Originally posted by kd2aczWhy beat around da bush, its ludicrous.
However, humans are not animals... even though they act like it sometimes. Animals lack the ability to reason and are driven more by instint than anything else. Humans reason, think, have feelings and care among other characteristics. To equate humans to animals is, well, shortsighted.
-k
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo this is basically what you're saying -
because in the case of young girls the charge of homosexuality cannot be upheld, only
paedophilia remains, in the case of young boys, it is unclear what motivated the
molesters.
Hetrosexual abuse - cause - Paedophilia
Homosexual abuse - cause - Homosexuality
Now where would you put someone who abuses both sexes?
Originally posted by Proper Knobthe deepest darkest dungeon i can find 🙂
So this is basically what you're saying -
Hetrosexual abuse - cause - Paedophilia
Homosexual abuse - cause - Homosexuality
Now where would you put someone who abuses both sexes?
actually i am saying that i do not know why the figures read as they do, simply that
there is a rather glaring and unexplained disparity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnswer the question honestlty, what is responsible for someone who abuses minors of both sexes?
the deepest darkest dungeon i can find 🙂
actually i am saying that i do not know why the figures read as they do, simply that
there is a rather glaring and unexplained disparity.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo start with the data i provided only corresponds to US Catholic priests between a certain time period. Now it may very well be down to accessability as you early stated, last time i checked most relgious choirs for instance are boys only. A paedophile preist may have access to hundres of boys and only a handful of girls.
does is , then perhaps you can explain the disparity.
Originally posted by NickstenI'll write more detailed arguments if we can come to some consensus on basic terms. If not, it is pointless to debate further.
This must be in the list of top 5 pathetic posts I've ever read.
If that's the way to argue - then join 'em.
I don't think you're up to it. You don't have a good reason to say homosexuality is wrong, so you attack the posters who disagree with you to cover it up.
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczSorry, but the biology could not be more clear. We are animals. To say otherwise just reveals your ignorance.
However, humans are not animals... even though they act like it sometimes. Animals lack the ability to reason and are driven more by instint than anything else. Humans reason, think, have feelings and care among other characteristics. To equate humans to animals is, well, shortsighted.
-k
It's arguable that only humans can reason.
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy reason is - it is immoral and unnatural. I'll never agree on any type of basic terms with regards to homosexuality. The natural is for male and female to participate in sex. If this isn't clear enough, end of story, end of debate. Then you're right no point in debating further.
I'll write more detailed arguments if we can come to some consensus on basic terms. If not, it is pointless to debate further.
I don't think you're up to it. You don't have a good reason to say homosexuality is wrong, so you attack the posters who disagree with you to cover it up.
I attacked no one, I just do not agree with people believing homosexuality is right.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI will agree, certain people are animals, in the sense that they have absolute no feelings towards any other and are complete barbarians.
Sorry, but the biology could not be more clear. We are animals. To say otherwise just reveals your ignorance.
It's arguable that only humans can reason.
There is a clear difference in humans and animals. With all respect, you must be the ignorant one believing we are animals.
Originally posted by NickstenThere are many things in this world that are not right. That is why we Christians look forward to the world to come.
My reason is - it is immoral and unnatural. I'll never agree on any type of basic terms with regards to homosexuality. The natural is for male and female to participate in sex. If this isn't clear enough, end of story, end of debate. Then you're right no point in debating further.
I attacked no one, I just do not agree with people believing homosexuality is right.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
Originally posted by NickstenYou need to do better than 'heterosexual = natural'. Why is it the only natural type of sex? Do you have a reason for saying so, or do you just enjoy spouting dogma?
My reason is - it is immoral and unnatural. I'll never agree on any type of basic terms with regards to homosexuality. The natural is for male and female to participate in sex. If this isn't clear enough, end of story, end of debate. Then you're right no point in debating further.
I attacked no one, I just do not agree with people believing homosexuality is right.
Originally posted by NickstenFine, deny the findings of science. Religious fundamentalists tend to do that, so it's expected.
I will agree, certain people are animals, in the sense that they have absolute no feelings towards any other and are complete barbarians.
There is a clear difference in humans and animals. With all respect, you must be the ignorant one believing we are animals.