why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[Koldo]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

But i am not. So i can't have a relationship with other men.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Ah, I see bigotry has come out from under the woodwork spreading lies about queers like me again.

Enjoy the entertainment, folks.

 

[Father Heathen]

It violates the second commandment God gave to man.

Merely words primitive men placed in the mouth of "god". Why should we allow our lives to be dictated by some ancient goat herders' sock puppet?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Hi 1robin, I want to commend you for your effort here and the honest presentation of information you have given us. You have done a great job. KB P.S. The CDC is a .gov site and it has a wealth of damning evidence against MSM and the diseases that are plagued by that lifestyle.

May I ask if you consider coal miners to be perverted and immoral?

They are plagued by diseases which non-coalminers do not suffer, after all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

All the signs are pointing to overpopulation being a bad thing. I would expect that God gave us this intelligence for many reasons: one of which being that we can deduce for ourselves whether we're causing ourselves and our Home any harm, and not be dependent on him like a toddler to a parent.

I doubt that the world as it is now is the product of man following God's directives.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Monogamy is perfectly in line with sperm-donations.

Would that come under "spilling ones seed?"

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I got a question. What do you do with a heterosexual couple that decides not to have children?

I wouldn't do a danged thing with them.

 

[Riverwolf]

I doubt that the world as it is now is the product of man following God's directives.

But if we were directed to "go forth and multiply", then the overpopulation problem is.

But, if that's not what God intended, then homosexuality becoming legal is a great non-apocalyptic way of lowering the population to something more manageable over a few centuries.

 

[Riverwolf]

Would that come under "spilling ones seed?"

...no. That's clearly about ejaculation on the ground, or something.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi Riverwolf, it is just the term that the Center for Disease Control (CDC) uses as an acronym for "men having sex with men." KB

Okay.

I'd like to see what the CDC says, so I can determine whether it's really condemning homosexuality itself, or something else.

After all, promiscuity is dangerous for all orientations.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

...no. That's clearly about ejaculation on the ground, or something.

Not really. It's more about refusal to take care of your brother's heritage.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not really. It's more about refusal to take care of your brother's heritage.

Ah, so a Hebrew figure of speech.

I would guess, then, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sperm donors.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

But if we were directed to "go forth and multiply", then the overpopulation problem is.

The world being "overpopulated is a point of view based on one's perception of how the world should be. That the world sustains it's present population is proof that it's not "overpopulated."

But, if that's not what God intended, then homosexuality becoming legal is a great non-apocalyptic way of lowering the population to something more manageable over a few centuries.

Tell that to the Chinese.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Ah, so a Hebrew figure of speech.

I would guess, then, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sperm donors.

Your right, it has to do with continuing lineage which goes back to...being fruitful and multipying.:bunny::bunny:

 

[Riverwolf]

The world being "overpopulated is a point of view based on one's perception of how the world should be. That the world sustains it's present population is proof that it's not "overpopulated."

HA! No it doesn't.

Tell that to the Chinese.

Are we talking about what governments are doing to tackle the problem, or what God is doing?

 

[Riverwolf]

Your right, it has to do with continuing lineage which goes back to...being fruitful and multipying.:bunny::bunny:

Homosexuals using sperm donations does not endanger that.

 

[dgirl1986]

Ah, I see bigotry has come out from under the woodwork spreading lies about queers like me again.

Enjoy the entertainment, folks.

Pretty much -.-

 

[fantome profane]

Would that come under "spilling ones seed?"

I got most of it in the cup and I only spilled a little bit. Do you think "God"will still be mad?

 

[1robin]

I recommend, then, familiarizing yourself with how the internet works, and the tricks to avoid being deceived.

I did not say I did not know how to use the internet. I only meant I am old.

One website which is from a Christian organization, and another which is a political organization... that's even WORSE than the one you gave me. For the record, I wouldn't trust articles from a website that's run by a democratic organization any more than one from a conservative one. Political organizations only care about furthering their own power.

I find people reject sites mainly because they do not like what they say.

I'm not claiming that this website is dishonest; I said it MIGHT be. It might also be incompetent. It also very well could be accurate. You claim that there's an inexhaustible amount of evidence, but you haven't exactly provided that.

Inexhaustible is a figure of speech. How much do you need? I did not have any problem finding it.

When it comes to promiscuity, of course that's a dangerous lifestyle, for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. But there's nothing to indicate that homosexuality is automatically going to be more promiscuous than heterosexuality on its own.

No one assumed that. That is what the data reveals. It is a very simple matter to get data on promiscuity. These are not the kinds of issues where sophisticated probability, extreme sample control, and strict control of questioning is all that important. There is no way the medical community does not understand these issues.

Homosexuality is NOTHING MORE THAN SEXUAL ATTRACTION FOR THE SAME GENDER. It says nothing about behavior, libido strength, etc. That's why I asked those questions: they are absolutely necessary to check. Welcome to the inconvenience of social study. If all the questions haven't been addressed, it's not something that should be automatically trusted.

That was unsophisticated and naive. Homosexuality is acting against at least social norms. Even today there is a stigma against homosexual behavior. The people who practice it are by virtue of dismissing those norms already displaying a higher moral liberality than most. That would undeniably indicate a more promiscuous attitude whether the acts were wrong or right. Another indicator is the famous examples where gay pride events are marked by the most diabolical displays of flaunting any moral decency. The thumb their nose and flaunt the fact more than any group I know. They literally hate anyone who suggests their actions are immoral. I am sure there are very morally upstanding homosexuals but they have a disproportionate number of individuals which literally want to violate social moral norms.

Social studies require pools of tens of thousands of people, not a few hundred. Such studies also take years as a necessity to rule out these questions. Eventually, the results of the study are published, and THEN they have to be peer-reviewed to make sure everything's kosher. That means other people now have to conduct the studies and see if they produce the same results, in addition to their own studies to answer any neglected questions. Then THAT study needs to be peer-reviewed.

I have had three college level classes on probability and statistics. I know very well that issues this socially provocative, medically relevant, and economically stressfull are very well known. The issues have cost billions of dollars in third world nations and tens of thousands of lives. There is every incentive to know the facts and the medical/insurance industries have more experience with stats than almost any group. The issues are not obscure they are very well understood on at least a macro level. I think your preference is overcomplicating the obvious and trivializing the momentous.

That's how it works. Anything less can be ignored and discarded without shame.

Can you mathematically show why tens of thousands are required in this context? I know the math behind stats and that is not the case. Tens of thousands might shrink a small margin of error a little further but that does not make hundreds or thousands too small of a sample size. However I am sure I can find more studies than you are willing to dismiss if necessary. Only a very few studies carried out that did not simply access existing records (like a census) were far below the tens of thousands level.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, I want to commend you for your effort here and the honest presentation of information you have given us. You have done a great job. KB P.S. The CDC is a .gov site and it has a wealth of damning evidence against MSM and the diseases that are plagued by that lifestyle.

Hello, Thank you for the sentiments. I agree and have seen some of the data. These issues affect both the medical and the insurance industries. They are the two industries most capable and experienced with statistics. I have no doubt they well understand the issues. I think preference for a certain reality is over complicating very simple data here. The type of money involved here always necessitates the accurate grasp of the factors involved.