When will Homosexual Activists Receive Their Condemnation from the 'Non-Religious' (confess, divine)

[willingsniper]

What could possibly go wrong with living your life by following ancient laws written by anonymous authors in dead languages by ignorant, racist, sexist, superstitious goat herding barbarians who believed that everything they couldn't explain in the world was magic?

[jeffbase40]

Originally Posted by willingsniper

What could possibly go wrong with living your life by following ancient laws written by anonymous authors in dead languages by ignorant, racist, sexist, superstitious goat herding barbarians who believed that everything they couldn't explain in the world was magic?

Sounds like something Satan would say. My pastor used to be a drug addict and on his way to prison. He got saved by the gospel of the Bible which you obviously resent. But according to your logic, that's a bad thing.

[TroutDude]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Sounds like something Satan would say. My pastor used to be a drug addict and on his way to prison. He got saved by the gospel of the Bible which you obviously resent. But according to your logic, that's a bad thing.

Oh, good grief!

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by willingsniper

The government is not infringing on religion by letting gays marry. The only people affected are gays. It doesn't weaken marriage any more that the 50% failure rate does already.

If you are in business you must follow anti discrimination laws period. You selling a hammer or a cake or a pizza to a gay person does not stop you from practicing your religion.

As for the argument against marriage Robert could not have made it more clear.

It's very simple a gay man is allowed to marry a lesbian woman in all 50 states. It's a clear cut sexual discrimination case.

It really is as simple as that.

As typical...people cite "the law" (in this case "anti discrimination" law) as the ultimate arbiter (you must follow...period) of "what you can or can't do".
How is "the law" a good arbiter? If we want to tout "the law"..."the law" actually sanctioned discrimination for much more time than it did not. For example: Women just recently just gained the right to vote...for hundreds of years they couldn't.
So, what law was "right"? The one we had for most of the time...or the one we have now?
Was it a reasonable argument for people to just say to women: "If you are a woman you must follow the anti female voting laws, period."? Did that make it right, because it was "the law"?
You only must follow the law to avoid legal sanctions...not necessarily to do what is or isn't "right".

The "anti discrimination laws" are themselves discriminatory...and violate the laws of "equal protection".
A person who discriminates against particular people can walk into a business intending to buy...but then, upon gaining knowledge that ownership consists of those that they don't prefer, can actively discriminate and turn around and walk out without buying. How come the "anti discrimination laws" don't force them to buy? Why should the ownership (The Sellers) be forced to sell to anybody...but The Buyers can pick and choose who they do business with? How is that fair and equal? Buyers can legally discriminate but Sellers can't? THAT is discrimination. Neither should have to do business with the other for any reason whatsoever.
Same with with the workforce. An employer must hire anybody...but the employee gets to pick and choose who they will work for? How "equal" is that?
Let "the market" sort it out. THAT is the only fair and equal way.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Sounds like something Satan would say. My pastor used to be a drug addict and on his way to prison. He got saved by the gospel of the Bible which you obviously resent. But according to your logic, that's a bad thing.

This is discriminatory against drug dealers and corrections officers. If all people like him "got saved" how would all the dealers and all the officers maintain their income?
I also sense some serious Satan discrimination in this post.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

I consider the CDC to be a credible source.

I never questioned the source. I questioned how you are applying and interpreting the source. And I am questioning that the source really says what you are pretending outright that it says.

Again: You claim you linked to them showing statistics about homosexuality. You did not. You linked to them showing statistics about a very specific subset of homosexuals, defined as MSM, with the express intention of misrepresenting the figures as being about homosexuality over all.

Get it yet?

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Explain to me how not including lesbians skews the figures.

Sure no problem.

Imagine 1/10 of all lesbians has HIV. Imagine 3/10 of all homsexual men have HIV. This might give the figure that homosexuals over all have 2/10 HIV.

Those figures are made up by me, but they show my point. There are three figures. One for lesbians, one for homosexual men, and one for homosexuals as a whole.

You ignore the lesbians because the 3/10 figure serves your agenda more. But while you solely pick the 3/10 figure, you pretend the whole time you are talking about homosexuality as a whole. You are not. You never have been.

But it is WORSE than that. You are not just leaving out Lesbians. You are leaving out the sub sets of homosexual men that do not fit your agenda either. You focus specifically on a particular definition of MSM which is contrived to select the highest risk category of gay men.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

How does that change the fact that a very high percentage of homosexual men are contracting and spreading this disease?

It does not change the facts, it highlights them. The fact that you talk about anal sex, but pretend you are talking about homosexuals. And that the disease figures are not AS high as you claim.

I have not once disagreed with you that anal sex is a risky business, especially if practiced unsafely or promiscuously. But at the same time I do not let slide the misrepresentation of figures that you so wantonly engage in.

Not to mention you have not ONCE linked your diatribe back to SSM despite being asked to by numerous users, numerous times.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

My logic is simple. Federal endorsement of SSM will encourage more homosexual behavior especially among people who are confused by their sexual roles.

Quite the fantasy. Yet you have not once provided evidence that it would be true. The promotion of marriage is the promotion of monogamy and commitment. So you have ALL your work ahead of you to prove that SSM would result in the increase you imagine, and not the decreases we normally associate with monogamy and commitment.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

If I am to believe your arguments then I should be seeing a drastic decline in HIV infections in countries like the Netherlands where SSM has existed for over a decade, but so far, I'm only finding the contrary:

More of you skewing figures. You claimed to be talking about the Netherlands, but you focus on one sole city in it. The usual approach from you. Claim to be talking about one thing, but actually end up talking about a specifically cherry picked subset of that one thing. And no wonder you cherry picked that area because the geographical skew in the netherlands is already well known. "The estimated proportion of diagnosed infections exhibited geographical variations, 85% in Amsterdam, 54% in Rotterdam and 53% in the rest of the country.". Nothing new from you to leap into a set of statistics and cherry pick out the specific group that appears to say what you want it to say.

Worse the figures from that area are known to be in flux because of measurement techniques, not just HIV Increase. For example:

"The number of HIV-infected individuals (15-70 years) living in the Netherlands on 1 January 2008 has been estimated to be 21,500 (19,000-24,000) (Figure 1). This represents an increase of about 10% in comparison with the previous estimate in 15-49-year-olds from 2005"

So on the face of it a 10% increase sounds bad. But notice the sample group went up from 15-49 years olds to 15-70 year olds. So OF COURSE you will see an increase. But just the kind of thing your misrepresentation of figures loves to ignore. But your own link acknowledged it too when it says:

“It could be that…older men are more likely to have a partner who is also older and therefore has a higher probability of being HIV-infected,” suggest the investigators. They also propose that older men and those in longer relationships “often break negotiated safety rules…due to changes in sexual preferences, relationship context, and for other reasons.”

So not only has the sample group increased.... thus serving your little agenda around here..... but it has further included higher risk category groups..... thus even further pushing the figures where you want them to go.

But you ignore too much. Take this fact for example from the Netherlands "Of the estimated number of PLWHA, , 55% were estimated to be attributed to MSM transmission, 40% to heterosexual contacts". Not the hugely disproportionate skew towards MSM you have been faking for weeks now is it?

Face it, you have been misrepresenting figures for weeks now and those of us who actually know how to read statistics are simply seeing right through it. Every. Single. Time.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

It's the law, it's the law! You're not saying nothing I haven't heard countless times here. And I completely reject it so why keep bothering? It's obvious you won't listen to anyone who doesn't always agree with u.

It is you and you alone doing that. We have pointed out numerous times that shouting "I am religious" does not make you exempt from the law everyone else has to follow. It's obvious you won't listen to anyone who doesn't always agree with you however. Which so far has been.... no one at all on this forum.

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

You do realize that American citizens are allowed to protest laws and advocate for change, right?

You do realize that we have been saying that to you all along, right?

Nothing wrong with protest or advocation of change. No one here said there was.

There is however something wrong with pretending religion makes you exempt from the law, that being prosecuted for breaking the law is some form of religious persecution, or that refusal to not prosecute people who break the law is part of some anti christian agenda.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by justtitans

You're a moderator of this section, you read tons of threads. I would imagine you would gain at least some general knowledge if you didn't already know it of the sections you moderate.



This is something that was shared on here a few years ago. I think this provides a great explanation and answer to your question.

https://carm.org/leviticus-follow-all-laws-or-not



I don't understand how you read all these threads and not understand the difference between the Old and New Covenant. It has been a topic quite frequently.



Read the text!! Do you understand that? I don't know how much clearer I can be. No this is not the answer you are looking for, but it's so easy for you to get a Bible online read the whole chapter or even just the book of Hosea, get some resources that explain the context so that you can draw an understanding of what is being said. It's your choice if you really want to know the answer or if you just want to be anal.



What part of you need to read and study the scripture for yourself is not clear? Do you get an excerpt from a best seller and ask people to tell you what is going on in that book or do you get the book and read it yourself. It's going to be difficult (if not quite honestly casting pearl before swine) to break down the nuisances of Biblical stories. I've done this in the past on here and it honestly is a waste of time because no matter how clear I make things there will be a lot of things that will be unclear.

Hey folks!

Look here! We have another Matt Slick fan.

There went all his credibility too.

Incidentally, that's the biggest non-answer I've ever seen posted. Either there is a simple, easy to understand context for the cited examples, or there isn't. So far, nobody has presented one. I'd still like to know how love is expressed by dashing children to the ground and cutting open pregnant women.

[revrandy]

Originally Posted by TroutDude

Oh, get a room you two!

If you do, remember no butt sex... that causes AIDS ya know

[justtitans]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Hey folks!

Look here! We have another Matt Slick fan.

There went all his credibility too.

Incidentally, that's the biggest non-answer I've ever seen posted. Either there is a simple, easy to understand context for the cited examples, or there isn't. So far, nobody has presented one. I'd still like to know how love is expressed by dashing children to the ground and cutting open pregnant women.

Cop out. Reading is fundamental. Like I said either you really want to know or you're just trying to find a reason to argue. No surprises by your choice.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by justtitans

Cop out. Reading is fundamental. Like I said either you really want to know or you're just trying to find a reason to argue. No surprises by your choice.

The only cop out here is the usual fundamentalist trope that we heathens can't possibly "understand" your holy book because we don't subscribe to your particular convoluted interpretational system which you claim is the objectively correct one. And your claim, more or less, would be that the reason we don't is not because your dogma is byzantine and contrived, but because we don't have your claimed Holy Spirit in our "hearts" to "guide" us to your approved dogma.

Convenient circular argument there. Claim without evidence that divine providence is helping you thread the interpretational needle and then claim, equally without evidence, that anyone who doesn't arrive at your conclusions "doesn't really want to know". Well maybe we don't want to arrive at the same baseless conclusions you do, true enough in a backhanded sort of way I suppose.

The other nonsense on display here is that anyone concluding you're wrong is "just trying to find a reason to argue" rather than actually having a basis to disagree with you. At least you don't (to my knowledge) play the persecution card in this instance, I'll give you that. You've decided to go with the "unbelievers are just stubborn" meme on this one.

What you forget is that you're hemmed in by your belief-system. You don't have a basis to question anything because you have no approved wiggle room. We on the other hand have complete freedom of thought, and this renders a whole bunch of stuff thinkable to us that is unthinkable to you. Not that we are interested in any random position -- we're looking for something that is the most consistent with observable reality / evidence / substantiation. Something that you can't and won't do, because the dogma you're locked into is completely untethered from reality. Like the way a stopped clock is right twice a day, it here and there coincides with reality, but it is independent of it.