Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since ALL sex (as noted in the link you just provided) holds the risk of STD then you are now arguing against sex as a whole, but simply pretending you are making an argument against homosexuality specifically.
In fact given female homosexuality holds LESS risk of STD than heterosexual or homosexual sex, your argument is actually FOR female homosexuality rather than against male homosexuality. So you are actually now simply arguing against yourself.
But what you are actually doing therefore is worse. You are making the conclusion first, then cherry picking the data set to validate it retrospectively. You are not looking at the data set and concluding female homosexuality is therefore the most moral at all..... but you are starting off with the conclusion first and cherry picking the data set to fit it second.
If never ceases to amaze me how you can have hard core facts at hand and atheists like you will still find some way to deny reality. The suggestion was that homosexuality has ZERO negative impact on society. Yet, the evidence from the CDC clearly shows that male homosexuality activity is spreading STDS at a much higher rate than heterosexual. I explained to you why their activity is much more dangerous, but of course, you distorted this reality. That's ok. Facts are on my side here.
Instead, you resort to misdirection by claiming (with no supporting evidence as usual) that lesbians have much less risk of STDS. Ok so what? That doesn't take away from the fact that male homosexuality activity is much more dangerous and spreads diseases, and that fact alone means that homosexuality does indeed have negative impact on society.
Your argument is like saying the issue of poverty among Native Americans doesn't need to be address because there are some tribes making tons of money from casinos.
If you need a reminder:
Quote:
Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM:
Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person’s risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves.
Certain behaviors- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex - increase STD risk.
The really great thing about this forum is that it is about Christianity, so all perceptions of that nature are (or should be) welcome. In the present instance the concern is primarily that many Christians with unfounded or poorly interpreted perceptions about gay unions take their views into the civil arena where religion should not have a place as religion, expressing what are purely religious values as opposed to civil concerns.
Purely religious perceptions should never be a matter for coercion, especially not by legal sanction.
Does that mean I can freely go into the atheist forum and present my negative views of atheists?
What evidence, that is repeatable and quantifiable, is there that a god exists? And you know darn well that causation doesn't mean correlation, whether one is talking about a god or otherwise. Talk about moving goalposts.
Why does the evidence have to be repeatable? Can you prove to me that humans evolved from hominids with repeatable evidence. No, but if a scientist finds one single fossil, I'm suppose to accept that as gospel undisputed evidence.
Why does the evidence have to be repeatable? Can you prove to me that humans evolved from hominids with repeatable evidence. No, but if a scientist finds one single fossil, I'm suppose to accept that as gospel undisputed evidence.
Checks on validity and cogency of fossils are repeatable. It's a part of science.
If never ceases to amaze me how you can have hard core facts at hand and atheists like you will still find some way to deny reality. The suggestion was that homosexuality has ZERO negative impact on society. Yet, the evidence from the CDC clearly shows that male homosexuality activity is spreading STDS at a much higher rate than heterosexual. I explained to you why their activity is much more dangerous, but of course, you distorted this reality. That's ok. Facts are on my side here.
Instead, you resort to misdirection by claiming (with no supporting evidence as usual) that lesbians have much less risk of STDS. Ok so what? That doesn't take away from the fact that male homosexuality activity is much more dangerous and spreads diseases, and that fact alone means that homosexuality does indeed have negative impact on society.
Your argument is like saying the issue of poverty among Native Americans doesn't need to be address because there are some tribes making tons of money from casinos.
You say this as though society is defenseless against STDs. Gay males have sex and as a result all of society is doomed to suffer from STDs. But, is that really true? Don't individuals have a way to protect themselves from STDs?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If never ceases to amaze me how you can have hard core facts at hand and atheists like you will still find some way to deny reality. The suggestion was that homosexuality has ZERO negative impact on society. Yet, the evidence from the CDC clearly shows that male homosexuality activity is spreading STDS at a much higher rate than heterosexual. I explained to you why their activity is much more dangerous, but of course, you distorted this reality. That's ok. Facts are on my side here.
Agreed. The pattern certainly has been for more STD's among MALE homosexuals, who have historically been more promiscuous then male heterosexuals. It is not on the lack of trying to be equally promiscuous by the heterosexual male, it is that the heterosexual female is not as receptive. I won't deny that there are a number of studies that show that. It is an issue that has certainly given rise to more safe sex practices, as the single male homosexual community recognizes the reality of what the studies show.
However, what does that have to do with the fact that the issue of homosexuality and its overall impact on society. How does that impact society when two homosexual males or two homosexual females want to be in a loving, married and monogamous union? It doesn't, does it? Right? It doesn't effect society one bit.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,922,771 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Why does the evidence have to be repeatable? Can you prove to me that humans evolved from hominids with repeatable evidence. No, but if a scientist finds one single fossil, I'm suppose to accept that as gospel undisputed evidence.
One doesn't believe in science, one understands it. Do you?
You forget, you are only quoting a book many here think has less validity than Grimm's Fairy Tales. You can quote all you want, it just doesn't carry any weight.
That would make sense if this the little arrow > doesn't point to > Christianity where that so called "a book that doesn't carry any weight" does in fact hold itself to being the absolute and sole source of the truth.
But your sentiments do in fact show why many Christians that used to frequent this forum do not bother posting here anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
