Funny, I never said that. You seriously need to tone down the rhetoric. You still haven't responded to anything in my last post on the subject matter.

For God's sake, DR, what part of "PLEASE CITE A SOURCE" do you not understand? The phrase is even composed of one-syllable words. You have posted this diatribe almost verbatim* in another thread and were asked - repeatedly - by several participants here - to cite sources for any of the things you are trying to pass off as fact. You failed. What - if all of your ridiculous arguments are challenged yet again here are you just going to go and post them in a third thread?

[quote=DaytonRocker,Jun 23 2003, 01:39 PM]Homosexuality is a lifestyle.[/quote]
Please provide some sort of foundation for this assertion - any type of foundation. This has already been refuted by many participants here. Repeating it like a mantra does not make it true.

[quote]Contrary to the 1948 Kinsey report, only 1-3% of people are homosexual. [/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]Even pro-gay activists have rejected the Kinsey report which claimed that 10% of our population is homosexual. [/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]It seems Mr. Kinsey used 5300 people in his study, but got 500 of them from prisons. [/quote]
Please cite a source for this. Besides, even if that is the case, removing those 500 cases would affect his overall findings by less than 10%. If they were eliminated from his analysis, that would still imply that 9 - 11% of the male population is gay, rather than 10%. Big difference.

[quote]But with 1-3% of the population being homosexual [based on what?], 68% of HIV and AIDS related cases are from homosexual relationships.[/quote]
This was refuted several times over the first time you posted it. Please cite a source for your information.

[quote]Now, TB, typhoid, and other third world diseases are on the rise.[/quote]
As you have been asked - and refused to answer - elsewhere, what in God's name has this to do with homosexuality???

[quote]The medical risks associated with homosexual behavior are enormous and it's only getting worse.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]We teach our kids to wash their hands after using the bathroom to help stem disease in our society, then teach them to play in it as long as sex is involved.[/quote]
This is totally incoherent. Please don't bother trying to explain - we all have our limits.

[quote]There is not one shred of evidence that supports the notion that homosexuality is genetic.[/quote]
True, there are no shreds. There are entire, complete volumes of evidence to support this fact. They have been cited for you and you have chosen to ignore them utterly.

[quote]50% of twins where one is homosexual are not both homosexual.[/quote]
This is one of the corroborating bits of evidence which as has already been pointed out to you, supports a genetic basis for homosexuality. You have obviously chosen to ignore the works cited which demonstrated this fact.

[quote]It is not uncommon for lifelong homosexuals to go hetero and marry.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this - particularly statistics demonstrating just how "not uncommon" this unnatural behavior is.

[quote]And the basic premise of a "gay gene" is fatally flawed (and probably the reason they haven't found it nor never will). Homosexuals can't reproduce. So how could the "gay gene" stay in existence? If it were genetic versus lifestyle, the "gay gene" would be extinct.[/quote]
Of course homosexuals can reproduce. They're not sterile, they're gay. Even so, your argument is fatuous, though and demonstrates nothing more than a total ignorance of genetics. Besides, this was refuted the last time you posted it. Of course, you've again chosen to ignore the response altogether.

[quote]It is abnormal for a man to place his penis in another man's orifice designed specifically to expel waste. A woman's vagina has thicker walls, lubricates, and secretes what is necessary to help prevent bacteria. The rectum has thin walls that tear easily, does not lubricate, and breeds bacteria. In the past 60,000 years of our evolution, the male rectum has not evolved into a sexual orifice.[/quote]
This has been addressed elsewhere - by several contributors - and you have chosen yet again to ignore the responses.

[quote]Of course, people will say "It's not about sex". But this is like major league baseball players saying "It's not about money". Because it always is about money. And same with homosexuals. It is about sex.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this. Oh - or, sorry, is this sheer, unadulterated bigotry?

[quote]Promiscuity among the male gay population is one of the biggest factors contributing to the rapid spread of HIV.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]And here's something new. It appears that the cases of HIV among "couples" is rising. They are having more unprotected sex and it appears partners haven't either been especially forthcoming, or they continue to have casual sex while in these relationships.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]So no, there is no evidence to indicate it is natural behavior[/quote]
YES THERE IS!!! YOU HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH REFERENCES IN ABUNDANCE AND HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE THEM. Again and again and again and again.

[quote]...while there is much to indicate it's not.[/quote]
WHAT? WHERE? Please cite a source! PLEASE!

[quote]But if some of us bring this up, we're labeled as homophobes and gay bashers.[/quote]
Maybe by one or two people, but most of us have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. As you steadfastly refuse to read or comprehend any of the dozens of posts which have refuted almost every word you've posted and despite many, many, many, many requests to provide some sort of foundation for any of your prejudiced opinions, I'm beginning to assume there is no other possible explanation.

[quote]I wasn't surprised to learn that the most intolerant posters here are gay.[/quote]
If you mean intolerant of ignorance, stupidity, a gross lack of debating etiquette, and a complete inability to read and respond to counter-arguments, you are absolutely right: guilty as charged.

[quote=DaytonRocker,Jun 23 2003, 03:24 PM]If it were normal, our bodies would accomadate it.[/quote]
Again, this has been addressed. Again, the responses have been persistently ignored.

[quote]The life expectancy of gay males is somewhere around 42.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]The growing medical problem cannot be avoided (and why I determined it IS my business what goes on behind closed doors).[/quote]
What growing medical problem would that be? Please cite a source.

[quote]Our bodies and our behavior is not adapting to the medical problems while the diseases are.[/quote]
More incoherence (and the atrocious grammar doesn't help). You're saying that diseases are adapting to medical problems??? Amplify?

[quote]People with HIV are having unprotected sex with others HIV positive only to find out they are getting the more resistent types.[/quote]
Please cite a source for this.

[quote]Yet, our bodies remain the same. If this were normal, our bodies would adapt - much like colds and the flu - to the medical problems. But it doesn't. The medical problem is growing. Our bodies have historically been very resilient in dealing with our environment. Our teeth have evolved so we can eat more meat. Our bodies have adpated to warmer climates. Women's pelvic areas have expanded to accomadate bigger babies.[/quote]
More incoherence. Can you name an instance of any of this sort of adaptation which has occurred in just over two decades? One example will do. Otherwise, applying this argument to HIV is completely fatuous, if not unexpected.

[quote]Unplanned pregnancy is a big issue...[/quote]
Yeah. Big and irrelevant.

[quote]I agree heterosexual prostitution is rampant...[/quote]
Rampant and irrelevant.

[quote]Rape is a significant violent crime....[/quote]
Significant and irrelevant.

[quote]What is the definition of deviency?[/quote]
This has already been addressed. Your definition could apply to people with red hair, the left-handed, and Maoris. But you only apply your prejudice to redheads, southpaws, and Maoris who also happen to be gay. Obviously, I don't expect you to respond to this any more than you responded to it the first time, any more than you've ever responded to anything.

[quote]Personally speaking, if you're not being a little deviant, you're not doing it right (to answer Sleepers question). When we deviate from the norm, that's one thing.[/quote]
Oh - okay. You've just undermined your entire argument here. I can recommend a good shrink...

[quote]Just because a few percent of our population think it's normal, it doesn't make it normal.[/quote]
And what percent would that be, DR? Please cite a source for the percentage to which you refer.


[quote]And Ultimatejoe, thank you for your "Please shut up already" debating tactic. It puts your knowledge of this subject into it's proper perspective. I'm staying on topic. You're avoiding one.[/quote]


Back here on planet earth, Ultimatejoe is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. He is not telling you to shut up (though I'd sure as hell second it, if he were), he is telling you to stop posting the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over - ESPECIALLY when you refuse - absolutely refuse - to provide any support whatsoever for any of your prejudiced blather or to respond to any of the reasoned well-researched, well-founded, well-documented refutations of everything you post.

There is no point addressing you any further on this issue, DR, as you have now made it abundantly clear that you are posting out of nothing more than ignorance and bigotry. It would be one thing if you were an ignorant, bigoted debater, but you are not. You are an ignorant, bigoted monologist - and, therefore, a waste of everyone's time. If you wanna keep riding this hobby-horse as though you were the only participant on the entire site, Dayton Rocker, start your own blog. But please, stop pretending that you are even remotely interested in discussion. On a site devoted to the exchange of ideas, it is a theft of bandwidth .



*The RULES state that it is PROHIBITED to submit the same post to multiple topics, DR. That is exactly what you have done here and in the Gay Marriage thread. In addition, many of your opinions constitute unfounded blanket statements. The GUIDELINES suggest that you "Cite your sources, and be prepared to back-up your argument." You have been asked to do that countless times on both of these threads - by both participants and members of the staff - and have adamantly refused. If you submit one more post in this fashion, I will be lobbying strenuously for you to be given at least one strike.

I find homosexuality abnormal and repulsive. I also find ballet abnormal and repulsive. Why should I care if people are homosexual or watch ballet if it seems normal and good to them? Just because I don't like something doesn't mean I think it's wrong.

Actually, I made my points to gay marriage and why I thought it was bad. And it's mostly because of the long term repercussions of having any two people with a pulse being able to marry to gain financial benefit while dismissing the child factor.

But the other problem I had, was in doing that research, I found I that homosexual behavior was neither genetic or normal (which I assumed to be true before the debate). So, that topic was better suited here. Now, over on THAT thread, I was told not to post anything somebody else posted on other threads since the beginning of time. I wasn't allowed to repeat a point made by somebody else from what may have been, another planet. Oh yeah, and the token "shut up" over there as well. Now, I'm getting the rules thrown at me to get me to shut up.

But I find this fairly interesting. I'm at a slight disadvantage. I can't post resources from pro-gay sites because, as weird as this may sound, they're obviously biased for gay people. But I avoid the Christian right wing because they're even too biased for me. So, I found the least biased site I could find with the best sources who presented what I think is accurate. Here's the responses to my previous sources:



Yeah, I'm sorry I got an educated woman from Stanford to share her analysis.


I know that Parent's Rights term is a sore spot.


And a reaffirmation of how my sources do not condone the promoting of homosexuality, so they obviously are comprised of people who will burn in hell. Opps...wrong bigots.

Anyhow, the debate has come to 'SHUT UP" or "You're not allowed to debate unless you give source we agree with" or "you're violating the rules by spouting your opinion!". But as much as you may not like my sources, here is a sampling of THEIR sources:

Source: Benjamin F. Miller, M.D., The Complete Medical Guide (revised), p.187
Source: Masters & Johnson, UPI, April 23, 1979.
Source: Chief Justice Warren Berger, concurring opinion, Bowers vs. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186, 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986).
Source: John Money, " Sin, Sickness, or Status? Homosexual Gender Identity and Psychoneuroen - docrinology," American Psychologist 42, no. 4, (1987): p, 384.
Source: J. Micheal Bailey and Richard C. Pillard, "A Genetic Study of male Sexual Orientation," Archives of General Psychiatry 48 (1991): pp. 1089-1096.
Source: Simon LeVay, "A difference in Hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men," Science 258 (1991): pp. 1034-1037.
Source: David Perlman, "Brain Cell Study Finds Link to Homosexuality Tissue Differs Between Gay and Straight Men," The San Francisco Chronicle, August 30. 1991, p. A1.
Source: King., M., and E. McDonald, "Homosexuals Who Are Twins a Study of 46 Probands," British Journal of Psychiatry, 1992, vol. 160; pp. 407-409.
Source: Richard "Jonah" Weller, handbill, "The Voice They Want Silenced: A former homosexual man speaks out about homosexuality and the politics of dishonesty," 1992.
Source: Donna Minkowitz, "Recruit, Recruit, Recruit," The Advocate (the nation's premier gay publication), December 29, 1992.
Source: D.H. Hamer, et al., "A linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation," Science 261, (1993); pp. 321-327
Source: Richard C. Friedman and Jennifer Downey, "Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships," Journal of Neuropsychiatry Vol. 5, no.2 (Spring 1993): pp. 131-133.
Source: Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald, Exploding the Gene Myth, (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1993): pp. 6, 94, and 98.
Source: Baron, Miron, Ph. D., " Genetic Linkage and Male Homosexual Orientation," British Medical Journal, August 7, 1993, Vol. 307; pp. 337-338.
Source: From an editorial in a "gay" publication, "Making the Whole World Gay," cited in Charles Socarides, M.D., Homosexuality, A Freedom Too Far, p. 30, 1995.
Source: The Washington Blade (gay paper), January 30, 1998.
Source: George Rice, et al., "Male Homosexuality: Absence of linkage to Microsatellite Markers at Xq28," Science 284 (1999): pp. 665-667.
Source: Edward Stein, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999) and Michael Bronski, "Blinded by Science," The Advocate, February 1, 2000, p.64.

Now, you expect me to go and check all those sources I'm sure. In other words, my source is wrong because the 85 they used were all wrong. So, it's up to me to prove them all right by going to THEIR sources.

I even gave you sources from www.gayhealth.com. A PRO-gay website. But, your sources are right. Mine are wrong. I understand how this works. Your sources are scientific, accurate, and sanctioned by Einstein. Mine are all out of context and only supported by one 10 billionth of the scientific community.

But you know what? I'm just too damn lazy to research my source's source's sources. And I admit it. I could get Jesus Christ himself to be a source and you'd simply call him a bigoted Jew. It really doesn't matter what sources I give you. This debate has been reduced to "your sources suck, so they are wrong" to "just shut up".

So far, because I disagree and think homosexuality is wrong, I've been:
1) Called a homophobe
2) Compared to Hitler
3) Accused of being too insecure to hug my son (of course, I don't recall stating I actually ever had one. But, whatever).
4) A bigot
5) A person who despises anyone he disagrees with.

I have to tell you, you really need to keep this up. By the end of the week, I could have an entire database containing all the intolerant rhetoric required to start that blog someone suggested.

I'm figuring I need to be called at least 5 more names to call it a decent start. More than that will only be a bonus.

I'm on my own taking on an entire board, so some people may be a little intimidated. But as I told a new friend today that like my wife, thinks I'm completely full of crap on this subject (*wink*), it's easy to take the popular view.

So, who's next?

BTW:

Ballet doesn't spread disease and kill people.

[quote=DaytonRocker,Jun 23 2003, 09:10 PM]Actually, I made my points to gay marriage and why I thought it was bad. And it's mostly because of the long term repercussions of having any two people with a pulse being able to marry to gain financial benefit while dismissing the child factor.[/quote]
Off topic. And that argument has already been shredded elsewhere.

[quote]But the other problem I had, was in doing that research, I found I that homosexual behavior was neither genetic or normal (which I assumed to be true before the debate).[/quote]
And the problem that everyone else had was that there was absolutely no evidence of that research having been done. There still isn't - no matter how much time you spend deflecting.

[quote]I was told not to post anything somebody else posted on other threads since the beginning of time. I wasn't allowed to repeat a point made by somebody else from what may have been, another planet.[/quote]
That is a lie. You were told to review the thread to which you were posting so as not to raise questions which had already been answered. You didn't. You still haven't. You're still doing it.

[quote]But I find this fairly interesting. I'm at a slight disadvantage.[/quote]
You are at no disadvantage whatsoever. Nothing is being asked of you that would not (and, in most cases, has not) been asked of anyone else who posts here in good faith.

[quote]Anyhow, the debate has come to "SHUT UP"...[/quote]
No, Rocker, the debate has come to "PUT UP".

[quote]or "You're not allowed to debate unless you give source we agree with"...[/quote]
Wrong, again. Your failure is in not providing any sources at all. I'd love to be able to take on some of the sources which are apparently feeding your prejudice. That is why I ask for them. Trust me, I'd find it much more profitable to address the sources of your bigotry than simply complaining about the fact that you are not disclosing those sources. It might even advance the debate. Not that you would know anything about that.

[quote]or "you're violating the rules by spouting your opinion!"[/quote]
Another lie. It was suggested that you were violating the rules by posting exactly the same thing to two different threads - especially as you failed to address any rebuttal to your posting the first time.

[quote]But, your sources are right. Mine are wrong. I understand how this works. Your sources are scientific, accurate, and sanctioned by Einstein. Mine are all out of context and only supported by one 10 billionth of the scientific community.[/quote]
No, our sources are posted, yours have yet to materialize. You clearly do not understand how this works in the least. Here's a primer: I post something like "A quarter of a million women in the US are HIV positive and 75% of them acquired the infection through heterosexual intercourse." You reply, "Oh, really, what's your source on that, Wertz?" I post back, "Oh, sorry, DR, my source is the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Those statistics can be found at their web site right here. What is so bloody complex about that, Rocker?? You are right, though. Many of our sources are scientific and accurate. Yours remain non-existent.

[quote]But you know what? I'm just too damn lazy to research my source's source's sources.[/quote]
You are apparently too damn lazy, period. As was pointed out the last time you raised this straw man, no one is asking - or has ever asked - for anything more than a source: a simple hyperlink to where you came across any of the "facts" you keep spewing. Your ongoing refusal to do so makes it seem increasingly likely that they are complete fiction.

[quote]This debate has been reduced to "your sources suck, so they are wrong" to "just shut up".[/quote]
Once again, wrong on both counts. You have been posting things like "Contrary to the 1948 Kinsey report, only 1-3% of people are homosexual" and "The life expectancy of gay males is somewhere around 42" and "68% of HIV and AIDS related cases are from homosexual relationships". We are merely asking where you got such figures? Did you pull them out of your fundament? Did you just make them up? Some of us had been giving you the benefit of the doubt and were assuming that you actually did do a bit of research and came across such stats somewhere. We are simply asking you where? It is not too much to ask of any other participant here, DR. If it is too much to ask of you, then perhaps you should do us all a favor - yourself included - and just withdraw from the debate.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

This thread, for those who have not got too caught up in Dayton Rocker's feeble apologia for why he is unwilling or unable to participate on equal footing with everyone else here, struck me as being a moral question. Not a question of whether homosexuality is natural or unnatural, normal or deviant, but, as A Giant Bean originally framed the question:[quote]Do you think homosexuality is right or wrong?[/quote]

If, in order to support your own moral position on homosexuality, you feel you must refer to scientific studies or statistics, please post a simply link to your source. Thanks. Enjoy the debate.

You need to read your own sources, several of them indicate homosexuality is, at least, genetically predisposed.

Actually I have seen that average life expectancy of a gay male is 42 before. If memory serves me it was based on someone deriving stats from orbituaries during the height of the AIDS epidemic. Totally unscientific.

D.H. Hamer (one of DR's sources) clearly is a strong believer that homosexuality is genetic, he constructed a tablet comparing homosexuality with left-handedness here

Well, I can see this topic has already flamed up. Allow me to answer the original question before I (inevitably) enter the fray...

As a Christian, my view of homosexuality is that it is repulsive. It says in Leviticus that homosexuality is disgusting to God, so one of the things that angers me MOST of all about homosexuality is that some homosexuals claim also to be Christian! Now, I don't want anyone coming back at me saying "everybody sins, even Christians, so who are you to talk?", so I will address this right away. Homosexuality is a LIFE decision, one that effects almost every other aspect of one's life, and when you base your life on such a underlying principal, it is sickening to me that you could call yourself a Christian when it so blatantly conflicts your lifestyle.

Another thing about homosexuality that irritates me is the fact that many homosexuals find it necessary to flaunt their homosexuality. I know, this is America, and you CAN do it as protected by your Constitutional rights, but if, as Wertz said earlier, you want laws kept away from your bodies, keep it to your bodies. Last time I checked, homosexuality is, at it's core, a SEXUALLY INDUCED decision, and sexual relations are kept in the privacy of one's bed. I just wish that it could be left that way, so that those of us who aren't interested in what should be your PRIVATE sexual decisions do not have to see it. You don't need to parade around, flashing what the majority of this country feels is filth, even in the faces of innocent children, to have homosexual relations.

Speaking of innocent children, I shudder to think how children adopted by homosexual couples feel when they realize that it's not normal to have two daddies or two mommies. This is the kind of thing that can shatter the lives of young children, when they are made to feel like outcasts. When other parents hear about the kid with homosexual parents, they won't want their kids to have much to do with him/her. That child will have a scarred childhood, on no fault of its own. This is NOT to say that it always happens this way, but it'll happen more often than not.

In short, my view is that I don't care WHAT you do in your own bed to your own body, but PLEASE leave heterosexuals, innocent children, and God out of it, as none of them want to be a part of it. And don't act so surprised when people point out that you're not normal, because you're not (because of CHOICES that YOU made, not a trait you were born with), so get used to it if you intend to continue to choose the homosexual lifestyle.

More sources - only because I'm bored

Here'a a guy talking about the wonderful world of monogamy from a gay perspective:
http://www.pridesource.com/cgi-bin/article...article=3839978

Gays getting HIV from steady partners:
http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1056339...news?record=629

References to gay promiscuity:
http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1056339.../sex?record=123

Meningitis in gays causing a new alert:
http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/1056339...news?record=561

More disturbing statistics supported by:
(1) Advocate, 1985.
(2) Bayer, R. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry.
(3) Bell, A. and Weinberg, M. Homosexualities: a Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.
(4) Cameron et. al. ISIS National Random Sexuality Survey. Nebraska Med. Journal, 1985, 70, pp. 292-299.
(5) "Changes in Sexual Behavior and Incidence of Gonorrhea." Lancet, April 25, 1987.
(6) Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.
(7) Family Research Institute, Lincoln, NE.
(8) Fields, Dr. E. "Is Homosexual Activity Normal?" Marietta, GA.
(9) Jay and Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, p. 275.
(10) Kaifetz, J. "Homosexual Rights Are Concern for Some," Post-Tribune, 18 December 1992.
(11) Kus, R. "Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay America." Medical Journal of Homosexuality, 1987, 14(2), p. 254.
(12) Lesbian News, January 1994.
(13) Lief, H. Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, 1977, pp. 110-11.
(14) Manlight, G. et. al. "Chronic Immune Stimulation By Sperm Alloantigens." J. American Med. Assn., 1984, 251(2), pp. 237-438.
(15) Morton-Hunt Study for Playboy
(16) MsKusick, L. et. al. "AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported By Gay Men in San Francisco." Am. J. Pub. Health, 1985, 75, pp. 493-96.
(17) Newsweek, February 1993.
(18) Newsweek, 4 October 1993.
(19) Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, pp. 327-37.
(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, 1982, p. 53.
(21) San Francisco AIDS Foundation, "Can We Talk."
(22) San Francisco Sentinel, 27 March 1992.
(23) Science Magazine, 18 July 1993, p. 322.
(24) Statistical Abstract of the U.S., 1990.
(25) "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine. November, 1987.
(26) United States Census Bureau
(27) United States Congressional Record, June 29, 1989.
(28) University of Chicago's Nation Research Corp.
(29) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

http://www.inoohr.org/homosexualstatistics.htm


Census numbers:
http://www.dadi.org/homocpls.htm

Three PhD's talking about homosexual genetics:
http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html

More health concerns:
http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/Diseases.pdf

Kinsey survey debunking:
http://www.chronwatch.com/editorial/2002-06-03b.asp

CDC data showing how male gay sex accounts for more aids than all other known causes combined:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Gays hiding illnesses:
http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/0/news?record=136

Life expectency study:
http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abs...alcode=intjepid

Lottery tickets:
http://www.ohiolottery.com/

Cincinnati Reds:
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/...ex.jsp?c_id=cin

This space for rent:
www.yournamehere.com

Now maybe people can understand why I keep my links, and sources. to a minimum.

Thanks for the honest opinion, CTE - and for dragging this thread back on track. There's quite a bit in your posting which merits response, but to be honest, I've grown weary of this subject at the moment. I'll try to get back to cover a few points before long.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Finally, DR. We knew you had it in you! Now all you have to do is figure out how to match your sources up with your posts and you'll have learned how to be a constructive participant here.

I'd like to address this bit, CTE. You might be better to say, "in my version of Christianity..."

I'll assume you're speaking about Leviticus 18:22:



Literally, this translates to:


Christians and Jews interpret this verse in varying ways. Some say it condemns homosexual sex in the context of breaking the marriage covenant, others that it condemns all homosexual sex.

Or maybe you mean Leviticus 20:13:



Which translates to


Again, different schools of thought translate this passage differently. Do you think homosexuals should be put to death?

Anyway, it doesn't say in Leviticus that homosexuality is disgusting to God. It doesn't even mention homosexuality (as an orientation). It condemns homosexual sex, and the context is debatable.

Christianity, at its heart, is based not on the Laws of Moses, but upon the teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus never once mentions homosexuality in any context. However, his teachings are centered around justice, compassion, tolerance, and love. I'll let you imagine what his "position" might have been. For all we know about Jesus, he might well have been gay. Who knows? But since the core of Protestant belief is centered around the personal relationship with God, who are you to judge that someone else does or does not believe they have that relationship, and that it is genuine?

You go on to say:


I totally agree. I think women should wear burqas, and men should wear long, shapeless robes. That way people won't flaunt their sexuality.

Oh, and when was the last time you checked? And where, exactly, did you check?


Um, obviously, you do care. It "sickens" you. Right?



I am a heterosexual, and it doesn't bother me. Children who are "innocent" are not bothered by it, because revulsion of homosexuality is a learned behavior. And perhaps you have a closer relationship with God than everyone else, to know His mind so well.

I find it much more difficult to be happy myself when I am forced to tolerate the people whose lifestyles disgust me. Does it apply to you more than it applies to me? Equality is a two-way street.



I can throw this same question right back at you. Why should your set of standards be given priority over mine?



Off topic, but where have I claimed that Africans are sub-standard? Different, maybe. Sub-standard, no, I don't think I have said that.



Again off the topic. I will be happy to debate how natural (or not) segregation is in another thread.



In many areas of life, I think the "old way" of doing things was better than what we have now. But once more, that's a topic for another thread.



As an atheist, I am not swayed by someone quoting scripture as a basis for an argument.

Rumblestrip :


People who carry around firearms disgust me. People who eat rare meat disgust me. People who wear green disgust me. I am forced to tolerate these people. I have the right to protest against carrying firearms; I can write an article in the paper about how disgusting it is to eat rare meat; I can glare at people in green. I am not, however, allowed to deny those people their full rights under the Constitution.



It's not even a question of morality. The set of standards by which our rights and freedoms are expressly measured is the Constitution of the United States. I don't recall it saying "all straight men are created equal...

OK!OK!OK! Daytonrocker, every one, this is getting a little out of hand. I feel like I'm watching one of those MSNBC shows where everyone is shouting and talking at the same time! DR, when I originally posted (either this thread or on gay marriage) and said

[/QUOTE]Seriously. Who I love is right for me. I'm not going to tell someone that they're narrow minded or spat hateful remarks at them for thinking I'm living an immoral life. That's there convictions and I respect that. The ONLY thing that I won't tolerate is when someone who disagrees with my life take that to the next level and interferes with my life. Words are only words. As Jesus says "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" and of course "For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God."[QUOTE]

You then replied

[QUOTE]Thank you for that great statement. I personally think that homosexuality is repugnant, but what two consenting adults do between themselves is nobody's business and as long as they are not hurting anybody, I could care less what they do.[/QUOTE]

Now, your reply to my comment, in which you right off the bat say how disgusting homosexuality is, why did you feel the need to reinforce a hateful thought? You don't agree, but it's none of my business would have been enough, but no you have to make it chrystal clear your distain for my community, you provocated this into one side against the other with you slander. You and I could have had a mutual agreement to disagreee, but no you had to take it to the next level. And what you've posted since then are not at all consistent, except for your disgust with the homosexual community. Even the statement above that you made is inconsistent. You don't care what they do, but then your so adamant against us. Apparently you do care or you wouldn't have lashed out at my FAMILY with such vengeance and animosity. Your obvious intolerance for diversity makes me very sad. Sad that you wouldn't respect me and my parter, but you would expect me to acknowledge you and your wifes marriage and the love between you. I don't think that your opinion is wrong, every one is intitled to their opinion, it's just the way that you express it. As far as blatant homosexuals who try to push their 'lifestyle' on the rest of society, well, we are that society. Watch tv, listen to music, pay attention to the country at large, we are everywhere, we've always have been here, and the only reason we're more visible and outspoken is because we're gaining political and media power. It's your right not to agree with the way we live our lives, in the same way I don't have to agree with you. You're statements againsts the gay community are archaic and full of hate. "The only thing to fear is fear it's self." And I think that you are full of fear of something you know nothing about.

Actually, I had a revelation in the gay marriage thread and stated so:




As stated, after looking at the data, it should be our business. But I pretty much stopped debating in the gay marriage thread because my issues came down to homosexuality on it's own. So, there's not much more I can contribute to the debate on gay marriage if I can't even agree with it's foundation. So, I moved over to this thread where my opinion is more relevent.

Of course, that only led to more attacks. I've been called an entire litany of names (with your help I might add) because of why I think homosexuality is wrong, yet you accuse me of slander. I have not used the "God said it's bad so you will burn in hell" argument and have avoided Christian right sources as much as possible. I have done the research and made up my own mind. So, the only thing left to do is discredit my sources and call me more names.

I swear, why do you people even come here? Is this americasdebate.com or americaspopularviews.com? Over the last few days, some of you have been doing the cyber equivelent of sticking your fingers in your ears while going LALALALALALALALALALALALALA as loud as possible. It's even got to the point where I've been asked to withdraw from the debate. And why? Because I provide alternate sources that disagree with the pro-gay community. I avoided posting a bunch of links because the claims I make are WIDELY available all over the internet. I wasn't using obscure data nobody heard of. It took me 10 minutes to post the sources from yesterday. I could keep going very easily.

But that is not the point. I'm not trying to "prove" anybody wrong or right. I can substantiate my stance on homosexuality scientifically. Sure, trash the science because anti-gay phychologists and doctors are incompetant bumbling idiots when compared to pro-gay scientists if it makes you feel better. I really don't care. I have the cajones to take on everyone of you people attacking me on my views. You don't intimidate, scare, or bother me. The name calling and attempts to silence me only strengthen my resolve. Because then I know I'm on to something.

This is and never has been a personal attack on anyone. It has been an attack on the rhetoric spewing forth from the gay community. And if you want to take that personally, there's not much I can do about that.


Now, the issue is getting sidetracked because I have to substantiate my claims and crud up this board with 1000 more links validating my position. Again, it's not like I'm stating anything obscure. The good gay people here and their supporters however, act like my health issue concerns have no foundation. The deny the problem with promiscuity amongst gay males like it's some urban myth.

So, you want sources? You'll get sources.

I look at the bottom of the board when reading posts to see who else is there, so it's not like the only people paying attention to this are the people brave enough to talk. Everyone of those "lurkers" may think I'm full of it too. But they're reading it. So don't flatter yourself by thinking you people responding are the only ones paying attention. As of this writing, there have been 63 replies, but 835 views.

I was going to begin finding and posting data that support my views. But, I'll make you a deal. Any one of you start a poll if the powers-that-be will allow it (and they have my permission if that counts for anything). Ask the simple yes/no question of: Do you think DaytonRocker should withdraw from the debate on homosexuality?

An effort to silence me is underway, so I'm opening the door for you to take advantage of that opportunity. If 51% think I should withdraw, I will. Not a problem. In fact, I will avoid gay subjects on this board forever and stick with other geo-political issues that interest me equally as much.

The door is open and my challenge is extended to you.

As evidenced by your intolerance, Rumblestrip, no one is forcing you to tolerate anything. What kind of a point are you making here? That to secure your own happiness, homosexuals should be exterminated? Placed in internment camps? Deported? How do you propose creating this two-way Happy Street?

Please let me know what you're suggesting because, personally, I am disgusted by obesity. Every time I go out in public, the two-way street of my happiness is disrupted because I am forced to tolerate grossly overweight Americans, the sight of whom makes me want to throw up. Whatever you're hoping to do to gay people, I would love to do to fat people. Enlighten us.

For quarkhead's sake, I will explain the Biblical side of the homosexual argument.

You were correct, I was referring to Leviticus 18:22, which in the New International Version reads:



Even using your ultra-literal translation, it's pretty clear what the real meaning is. Think about it, if God had wanted man to sleep with man, he would never have made woman in the first place, or vice versa. Homosexual relations "bear no fruit", as no children can made from them, so they can be firmly placed in the "lust" category. In 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8, we are warned of this...



This is New Testament, reaffirming that the laws of God do not change, though our sins be paid for by Jesus. It was in the Old Testament in Hebrews 13:4...



Don't forget what happened to Sodom, because of it's sins, one of the chief sins being homosexuality, as pointed out in Genesis 19:4-5, when Lot was in the city square and two angels had come to see him, to determine if God should spare the city from His wrath...





NO!!!!!! Never, ever, EVER did I even indicate that I thought this! I merely wanted to point out that God finds it a sin and that to base one's life on something so sinful while claiming to be a Christian at the same time is ludicrous to me.



Well, that's kind of like the difference between being a drug user and a drug addict. You can only go on using drugs (I would imagine, not from personal experience ) for so long until you are addicted and your life becomes more and more immersed in it. The same with homosexual sex (or lustful sex of any kind), it becomes addictive and life-consuming, becoming an "orientation". Leviticus just gets right to the root of the problem and says flat out "don't do it...it's detestable".



Right, christianity is, at it's core, based on the the death and resurrection of Jesus. Or, better yet, that's what "it all boils down to." Because God sent Jesus, his only Son, to die and be resurrected for the sins of all people, past, present, and future, our sins are forgiven us. HOWEVER, that does not mean that we have free reign to sin and do as we please and still expect to be redeemed. The teachings of Jesus reenforce the more potent laws of the Old Testament, because God's word is final, and Jesus firmly believed this. But, as for Jesus being gay, I ask: How dare you? Jesus was sinless and blameless because he was the Son of God, and he would NEVER partake of something that, to his Father, as was made perfectly clear, is detestable. So, it is not I who judges, but God. In choosing to disobey his commands, homosexuals subject themselves to being judged by God.



It sickens me in such a manner that I would never do it myself. You need only to read what comes DIRECTLY after the statement of mine that you quoted to see that I only care what YOU do in YOUR bed when you bring unnecessary elements into it, like parading around for everyone, even children, to see.



I know God through his Word in the Bible, of which I have quoted examples. I know what He thinks of homosexuality through the Bible.

Finally, for everyone else, I'm sorry for all of this Bible-preaching. I know there are many of you out there who will not care at all for quoting the Bible, but it is for quarkhead's sake.

But on June 16th YOU said:

I'm a homophobe and I'm pretty damn proud of it, so there!

Okay, so which is it DaytonRocker? To homophobe or not to homophobe? That is the question.



Oh, and as regards your "should I withdraw from this debate question?" I think that's up to the moderators to decide if you've violated the rules and standards of the board. Merely because your viewpoint may be unpopular doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to express it within the rules of this board.

I disagree with your beliefs DaytonRocker, but I strongly support your right to hold and express them.

And on July 17th:



You are completely blinded by your intolerance.

Guys, calm down. This topic is barely staying on thread as it is. I think we all know how Dayton Rocker feels, and we all know how everyone else feels about this posting strategies.

Now DR, you keep on saying that we've asked you to leave and that's not true. We've asked you to further your discussion by responding to the points that other people have made. Even CTE and Rumblestrip have managed to do so. You need to start adressing our arguments instead of blathering on about how we're persecuting you. Do what they're doing; quoting the things we are saying ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY and adressing those statements.

Ok. We all know what Daytonrocker and the other conservatives views on homosexuality are. It is safe to assume that this is established. Instead of rehashing the same conversation over, and over and over again to no prevail. I propose this, besides the anal sex fetish DR has, lets discuss the EMOTIONAL aspect of a gay relationship. Because there is MORE to a relationship, I hope everyone here agrees, that SEX! Or maybe I'm just being a girl. DR, I would be a hypocrite to say that I wanted you off this thread, because I value the freedom of speech for EVERYONE, that's the reason I started posting here in the first place, the debate! If everyone had the same opinion, the world would be a pretty boring place!

AND, I apologize for the Hitler reference. Okay?

How do you know how everyone feels about DR's posting strategies? I've only seen one person speak specifically to his posting stategy and that person doesn't represent everyone at Americas Debate.



This is absolutely ridiculous. Now DR can only respond to comments other posters have made?

I understand that some people may have taken what DR was saying personally (although nothing DR said was personally aimed at any individual on this board) and I agree he should have provided sources up front, but DR has talked honestly about why he believes homosexuality is wrong and in return he has been chastized and called names by members of this board, chastized by committee members and moderators and recently a committee member has even stooped to insulting DR personally.

I don't agree with DR but this thread has done more to open my eyes about other members. I've been very disappointed in the reactions of some people who I held in very high regard.

He has been threatened to have a strike placed against him for failing to follow a guideline (which according to the rules and guidelines thread is a suggestion) NOT a rule.

I can see very clearly how he would think he is being silenced.

Right you are, but don't forget that the keyword in homosexuality is "sexuality". If I want to have a relationship (as in a PLATONIC relation, devoid of sex) with other guys, I can do so without it being a big deal. Only when sexual relations come up would such a relationship enter irregular territory. So, homosexuality is marked by the desire to have SEX with one of the same gender as you. Just wanted to clear that up, first.

But, sure, I think there are places that this topic has yet to reach in discussing homosexuality. One thing I would like to know is how everybody feels on the origin of homosexuality in individuals. Some people think that homosexuality is an uncontrollable trait originating at birth, or something like that (where it isn't a choice, but an acquired characteristic ). I think that this is just a ploy to create sympathy. I mean, if you're going to do something that unnatural, at least own up to it. At least, then, you'll gain some respect.

Speaking of which, that's another thing we could discuss: persecution of homosexuals. I will understand if people don't believe me when I say this, at first, but I am completely against violent persecution of anybody, not least of which being homosexuals. The way I see it, people make dumb decisions, and I'll be the first to call them on it, but I won't resort to violence over it nor will I support others who do. That's just taking it too far, being extremist. It's these kind of people that take away from any argument, because their actions reflect on everyone with similar beliefs (even if they don't act on them violently).

Well, hopefully we can get some more constructive posts instead of the bickering and pointing of the finger we've been seeing recently.

Um...... heteroSEXual is a term for straight people and I don't think the majority of mature straight people revolve their relationships around the bedroom.

Gay people are not trying to get sympathy, far from it actually. I was never abused as a child. I was raised in a good Christian home, I had a great all American Family. I knew from a small age that I was different. In 2nd grade I had a crush on this pretty red headed girl in my class, at Valentines I gave her the best card I had, she thought I was funny....In the sixth grade I had a crush on a girl, she ignored me....In the seventh grade I had a crush on a girl...and she kissed me. Then I was put in a private Christian School....I had secret crushes on girls, but never acted apon them. I graduated just like every one else and went to college and was on my own. It was when I was 18 and in college that I truly "experimented". I know lots of straight girls who didn't have sex until college and who had just as normal and happy a child hood as I did. For me, I alway knew. I played sports and beat up boys when I was in gradeschool,I was a regular ole' tomboy. I'm very outgoing and assertive, just like my father. But in the same right, I'm very nurturing good natured like my mother. I was well loved and attended too like any child deserves. Now, you tell me anything in my past, and I'm being honest and not leaving out anything traumatic, that would make me want to rebel against my family and break my parents heart on purpose? If I could choose to love a man and to fit the mold of society and have a much easier life, don't you think any rational person would?

That's because heterosexuality is the norm, and, unless hindered by a choice to act otherwise, people are heterosexual, whereas sexual preference is not the center of relationships made thereof. Why do you think the Gaydar was invented? Because homosexuals have to find other people with THE SAME SEXUAL ORIENTATION. That's the origin of the relationship, in sexual preference. This is not, however, the case with heterosexuals. Will it always be that way? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I hope I don't live to see the day where homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality (because of my beliefs, it's nothing personal). Such atrocities attributed to the fall of Rome, and it could just as easily help bring the downfall of the United States. That's not to say that homosexuals don't deserve some RIGHTS that heterosexuals enjoy (not all, but some), however. But anyway, to say that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are just twin brothers walking in the opposite direction of one another, as if both are the same, just differently directed, is a gross mistake. You're fooling yourself if you think that way...



Well, you would think so, wouldn't you? But that's not the case...

I'll use my drug addict analogy again. Logic would suggest that, if a drug addict could, they would stop using drugs. Why not? They would have much more money and a much happier and easier life. Even the most well brought-up kids have gotten caught-up in such atrocious lifestyles, *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** away all their money and killing their bodies and minds. It has little to do with it in the long run, how well you were brought up. Because of the addictive nature of the drugs, the lifestyle becomes more and more natural, even to the point where it would seem impossible to live any other way, as if it were the way people were SUPPOSED to live. When under pressure from those who realize that this is a totally warped way of thinking, excuses for their way of life abound.

In the same manner, I theorize, do homosexuals become "addicted" to their chosen lifestyle (it may not even be a conscious decision, but an involuntary reaction to life events and predicaments). You asked if "any rational person would", and I think that they would. But, as with the drug addiction, ration gives way to other reasoning. This, however, is where the analogy fails to connect. With drugs, it is a physical addiction, induced by the nature of the drugs themselves. With homosexuality, it is a psychological addiction, induced by lustful pleasure achieved by sexual relationships with people of the same gender. This all, I will remind you, is my theory based on a combination of logic and things I have seen personally.
So, like with the drugs, the addiction leads one to begin thinking that their lifestyle is natural and unchosen, as well as beyond changing. That's what I think, anyway.

Please don't lump me in with all of the homophobes. As a True Conservative, I believe that government should have no interest in what two consenting adults do, be it Homosexual sex, love or Marriage.

I also believe that it would be wrong for me to try to force my beliefs on anyone, be it based on my personal experiences or what The Bible or any religion preaches.

I am also disgusted by things that I see, stupidity, lack of compassion, a person's fear of something that is foreign to them. Is there anything that I can do to correct these issues, NO. I have to live with it, that is one of the prices that I have to pay to be free. So many people want freedom for themselves but want to control other’s freedom.

How could someone be so selfish as to deprive another of happiness simply because they don’t approve their lifestyle?

Is Homosexuality wrong? For me personally yes. For a person that is Homosexual I don’t believe it is.

P.S.
Wertz, I have got to come out of the closet and admit that I am.... Obese.
It is a lifestyle that I have not chosen for myself but never the less here I am.

So unfortunately Wertz you are just going to have to suffer.

"Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line,
the man come and take you away" (Buffalo Springfield '66)

"There's something inherently American about paranoia. Given the increasing scarcity of rational things to fear in 20th century American society, we dream up theories whose inevitable result is the chaotic disruption of our comfortable, orderly life-usually with dastardly consequences. I think we get a perverse thrill that comes from it. " (unknown)

[/QUOTE]That's because heterosexuality is the norm, and, unless hindered by a choice to act otherwise, people are heterosexual, whereas sexual preference is not the center of relationships made thereof. Why do you think the Gaydar was invented? Because homosexuals have to find other people with THE SAME SEXUAL ORIENTATION. That's the origin of the relationship, in sexual preference. This is not, however, the case with heterosexuals. Will it always be that way? Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I hope I don't live to see the day where homosexuality is just as normal as heterosexuality (because of my beliefs, it's nothing personal). Such atrocities attributed to the fall of Rome, and it could just as easily help bring the downfall of the United States. That's not to say that homosexuals don't deserve some RIGHTS that heterosexuals enjoy (not all, but some), however. But anyway, to say that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are just twin brothers walking in the opposite direction of one another, as if both are the same, just differently directed, is a gross mistake. You're fooling yourself if you think that way... [QUOTE]

??????? Again, why do I have to be subjected what you call NORM?! What is normal!? Like being right handed, I guess that's why the majority of utensils and tools and accessories are made for right handed people! So, are all the left handed people in the world doomed to use right handed scissors and cut paper crookedly?! NO!!!! Someone made left handed scissors!!!! They weren't ostersized from society!!! Though, back in the Dark Ages, a left handed person, or some one with a suspicious mole or a hair lip was considered possesed by deamons and burned at the stake because the majority of people thought they weren't NORMAL!!!!!!!!

Jesus H. Christ, thankyou so very much for granting me my rights and nitpicking through which ones I deserve and don't deserve! Speaking of living in a fasist state....what, are going to want to put a pink triangle on the lapel of my shirt to distinguish me from the NORMAL people?

Can you name the inventor of Gaydar? I'm sure he's a rich SOB from the patient....

I'm sorry AJE, I didn't mean to lump you in with Daytonrocker. You seem like the people in my family, you may not agree with it, but you still love the person! Don't get me wrong, I am concervative on certain aspects of my life and I respect some conservatives. It's the radicals I can't stand. So please accept my apology.

I'd like to introduce the following links in to this discussion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc5.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc2.htm

Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would take a word like "atrocity" personally.

I think the one point you really don't seem to grasp is that people are not and should not be defined by their sexuality. There are people in the gay community who are addicted...to activism, to self-righteousness, to feeling victimized, but not to homosexuality itself. I've spent a lot of time in the gay community, and quite honestly those people *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off. If it weren't about being gay, it'd be about "body modification" or paganism or who knows what else; the cause itself seems secondary to the need to have a cause; gay activists are usually activists first, gay people second.

Most gays, though, would like nothing better than to have nobody care about their sexuality. They'd like to live their lives as others do, with nobody asking questions or treating them differently because of what they do in the privacy of their homes. Why can't they? It's not because of the activists among them; those activists are a reaction, not a cause. The reason gay people can't just live quietly and keep to themselves is because of the anti-homosexuals. No matter how hard they try to be just people, gays are not treated as just people, so instead of having "just people" rights the way the rest of us have them without anyone giving it a second thought, gays have to unite and make themselves visible and use the law to make people respect their basic human rights. Gays didn't choose this war. Most would prefer peace, but sometimes war in the present is necessary to ensure future peace in the future. Sound familiar?

You want gays to go away, leave you alone, not get in your face? Just let them. Stop assuming that their rights are any more negotiable than yours. Stop acting as though you have more right to judge them than they you. Stop using words like "atrocity" and "normal" and "addiction". Do those things, and get other haters to do likewise, and your self-inflicted problems with gay people will go away. If, on the other hand, you want something else than gays leaving you alone, come out (heh) and say it. Say what you want, other than to let people be themselves in peace and privacy.

I LOVE YOU PLATYPUS!!!!!!

You are my hero! I wish I could have written something as elequent as this earlier and maybe I could have not fed to the fire of the negativity of this thread.

You are dead on! I have a great job, a morgage, a partner and two dogs and a cat! I'm pushing 30 and am worrying about retirement and security in the job market. Being a lesbian is just a small facet of who I am. I've been to gay pride ONE time and it was too hot(Atlanta in the summer is murder!) and boring. I'm gay and apart of the gay community, but it doesn't define who I am.

PS....how do I put the white box around my quotes? I look like a dork when it doesn't come out right.

Wow, this is a hot topic today! First, to CTE:

You said you were using the NIV (New International Version) Bible. You also said your views on homosexuality were informed by what was written in the Bible. Well, in the NIV, Leviticus 20:13 says:

That is why I was asking if you thought they should be put to death.

CTE wrote this as well:


Instead of the drug-addict analogy, why don't you come up with some real foundations for your belief. When Billy Jean gave us her bio, where in that story do you see the process of "addiction" occuring, specifically?

And when you say, "With homosexuality, it is a psychological addiction, induced by lustful pleasure achieved by sexual relationships with people of the same gender," are you then saying that heterosexuals are only heterosexual because they become addicted to the sexual pleasure they achieve in acts of heterosexual sex???

And to address the idea of "normal:"

How do we define this? By CTE's description, being white in the US is "normal," while being black, Latino, or other ethnicity would be "abnormal." You say this:


Well, you might say, people don't choose their skin color, and you believe they do choose their sexual orientation, so those two don't compare. OK, some examples of choice-based "abnormalities" according to your logic: artist, musicians, scientists. Since only a small minority of Latinos attend college (a choice, right?), then a college bound Latino is "abnormal."

You have castigated others for finger pointing and attacks, yet you have brought nothing substantive to the table for debate. If you would like to contend that you have a literal and overriding belief in the NIV Bible, then why don't you think homosexuals should be put to death? It's stated pretty clearly there. I would also assume then that you practice all the laws of Kosher food handling, and the Jewish dietary restrictions.

Conservativeteenextrodenaire,



In all honesty, if you have been awake for the last 25-50 years, you will have noticed that it is usually straight men who have an unhealthy sexual addiction. Advertisments, movies, music, art and numerous other mediums cater to the heterosexual male. Look at Comedy Central's "The Man Show" and tell me that's not an unhealthy sexual group of men. All who are proud of being straight. More power to them. What about the "Girls Gone Wild" home videos? And lets not forget about Playboy and Penthouse, Hustler... Do see where I'm going with this? Straight males sexual appitite is very prodominate in our culture. Which is fine in my opinion, I get to see those beautiful women too! BUT, you cannot tell me that our society isn't addicted to SEX on a whole in one form or fashion. We are a culture of sexuality, so don't pin the poor sex addict purely on the gay community, because that's the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm a conservative, and if your gay, go ahead, get married. Go nuts. Conservatives aren't only anti-gay marriage BJ. Anyway, DR, and ConservativeTeenExtrodanaire. Just because heterosexuality is the "norm" doesn't make everything else horrible. If you're gay, go ahead get married, but, you have to realize that you most likely won't be accepted, and the gov't can't do anything about that.

CP

It can if we change the laws, that's the great thing about this country...of the people, by the people. It's a democracy....give us time.

[/QUOTE]Conservatives aren't only anti-gay marriage BJ. [QUOTE] what do you mean by this?

According to the CDC, the statistics on people living with AIDS in America are as follows:

45% Homosexual men who contracted the disease sexually
25% IV drug users
13% Blood transfusions and hemophilia
11% Heterosexuals who contracted the disease sexually
10% Unidentified
6% Homosexual men who also use IV drugs

It's true that homosexual men are in a high risk category as far as AIDS transmission is concerned because of the method of transmission. On the other hand, because of their sexual methods, lesbian women are in an extremely low risk category...more so than heterosexuals. Within the heterosexual community there are a higher number of women infected (64%) than there are men (36%). This is also because of the method of transmission.

I don't want to be too graphic, but, by design, anytime that a man penetrates another human being whether it be vaginally or anally with a man or woman, the risk is much greater for the person on the receiving end to be the victim of tears or abrasions especially if the person isn't using enough lubricant.

While I can appreciate your logic, I don't think that this is as much an argument against homosexuality as it is an argument for monogomy and safe, informed sexual practices regardless of gender. Homosexual males who exist in monogomous relationships and use safe sexual practices are also low risk, while heterosexuals who don't engage in these practices are high risk for contracting HIV.

What I meant by this is, if homosexuality ever gained such a following that you are just as likely (or even more likely) to find a homosexual person while walking down the street as you would a straight person, that would mean, more or less, that Christianity would have gone so far out the window by this point that it would be quite a terrible world to live in (for me, as a Christian). THAT'S what I meant.



No, I certainly can't, and I feel that homosexuality is only one PART of the immorality that is overcoming our nation, slowly but surely. But, seeing as the topic is "Homosexuality", I thought I would just keep it to that. I am not a sex addict. I don't watch pornographic videos or have sexual relations, as I am not yet married. So, it's not "the pot calling the kettle black." Let me make a statement that should make it clear why I am totally against homosexual sex. I believe that sex is a gift from God, given to humans to use responsibly for the purpose of creating offspring. Therefore, I am also against heterosexual sex out of wedlock. But, because no offspring can be created from homosexual relations, as God intended, it is a fair statement to say all homosexual relations are lustful and ill uses of the God-given gift that is sex. THAT'S why I am against homosexuality, because it is a blatant defiance of the natural order of things, and that is for male to mate with female, as dictated by God (at least, that is what I believe, for what it is worth to anyone else; at least I have explained why I feel the way I feel).



I was trying to explain why I think it is hard for homosexuals to change their sexual orientations, even if their lives would be easier in doing so, like Billy Jean stated. Forgive me for not believing this bullcrap that "I can't help it! I was always gay, it's just always seemed natural to me!" You should have noticed that it was only MY THEORY, and I gave it because she asked, and I quote,



My response went on to explain why I don't think rationalization has much of role after a time leading a homosexual life.



Well, I have already (I hope) made it perfectly clear that I don't think homosexuals should be put to death, nor do I think that anyone should be violently persecuted against for being a certain BRAND of person. Like I said, though, it doesn't mean I'm going to respect your decisions if they are immoral. I guess the best way to respond to this is, sin is sin, but punishments change with time and situation. Besides, regardless of what happens on Earth, it is God who will have the final word.

MY LAST WORD on DaytonRocker (if God is good):

I find the practice of spinning other peoples' posts intolerable - especially when it is used to attack or discredit them or other members of this discussion board. That is exactly what DaytonRocker has been doing of late and I am fed up with it. Not that I wasn't already fed up with his refusal to provide the sources he was allegedly quoting...


To lay all this to rest (I'm hoping):

beladonna: Please go back and read the original posts, not the posts in which DR has been twisting them.

[quote=beladonna,Jun 24 2003, 01:42 PM]How do you know how everyone feels about DR's posting strategies? I've only seen one person speak specifically to his posting stategy and that person doesn't represent everyone at Americas Debate.[/quote]
You are quite right. I do not speak for anyone else here. And, as a mere Member of the Committee, I have no power to take any kind of disciplinary action against any other participant here. If I admonish someone to get back on topic or to post more constructively or to provide a source for statistics which they are apparently quoting, I do so as an individual contributor - as could you - as could anyone else who thought that someone was not making any kind of valuable contribution to the debate.

[quote]This is absolutely ridiculous. Now DR can only respond to comments other posters have made?[/quote]
Not exactly - but close. America's Debate is not DaytonRocker's own personal blogspot. If he posts an opinion, it is open to response from other participants. If he ignores those responses and continues to post the same opinions over and over and over again, continuing to ignore all legitimate reactions to those posts, he is not participating in the debate, he is using this forum as a pulpit. It would even be a different story - a very different story - if DR were merely sharing his opinion. But he has been claiming that his opinion is based on research. He has repeatedly cited figures, quoted statistics, named percentages, without once providing a source for any of his "data" - all the while claiming that this in-depth "research" has provided the foundation for his posted opinions. I have found this particularly frustrating because, as a participant in the debate, I have been anxious to address the source material, should it ever be produced. In an exchange of PMs shortly after our first engagement on Gay Marriage, DR told me "I've spent the last couple days researching the subject... I'm getting ready to post some of the results of my research." I thought he meant he was going to provide some of that research. Imagine my surprise...

When DR's unwillingness to provide these sources is queried, when he is asked repeatedly to post even more, to provide us with the fruits of his research, to tell us where he came across his facts and figures, he adamantly refuses. Then he claims that the efforts to elicit his sources from him, the repeated requests to submit even more posts, are an effort to silence him! When something like "I'm being silenced! I'm being silenced! Look at me!! I'M BEING SILENCED!!!" appears in these threads about a half a dozen times, that rather gives the lie to the extent to which that participant is "being silenced". You may be happy with that as a posting strategy, bela; I, as an individual participant here, am not.

I suspect that Ultimatejoe was just assuming - erroneously, as it turns out - that most people would agree that no single contributor here should have the right to employ such a strategy when everyone else refrains from such tactics. (Though he may also have been basing his assumption, in part, on the PMs which we have been receiving regarding this whole sorry affair - and took them to represent a majority.)

[quote]I understand that some people may have taken what DR was saying personally (although nothing DR said was personally aimed at any individual on this board) and I agree he should have provided sources up front, but DR has talked honestly about why he believes homosexuality is wrong and in return he has been chastized and called names by members of this board, chastized by committee members and moderators and recently a committee member has even stooped to insulting DR personally.[/quote]
If I have criticized DR at all as an indiv