News and Politics Forum

Buho wrote:

zukiphile wrote:

Buho wrote:

If you compare a Christian and an agnostic, the Christian will make known that certain things should and should not be done, ...

Would you include liberal yankee presbys and episcos in that group?

LOL!  Wow, throw in redneck otaku cinematographer hipster moms while you're at it.  I have no idea what a liberal yankee Presyterian is.  I picked generic groups to illustrate, and I used the formal definition of "Christian", not the political one.

I didn't mean liberal just politically.

I think the point Qwinn and I would note is that believing that JC is the son of God and provided a path to an otherwise impossible reconciliation does not itself translate into the sort of clear behavioural standards you suggest.

Buho wrote:

[The homosexuality question really is an open-and-shut case.  If you are interested in obeying God, you cannot engage in homosexual acts, for reasons stated a few pages ago.  It violates the sanctity of marriage and the created order, to name two. Further, it is destructive to both homosexual parties both physically and mentally.  It is not a good thing.

Uh....what?

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Thundersnow wrote:

I think that Christians, if they choose to vote, should vote on issues that effect them directly.

As many people have said on here before, abstaining from a vote is the same as casting a vote for the other side.

I disagree with this. Are you suggesting that the Amish support homosexuality?

glfredrick wrote:

T wrote:

So based on the teachings of the Bible, homosexuals are going to hell? What happened to the loving and forgiving God? If he can forgive, can't you tolerate?

I'm REAL late to the rest of this party, but let me clear this little item up...

According to the teachings of the Bible EVERYONE is going to hell -- period.  Doesn't matter if they are gay, straight, left leaning, right leaning, wearing priestly garments, naked, whatever...

EVERYONE.  That's what Jesus is all about.  He ALONE makes a way out of that predicament by taking that punishment FOR those who believe in him and walk with him all the days of their lives in faith.

WHEW.....now I don't feel so bad about killing hookers. I was going to hell anyway.


I'm glad I don't buy into all that stuff. My life is stressful enough as it is.

Jimp, I do not intend to argue this. I have read both sides of the issue, and my views rest closer to isolationism than not. I do not buy into the "if you don't take a stance then you support it" bit. it is an absurd argument. Do you vote in each county, presidential etc etc? Do you attend each school board meeting? If you do nothing to oppose that which you see as wrong, then you must support it as well, do you disagree?

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Yes.  Isolationism is not Biblical.

Are you implying the Swiss are Satan-worshipers?

I'm not passionate about this argument to keep hammering the point, it's a pretty minor issue

Go in peace my brother.

axe wrote:

Jesus Is My Pilot wrote:

Yes.  Isolationism is not Biblical.

Are you implying the Swiss are Satan-worshipers?

Not implying, I'm declaring.

T wrote:

Buho wrote:

[The homosexuality question really is an open-and-shut case.  If you are interested in obeying God, you cannot engage in homosexual acts, for reasons stated a few pages ago.  It violates the sanctity of marriage and the created order, to name two. Further, it is destructive to both homosexual parties both physically and mentally.  It is not a good thing.

Uh....what?

Short answer:  Physical:  heard of AIDS?  "Homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population."  Mental:  "73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization."

Longer answer:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502263/posts  I don't agree with the skewed language, skewed point of view, and loaded words in the article, but the facts there stand as-is.  That page is one of the top hits for searches on homosexuality and statistics.

Oh that's right, only homosexuals can get AIDS. I forgot about that. I wonder what the statistics are for straights and the frequency of syphillis/gonn./herpes/etc?

As far as the happiness test, I bet you could get any number you wanted based on the people you are interviewing. I would even bet you could interview soccer moms and get a similar answer.  You already admitted it was a skewed article, why even bring it up for discussion?

Holy shit, I just read that article. I don't even have the words.

Last edited by T (07-24-2008 05:51 PM)

T wrote:

Oh that's right, only homosexuals can get AIDS.

I thought that might be taken that way.  Sigh.  No, straights get AIDS too....  But look at the statistics.  AIDS would not be transmitted if couples (hetero or homo) were monogamous.  Homosexuals rarely are (look at the other statistics). 

I offered up that stuff because you challenged my statement, T.  Would you argue that homosexuals on average are of equivalent health and equivalent mental state as heterosexuals?  If so, I'd like some sources from you.  If not, stop trying to push buttons and let the point go; it's off-topic anyway.

The website I used was picked almost at random.  The article cites its sources which include professional medical journals.  In my experience on this topic, few are completely unbiased, so let's just acknowledge that and try to use our brains to filter the bias out and look at the facts.

axe wrote:

Buho wrote:

AIDS would not be transmitted if couples (hetero or homo) were monogamous.  Homosexuals rarely are (look at the other statistics).

Maybe if you let them marry, they would be more inclined towards monogamy

They -can- marry, just not to each other.

2.FOH. wrote:

axe wrote:

Buho wrote:

AIDS would not be transmitted if couples (hetero or homo) were monogamous.  Homosexuals rarely are (look at the other statistics).

Maybe if you let them marry, they would be more inclined towards monogamy

They -can- marry, just not to each other.

One of these days... STRAIGHT TO THE MOON!