Originally posted by robbie carrobie I suspect like many people you have never really thought about it and that is why we are treated to these rather insipid platitudes, 'mind your own business', 'I don't want to be a d__k' and a plethora of other nonsensical, bumper sticker, rainbow flag waving, empty rhetoric. If you don't have a valid reason just say so but please spare us the amate ...[text shortened]... put a little more effort into your attempts to convince those who do not share your perspective.
Pretty funny coming from someone who is advocating non-acceptance of those who don't meet your gender-stereotypic standards.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Actually I have provided rational reasons why I am against the practice of homosexuality. These range from having the highest ever recorded figures for HIV among homosexual males in the UK indicating to me that the practice is essentially destructive to an examination of the physiology of the human body leading me to the conclusion that its unnatura ...[text shortened]... , because people can and do change their sexual practices and your false comparison falls apart.
Actually, by your logic, the only acceptable sexual combination is lesbianism, which result in the lowest rate of transfer of HIV or any other STD. We should all be lesbians.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Pretty funny coming from someone who is advocating non-acceptance of those who don't meet your gender-stereotypic standards.
I am not advocating no acceptance, I am simply asking you for a reason, so far you have FAILED to provide a valid one. What gender-stereotypical standards are those, you have not said.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Homosexuality in women does not negate the rationality of what I have said. I object to their practice on the basis that its anti biblical, this does not negate anything that I have previously stated and your objection is therefore moot. Homosexual men who do not have HIV again does not negate the argument for those that do and its ludicrous to thi ...[text shortened]... ational reasons. That you do not accept the reasons does not make them irrational or illogical.
Can you actually show me where lesbianism is even mentioned in the Bible?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I am not advocating no acceptance, I am simply asking you for a reason, so far you have FAILED to provide a valid one. What gender-stereotypical standards are those, you have not said.
They are human beings making their own choices about whom they want to be, or acting according to their own nature, whatever that may be. Nature is sometimes apathetic to our social norms. Also individual choice.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Actually, by your logic, the only acceptable sexual combination is lesbianism, which result in the lowest rate of transfer of HIV or any other STD. We should all be lesbians.
Now you are talking nonsense. Refraining from premarital sex and having a single partner of the opposite sex for life would be a rather damning indictment against your silly and now refuted argument. How long did you take to think that up? clearly logic is not your forte.
Originally posted by Kunsoo They are human beings making their own choices about whom they want to be, or acting according to their own nature, whatever that may be. Nature is sometimes apathetic to our social norms. Also individual choice.
why are you telling me this? I have already stated that everyone is a free moral agent.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Now you are talking nonsense. Refraining from premarital sex and having a single partner of the opposite sex for life would be a rather damning indictment against your silly and now refuted argument. How long did you take to think that up? clearly logic is not your forte.
Married man who has never had sex contracts HIV from contaminated blood transfusion and unwittingly infects his wife.
Meanwhile, monogamous homosexual man does not infect his partner. Monogamous homosexual woman does not infect hers (even if infected).
Bzzzzt! You lose.
Fact is, lesbian relationships have the lowest incidents of STDs, domestic violence, cheating, and divorce - of the three possible combinations. Again, we should all be lesbians.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Can you actually show me where lesbianism is even mentioned in the Bible?
yes, i can.
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error. - Romans 1:26-27.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Respect for that individual choice is paramount.
I don't think anyone is under duress to respect the actions of other people nor the choices they make. They can respect the free exercise of conscience though in principle.
That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males,working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty,which was due for their error. - Romans 1:26-27.
Nope, sorry, but that passage only mentions male homosexuality. The women did something "contrary to nature" which is unspecified. Not sure what that is, since lesbianism is natural as measured by activities in other species as well as ours.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Married man who has never had sex contracts HIV from contaminated blood transfusion and unwittingly infects his wife.
Meanwhile, monogamous homosexual man does not infect his partner. Monogamous homosexual woman does not infect hers (even if infected).
Bzzzzt! You lose.
Fact is, lesbian relationships have the lowest incidents of STDs, domestic viol ...[text shortened]... , cheating, and divorce - of the three possible combinations. Again, we should all be lesbians.
lesbians have lower STD's than people who refrain from premarital sex and have a single life partner of the opposite sex, really? evidence please.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Nope, sorry, but that passage only mentions male homosexuality. The women did something "contrary to nature" which is unspecified. Not sure what that is, since lesbianism is natural as measured by activities in other species as well as ours.
Want to try again?
pleas learn to read,
their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature
and again
their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature
and just to make sure
THEIR FEMALES changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature
it mentions only males? are you capable of rational thought?
Originally posted by robbie carrobie I don't think anyone is under duress to respect the actions of other people nor the choices they make. They can respect the free exercise of conscience though in principle.
I disagree. Unless someone is being hurt by the individual decision, I believe we are obligated to respect individual choice. But that's perhaps my ethos not shared by you. Fine. Just don't pass laws which interfere with that choice.
Chelsea Manning's sentence commuted
19 Jan '17 19:27
Back to Top