Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 999/1288
(11-Nov-2005 at 04:53)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
It is immpossible to get inside God's head, trust me.
Probably because He's a lunatic.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
In part, yes, but it is also so that you may have a strong relationship, be mentally at ease and fulfilled.
And homosexuals can't have the exact same thing? Oh, I see, homosexuals are incapable of love.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
Homosexual sex is the same as masturbating with 2 people. Masturbation is a sin. There is no intent on creating life.
Notice I was talking about sin from a secular view. Masturbation is not wrong secularly. Unless you can provide information to the contrary your argument is "God said so." If I gave a damn what God said, we wouldn't have gotten this far. Obviously, God said homosexuality is a sin. We're discussing why. Give me one good, secular reason why. If there is no why then my "God is a lunatic" theory looks mighty pretty.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
Yes, so? God knows what is best.
The whole point of this thread is that He doesn't.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
Buddhism came later, after christianity. Well, the ten commandments are from Judism, and that goes back a fair while. To me this suggests that it is superior, and if correct, vastly superior. If Buddhism is so similar, then it must only re-inforce the original ten commandments and its teachings.
The religions started and evolved separately. The Christian God was unnecessary to create the same basic system of morality.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
Because Wicca is a joke, Paganism is dead, get over it. Learn from the past and get on with it. As mentioned before, Buddhism is like the asian christianity, in a way. Its similarities dob't stop just at its 'golden rules.'
To me, Christianity is a joke.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 543/842
Donated $6.28
(11-Nov-2005 at 07:02)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)
Notice I was talking about sin from a secular view. Masturbation is not wrong secularly. Unless you can provide information to the contrary your argument is "God said so." If I gave a damn what God said, we wouldn't have gotten this far. Obviously, God said homosexuality is a sin. We're discussing why. Give me one good, secular reason why. If there is no why then my "God is a lunatic" theory looks mighty pretty.
Because they spread AIDS?

Seriously now,

From a secular POV there is no 'good' reason why homosexuality is bad. But why does God have to set his rules based on what humans think is a good idea?

My Band
How many bass players does it take to change a light bulb?
5. One to change it, and the other 4 to hold the guitarists back who are trying to hog the light.

Last edited by Zelun, 11-Nov-2005 at 07:03.
Edit reason: God, good, almost the same word. But not quite.
#42  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Zelun Add Zelun to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1000/1288
(11-Nov-2005 at 18:17)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Zelun)

Because they spread AIDS?

Seriously now,

From a secular POV there is no 'good' reason why homosexuality is bad. But why does God have to set his rules based on what humans think is a good idea?
I hope you aren't serious about that AIDS thing...I really hope.

All of God's other rules seem to improve people or protect people from harm. Why set rules unless it helps people? The rules about homosexuality have done nothing but breed contempt, distain and hatred for homosexuals.

"Ye shall know them from thier fruits" and I've seen nothing good come from calling homosexuality a sin.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 76/223
(11-Nov-2005 at 19:20)


Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)
John 9;1-3

And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.


Obviously it was believed at the time that people could sin before their birth causing them to have afflictions such as blindness at birth.

Sounds kinda familiar to being born a homosexual, doesn't it?
Ah, no, considering blindness isn't a sin, it's a birth defect. I know what you're trying to say here, but you're comparing apples to oranges. He was born blind because God had a reason for it, whatever it was we don't know.

Quote:
Jesus said that the man didn't sin to become blind. He was born blind because God thought that would be best for him.
Yep, you're right. Blindess isn't a sin.


Quote:
Mizeraaze, we aren't born sinners. We aren't born as murderers. We aren't born as theives. We are not born as adulterers. We aren't born covetous. These are learned behaviors. We are taught violence. We are taught greed.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. If left to their own devices, humans automatically revert to stealing, greed, violence, and eventually murder. Look at what happened in New Orleans. People were left on their own becuase of the flooding, the police couldn't control them, and people stole, raped, and murdered. THAT is what human nature is. We are taught to respect and share. Young children do NOT want to share toys with others, they must be told by their parents to do so. Children are taught that lying is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that hurting someone is wrong.

I know what you're saying man, I really do. But the thing is that humanity is sinful by nature. Period. There are no two ways about it.

Quote:
You have to make a choice. Either homosexuality is from birth and, therefore, is not a sin or it is a learned behavior and is a sin. What do you believe?
I have made a choice, which was made plain in my other posts. Homosexuality is a sin, and we are all born with sinful natures. When I was younger, I had a terrible habit of lying, and I still now struggle with it. I also stole a lot of things, which thankfully I don't do anymore. These were part of the sinful nature I was born with, and only until I learned how wrong these things are was I able to stop. I know it might be hard to imagine a newborn child being a sinner, but it is true.

WTS. First non-enlgish, then size. It's a good thing you don't get wp for sucking at sig-making. Give me another week and I'll figure it out.
Signature suspended by Starfriend for violating the forum's rules.
Signature height exceeded the allowed 60 pixels.
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mizeraaze Add Mizeraaze to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 78/223
(11-Nov-2005 at 19:34)


Sorry about the double post, but I found these examples that I think exemplify what I'm talking about:

The question is: How much would it take for you to kill someone?
Here are some answers:

Quote:
totally free. you need someone dead, but you're broke? just ask and i will kill.
Quote:
matters how hard it is...if it is an "easy" target 100,000 sounds nice..but if we are talking a public or offical or something millions and quite possible billion would sound too unrealistic
Quote:
If the target was someone that i had never met and didnt operate in my circles id quite hapily kill a man for 50k.
Quote:
25k before 75k after i could deal with killing someone for that much.
Pleasant, isn't it? And that's directly from UT's own forum. I don't think violent media played too much a role in this.

Now, granted it could be all boasting and not meant...but maybe not. Who knows?

WTS. First non-enlgish, then size. It's a good thing you don't get wp for sucking at sig-making. Give me another week and I'll figure it out.
Signature suspended by Starfriend for violating the forum's rules.
Signature height exceeded the allowed 60 pixels.
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Mizeraaze Add Mizeraaze to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 320/1637
(Post has been warned)
(12-Nov-2005 at 03:58)
Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

Probably because He's a lunatic.
Probably.
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 321/1637
(13-Nov-2005 at 02:32)
Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

All of God's other rules seem to improve people or protect people from harm. Why set rules unless it helps people? The rules about homosexuality have done nothing but breed contempt, distain and hatred for homosexuals.
OK then, I shall offer you some reasoning.

The idea of sex in Gods view is for the creation of life. There must be marriage in order to have sex so that the parents may bring up the child in a loving way. Now, homosexuals can not have sex because it does not create life. If they have 'sex' even if they love each other, it is not a valid form of sex purely because it is for love and pleasure and not in the interest of creating life. A relationship built on self-interest and not for bringing up children is not a good relationship even from a secular point-of-view because the whole idea of a relationship is to have children and homosexuals can not do this. So instead of getting tied up in the pleasures and love of someone of the same sex, God instructs us to steer clear of homosexual behaviour because it does not serve anyone but the individual and not one from a coming generation. The love between two people is there to bring up a child.

Homosexuals have all the feelings of anybody else, but it is up to them to realise they must obstain from sex in the way they desire it. Similarly why an infertile heterosexual couple must also obstain from sex because it is an infurtile act and an insult to God. This couple would probably enjoy sex, but it is to no ends but self-exploitation which only procreates lust, further desire and degrades the preciousness of love and sex in the light of procreation.

This also makes clear that God intended us to bring up our own children from our own blood, and through the love of our OWN children will they have the best oppotunity in life. For those of you with kids, remember the time when you first saw and held your own newly-born child. A homosexual couple can never have that moment of depth of love and understanding. Sounds harsh, but life is harsh.
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 5861/8194
(13-Nov-2005 at 09:32)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
The idea of sex in Gods view is for the creation of life.
Speak for yourself! You don't know the mind of this God fellow. Half of the time you don't even seem to belive in him.

If God wanted us to have sex strictly for procreation he would have made us like dogs, so that we were interested in sex only once a year when the female is in heat. Instead humans are one of a few species with hidden ovulation, that is it's hard to tell when a female is fertile or not. This makes having "uneccesary" sex unavoidable. Given that humans are among the most sex-crazed of all species I'd have to conclude that if there is a god he loves sex.
Quote:
Now, homosexuals can not have sex because it does not create life. If they have 'sex' even if they love each other, it is not a valid form of sex purely because it is for love and pleasure and not in the interest of creating life.
And why would that make it wrong? What religion do you believe in today that says love is wrong? Your life must be a total misery if you really live up to the ideal that doing anything just because you like it is morally wrong.

We are made with a certain tendency to homosexuality, as are most other animals. Why would a God that hated homosexuality make it that way? You are just promoting your own prejudice, pretending it is orederd by some god.
Quote:
So instead of getting tied up in the pleasures and love of someone of the same sex, God instructs us to steer clear of homosexual behaviour because it does not serve anyone but the individual and not one from a coming generation. The love between two people is there to bring up a child.
Let me get this clear: do you think that homosexuals should get into heterosexual marriages just to have babies even if they don't love their partner and that strain is likely to give the kids a miserable upbringing?
Quote:
Similarly why an infertile heterosexual couple must also obstain from sex because it is an infurtile act and an insult to God.
Nope, it isn't. It's only you who feel insulted as I showed in the start of this message.
Quote:
Sounds harsh, but life is harsh.
Life may be harsh, but that doesn't mean we have to add extra harshness by stupid religious doctrine that have no relationship to the biological reality of being human.
#48  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 322/1637
(13-Nov-2005 at 13:00)
Quote:
(Originally posted by Bernel)

Speak for yourself! You don't know the mind of this God fellow.
Figure of speech. May I have said Christianity, more generally.

Quote:
Half of the time you don't even seem to belive in him.
Do you want to cry?

Quote:
If God wanted us to have sex strictly for procreation he would have made us like dogs, so that we were interested in sex only once a year when the female is in heat. Instead humans are one of a few species with hidden ovulation, that is it's hard to tell when a female is fertile or not. This makes having "uneccesary" sex unavoidable. Given that humans are among the most sex-crazed of all species I'd have to conclude that if there is a god he loves sex.
Hey look at that, you have a brain. God presumed you would use that too. God loves love, not just the single act of sex.

Quote:
And why would that make it wrong? What religion do you believe in today that says love is wrong? Your life must be a total misery if you really live up to the ideal that doing anything just because you like it is morally wrong.
And your life must be a constant orgy. Don't presume too much there Bernal. I didn't actually say love is wrong, just sex for pure pleasure without intent on creating life is wrong. I think the bible says it too.

Quote:
We are made with a certain tendency to homosexuality, as are most other animals. Why would a God that hated homosexuality make it that way?
Oh, why not mix things up a little, just for kicks?

In all honesty I don't know why homosexuality exists, but the bible seems to protray it as something generated by evil. If this is true then God does not support it but rightly leaves us to our own consequences in letting it be.

Quote:
You are just promoting your own prejudice, pretending it is orederd by some god.
Don't get into this philosophical nonsense.

Quote:
Let me get this clear: do you think that homosexuals should get into heterosexual marriages just to have babies even if they don't love their partner and that strain is likely to give the kids a miserable upbringing?
I said you need a loving relationship. Homosexuals can not have their compulsory cake as well as eat it.

Quote:
Nope, it isn't. It's only you who feel insulted as I showed in the start of this message.
And you verify this how? Do you inherently know everything? Bow down to Bernal.

Quote:
Life may be harsh, but that doesn't mean we have to add extra harshness by stupid religious doctrine that have no relationship to the biological reality of being human.
That's what a dying giraffe would say if he could talk.
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1001/1288
(14-Nov-2005 at 02:58)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
And your life must be a constant orgy. Don't presume too much there Bernal. I didn't actually say love is wrong, just sex for pure pleasure without intent on creating life is wrong. I think the bible says it too.
It seems, according to you, we exist to have offspring and not care about ourselves and our own happiness. We are mindless breeders who exist merely to further our existence. It's a sad and endless loop that reminds me of the behavior of a virus.

I don't see how sex for pleasure can be wrong. Sex is healthy and normal. It brings people in relationships closer together emotionally to engage in sex. To pleasure eachother is a sign of love and caring for your partner's happiness.

There is, I'll admit, a negative side to sex without intent on life...1 sperm cell dies that wouldn't have otherwise.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 324/1637
(14-Nov-2005 at 04:38)
Quote:
(Originally posted by MAPS)

It seems, according to you, we exist to have offspring and not care about ourselves and our own happiness.
For the last flamin' time, I said that relationships are needed for successful offspring, this means couples need to be happy.

Quote:
I don't see how sex for pleasure can be wrong. Sex is healthy and normal. It brings people in relationships closer together emotionally to engage in sex. To pleasure eachother is a sign of love and caring for your partner's happiness.
Fine, you win. Just don't be reckless, that is all I was meant to advise. Stay with your own partner. The only difference is that homosexuals can't have kids, which is apprently why this whole love and relationship making exists. A homosexual relationship may be rewarding but to what purpose does that serve other than self-gratification. The key here is that heterosexual couples intend to bring up their own kids in a loving relationship, homosexuals do not.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 14-Nov-2005 at 04:42.
#51  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1457/2150
Donated $5.00
(14-Nov-2005 at 07:00)


For a long time, the Church stance on sexual activity was that it was to be done within the confines of marriage with the aim of procreation. It's uncertain if the Bible strictly itterates this, but the Bible does say that it was made for pleasure - in part. It does have a practical use after all.

According to the Bible, marriage is a union under God by a man and female. That is why homosexual marriage is regarded as incorrect. Taking this then, with the Bibles stance on sex in marriage, and with homosexual marriage not being supported, the sexual acts between two members of the same sex are sins - do you follow?

Quote:
We are made with a certain tendency to homosexuality, as are most other animals. Why would a God that hated homosexuality make it that way? You are just promoting your own prejudice, pretending it is orederd by some god.
This 'tendency' I highly doubt to exist. As far as I believe societal conditions influence your perceptions on attractiveness, sex appeal and sexuality. This goes for all classes of animals. Societies where homosexuality was encouraged had almost complete bi-sexuality. Societies where it was condmned basically stamped it out to 0, and even allowing for the fact that those who did engage in such activites weren't recorded/reported, it wasn't a significant figure.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#52  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1003/1288
(14-Nov-2005 at 15:57)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
For the last flamin' time, I said that relationships are needed for successful offspring, this means couples need to be happy.
I noted that, but you also said that pleasure is wrong when sex is involved unless you want to have children. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gotterdammerung)
Fine, you win. Just don't be reckless, that is all I was meant to advise. Stay with your own partner. The only difference is that homosexuals can't have kids, which is apprently why this whole love and relationship making exists. A homosexual relationship may be rewarding but to what purpose does that serve other than self-gratification. The key here is that heterosexual couples intend to bring up their own kids in a loving relationship, homosexuals do not.
Self-gratification isn't a bad thing. Only if you have to step on others to get it is there a problem.

I'd be more distressed about heterosexual married couples who choose not to have children then I'd be concerned with homosexuals who don't really have a choice.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
According to the Bible, marriage is a union under God by a man and female. That is why homosexual marriage is regarded as incorrect. Taking this then, with the Bibles stance on sex in marriage, and with homosexual marriage not being supported, the sexual acts between two members of the same sex are sins - do you follow?
I understand the why religiously. I don't understand the why secularly. I don't have much respect for a religious teaching that doesn't have a secular rationale. Establishing faith, love and a sense of self-betterment are the biggest goals Christianity's rules seem to focus on. Prayer, fasting, baptism, repentance and chastity all have positive effects from a secular view point. I see nothing good in condemning those that do no harm.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
As far as I believe societal conditions influence your perceptions on attractiveness, sex appeal and sexuality.
No argument. That doesn't rule out that the tendency is still present, though. The presence of A is not the proof of the non-existence of B.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
This goes for all classes of animals.
You're going to have to explain this one a bit more for me. What in canine society could influence a male dog to mount another male dog, ignoring his ability to smell females?

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#53  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1458/2150
Donated $5.00
(14-Nov-2005 at 22:02)


Quote:
I understand the why religiously. I don't understand the why secularly. I don't have much respect for a religious teaching that doesn't have a secular rationale. Establishing faith, love and a sense of self-betterment are the biggest goals Christianity's rules seem to focus on. Prayer, fasting, baptism, repentance and chastity all have positive effects from a secular view point. I see nothing good in condemning those that do no harm.
Not everything will have a secular rationale because a spiritual rationale will always dominate.

In regards to homosexuality - there is a secular rationale nonetheless. Because of the delicate lining in the ass that can rupture and which does rupture, genital to blood contact is considerably more unhygenic than genital to genital.

Quote:
You're going to have to explain this one a bit more for me. What in canine society could influence a male dog to mount another male dog, ignoring his ability to smell females?
I'd say a similar environment that brings about homosexuality in our society.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#54  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1004/1288
(14-Nov-2005 at 22:27)


Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
Not everything will have a secular rationale because a spiritual rationale will always dominate.
I don't think that's a good thing.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
In regards to homosexuality - there is a secular rationale nonetheless. Because of the delicate lining in the ass that can rupture and which does rupture, genital to blood contact is considerably more unhygenic than genital to genital.
...You're kidding right? Who says all homosexuals enjoy anal sex? A lot of heterosexuals engage in anal sex while many homosexuals don't, or stick to oral, or even remain abstinent.

Yes, that's right, being homosexual doesn't make you a promiscuous sex maniac.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)
I'd say a similar environment that brings about homosexuality in our society.
Example? Humans have an entirely different society than dogs. How can you compare them?

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Belili)
Posts: 698/1178
Donated $9.01
(15-Nov-2005 at 01:06)


Quote:
In regards to homosexuality - there is a secular rationale nonetheless. Because of the delicate lining in the ass that can rupture and which does rupture, genital to blood contact is considerably more unhygenic than genital to genital.
Heh...I don't recal doin the anal with another girl...

Although this one time, at band camp...

There isn't a single secular reason to look down upon homosexuality. Any said reason would be as silly as the example you just gave.

Belili : Sexy :: Naz : Warning Points
#56  
View Public Profile Visit belili's homepage Find more posts by belili Add belili to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1459/2150
Donated $5.00
(15-Nov-2005 at 01:55)


In regards to homosexual rates of STD's

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13120066.htm

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=7610 (64% of syphilis cases involve homosexual men... this is in a population group of 3% of the total population...)

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/drbob/stdmsm.htm (rectal gonohrrea... omg)

Ok there's heaps more. But google doesn't filter out propaganda (on either side).

Quote:
Example? Humans have an entirely different society than dogs. How can you compare them?
I'm hardly an expert in this field so I won't comment. There is considerable circustantial evidence that homosexuality is environmental. Would you care to refute the point I made earlier about this instead of simply posing a question?

There are decent health reasons to abstain for every case of sexuality and the Bible actually encourages it, with Paul saying 'It's best for a man not to marry, but better for him to marry than to burn'.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 843/898
(15-Nov-2005 at 02:17)


exclamation mark

By Mizeraaze (sic)

Quote:
Look at what happened in New Orleans. People were left on their own becuase of the flooding, the police couldn't control them, and people stole, raped, and murdered. THAT is what human nature is.
While I believe many humans are incapable of self control, you neglect the fact, although you mentioned it, that there was flooding, loved ones and friends are dead, there was no food and water, people were desperate, etc., etc. Although in this case, what is actually needed is a martial law of some sort.

Quote:
(Originally posted by Gus Mackay)

In regards to homosexual rates of STD's

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13120066.htm

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=7610 (64% of syphilis cases involve homosexual men... this is in a population group of 3% of the total population...)

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/glbt/drbob/stdmsm.htm (rectal gonohrrea... omg)

Ok there's heaps more. But google doesn't filter out propaganda (on either side).



I'm hardly an expert in this field so I won't comment. There is considerable circustantial evidence that homosexuality is environmental. Would you care to refute the point I made earlier about this instead of simply posing a question?

There are decent health reasons to abstain for every case of sexuality and the Bible actually encourages it, with Paul saying 'It's best for a man not to marry, but better for him to marry than to burn'.
That's a major unforgivable fallacy.

"Circumstancial evidence" may be indirect evidence that shows relation but a correlation still has to be established. Example, nobody explicitly saw McVeigh bomb that Oklahoma building, but the description of the suspect, i.e. renting this type of truck, checking in this hotel, checking out at this time, all fit him. Because he has no alibi during that time and all the evidence placed him within the vicinity, there's a high probability he did it.

Your "evidence" has no correlation whatsoever with homosexuals. And it leaves a whole lot of factors out of the study: the community, type of environment, regulations involved, social activities, etc. They only looked at two points: that the person is a homosexual, and whether he has or does not have STD. That's a fatal mistake in social studies. And it has caused a lot of bigotry.

You have certainly ruined my morning. I'll remind myself never to visit this forum again before I do my work.

Last edited by Aletheia, 15-Nov-2005 at 02:25.
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Aletheia Add Aletheia to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1460/2150
Donated $5.00
(15-Nov-2005 at 04:29)


Glad to hear I made your day

Quote:
This 'tendency' I highly doubt to exist. As far as I believe societal conditions influence your perceptions on attractiveness, sex appeal and sexuality. This goes for all classes of animals. Societies where homosexuality was encouraged had almost complete bi-sexuality. Societies where it was condmned basically stamped it out to 0, and even allowing for the fact that those who did engage in such activites weren't recorded/reported, it wasn't a significant figure.
Quoted from before - that can't be ignored. Just by calling it a 'fallacy' doesn't make it incorrect.

In regards to the STD's - it's no secret that leading a homosexual lifestyle greatly increases your chance of STD's.






---

Here's a great article I just googled up.

http://www.bettybowers.com/focus/focusgroup.html

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence

Last edited by Gus Mackay, 15-Nov-2005 at 04:35.
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1005/1288
(15-Nov-2005 at 04:59)


So? Driving increases your chances of crashing. Swimming increases your chances of drowning. Eating increases your chances of choking. Going to the bathroom increases your chances of peeing on yourself...need I go on?

Yes the statistics show that some STD's are higher among homosexuals. However, you should be blaming promiscuity, not the being homosexual part.

(\ /)
( . .)
c('')('')
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MAPS Add MAPS to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:53.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.