Gay lifestyle hazerdous to health

[Jimmy C]

What part of 'abomination' do people not understand? Here let me help:

tow`ebah: A detestable thing.

What part of against nature do people not understand?

para physis: to be beside nature as opposed to being FOR nature (as to be beside one's self...aka nuts)

I cant believe this thread is even here. I don't understand why we are debation over homosexuals since their lifestyle is sin and doomed to death

[Bold Believer]

What part of 'abomination' do people not understand? Here let me help:

tow`ebah: A detestable thing.

What part of against nature do people not understand?

para physis: to be beside nature as opposed to being FOR nature (as to be beside one's self...aka nuts)

I cant believe this thread is even here. I don't understand why we are debation over homosexuals since their lifestyle is sin and doomed to death

LOL, well true that, however, we never know who might view the thread and read it and perhaps come to salvation.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

You are still clearly making blatantly false statements;

In a purely monogomous relationship where both parties are disease free, there is zero risk of transmitting a disease regardless of the nature of the acts. You can't get syphillis, HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease from someone who doesn't have any of those diseases. The risk only comes into play when one party goes outside of their relationship. This is true of both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, though of course the risk of "bringing something home" is greater when homosexual men go outside their relationship.

Homosexual male to male sex inherintly poses a much higher risk to the participants than traditional and God ordained Heterosexual sex because of the nature of the rectum and what travels through it. There is a much higher risk of personal injury and infections of all manner because there are much more micro - organisms in the waste tract that cause such infections. Sti's aside.

I feel that you are either ignorant of basic biology or that you are purposely twisting the truth to fit your agenda.

Yes, homosexual activity carries a higher risk of transmission of sexually transmitted diseases and has a higher risk of incidental injury and infection, that is not in dispute.

Let me pose a couple of questions, perhaps then you will see the point I am making.

If neither person in a monogomous heterosexual relationship has any sexually transmitted diseases, are either of them at risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease from the other??

If neither person in a monogomous homosexual relationship has any sexually transmitted diseases, are either of them at risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease from the other?

The answer is no in both cases.

Actually,

The answer is yes in both cases.

Human fecal matter carries all matter of micro-organisms that can promote a bacterial infection. A bacterial infection transmitted by sex is in fact a sexually transimtted disease.

A commited God fearing Heterosexual couple can still transmit several manner of sexually transmitted disease to each other. (ie; urinary tract infections, yeast infection etc.) Again this is basic biology.

Now, if your trying to state that a Monogamous Homosexual couple have the same risk factor for STI's as a Monogamous God Ordained Heterosexual couple, you would be completely wrong. As stated a male homosexual cpouple by the nature of their sexual relations runs a much greater risk of disease that is sexually transmitted, and that rate is 50 times higher than the Monogamous God fearing Heterosexual couple. The CDC's figures from 2005 prove it.

It appears again, that your perspective is tainted.

We could go on about Monogamy if you'd like, Monogamy is very rare in Homosexual couples so that your straw man Monogamous couple is very unlikely and a small percentage of the overall Homosexual community. We could also look up the rates at issue if you'd like.

I would like to clear up the Biological issues first and hear you acknowledge that the Homosexual lifestyle is 50 more time likely to transmit STI's than the Heterosexual community. This could lead us to an understanding that God knows what He's talking about.

Peace,

Dave

[georgesbluegirl]

NC -

That's like blaming antidote failure for people getting sick who purposely drink poison.

Perhaps, but it is their right to drink poison and as long as they don't force me or anyone else to drink poison, I'm ok with that.

However, what if in drinking poison they actually incur cost on others (like asking everyone to to pony up money for research to make the poison not poison)

The question needs to be, is the cost justified? Not everything happens in a bubble either, what if the research that makes the poison not poison can be applied to other poisons thus saving millions who get poisoned by other poisons through unintentional means? What if intentionally drinking the poison isn't the only means of being poisoned and there are lots of people being poisoned unintentionally by the very same poison?

If you are contending that homosexuality should be legislated against based on the monetry cost of an increased risk of STI's (which aren't purely confined to homosexuals), then I think that is a slippery slope. I think the old saying "be careful what you wish for" applies.

No, what I am saying is that if people want freedom to behave in any way they desire (even if there are known risks), they should not then come back and ask others to foot the bill for them taking the risk. Along with freedom comes responsibility

Who is footing what bill?

Lots of tax dollars for programs, research etc.

What do you propose as a solution? Should homosexuals not recieve taxpayer funded treatment for sti's?

Since I am a tax paying citizen I don't think my money should go to anything that has to do with homosexuals

And should the money that homosexual men pay in taxes not be used to fund maternity services? What about taxes payed by men in general, should they be withheld from ovarian cancer research and treatment? Where do you draw the line?

The taxes you pay are not for your sole benefit.

Well said.

Also, pharma discovery funding (R&D) is corporate business when there's a market. The government mostly funds research on less prevalent (and therefore less profitable) diseases. STD research -- say, the process that produced AZT and other antiretrovirals -- is probably mostly done via internal funding, not from taxpayers.

[nebula]

No, my statement indicates that if condoms didn't have such a high failure rate there would be less of a problem.

That's still pointing to the innefective condoms and not the behavior for the high rate.

[Bold Believer]

No, my statement indicates that if condoms didn't have such a high failure rate there would be less of a problem.

That's still pointing to the innefective condoms and not the behavior for the high rate.

I've pointed to behavior many times through the thread, I admit that the biggest problem in the spread of sti's is behaviour, I just point to a different behavior as the cause than you do. I don't think that homosexuality is as big a contributing factor as it is made out to be, the significance of it is blown out of proportion due to religious doctrine. Infidelity in relationships and promiscuity are what drive the spread of sti's and the problem is then magnified by things like homosexuality and poverty, but it is not these things that drive it. If sexual relations were kept within the bounds of committed relationships, the spread of sti's would be trivial.

Wrongorooski. God says the lifestyle is an abomination and they will continue to die in droves as the consequence of their abomination, until Christ comes back and quick fries the lot of them to a crackly crunch along with the other godless sinners. They are SO spiritually blind that they can't even figure out that what they're doing makes absolutely NO SENSE. They hate God SO much that they would rather die and reap the consequences than repent and gain eternal life. They want what they want and everyone and everything else be cursed. Only God says 'no' and 'if you do, you'll die cursed", but they do it anyway.

They do the same thing over and over and expect different results: THE DEFINITION OF INSANITY.

[nebula]

I've pointed to behavior many times through the thread, I admit that the biggest problem in the spread of sti's is behaviour, I just point to a different behavior as the cause than you do. I don't think that homosexuality is as big a contributing factor as it is made out to be, the significance of it is blown out of proportion due to religious doctrine. Infidelity in relationships and promiscuity are what drive the spread of sti's and the problem is then magnified by things like homosexuality and poverty, but it is not these things that drive it. If sexual relations were kept within the bounds of committed relationships, the spread of sti's would be trivial.

Although I agree that infidelity and promiscuity are indeed driving STD's sky-high, I do believe there is a reason why this study found these cases of STD's to be higher in the homosexual community than the heterosexual. Just like there was a reason AIDs in this country was mostly "a homosexual disease" for a long time, as far as sexual activity goes.

[Bold Believer]

"Well written Bold Believer, but I think you are missing a point. The problem is promiscuity which is present in heterosexuals as well. It doesn't matter what you think of homosexuality, the problem is promiscuity and though many male homosexuals are promiscuous so are the heterosexuals of Africa where AIDS has such a high transmision rate. In this country as well heterosexuals pick up STDs by having multiple partners. The problem is uncontrolled sexual activity. I am afraid that it is in our animal nature to have sex. No more sex, no more sexually transmitted diseases. It just ain't likely happen."

I agree that fornicating like dogs n cats is the reason for STDs. Their cause however stems from the fact that God says 'if ya keep that up, yer gonna get sick because you're dishonoring my temple'. No matter which way you swing sexually, if you dishonor God's temple (your body), you will reap the consequences. AIDS is nature's way of taking out what it perceives to be an attack on it. God has an order set down in creation and if that order is continually violated, then the creation simply reacts with its natural defense mechanism the Creator has built in. It's not that God is out to get homosexuals per se, because obviously this hits heterosexuals as well. In other words: Creation is fighting back.

[Gauntlet]

Hmmm I really do not have an answer for that. I pay taxes because it is law and the Bible says to obey the law of the Land. I am quite sure there are not as many homosexual men as heterosexual men. Either way it is a mute point. The problem with this whole issue is that we are speaking of homosexuals which by the Bible clearly states is sin. Should I as a Christian support homosexuals? I do not think so. God calls me to evangelize the world but those that hear the word and do not change their ways are in mortal danger anyway for the sin leads to death(in this case STD's) So in this case we have an unsolvable question because the government uses our taxes as they see fit

That sounds pretty heartless. So what you're saying is that your Christian love and charity is reserved for heterosexual. Don't forget that there are other sins than homosexuality. Don't forget not to sin yourself.