Christians and Jews Who Sanction Homosexual Sex

[Subduction Zone]

Color commentary.

You don't have to acknowledge that you were wrong about a post where you already said that you were wrong.

But thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See, there was no point to your post. Your just having rod fits. You are not going to change my mind. Either be more concise or I will have to end our discussion. I think I have been saying this for the past 3 days.

Wrong again, the point was a simple correction. Either acknowledge it or ignore it. Attempting to refute the obvious is only a waste of your supposedly precious time. Don't blame others for your own wrong doing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I am spending quite a bit of time trying to get you to be more concise. I can either spend 80% of my time dealing with you alone, stop talking with you at all, or try and get you to be more concise. Trying to be nice I shoes the later lately. If I can't get you to be more brief I will have to choose the middle option.

I am not the one that blows up posts. You did not even acknowledge your obvious error in that earlier post where you complained about no link when it was in the very next line of my post. Once again, don't comment on corrections and you will have much more time to try to come up with the answers that elude you.

 

[columbus]

The CDC linked homosexuality with new aids cases, I linked homosexuality with new aids cases.

That's exactly where your interpretation is. The CDC correlates HIV with homosexuality in the USA. You interpret that incorrectly into HIV is caused by homosex in the USA. And therefore, you insist, it's wrong.

You're just flat out wrong.
Tom

 

[1robin]

Nope, you are mistaken. That is probably because you keep repeating your errors.

Ok, you won't listen and you won't even slow down. So I will end our discussion in this thread for now.

 

[Skwim]

For what it's worth.

"In 2016, gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% of HIV diagnoses among males, although they comprise only 4% of the U.S. male population. At the end of 2014, an estimated 615,400 gay and bisexual men were living with HIV. One in 6 were unaware of their infection."
Approximately one quarter of people living with HIV in the United States are women.
Women accounted for 19% of new HIV diagnoses in 2016. Of these, 87% were attributed to heterosexual sex and 12% to injection drug use.
source

.​

 

[RedhorseWoman]

You couldn't possibly know this even if it was true. Not could anyone else at least so far. Find me some homosexual DNA markers. I have read a bit on homosexuality and scholars come down on both sides of the nature verses nurture debate.

I asked you previously to find us some heterosexual DNA markers, which would make it quite simple to check those markers for the differences that would denote homosexuality. You haven't done so. Why not?

 

[RedhorseWoman]

Wow, only one post this go around.

I am condemning a behavior not a person. I am not condemning the orientation I am condemning homosexual sex. I only differentiated between the two because I needed to, to debate Sojourner.

It has nothing to do with what I like. The absolute undeniable fact is you have no idea whether homosexuality is nature or nurture, and homosexual sex specifically is a choice. Your the one posting what you like instead of what you can possibly know.

Let's be honest, shall we? There is no such thing as "homosexual sex." Whatever types of sex acts homosexuals engage in, heterosexuals also engage in those same sex acts. Therefore, your condemnation is definitely not against "homosexual sex" but against a certain group of people who engage in sexual activity. You are condemning people. Perhaps, though, you are willing to condemn any heterosexual couples who engage in what you consider to be "homosexual sex"?

 

[1robin]

I asked you previously to find us some heterosexual DNA markers, which would make it quite simple to check those markers for the differences that would denote homosexuality. You haven't done so. Why not?

Because you are not warranted in asking that unless I made a point where it rested on heterosexuality having DNA markers. This is a thread about homosexuality. OTHERS have claimed homosexuality is genetic therefor it is their burden not mine to provide these DNA markers. Maybe you should start a thread on heterosexuality biology. It isn't my claim therefor I have no burden here.

 

[1robin]

Let's be honest, shall we? There is no such thing as "homosexual sex." Whatever types of sex acts homosexuals engage in, heterosexuals also engage in those same sex acts.

That is irrelevant, apparently there is some massive difference between the sexual acts of homosexuals and those of heterosexuals. The CDC (not me) linked homosexuality and the massively higher chance of contracting aids.

Therefore, your condemnation is definitely not against "homosexual sex" but against a certain group of people who engage in sexual activity. You are condemning people. Perhaps, though, you are willing to condemn any heterosexual couples who engage in what you consider to be "homosexual sex"?

The CDC linked the two and so I am perfectly justified in pointing out the distinction.

Lets say that 4% of us are left handed. Lets also say that left handed people win over 60% of all boxing matches. It is obvious that there is some kind of massive difference between left handed and right handed boxers. Claiming that there is no difference because they are both boxing is absurd and appears unbelievably desperate.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Homosexuality does not CAUSE AIDS.

You could probably publish an entire book on the process but the CDC knows more about the subject that we do combined. They linked the two I linked the two.

They didn't make the link that you claim they did.

Yes. it was actually greater than 60%. I posted the exact numbers they aren't debatable.

60% of new AIDS cases is NOT 60% of homosexuals.

What double standard? Heterosexuality costs lives, it creates lives. Homosexuality costs lives and does not create lives. Same standard.

The double standard between homosexuality and everything else that costs but doesn't create lives.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Their was no interpretation. In fact at least twice I posted the entire CDC article. It requires no interpretation. The CDC linked homosexuality with new aids cases, I linked homosexuality with new aids cases.

Your interpretation relates to causality. You are making claims and assumptions the CDC does not.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

At one point, he said he had a degree in statistics.
His inability to grasp the difference between correlation and causation makes me uncertain what to believe. After all, there are Christian YEC with degrees in biology.
Tom

I don't think I've ever met one. I have known nurses who oppose vaccination... but yes, the gap between claimed knowledge of stats and it's use here speaks to... something. Either not having the claimed expertise, or a brutal and deep form of extreme dissonance and compartmentalisation, though, I couldn't say.

 

[1robin]

They didn't make the link that you claim they did.

Lets just see what link they did make.
There were an estimated 38,500 new HIV infections in 2015. Among all populations in the United States, the estimated number of annual infections declined 8% from 2010 (41,800) to 2015 (38,500).


Download the Fact Sheet



Estimated New HIV Infections in the United States by Transmission Category, 2015

*Includes infections among gay and bisexual men who inject drugs and therefore have two risk factors.

Source: CDC. Estimated HIV incidence and prevalence in the United States, 2010-2015. HIV Surveillance Supplemental Report 2018;23(1).

HIV Diagnoses
In 2016, 39,782 people received an HIV diagnosis. The annual number of HIV diagnoses declined 5% between 2011 and 2015.

New HIV Diagnoses in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2016

Subpopulations representing 2% or less of all people who received an HIV diagnosis in 2016 are not represented in this chart.

Source: CDC. Diagnoses of HIV infection in the United States and dependent areas, 2016. HIV Surveillance Report 2017;28.

Gay and bisexual menc are the population most affected by HIV. In 2016:

• Gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% (26,570) of all HIV diagnoses and 83% of diagnoses among males.

HIV in the United States | Statistics Overview | Statistics Center | HIV/AIDS | CDC

So, the 4% of us in the US that are gay (not left handed, not blond, and not over 6ft tall) account for 67% of new aids cases (not heart defects, not cancer, and not blindness).

60% of new AIDS cases is NOT 60% of homosexuals.The double standard between homosexuality and everything else that costs but doesn't create lives.

I never said that 60% of homosexuals have aids. Where did you get this? We are discussing homosexuality not everything that has costs. Come off it.

 

[1robin]

Your interpretation relates to causality. You are making claims and assumptions the CDC does not.

Why mention homosexuality if it was not causal? What better way can you interpret the CDC data than that they are causally linked? Are you actually claiming the CDC meant that AIDS and homosexuality share some common cause that they didn't state? If you see that at least 67% of new AIDS cases are of homosexuals what are you supposed to think the cause was? BTW I certainly should have but did I ever even say it was a "cause"?

 

[sojourner]

I keep trying to politely end our discussion for now but you won't let me. How do I turn this thing off. Take a few days off to regain your emotional equilibrium then get back to me.

IDK why you’re playing the “You’re too emotional card.” Seems like one of the deflection ploys in your bag of “I’m not going to engage” tricks. This is an open thread. My responses are within the parameters of forum rules. When I see something that bears response, I’m going to respond — whether you think I should or not. If you’re uncomfortable with my replies, perhaps you should take a closer look at how your posts may be reflecting something that makes you uncomfortable, rather than deflect your discomfort to my “emotional state.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why mention homosexuality if it was not causal? What better way can you interpret the CDC data than that they are causally linked? Are you actually claiming the CDC meant that AIDS and homosexuality share some common cause that they didn't state? If you see that at least 67% of new AIDS cases are of homosexuals what are you supposed to think the cause was? BTW I certainly should have but did I ever even say it was a "cause"?

Associated with does not mean the cause. It is a factor but not the only one. Being a woman in sub Sahara Africa also means that one is highly likely to be HIV positive. By your logic we should "destroy" them as well.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't think I've ever met one. I have known nurses who oppose vaccination... but yes, the gap between claimed knowledge of stats and it's use here speaks to... something. Either not having the claimed expertise, or a brutal and deep form of extreme dissonance and compartmentalisation, though, I couldn't say.

also the fact that the poster doesn't seem to know that any conclusion drawn from data is, by definition, an interpretation is... well, unusual, for anyone with a stats background.

As is the unfamiliaritywith the "correlation=/= causation" rule, which was pretty much literally the first lesson back when I did stats.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why mention homosexuality if it was not causal? What better way can you interpret the CDC data than that they are causally linked? Are you actually claiming the CDC meant that AIDS and homosexuality share some common cause that they didn't state? If you see that at least 67% of new AIDS cases are of homosexuals what are you supposed to think the cause was?

as has been pointed out to you repeatedly now, correlation does not mean causation. Determining correlation requires in depth longitudanal study,with control groups and other controls . Looking at a bunch of raw data, saying "ooh, these two things look related, so , A must cause B" is the logic of charlatans and demogouges.

BTW I certainly should have but did I ever even say it was a "cause"?

Yes. Where I quoted you saying it was caused by homosexuality.

 

[sojourner]

try and get you to be more concise

If I can't get you to be more brief

Read the top two quotes and then look back in this thread at your other posts with regard to homosexuality. It appears as though you want to control an awful lot of behaviors. Even mine, trying to control my “emotional state.” Live and let live, man!

What double standard? Heterosexuality costs lives, it creates lives. Homosexuality costs lives and does not create lives. Same standard.

So, let me rephrase this: “Homosexuality only destroys human life.” Is that about it?

Homosexuality allows people to love each other fully, just as heterosexuality does. What curtails that full expression isn’t the same-sex aspect, but rather the people who try to control and condemn it. Now that saner heads have made marriage legal for ALL human beings, perhaps the HIV cases will diminish, since homosexuals will be able to be more open in their relationships, those relationships will be normalized, and homosexuals will be less forced to the fringes where promiscuity lurks. Your position only pushes them further out, keeping them “unnormal.” Tell me something: I’d like to see your scientific evidence proving that heterosexuality is the “default normal” for human sexuality.

When people are allowed to love fully, that creates life. Tiny human beings are a happy by-product of that created life. Remember: according to Genesis, the reason for the creation of the partner was for mutual support and affection. Procreation only came later. Therefore, from a theological perspective, the life that is created happens primarily through the “two becoming one.” So I don’t see how your statement that “homosexuality does not create life” is theologically defensible.
In fact, your position seems to dismiss that segment of the population as being less than a human being is “expected” to be, since we are expected to be together for that support and affection first and foremost. It is the stance that you propagate that takes that away from them — and not their orientation.