctor supposed to do? Their patients don't listen to them if they do tell them to stop smoking and drinking, so they do what they can by giving them some pill to deal with the symptoms. Hospitals are becoming an efficient way to catch a lethal virus or bacterial infection these days.
-------------------------------------
The answer to my question was pregnancy. the leading killer of young healthy women before the 20th century was pregnancy. Using your logic "those who are engaging in that behavior" namely in this case heterosexual behavior lead to an early death.
shnakrle: I think that would be your logic. The answer is complications from pregnancy, but what were those complications? Just to take one prime example, we have doctors spreading disease from dead bodies they have just handled to women giving birth. This is well documented. My favorite example from history is the Black Death. The Black Death was widely thought to be caused by Jews since they weren't dying in anything close to the numbers of the gentile population. Why? Because they were observing their commandments to wash after coming in contact with blood or dead bodies. For the most part this was out of a desire to be obedient to their God, but their God does point out that these instructions he's given them are for their benefit. The gentile population, including Christians who mistakenly thought that the Mosaic law was done away with and no longer relevant; were dying not because their wives had become pregnant, but because they and their doctors were spreading disease. The pregnancy wasn't the cause of the problem. If we had the same population of homosexuals back then that we have now, they'd all be dead.
---------------------------
As I mentioned before homosexual behavior doesn't increase your mortality rate.
shnarkle: No, it hastens it. Homosexuals don't tend to breed that much so there isn''t going to be an increase of people who have no progeny. They just die off sooner than they would were they not engaging in acts of sodomy/ anal/oral etc.
------------------------------
unprotected sex hetero or homo does.
shnarkle: My statements aren't with regards to hetero or homosexual orientation, but to behavior. An inclination doesn't matter. It's what they are doing that matters. A virus doesn't care what someone's sexual orientation is. A virus is just looking for a way to live off its host, or the most healthy host it can find. It can't find a healthy host if it doesn't have a way to get into it. My statements are based in behavior regardless of sexual orientation.
-------------------------------
This is why your argument is fundamentally wrong. the correlation between women dying from pregnancy is directly and indisputably correlated to heterosexual behavior but that's not the cause is it?
shnarkle: See my comments above.
-------------------------
"In the 19th and first half of the 20th century, everybody knew about death in childbirth, particularly those women who were about to go through the process"
Geoffrey Chamberlain
shnarkle: But not everybody knew why there was this correlation, and it has been proved that this correlation wasn't the cause of their demise. Having children has been something that societies have sanctioned and condoned since practically the dawn of civilization. This continued despite the fact that so many women and children died during and as a result of childbirth. Sodomy doesn't serve the same purpose, there is no purpose to sodomy. There is no necessity for sodomy to further a society, nothing to warrant a society to sanction or condone it. That being said, I see no point in making it a criminal act either.
Post #190
Daniel, you said you've done research on this. I would be interested in seeing your booklist, in a form that I can find the books/studies and read them for myself. Please provide at least the author's names and the titles of the works. I ask this not to debate you on it, but to educate myself.
After reading the information cited below, my stance is more or less like this: Homosexuality is not a conscious decision. Homosexuals are often harassed unjustly. Homosexuals show a higher rate of teen suicide. Homosexuality may be loosely tied to biology, but there is a strong argument, by both the left and right, that societal factors play a significant role (Boswell, et. al in my previous study, a few pages ago, as well as data below from the right). There is evidence that a poor relationship with the father, for instance, may cause a void that is replaced with homosexual desire. (As for the comment a few pages ago... the fact that, in wartime, fathers are less available, should dictate higher rates of homosexuality: there is evidence that that is true. World War II happened 20 years before the gay pride revolution.) Homosexuality may be bad for society. (see CDC and information about the spread of disease). Homosexuality has historically been linked to high rates of promiscuity (Bell & Weinberg Study, 1978; a study that was lauded by the APA). The homosexual movement is a political issue that is fraught with bias and pre-conceived notions that affect research before it ever happens. It is very hard to find accurate data on the subject, and I feel incredibly justified in taking as neutral a stance as I can. On hotly contested subjects like this, research cannot be trusted unless it is seen first-hand. I have neither the time nor cause to conduct a wide-scale study of my own, so I will lean on a combination of practical reasoning, personal experience, and traditional values. I would recommend others do the same.
Marriage & Religion research:
http://marri.us/
Survey on perceived root causes of homosexuals, by homosexuals:
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php
Kristin Ketteringham on single-parent households:
http://voices.yahoo.com/single-parent-h ... 22927.html
LGBTdata:
http://www.lgbtdata.com
Dale O'Leary talks about the spread of diseases, and why "MSM" should not be allowed to donate blood:
https://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... od-supply/
A seemlingly unbiased source
http://borngay.procon.org/
Centers for Disease Control
HIV: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Hepatitis: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm
A well-cited source. Notably, it cites Bell & Weinberg of 1978:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/
Awareness of suicide risk, citing Bell and Weinberg:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/homos ... inberg.htm
Homosexuals have older fathers and later births
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... eid=170553
Bell & Weinberg study: this is cited by both sides. The APA lauds it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _and_Women
After reading the information cited below, my stance is more or less like this: Homosexuality is not a conscious decision. Homosexuals are often harassed unjustly. Homosexuals show a higher rate of teen suicide. Homosexuality may be loosely tied to biology, but there is a strong argument, by both the left and right, that societal factors play a significant role (Boswell, et. al in my previous study, a few pages ago, as well as data below from the right). There is evidence that a poor relationship with the father, for instance, may cause a void that is replaced with homosexual desire. (As for the comment a few pages ago... the fact that, in wartime, fathers are less available, should dictate higher rates of homosexuality: there is evidence that that is true. World War II happened 20 years before the gay pride revolution.) Homosexuality may be bad for society. (see CDC and information about the spread of disease). Homosexuality has historically been linked to high rates of promiscuity (Bell & Weinberg Study, 1978; a study that was lauded by the APA). The homosexual movement is a political issue that is fraught with bias and pre-conceived notions that affect research before it ever happens. It is very hard to find accurate data on the subject, and I feel incredibly justified in taking as neutral a stance as I can. On hotly contested subjects like this, research cannot be trusted unless it is seen first-hand. I have neither the time nor cause to conduct a wide-scale study of my own, so I will lean on a combination of practical reasoning, personal experience, and traditional values. I would recommend others do the same.
Marriage & Religion research:
http://marri.us/
Survey on perceived root causes of homosexuals, by homosexuals:
http://www.peoplecanchange.com/change/causes.php
Kristin Ketteringham on single-parent households:
http://voices.yahoo.com/single-parent-h ... 22927.html
LGBTdata:
http://www.lgbtdata.com
Dale O'Leary talks about the spread of diseases, and why "MSM" should not be allowed to donate blood:
https://daleoleary.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... od-supply/
A seemlingly unbiased source
http://borngay.procon.org/
Centers for Disease Control
HIV: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html
Hepatitis: http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Populations/msm.htm
A well-cited source. Notably, it cites Bell & Weinberg of 1978:
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/promiscuity/
Awareness of suicide risk, citing Bell and Weinberg:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ramsay/homos ... inberg.htm
Homosexuals have older fathers and later births
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article ... eid=170553
Bell & Weinberg study: this is cited by both sides. The APA lauds it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexua ... _and_Women
