"Buggery" is more risky than male/female copulation because of the common occurrance of ruptured capillaries, wherein the blood can pass from human to human freely. Kinda gross to me, really. But since this practice is more prevalent amongst homosexual males than it is amongst hetero sexual couples, it seems that they are more "at risk".
That's the reason I said it, which has it's validation, as Trefor Haywood once agreed on another "raucous" gay debate thread not long ago. I think it was the "homosexual marriage in Massachussetts" thread back when Mass was in the limelight over it.
I also used the phrase as a humorous quote from "Doctor Evil" in Austin Powers, when Dr. Evil was talking of his "evil childhood", and how his father had a "penchant for..."
But really, only properly collected statistics could prove the "lower average life span theory", but I do agree with JBarrax that it is a riskier lifestyle than the hetero lifestyle. Personally, I am glad my kids are straight...
"and as a side note, divorce is far more condemd in the bible then homosexuality."
And then Galen said:
Huh?
The Bible gives specific guidelines for divorce, it allows divorce. Even Jesus re-confirmed such. Neither the Old Testament, nor the New Testament is found to 'condemn' Divorce.
Whereas homosexuality is specifically mentioned and drawn out as a bad thing.
Granted I think that we should still love everyone.
And I think that this is accurate and very reasonable. We can easily love people with whom we do not agree...
“That 'observation' is so flawed and dishonest, even on it's face, ... and you know it. (So why do you make it?)”
My observations from my own personal experiences are ‘dishonest’?
If I see ‘X’, and I tell you that I see ‘X’, that is not dishonest. Even if what I saw was flavored by my prejudice, or bad-lighting, or if I truly did not understand what I saw; if I give an honest assessment of what I saw then it is honest. Rather than dishonest.
“L'see, where to begin. First off, using ONLY women on the heterosexual side compared to homosexual men in your example of coming on to you, as a means of showing why homosexuals are more promiscuous than heteros. ... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'. -->”
It has not been my experience that non-promiscous-heterosexual men have ever made passes at me [unlike you] so obviously I could not be capable to making any comments on how that happens, or when, or under what circumstances.
Perhaps you who are so experienced could possibly enlighten us?
My post was made purely within the limited context of comparing Promiscuous ‘A’ with Promiscuous ‘B’, you insist on wedging into it Non-promiscuous people. I am sorry. Obviously I did not state it clearly even or with enough multiplicity for you to catch it.
This direct quote:
“From that life-experiences impression that I have gained, I would have to side with the assumption that promiscuous-homosexuals are at higher risk than promiscuous-heterosexuals.”
For example perhaps missed your notice.
“Two, when you are going to include your own observation in a conclusion about a group of people, it would be more honest to include what you have observed other people doing in the same context to come to a more well rounded observation.”
Again we disagree about what makes 'honesty'.
Again I am sorry. But I really don’t pay any attention to others so would you please do the honours of telling us exactly what happens each time that non-promiscuous heterosexaul men hit on you?
Than both sides will be covered, both: promiscuous people hitting on strangers for spontaneous sex, and non-promiscuous people hitting on strangers for sex.
“Come on, Galen. You can do better than that.”
Since you are so eager to find fault perhaps you could help.
" ... but perhaps you should re-read Malachi 2:16, you know the section where it says:G-d hates divorce..."
Thank you for bringing that one up.
"please don't start shooting me w/scripture and verse, although the bible does give guidlines for divorce G-d HATES it,"
Yes He certainly does, within the context of husbands dealing 'treacherously with the wives of their youth'.
Malachi 2:14
Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Verse 14 sets a context of saying that the husband has dealt treacherously with his Ex-wife by divorcing her, sounds to me like the guy was doing something bad in the first place.
Verse 15 restates that he is dealing treacherously with his wife.
If G-d hates ALL divorce [which is not said in this text] then why did He set guidelines for how to go about doing it within the Temple?
Why did Jesus re-confirm those guidelines?
You know Jesus disliked flagrant divorces as well, but he obviously did not so hate divorce when done within the context of Moses.
This is off topic but I'm curious. Why do you write "G-d" instead of "God?" I've noticed that Galen doesn't change "God" when he quotes the Bible. Do you, Sharon? When either of you speak the word, do you pronounce it like everyone else does?
"Even if what I saw was flavored by my prejudice, or bad-lighting, or if I truly did not understand what I saw; if I give an honest assessment of what I saw then it is honest. Rather than dishonest."
What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals. It's like a white guy being ripped off by a black person, and then uses his own POV to judge all blacks from that, rather than looking around, and learning that that's not what all black people do. While its an understandable and human thing to do, both you and I know that its a flawed judgement nonetheless. Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, but to stay loyal to your biblical beliefs, you run with it anyway. ... Now I could be wrong in that rendering, but just call it a hunch that I have.
And I would be willing to make that particular judgement for another reason, which shows me how much of a jerk you are, ie:
"It has not been my experience that non-promiscous-heterosexual men have ever made passes at me [unlike you]...".
Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie,
"... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'."
you'd know that. But then again, being loyal to your biblical beliefs kinda holds you back from doing that, huh? And I put it in there because I thought you'd catch that and not come back with your juvenile crack. (Tell me something, is that a little locker room humor they taught you in the Navy, hmmm? Please, the Navy has a bad enough of a rep w/o you adding to it)
And all this .... in the Name of your God?? One that expects worship??
Jbaryuks thinks the kid has a weakness from this path they have "chosen". Hmm, who CHOOSES to be gay and to put up with this abuse? It would take a pretty strong person not a weak one to choose to be gay. Choose.... yeah right, like hmm, should I turn left or right at the next intersection. Its so simple..... yuck.
Please go back and re-read my post. What I said is" People aren't born gay. They either choose it or are coerced and pulled into it; often by a combination of lust, frustration, alchohol and drugs--and spirits. It's a mean hustle for sure, but it's still a hustle."
I think mostly it's the latter. Spirits pepper people's minds with thoughts. The average person is completely unaware of the existence of demonic spirits so they think these "thoughts" are their own. If this goes on long enough, the persson is eventually worn down and they surrender to it and the spirit is "in". Or the hustle may come through the aggressive action of another person. I know of one instance where a young believer was at a bar and got drunk. A lesbian got her drunker and did her best to seduce her, both by kissing her and blowing marijuana smoke into her mouth trying to get her high so she could take her home. Some other believers tried to intercede and the lesbian threatened them phsyically. She ended up taking the girl home with her. That's what I call a hustle. Seduction actually. The girl involved didn't make a calm, deliberate choice to go home with a lesbian. She was seduced.
I'm not saying that all lesbians are sexually aggressive, hard-drinking, pot-smoking predators. It's just an example
There are lots of ways spirits get control of people's lives, but the fact that most people are ignorant of their very existence, let alone their methods only makes their jobs easier. And the fact that so many Christians teach that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual certainly makes their job much easier.
quote:
Why is homosexuality a weakness, but the others are just part of ones life? Heck, we even elect these other sinners to national office. Next the fundies will be after the rest of us sinners with the same vengeance.
Good question. There are certainly other weaknesses people fall into. Depression, suicide, alcoholism. Any of them can be produced in part by genetic predispostion, or spiritual pressure. Often the spiritual pressure merely augments natural pressure from circumstances. Spirits can take an bad situation and make it unbearable. If the person under attack recognizes what's going on and asks God for help, the spirits are defeated and the situation becomes manageable. If he doesn't recongize what's going on, he can be driven to suicide, a violent rage, a drunken binge, or maybe a homosexual episode. It depends on the circumstances, the person's weaknesses. Like I said, it's a hustle. The "choice" if there is any, in such a circumstance, is merely a failure to choose to seek God for help and deliverance.
"What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals."
No, it has been something that 'promiscous' people did, and not the general public.
But you wont admit to that possibility.
" ... Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, ... "
And yet here you stand saying that homosexuals are more promiscous than anyone else.
I carefully did not say such a thing, you did.
I said that there is a general public perception that they are, but in honesty I have no idea if they are or not [which I have said before but you refuse to hear, now is that your dishonesty?].
heh heh heh
"Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie,"
Well your the one calling me dishonest.
"And all this .... in the Name of your God?? One that expects worship??"
As I believe I stated earlier in this thread, God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality, but because of inhospitality. RED FLAG RED FLAG.Maybe some churches oughta consider the consequences of their "inhospitable" attitude toward those who are in their eyes "different".
I suppose we should just ignore every other verse in the Bible that clearly says that homosexuality is unacceptable to God. Like, say for instance, Leviticus 18:22
quote:
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Oh, wait. That's the OLD testament. The law was done away with. Wait, there's more. Try Romans 1:25-27 for instance.
quote:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
so if you're going to cite Sodom and Gommorrah and try to imply that the Bible doesn't say that God condemns homosexuality, you need to keep reading. Even in Romans, the epistle that sets forth th standard of righteousness by faith, homosexual conduct is clearly denounced as unseemly (disgraceful or shameful), and unnatural. By the way, if a certain amount of the population is "born gay", it is a natural situation. Romans says it's "against nature", which is one of the reasons Bible believers denounce the argument that people are born that way.
quote:
And Jbaraxx - with all due respect, I still wouldn't let her go to church with you. If she's feeling really great about herself, why would I send her to church (which is supposed to be an edifying, all inclusive place) and have her come back home thinking she is possessed by devil spirits and needs to be ministered to.
I don't have a Church and don't currently go to Church. This kind of thing is best handled privately in a family setting. I would never try to minister to someone for homosexuality in a public setting unless they asked me too. And I'm not a minister, so I would probably just refer them to someone more qualified.
quote:
Perhaps some "christians" need to consider why homosexuality makes them so uncomfortable and why they feel the need to fix it for God. I am sure God will have it all sorted out on his timetable.
It's not just "some Christians" who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. Most people are, if you put it in their faces. People who accept the idea that some men are gay will still grimace or squirm if they see two men kissing. That's because it's unnatural and the sight of such behaviour makes people uncomfortable on a gut level.
By the way; speaking of love and parenting. I should also add that if my child were considering, or being tempted with homosexuality, I would tell them that the average life expectancy of a lesbian woman is about 45 years of age and the average life expectancy of a homosexual man (who doesn't die of AIDS) is 41.
Wouldn’t it be better to tell them the truth? Those figures are from Paul Cameron, a rabid anti-homosexual, and they’re completely bogus. You know how he came up with them? By comparing obituaries in homosexual newspapers with those in conventional newspapers.
Those gay papers, many of which are distributed for free at bars and other places gays and lesbians gather, target urban homosexuals who are active in the homosexual community. They’re mostly younger people, because older people of any persuasion tend to settle down. The obituaries are submitted by the readers, and are mostly about people whose deaths they consider newsworthy, either because they are well known in the gay community or because their death is untimely. So obituaries in gay papers over-represent younger gays and under-represent older ones. They over-represent urban homosexuals and under-represent suburban and rural ones. They over-represent more active (not necessarily in a sexual sense) homosexuals, who live riskier lives, and under-represent quiet, passive ones, who live less risky lives. And they represent only homosexuals who are publicly “out” and don’t even represent at all those who are not. Obituaries in conventional papers include homosexuals without identifying them as such. They are not representative of the heterosexual population. So neither source provides useful data for the stated purpose, and the numbers are not even close to being accurate. But they were never intended to be. They were intended to promote an anti-homosexual agenda through deception.
Very interesting LG. I was not aware of that. Can you document this?
Exactly how do you know that people are not born homosexual? From your Bible?? Show us some real proof and perhaps we would believe. Not man's interpretation.
Have you ever thought about the fact that that same line of 'demon oppression-possession' line of ((cough)) 'reasoning' has also been used, with the same amount of scientific sounding detail, about mentally ill people in centuries past? What they used to call 'demon possession' is now known as schizophrenia, paranoia, and various other kinds of mental illnesses, that can be treated with medication, rather than 'driving the demons out'? Which results in far better treatment nowadays than back then in the dark ages. -->
And more and more research has shown that homosexuality is more of natural causes, even in animals. And you think that the 'demon' explanation can get around that? Never mind that that explanation can't be clinically proven. ... But we don't need that now do we, since its all 'spiritual', and can't be tested via medical/scientific methods. Nahh, just some 'Man of God operating all nine all the time' making the determination that homosexuality is demon driven, and we're supposed to take his Word for it?
quote: Exactly how do you know that people are not born homosexual?
I think the burden of proof is on you. If they were born that way, shouldn't they be able to reproduce that way? Everything else in nature that is called 'sexual' reproduces, why not them?
Exactly how do you know that people are not born homosexual? From your Bible?? Show us some real proof and perhaps we would believe.
That I very much doubt.
But if you want a real-world example go ask Anne Heich. You remember her, don't you? Ellen Degeneres' girlfriend when Ellen came out of the closet. They appeared together on Oprah and Oprah asked each of them about being 'born gay'. Ellen upheld the dogma and said she'd always been lesbian. Anne said she'd never been into women before, but just fell in love with Ellen.
A short while later, Anne literally ran screaming from Ellen's house and begged a man to let her in. Today she's married--to a man--and says that, during the whole time she was with Ellen she was out of her mind. Hmmmmm sounds a little bit like maybe...she was...hustled. Maybe she was mentally or spiritually unsound. She was, in her own words, crazy.
At any rate, she was living with an in intimate relationship with, another woman. Not only was she not born gay, she didn't even stay gay.
I also have a relative who dated women exclusively for about six months. Was she born gay. No. She was confused, hurt, and searching.
Is that proof that people aren't born gay? NO. Now, you prove that people ARE born gay. You can't do it. So we can stand here and shoot verbal spitballs at each other, or we can just agree to disagree.
Jbaraxx - we should agree to disagree. That is what I teach my children. Obviously you are not going to change your opinion, nor am I.
But why you are so hung up on homosexuality, perplexes me. Are you going to get extra rewards in heaven for "taking a stand against homosexuality"? How does this affect your life?? Why is homosexuality a "greater sin" than the ten commandments?? Is it that your children must be protected against such decadence?? Your God is not big enough to protect them from such a sinful nature??
I am glad I have found the spirit of life, as opposed to you that still lives under the letter of the law. I think I shall be more peaceful.
Thank you for making that more clear to me by your self-righteous preaching.
I am now absolutely sure I wouldn't want to attend church with you. As I am sure you wouldn't want to attend with me either. I guess my family line isn't good enough for your church.
Have you ever thought about the fact that that same line of 'demon oppression-possession' line of ((cough)) 'reasoning' has also been used, with the same amount of scientific sounding detail, about mentally ill people in centuries past? What they used to call 'demon possession' is now known as schizophrenia, paranoia, and various other kinds of mental illnesses, that can be treated with medication, rather than 'driving the demons out'? Which results in far better treatment nowadays than back then in the dark ages. -->
Yes I have Garth. We've discussed this at length before here in the cafe. Just because the current popular belief denounces the existence of demons doesn't automatically make it so. I don't worship at the altar of science or psychiatry. Some mental conditions are caused by genetics, some are caused by spirits, and, as I noted above, some are caused by both. Trying to classify EVERY case of mental illness as either a completely spiritual problem or a completely physical problem is juvenile at best, dangerously stupid at worst. Some people who are being treated by drugs and therapy can also be helped by spiritual means. Some people simply don't have the faith to overcome the spiritual attack and have to resort to drugs and therapy.
This goes back to a previous comment someone made about deliverance. Some gays get delivered some don't. Likewise some alchoholics get delivered and some don't. Some people get healed of cancer, some die. Does the fact that some people who pray for healing and still die mean that those who claim to have been healed are frauds? No. Life isn't that simple. Some people can receive their deliverance directly from God, others can't.
quote:
And more and more research has shown that homosexuality is more of natural causes, even in animals. And you think that the 'demon' explanation can get around that? Never mind that that explanation can't be clinically proven.
Oh, come on Garth! You, as a master of logic, ought to realize what an abusrd statement that is. How are you going to "clinically" prove something that exists in a realm beyond the natural. We can't clinically prove that God exists, yet most of us KNOW that He does.
quote:
Can you say ..... scam?
According to all four gospels, Jesus cast out demons. Was he a scammer, a fraud, a charlatan?
Can you say....deceived?
By the way, not all psychiatrists subscribe to the notion that all psychosis is natural. I have two books by a prominent psychiatrist who belives that some people are indeed possessed.
Of course, in your staunch naturalistic fervor, you'll denounce him as a Christian fraud/idiot/opportunist/whatever. Nonetheless, as a practicing psychiatrist, who was raised as an agnostic and approaches life with a scientific, analytical mindset, his conclusions shouldn't be arbitrarilly disnmissed.
Okay, I see your point about the 'promiscuity' part.
quote:
GarthP2000:
"What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals."
No, it has been something that 'promiscous' people did, and not the general public.
But you wont admit to that possibility.
My apologies on that point, as you were talking about promiscuity.
But I still see a bias here in your trying to put the 'higher risk' factor on homosexuals (at least that's what it appears to me), than on heterosexuals, never mind that STDs don't discriminate.
quote:
" ... Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, ... "
And yet here you stand saying that homosexuals are more promiscous than anyone else.
Read what I posted again. I was addressing the 'general public perception' as it were, of homosexuals being more sexually promiscuous than heteros, and that's what I thought I saw in your post. Seems we could both use some reading comprehension improvement skills.
quote:
"Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie,"
Well your the one calling me dishonest.
Well, you got to admit. Trying to put the 'homosexuals made a pass' locker room smear was out of line, especially for you. Frankly, I still oppose your bias against gays, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm straight. (I'm not Jewish either, but I can still oppose anti-Semitism.)
Look, I used to have the same 'homophobia' that I see plenty of here on this thread, both subtle and overt, and I've come to realize that there is nothing in homosexuality that is the *dire threat* against Western Civilization that many try to make it out to be, regardless of how some people try to use/twist/mangle bible verses to drum people up with, and usually it's the gays (and their friends/family) that wind up getting hurt/burned/ripped off. ... And for what? Some ignorant and rabid fear of some vengeful god/fear of not being 'man' enough/some other *stoopid* reason to make them the **vile evil ones**. And all for doing something in private that doesn't touch anyone's life here at all!
..... Been there, done that, burnt that damned t-shirt. ... With no repentance thereof. None!
Now if that goes against your sense of ((cough)) 'morality', .... Deal with it!
Jbaraxx - we should agree to disagree. That is what I teach my children. Obviously you are not going to change your opinion, nor am I.
OKAY! :-)
But why you are so hung up on homosexuality, perplexes me.
I'm not "hung up" on homosexuality. I just saw a thread that was tilted to one side of an argument and decided to present the other side. I'm just very thorough. If we were talking about PFAL, you'd assume I'm "hung up" on discrediting the class. But maybe I do get a little too animated in here. Maybe I like debate too much. It runs in the family.
quote:
Are you going to get extra rewards in heaven for "taking a stand against homosexuality"?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of those.
quote:
How does this affect your life??
It affects my life because I have two children. And I have to raise them in a culture that consistently pushes the idea that homosexuality is good, normal, and decent. Therefore, I have the responsibility of presenting what I believe is the truth. If I just accept the mainstream mantra and tell my kids that it's okay to be "gay", then I may have to answer for that when I get to heaven. You know, the whole, watchman at the gate thing. If I tell them the truth and they go the other way, they have to deal with the consequences. If I know the truth and am too lazy or intimidated by the vox populi to declare it, then their blood is on my head.
quote:
Why is homosexuality a "greater sin" than the ten commandments??
I don't think I said it was "a greater sin" than (breaking)ten commandments. But, I did point out that, even in a New Testament epistle that espouses righteousness by faith, homosexuality is called "vile", "against nature" and "unseemly". Why is that? I don't know. Ask God or the Apostle Paul. I'll bet only one of them will answer you. :-)
quote:
Is it that your children must be protected against such decadence??
See above
quote:
Your God is not big enough to protect them from such a sinful nature??
This is an illogical statement and will be ignored. No seriously. God expects us to be aware of the "wiles of the devil". Jesus told his aposltes to be "wise as serpents" but harmless as doves. Just because God is powerful doesn't mean Christians are supposed to be stupid and ignore evil. Using God's protective power as an excuse for being blind and/or lazy certainly won't get me any rewards in heaven.
quote:
I am glad I have found the spirit of life, as opposed to you that still lives under the letter of the law.
You presume too much dear lady. Not only do I not live under the letter of the law (I don't sacrifices lambs, doves, or goats), I'm not even a fundamentalist. (Someone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible). I just do my best to obey God's will for my life. My beliefs are based as much on what I've experienced and on what God has taught me as they are on what's written.
quote:
I think I shall be more peaceful.
I certainly hope so. But being "peaceul" and being right are not always the same thing. Truth is not always a happy thing. Jesus said something about bringing a sword and dividing households, didn't he? Sounds dreadfully un-peaceful to me.
quote:
Thank you for making that more clear to me by your self-righteous preaching.
Think nothin' of it. :-)
quote:
I am now absolutely sure I wouldn't want to attend church with you. As I am sure you wouldn't want to attend with me either.
There goes that "birds of a feather thing kicking in. Now you're discriminating against me! How dare you!!
quote:
I guess my family line isn't good enough for your church.
Well, like I said above, I don't have one. But you and your smart, talented, daughter would certainly be welcome at the one my wife goes to. They accept everybody. But they'll sill tell you that homosexuality is not good for you and is something you should try to get delivered from. Because they love people and don't think it's a loving, Christian thing to see someone in need of help and be too much of a whimp to tell them so.
I for one am glad, that jbarraxx, cleared up all my misconceptions...
now i can sleep knowing someone is on the homo brigade...
seriously, if you believe that G-d is your father, and all loving, how could he love one child less, simply because that child has a relationship with someone of the same sex, or does your g-d love them but is "disapointed"?
Good gravy! Please people. Take a page from the Garth-Galen book and actually READ what someone posts. Don't make invalid assumptions. I never said ANYTHING about loving one child less than the other.
What I said was, if you LOVE a child, you help him or her to overcome a problem by believing God for help rather than rationalzing it and making them feel comfortable in it. I love my children equally. Never indicated anything different.
Now let's get back to this rollicking discussion, shall we?
Jerry, to the extent that people proclaiming those numbers cite a source, it is either Cameron’s 1994 article in Omega, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic" or a 1993 paper he presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, “The Homosexual Lifespan. You can probably find the Omega article in a university library or order it from Cameron’s Family Research Institute, where you can also get information he puts out about himself. For some less favorable information about him and his studies, CLICK HERE. You could also search the Internet using terms like “cameron,” “homosexual,” “lifespan,” “longevity,” “obituary,” etc.
I don't worship at the altar of science or psychiatry.
What does that have to do with getting beyond the dictates of some prophet to the testings of medical/scientific world to see what the actual cause of the mental disturbance is? And this line of yours?
quote:
You, as a master of logic, ought to realize what an abusrd statement that is. How are you going to "clinically" prove something that exists in a realm beyond the natural. We can't clinically prove that God exists, yet most of us KNOW that He does.
No, you *believe* He does, whereas KNOWING something is based on something proveable, something you can show consistantly. ... Big difference. And your belief in the spiritual as tho' it has been proven true, is based on the presupposition that such a world exists (and in your terms). The scientific/medical world is (supposed to be) based on observable, proveable facts/conditions with which to deal with. Trying to maintain this 'spirit influence' argument as a clinical means of treatment is flawed because its based on the defense/faith in the 'spiritual' argument regardless of what the physical facts may show. (Plus, can you imagine trying to get Blue Cross/Blue Shield to cover that treatment? :P) And trying to show the proveability of something spiritual simply because there might be a possibility of it?
quote:
Some people who are being treated by drugs and therapy can also be helped by spiritual means. Some people simply don't have the faith to overcome the spiritual attack and have to resort to drugs and therapy.
So basically what you're saying is that you can control/deal with the higher, spiritual cause (demons), with the lower, physical solution (medicine, therapy)?
Wow! That's rich! :D--> Gotta remember that one. NOW look at who's being absurd! Demons? Being driven away due to some pills? ... But hey, can't prove it, but we don't need to, do we, cuz all we have to do to get around that minor annoyance is call it 'spiritual'. ... Hmmmmm, seems kinda convenient to me. ... TOO convenient.
Same kind of 'convenience' that's used regarding 'treating' homosexuality.
Uh huh! :P
quote:
I'm not even a fundamentalist. (Someone who believes in the infallibility of the Bible).
Really? Then why do you use it as such? Or as one who doesn't believe that the Bible is infallable, you ever think that what's written, even if it was against homosexuality, was more based on human ignorance re: that area, than on theopnuestos of the Scriptures?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
37
30
26
63
Popular Days
Apr 26
46
Apr 27
43
Apr 28
42
Apr 29
36
Top Posters In This Topic
Jbarrax 37 posts
LG 30 posts
J0nny Ling0 26 posts
outofdafog 63 posts
Popular Days
Apr 26 2005
46 posts
Apr 27 2005
43 posts
Apr 28 2005
42 posts
Apr 29 2005
36 posts
J0nny Ling0
"Buggery" is more risky than male/female copulation because of the common occurrance of ruptured capillaries, wherein the blood can pass from human to human freely. Kinda gross to me, really. But since this practice is more prevalent amongst homosexual males than it is amongst hetero sexual couples, it seems that they are more "at risk".
That's the reason I said it, which has it's validation, as Trefor Haywood once agreed on another "raucous" gay debate thread not long ago. I think it was the "homosexual marriage in Massachussetts" thread back when Mass was in the limelight over it.
I also used the phrase as a humorous quote from "Doctor Evil" in Austin Powers, when Dr. Evil was talking of his "evil childhood", and how his father had a "penchant for..."
But really, only properly collected statistics could prove the "lower average life span theory", but I do agree with JBarrax that it is a riskier lifestyle than the hetero lifestyle. Personally, I am glad my kids are straight...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Someone said;
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
GarthP2000:
“That 'observation' is so flawed and dishonest, even on it's face, ... and you know it. (So why do you make it?)”
My observations from my own personal experiences are ‘dishonest’?
If I see ‘X’, and I tell you that I see ‘X’, that is not dishonest. Even if what I saw was flavored by my prejudice, or bad-lighting, or if I truly did not understand what I saw; if I give an honest assessment of what I saw then it is honest. Rather than dishonest.
“L'see, where to begin. First off, using ONLY women on the heterosexual side compared to homosexual men in your example of coming on to you, as a means of showing why homosexuals are more promiscuous than heteros. ... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'.
-->”
It has not been my experience that non-promiscous-heterosexual men have ever made passes at me [unlike you] so obviously I could not be capable to making any comments on how that happens, or when, or under what circumstances.
Perhaps you who are so experienced could possibly enlighten us?
My post was made purely within the limited context of comparing Promiscuous ‘A’ with Promiscuous ‘B’, you insist on wedging into it Non-promiscuous people. I am sorry. Obviously I did not state it clearly even or with enough multiplicity for you to catch it.
This direct quote:
“From that life-experiences impression that I have gained, I would have to side with the assumption that promiscuous-homosexuals are at higher risk than promiscuous-heterosexuals.”
For example perhaps missed your notice.
“Two, when you are going to include your own observation in a conclusion about a group of people, it would be more honest to include what you have observed other people doing in the same context to come to a more well rounded observation.”
Again we disagree about what makes 'honesty'.
Again I am sorry. But I really don’t pay any attention to others so would you please do the honours of telling us exactly what happens each time that non-promiscuous heterosexaul men hit on you?
Than both sides will be covered, both: promiscuous people hitting on strangers for spontaneous sex, and non-promiscuous people hitting on strangers for sex.
“Come on, Galen. You can do better than that.”
Since you are so eager to find fault perhaps you could help.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Sharon-
That sounds good.
Or He dislikes followers who treat each other 'treacherously'.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Sharon and Galen,
This is off topic but I'm curious. Why do you write "G-d" instead of "God?" I've noticed that Galen doesn't change "God" when he quotes the Bible. Do you, Sharon? When either of you speak the word, do you pronounce it like everyone else does?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Speaking of dealing treacherously, ....
Galen,
"Even if what I saw was flavored by my prejudice, or bad-lighting, or if I truly did not understand what I saw; if I give an honest assessment of what I saw then it is honest. Rather than dishonest."
What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals. It's like a white guy being ripped off by a black person, and then uses his own POV to judge all blacks from that, rather than looking around, and learning that that's not what all black people do. While its an understandable and human thing to do, both you and I know that its a flawed judgement nonetheless. Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, but to stay loyal to your biblical beliefs, you run with it anyway. ... Now I could be wrong in that rendering, but just call it a hunch that I have.
And I would be willing to make that particular judgement for another reason, which shows me how much of a jerk you are, ie:
"It has not been my experience that non-promiscous-heterosexual men have ever made passes at me [unlike you]...".
Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie,
"... Ahhh, what about heterosexual men? And no, not in coming on to you, BUT in coming on to women. So how promiscuous is that, hmmm? I notice that you leave that out in your 'observation'."
you'd know that. But then again, being loyal to your biblical beliefs kinda holds you back from doing that, huh? And I put it in there because I thought you'd catch that and not come back with your juvenile crack. (Tell me something, is that a little locker room humor they taught you in the Navy, hmmm? Please, the Navy has a bad enough of a rep w/o you adding to it)
And all this .... in the Name of your God?? One that expects worship??
I don't think so!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Please go back and re-read my post. What I said is" People aren't born gay. They either choose it or are coerced and pulled into it; often by a combination of lust, frustration, alchohol and drugs--and spirits. It's a mean hustle for sure, but it's still a hustle."
I think mostly it's the latter. Spirits pepper people's minds with thoughts. The average person is completely unaware of the existence of demonic spirits so they think these "thoughts" are their own. If this goes on long enough, the persson is eventually worn down and they surrender to it and the spirit is "in". Or the hustle may come through the aggressive action of another person. I know of one instance where a young believer was at a bar and got drunk. A lesbian got her drunker and did her best to seduce her, both by kissing her and blowing marijuana smoke into her mouth trying to get her high so she could take her home. Some other believers tried to intercede and the lesbian threatened them phsyically. She ended up taking the girl home with her. That's what I call a hustle. Seduction actually. The girl involved didn't make a calm, deliberate choice to go home with a lesbian. She was seduced.
I'm not saying that all lesbians are sexually aggressive, hard-drinking, pot-smoking predators. It's just an example
There are lots of ways spirits get control of people's lives, but the fact that most people are ignorant of their very existence, let alone their methods only makes their jobs easier. And the fact that so many Christians teach that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual certainly makes their job much easier.
Good question. There are certainly other weaknesses people fall into. Depression, suicide, alcoholism. Any of them can be produced in part by genetic predispostion, or spiritual pressure. Often the spiritual pressure merely augments natural pressure from circumstances. Spirits can take an bad situation and make it unbearable. If the person under attack recognizes what's going on and asks God for help, the spirits are defeated and the situation becomes manageable. If he doesn't recongize what's going on, he can be driven to suicide, a violent rage, a drunken binge, or maybe a homosexual episode. It depends on the circumstances, the person's weaknesses. Like I said, it's a hustle. The "choice" if there is any, in such a circumstance, is merely a failure to choose to seek God for help and deliverance.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
GarthP2000:
"What you posted was flawed and dishonest was because you portrayed your own perception of homosexuals hitting on you AS tho' it was the general promiscuity of homosexuals."
No, it has been something that 'promiscous' people did, and not the general public.
But you wont admit to that possibility.
" ... Yet here you are trying to add to that judgement, a flawed judgement regardless, that homosexuals are overall more promiscuous than straights. ... And I think that deep down, you know that it's a flawed argument, ... "
And yet here you stand saying that homosexuals are more promiscous than anyone else.
I carefully did not say such a thing, you did.
I said that there is a general public perception that they are, but in honesty I have no idea if they are or not [which I have said before but you refuse to hear, now is that your dishonesty?].
heh heh heh
"Hey d*ck, I never had that experience happen to me, and if you were honest enough and read the WHOLE of what I said previously, ie,"
Well your the one calling me dishonest.
"And all this .... in the Name of your God?? One that expects worship??"
???
Did I say something in the context of worship?
Or are you being dishonest again?
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I suppose we should just ignore every other verse in the Bible that clearly says that homosexuality is unacceptable to God. Like, say for instance, Leviticus 18:22
Oh, wait. That's the OLD testament. The law was done away with. Wait, there's more. Try Romans 1:25-27 for instance.
so if you're going to cite Sodom and Gommorrah and try to imply that the Bible doesn't say that God condemns homosexuality, you need to keep reading. Even in Romans, the epistle that sets forth th standard of righteousness by faith, homosexual conduct is clearly denounced as unseemly (disgraceful or shameful), and unnatural. By the way, if a certain amount of the population is "born gay", it is a natural situation. Romans says it's "against nature", which is one of the reasons Bible believers denounce the argument that people are born that way.
I don't have a Church and don't currently go to Church. This kind of thing is best handled privately in a family setting. I would never try to minister to someone for homosexuality in a public setting unless they asked me too. And I'm not a minister, so I would probably just refer them to someone more qualified.
It's not just "some Christians" who are uncomfortable with homosexuality. Most people are, if you put it in their faces. People who accept the idea that some men are gay will still grimace or squirm if they see two men kissing. That's because it's unnatural and the sight of such behaviour makes people uncomfortable on a gut level.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Very interesting LG. I was not aware of that. Can you document this?
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Exactly how do you know that people are not born homosexual? From your Bible?? Show us some real proof and perhaps we would believe. Not man's interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Jerry,
Have you ever thought about the fact that that same line of 'demon oppression-possession' line of ((cough)) 'reasoning' has also been used, with the same amount of scientific sounding detail, about mentally ill people in centuries past? What they used to call 'demon possession' is now known as schizophrenia, paranoia, and various other kinds of mental illnesses, that can be treated with medication, rather than 'driving the demons out'? Which results in far better treatment nowadays than back then in the dark ages.
-->
And more and more research has shown that homosexuality is more of natural causes, even in animals. And you think that the 'demon' explanation can get around that? Never mind that that explanation can't be clinically proven. ... But we don't need that now do we, since its all 'spiritual', and can't be tested via medical/scientific methods. Nahh, just some 'Man of God operating all nine all the time' making the determination that homosexuality is demon driven, and we're supposed to take his Word for it?
Can you say ..... scam?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Exactly how do you know that people are not born homosexual?
I think the burden of proof is on you. If they were born that way, shouldn't they be able to reproduce that way? Everything else in nature that is called 'sexual' reproduces, why not them?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
But if you want a real-world example go ask Anne Heich. You remember her, don't you? Ellen Degeneres' girlfriend when Ellen came out of the closet. They appeared together on Oprah and Oprah asked each of them about being 'born gay'. Ellen upheld the dogma and said she'd always been lesbian. Anne said she'd never been into women before, but just fell in love with Ellen.
A short while later, Anne literally ran screaming from Ellen's house and begged a man to let her in. Today she's married--to a man--and says that, during the whole time she was with Ellen she was out of her mind. Hmmmmm sounds a little bit like maybe...she was...hustled. Maybe she was mentally or spiritually unsound. She was, in her own words, crazy.
At any rate, she was living with an in intimate relationship with, another woman. Not only was she not born gay, she didn't even stay gay.
I also have a relative who dated women exclusively for about six months. Was she born gay. No. She was confused, hurt, and searching.
Is that proof that people aren't born gay? NO. Now, you prove that people ARE born gay. You can't do it. So we can stand here and shoot verbal spitballs at each other, or we can just agree to disagree.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Jbaraxx - we should agree to disagree. That is what I teach my children. Obviously you are not going to change your opinion, nor am I.
But why you are so hung up on homosexuality, perplexes me. Are you going to get extra rewards in heaven for "taking a stand against homosexuality"? How does this affect your life?? Why is homosexuality a "greater sin" than the ten commandments?? Is it that your children must be protected against such decadence?? Your God is not big enough to protect them from such a sinful nature??
I am glad I have found the spirit of life, as opposed to you that still lives under the letter of the law. I think I shall be more peaceful.
Thank you for making that more clear to me by your self-righteous preaching.
I am now absolutely sure I wouldn't want to attend church with you. As I am sure you wouldn't want to attend with me either. I guess my family line isn't good enough for your church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
johniam:
why should the burden of proof be on me?? Why not the bible spouter??
Even nature has shown that animals are bisexual. I have a neutered cat that keeps trying to hump the other male. I have nothing to prove to anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Yes I have Garth. We've discussed this at length before here in the cafe. Just because the current popular belief denounces the existence of demons doesn't automatically make it so. I don't worship at the altar of science or psychiatry. Some mental conditions are caused by genetics, some are caused by spirits, and, as I noted above, some are caused by both. Trying to classify EVERY case of mental illness as either a completely spiritual problem or a completely physical problem is juvenile at best, dangerously stupid at worst. Some people who are being treated by drugs and therapy can also be helped by spiritual means. Some people simply don't have the faith to overcome the spiritual attack and have to resort to drugs and therapy.
This goes back to a previous comment someone made about deliverance. Some gays get delivered some don't. Likewise some alchoholics get delivered and some don't. Some people get healed of cancer, some die. Does the fact that some people who pray for healing and still die mean that those who claim to have been healed are frauds? No. Life isn't that simple. Some people can receive their deliverance directly from God, others can't.
Oh, come on Garth! You, as a master of logic, ought to realize what an abusrd statement that is. How are you going to "clinically" prove something that exists in a realm beyond the natural. We can't clinically prove that God exists, yet most of us KNOW that He does.
According to all four gospels, Jesus cast out demons. Was he a scammer, a fraud, a charlatan?
Can you say....deceived?
By the way, not all psychiatrists subscribe to the notion that all psychosis is natural. I have two books by a prominent psychiatrist who belives that some people are indeed possessed.
Click here for more information
Of course, in your staunch naturalistic fervor, you'll denounce him as a Christian fraud/idiot/opportunist/whatever. Nonetheless, as a practicing psychiatrist, who was raised as an agnostic and approaches life with a scientific, analytical mindset, his conclusions shouldn't be arbitrarilly disnmissed.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
lust, frustration, alcohol and drugs, yep that is what I have taught my teen.....
that,s what made her a lesbian. God thanks Jbarraxx - without your spiritual guidance I would have always wondered that. NOT!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Galen,
Okay, I see your point about the 'promiscuity' part.
My apologies on that point, as you were talking about promiscuity.
But I still see a bias here in your trying to put the 'higher risk' factor on homosexuals (at least that's what it appears to me), than on heterosexuals, never mind that STDs don't discriminate.
Read what I posted again. I was addressing the 'general public perception' as it were, of homosexuals being more sexually promiscuous than heteros, and that's what I thought I saw in your post. Seems we could both use some reading comprehension improvement skills.
Well, you got to admit. Trying to put the 'homosexuals made a pass' locker room smear was out of line, especially for you. Frankly, I still oppose your bias against gays, and as far as I'm concerned, I'm straight. (I'm not Jewish either, but I can still oppose anti-Semitism.)
Look, I used to have the same 'homophobia' that I see plenty of here on this thread, both subtle and overt, and I've come to realize that there is nothing in homosexuality that is the *dire threat* against Western Civilization that many try to make it out to be, regardless of how some people try to use/twist/mangle bible verses to drum people up with, and usually it's the gays (and their friends/family) that wind up getting hurt/burned/ripped off. ... And for what? Some ignorant and rabid fear of some vengeful god/fear of not being 'man' enough/some other *stoopid* reason to make them the **vile evil ones**. And all for doing something in private that doesn't touch anyone's life here at all!
..... Been there, done that, burnt that damned t-shirt. ... With no repentance thereof. None!
Now if that goes against your sense of ((cough)) 'morality', .... Deal with it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Good gravy! Please people. Take a page from the Garth-Galen book and actually READ what someone posts. Don't make invalid assumptions. I never said ANYTHING about loving one child less than the other.
What I said was, if you LOVE a child, you help him or her to overcome a problem by believing God for help rather than rationalzing it and making them feel comfortable in it. I love my children equally. Never indicated anything different.
Now let's get back to this rollicking discussion, shall we?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Jerry, to the extent that people proclaiming those numbers cite a source, it is either Cameron’s 1994 article in Omega, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic" or a 1993 paper he presented to the Eastern Psychological Association, “The Homosexual Lifespan. You can probably find the Omega article in a university library or order it from Cameron’s Family Research Institute, where you can also get information he puts out about himself. For some less favorable information about him and his studies, CLICK HERE. You could also search the Internet using terms like “cameron,” “homosexual,” “lifespan,” “longevity,” “obituary,” etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What does that have to do with getting beyond the dictates of some prophet to the testings of medical/scientific world to see what the actual cause of the mental disturbance is? And this line of yours?
No, you *believe* He does, whereas KNOWING something is based on something proveable, something you can show consistantly. ... Big difference. And your belief in the spiritual as tho' it has been proven true, is based on the presupposition that such a world exists (and in your terms). The scientific/medical world is (supposed to be) based on observable, proveable facts/conditions with which to deal with. Trying to maintain this 'spirit influence' argument as a clinical means of treatment is flawed because its based on the defense/faith in the 'spiritual' argument regardless of what the physical facts may show. (Plus, can you imagine trying to get Blue Cross/Blue Shield to cover that treatment? :P) And trying to show the proveability of something spiritual simply because there might be a possibility of it?
So basically what you're saying is that you can control/deal with the higher, spiritual cause (demons), with the lower, physical solution (medicine, therapy)?
Wow! That's rich!
:D--> Gotta remember that one. NOW look at who's being absurd! Demons? Being driven away due to some pills? ... But hey, can't prove it, but we don't need to, do we, cuz all we have to do to get around that minor annoyance is call it 'spiritual'. ... Hmmmmm, seems kinda convenient to me. ... TOO convenient.
Same kind of 'convenience' that's used regarding 'treating' homosexuality.
Uh huh! :P
Really? Then why do you use it as such? Or as one who doesn't believe that the Bible is infallable, you ever think that what's written, even if it was against homosexuality, was more based on human ignorance re: that area, than on theopnuestos of the Scriptures?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.