|  New Posts
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Alexander
Reply with quote  #76 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960

Why are some so incredibly obsessed with forcing society to endorse their lifestyle?


A little thing called freedom.
Quote:

When it comes to the characterization that some are seeking to "ram their beliefs down the throats of Americans", there is no better example than that of the activist homosexual contingent.  They've done an incredible job along with our corrupt media in misleading a lot of people.


It is beyond me how some people think that they have to use government force to take away the rights of others, and anything less is the oppressed group "forcing" their beliefs on everyone. Give me a break.

Quote:


It's understandable that people who engage in behavior that puts them at extreme risk of so many debilitating and even lethal diseases are eager to have the rest of society pick up the tab for their medical care.


Their views on how medical care should be handled is a completely different issue than gay rights. Plus, you wouldn't ever suggest that driving should be illegal due to the fact that is the most dangerous act the average American takes part in. Not to mention that taking away gay rights is not going to stop them from having sex. 

Quote:
Ought not the cold hard facts be included in the discussion? Homosexual behavior doesn't occur in a vacuum.  People are dead because of irresponsible, promiscuous, dirty, filthy homosexual behavior.  Anal sex is unhealthful, period, and the consequences of it affect society at large.  So why would someone wish to avert homosexual desires?  To avoid an early grave?


As I said above, you don't apply this standard to other activities. I also have to ask, what do you think the proper role of the government is? Should the government ban all risky behavior, even if it isn't inherently dangerous but only potentially dangerous? There are risks in a lot of things we do, should they all be banned?
TheProblemOfAtheism
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsallgood
Why would (homosexuals) want to change in a society that accepted and supported them?


Why are some so incredibly obsessed with forcing society to endorse their lifestyle?

When it comes to the characterization that some are seeking to "ram their beliefs down the throats of Americans", there is no better example than that of the activist homosexual contingent.  They've done an incredible job along with our corrupt media in misleading a lot of people.

It's understandable that people who engage in behavior that puts them at extreme risk of so many debilitating and even lethal diseases are eager to have the rest of society pick up the tab for their medical care.

Men who have sex with other men (MSM) are forty or more times more likely to contract all kinds of nasty sexually transmittable diseases. This is cold hard fact. See the reports by the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts -msm-final508comp.pdf

(notice the above reports in terms of number rather than per-capita. In terms of per capita or percentage of MSM (men who have sex with other men), the stats are beyond outrageous. More than half of all new HIV cases are among MSM who make up as much as 2% of the total population (about 4% of men, a liberal figure). So if you are a MSM, your chance of contracting HIV is 25 times greater than the rest of the population. That's 2,500% more likely to contract aids than others.

Oops, my stats are old. It's even worse now...


quote:

The range was 522-989 cases of new HIV diagnoses per 100,000 MSM vs. 12 per 100,000 other men and 13 per 100,000 women.



So worst case MSM are 989/12.5 = 79 (7,900%) more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the rest of the population. Best case MSM are 522/12.5 = 41.7 (4,170%) more likely to contract HIV/AIDS than the rest of the population.


quote:

The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says. The range was 91-173 cases per 100,000 MSM vs. 2 per 100,000 other men and 1 per 100,000 women.



http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/msmpressreleas e.html

Ought not the cold hard facts be included in the discussion? Homosexual behavior doesn't occur in a vacuum.
  People are dead because of irresponsible, promiscuous, dirty, filthy homosexual behavior.  Anal sex is unhealthful, period, and the consequences of it affect society at large.  So why would someone wish to avert homosexual desires?  To avoid an early grave?
The numbers are mindboggling. It looks like the pro-gay position is promoting a sort of genocide.
troyjs
Reply with quote  #78 
Has anyone heard the debate on gay marriage between Dr Michael Brown, and Dr Eric Smaw?

It is interesting that the proponent of gay marriage did not want to get into what research has to say, whereas the oponent of gay marriage was arguing from knowledge gained by extensive research.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/michael-brown-and-eric-smaw-debate-should-same-sex-marriage-be-legal/

I am curious if anyone has even heard of his book:
'A Queer Thing Happened To America"



kind regards
unluckynumber11
Reply with quote  #79 
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyjs
Has anyone heard the debate on gay marriage between Dr Michael Brown, and Dr Eric Smaw?

It is interesting that the proponent of gay marriage did not want to get into what research has to say, whereas the oponent of gay marriage was arguing from knowledge gained by extensive research.

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/michael-brown-and-eric-smaw-debate-should-same-sex-marriage-be-legal/

I am curious if anyone has even heard of his book:
'A Queer Thing Happened To America"



kind regards
I have seen this before, it was really lacking on the pro-gay-marriage side, and he didn't really answer the other sides' questions, which I guess is what were left with, because no one wants to face the answers. 
On another note it's so funny that those in the pro-gay-marriage side are pretty much always playing the victim card, mostly for cheap rhetorical points so that it sounds like they're right when it has nothing to do with the debate that is going on. As well as the amount of bullying that is done by the pro-gay-marriage people. As I have said before, tolerance seems to be a one way street these days.
Blake1960
Reply with quote  #80 
Why ought we radically redefine marriage?  Why ought we not continue to recognize the unique union, the only one inherently capable of procreation, for the very special role it plays in our society, to the very existence of humanity?

Marriage requires a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, who are naturally complementary and suited for physical joining and procreation. 

Anal intercourse is nothing but an unhealthful dirty filthy behavior. It truly is an abomination. The bible has it dead accurate on that point. It certainly is NOTHING comparable to natural sexual behavior between married couples. To pretend so is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by our corrupt popular culture and the corrupt deceitful news media.

All that said, perpetrating homosexual behavior may be no more or less an abomination than any other such blatant violation of G-d's will. Heck, it doesn't even explicitly make the list of G-d's ten primary commandment for us.

And finally, love the sinner, hate the sin, and always face down deceivers with the truth. Truth matters. Deceivers hate being exposed to the glaring light of truth.

Blake1960
Reply with quote  #81 
Alexander,

>>> A little thing called freedom.

Please explain how maintaining the traditional definition of marriage impinges upon anyone's freedom.

You may do as you like. That is freedom..

Mandating that others do as you like is tyranny.
troyjs
Reply with quote  #82 
I had known that according to political philosophy, legislation is only the jurisdiction of the State upon matters which affect the well-being of the State -- in America, the protection of inalienable rights, and of legal rights derived therefrom.

Given that the validity of legislation is contingent upon the relevant content of a charter of rights, eg., the Bill of Rights, to change legislation concerning marriage, upon the basis of 'gay-rights', is to put the cart before the horse. It must be discussed first, whether there is such thing as a 'gay-right' which is distinct from the rights of any citizen. Presently, the laws have the same authority over all citizens.In a state where homosexual marriage is not recognised, noone has more rights than another. Heterosexual people, can't marry anyone of the same sex either. Homosexual unions are already recognised, but the term, 'marriage' is used to make a distinction which pertains to the nucleus of a societal system. The primary resource of a society, is it's citizens, and it is primarily through the institution of marriage that this resource is obtained. Because 'heterosexual marriage' has been, and still is, valued highly by societes, there is a anthropologically meaningful distinction between sexual relationships in general, and the relationship of which the biological principle is that of the 'life' of that society.

Even if homosexual marriage was recognised, there would still be the anthropologically, and biologically valuable need for a distinction which uniquely pertains to the nucleus of society -- heterosexual marriage.

It is not surprising then, that many homosexuals think that the concept of homosexual marriage is irrational. Many homosexuals understand that the term, 'marriage', has a referent which has anthropological, political, and legal value, which requires the distinction between general lasting sexual relationships or unions, and the anthropologico-biological phenomenon of kinship we used to call 'marriage'-- especially as it relates to human society.
We could use 'narriage' to refer to what we used to call, 'marriage', and call every other monogamous relationship, 'marriage'. But then, I suppose that someone may say that a homosexual couple should be able to have a 'narriage'. Because there are already sam-sex unions, this is exactly what kind of debate we are having. The term, 'marriage' is only used to make a distinction in regards to the nucleus of human society. Homosexual couples may have the term applied to them, but the distinction is still there.

I remember hearing or reading a homosexual opponent of homosexual marriage, say that the proponents either say that we should recognise gay-marriage otherwise we will be 'left behind' in comparison to countries which have already recognised it, or because it is a matter of human rights. In both cases, the arguments are not very robust at all.


kind regards
Blake1960
Reply with quote  #83 
That was an interesting analysis of the issue, but I'm disappointed that in all that you didn't once employ the word "filthy.".

When can we redefine what it means to be a doctor? So many would feel better about themselves if they could just officially be recognized as "doctor."

How about we redefine what it means to be an American citizen too while we're at it? Let's help all the law breaking illegal immigrants feel better about themselves.
TheProblemOfAtheism
Reply with quote  #84 
Not only is it tyranny, but it's completely irrational:

It has to be only about definitions, because a civil union that allows gays the same rights as non-gays is deemed insufficient.

But if a failure to redefine marriage is deemed an impingement of someone's freedom, than a failure to redefine anything to be more inclusive is an impingement on someone's freedom.

How dare you say I can't be a papaya? We must now redefine papaya so that my right to be a papaya is not impinged.


troyjs
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
How dare you say I can't be a papaya? We must now redefine papaya so that my right to be a papaya is not impinged. 


Stop being logical. Don't you know that whatever Oprah, Tyra Banks, Ellen, and Hollywood in general says, is given by inspiration?


itsallgood
Reply with quote  #86 
Quote:
All that said, perpetrating homosexual behavior may be no more or less an abomination than any other such blatant violation of G-d's will. Heck, it doesn't even explicitly make the list of G-d's ten primary commandment for us.


Firstly you are welcome to not partake of homosexual behaviour if you think it offends your imaginary friend, but what gives you the right to attack others about it?

Secondly i have read his top 10 and find most of them very telling in regards to his control issues, a couple make sense i suppose but are hardly original.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960


When can we redefine what it means to be a doctor? So many would feel better about themselves if they could just officially be recognized as "doctor."


You mean like religion does giving the likes of kent hovind the ability to call himself a doctor?

Quote:
How about we redefine what it means to be an American citizen too while we're at it? Let's help all the law breaking illegal immigrants feel better about themselves.

Anal intercourse is nothing but an unhealthful dirty filthy behavior. It truly is an abomination.

And finally, love the sinner, hate the sin, and always face down deceivers with the truth. Truth matters. Deceivers hate being exposed to the glaring light of truth.


You are really just raving at this point.
TheProblemOfAtheism
Reply with quote  #87 
Quote:
Originally Posted by itsallgood
Quote:
All that said, perpetrating homosexual behavior may be no more or less an abomination than any other such blatant violation of G-d's will. Heck, it doesn't even explicitly make the list of G-d's ten primary commandment for us.


Firstly you are welcome to not partake of homosexual behaviour if you think it offends your imaginary friend, but what gives you the right to attack others about it?

Secondly i have read his top 10 and find most of them very telling in regards to his control issues, a couple make sense i suppose but are hardly original.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960


When can we redefine what it means to be a doctor? So many would feel better about themselves if they could just officially be recognized as "doctor."


You mean like religion does giving the likes of kent hovind the ability to call himself a doctor?

Quote:
How about we redefine what it means to be an American citizen too while we're at it? Let's help all the law breaking illegal immigrants feel better about themselves.

Anal intercourse is nothing but an unhealthful dirty filthy behavior. It truly is an abomination.

And finally, love the sinner, hate the sin, and always face down deceivers with the truth. Truth matters. Deceivers hate being exposed to the glaring light of truth.


You are really just raving at this point.

I thought raves went out of style years ago.
Alexander
Reply with quote  #88 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960
Alexander,

>>> A little thing called freedom.

Please explain how maintaining the traditional definition of marriage impinges upon anyone's freedom.

You may do as you like. That is freedom..

Mandating that others do as you like is tyranny.


Please tell me how allowing other people to marry is affecting anything you do. Let me break it down for you:

A: Only straight couples can get married.
B: Both gay and straight couples can get married.

In scenario A, you are allowed to marry unimpeded by any outside influences. In scenario A, a gay couple cannot get married. In scenario B, a gay couple can get married. In scenario B, you are allowed to marry unimpeded by any outside influences. Now please tell me how you have less freedom in scenario B.

Everyone has rights, the only limitation on our rights is the equal rights of others. Such as, you cannot exercise a 'right' to murder because that impedes on someone else's right to life. Likewise, your right to marry the woman you love (assuming she agrees to marry you) is not infringed by someone else's right to marry the person they love, even if they are of the same sex.

To answer your original question, Scenario A only offers this freedom to straight couples, while Scenario B offers this freedom to both gay and straight couples. Therefore we can say unequivocally that Scenario B offers more freedom.

Alexander
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake1960
Why ought we radically redefine marriage?  Why ought we not continue to recognize the unique union, the only one inherently capable of procreation, for the very special role it plays in our society, to the very existence of humanity?

Marriage requires a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, who are naturally complementary and suited for physical joining and procreation. 

Anal intercourse is nothing but an unhealthful dirty filthy behavior. It truly is an abomination. The bible has it dead accurate on that point. It certainly is NOTHING comparable to natural sexual behavior between married couples. To pretend so is one of the biggest lies perpetrated by our corrupt popular culture and the corrupt deceitful news media.

All that said, perpetrating homosexual behavior may be no more or less an abomination than any other such blatant violation of G-d's will. Heck, it doesn't even explicitly make the list of G-d's ten primary commandment for us.

And finally, love the sinner, hate the sin, and always face down deceivers with the truth. Truth matters. Deceivers hate being exposed to the glaring light of truth.



Okay, so you aren't really worried about marriage, but anal sex? At the risk of stating the obvious; gay couples will be having sex whether or not they are allowed to marry. This also begs the question as to what is your argument against two women marrying? Since they can't have sex in such a way.

And since you have stated that homosexuality is against God's will, is it accurate to say that you think our government should be based on the word of God? If so, how is this not a theocracy (or do you openly admit to wanting a theocracy?)? And what about all the people who aren't Christians? Should they be required to live by a religion they don't believe in? The scary thing about this, that Christians often overlook, is that if the government has the power to enforce a religion you believe in, it has the power to enforce a religion you don't believe in. If there is no separation of church and state then all it would take is a majority vote to change our laws to fit the word of Allah.
Blake1960
Reply with quote  #90 
>>> A: Only straight couples can get married.
>>> B: Both gay and straight couples can get married.

You conveniently ignore that one is structurally, and intimately different, not the same.

Let's be honest and employ your logic.

A1: Only straight couples can get married.
A2: Only straight couples have the natural complimentary potential to conceive children.
A3: Only straight couples possess the natural complimentary means to continue the human race.
A4: Because of their unique and vital roles in human existence, we recognize the union of man and woman with reverence and honor by assigning to it a very specific name all its own, "marriage."

B: Some homosexuals apparently crave that same special recognition and want to diminish the role of normal healthy human behavior. It is pure selfishness.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:



Important: The Reasonable Faith forums have moved to: www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/






Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.