ForumGarden

Far Rider;617845 wrote: A penis does not belong in an anus.

case closed.

Listen, if your going to make the arguement that something that is clearly abnormal activity is normal then show me the studies, and please link abstracts and the actual data and how the study was conducted, not a news story with commentary about what it 'may' suggest. FACTS is what your asking for, facts is what im asking for.

My burden of proof that it isnt normal is that the largest percentage of the popolulation DOESNT engage in it. And its an overwhelmingly large percentage too.

And God did mean us to fly and he allowed us the knowledge to overcome the laws of gravity with the laws of aerodynamics.

So you show me the scientific data that suggests the law of God against homosexual activity is over come by some other natural law and I will accept it.


Whilst I go away to look for some research papers, I would just like to make one point. In years past, exactly the argument that you are using here would have been used to condemn me and my kind as sinister deviants to be suppressed and discriminated against - that's right, I'm left handed.

And before you dismiss that as a facile remark, look at the percentages.



You are taking your definition of "normal" and insisting that everybody else runs with it. That's arguing from opinion not from fact.

Far Rider;617845 wrote: A penis does not belong in an anus.

case closed.

Listen, if your going to make the arguement that something that is clearly abnormal activity is normal then show me the studies, and please link abstracts and the actual data and how the study was conducted, not a news story with commentary about what it 'may' suggest. FACTS is what your asking for, facts is what im asking for.

My burden of proof that it isnt normal is that the largest percentage of the popolulation DOESNT engage in it. And its an overwhelmingly large percentage too.

And God did mean us to fly and he allowed us the knowledge to overcome the laws of gravity with the laws of aerodynamics.

So you show me the scientific data that suggests the law of God against homosexual activity is over come by some other natural law and I will accept it.


Oh really, so now you defining what sexual acts are permissable between consenting adults. If I want to have sex with a women I have only one permissable orifice to use eh? What about postitions? Are certain postions outlawed as well?

Well I'm bound for hell no doubt about it. Whay don't you just admit that you want to run the world by your Chrisitan fundamentalists rules and regulations and be honest about it.

Far Rider;617843 wrote: Fine then, the 'greek city states' are destroyed, like most ideologies what works moves forward what doesnt falls off. The open acceptance of homosexuality is destructive to the core social order of family. And as such it has not been a normal accepted part of mainstream government. If allowable it lives on the fringe at best.

The culture was absorbed and passed on to others, not destroyed.

I was using liberal and conservative on the mian ideaology of US politics.

and you were using it incorrectly

Liberal in meaning that the modern school system is filled with teachers that instruct against a literal view of scripture. If your ok with that then good for you.

again that is an incorrect use of the term liberal, you basically just throw the term out there to cover anything you don't happen to agree with

Im glad we had this chat.


me to..

Far Rider;617934 wrote: Thank you for your honesty. I believe you practice it by choice, not by a natural order. BTW I do not condemn you for your choice. It's your life.

I do find it interesting that you noted 'in years past', do you feel that persecution of your type of behavior has softened over the years?

I shall define what I mean by normal so there is no error in what I say:

nor·mal

–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2. serving to establish a standard.


I assure you that (a) I am not left handed by choice, my fine control of my right hand is almost non-existant, an inherited trait and (b) I am in no way a homosexual - happily married with children.

In answer to your question, certianly the persecution of left handers has softened over the years. When I was a child quite heavy preasure was applied to try to make me act right handed, in writing, eating, games etc. Nowadays such behaviour would not be allowed.

In answer to your definition, that, and any other, definition of normal does admit to multiple common types or standards - the fact that one type is numerically superior to another does not make it the only allowable standard and every other type abnormal. More cars work on petrol than work on diesel for example butr the does not make a diesel car abnormal.

Far Rider;618246 wrote: ahahahah thats what I get for assuming 'lefthanded' was a tern used to refer to homosexuality.

nor·mal

–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. 2. serving to establish a standard

does that clarify it more?


Far you're so funny :wah: :wah:

Far Rider;618246 wrote: ahahahah thats what I get for assuming 'lefthanded' was a tern used to refer to homosexuality.

nor·mal

–adjective 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. 2. serving to establish a standard

does that clarify it more?


No - because you have not established whether homosexuality is "natural" or "normal".

Quoting scripture does not provide a basis for science and your dismissal of the possibility of a genetic predisposition on the basis of the teachings in the Bible carries no weight.

You are quite at liberty to say that within your moral code it is unacceptable. I do not accept that you can go on to say either that this proves that it is done by chioce or that this means that it must be unacceptable throughout society - both of which you appear to do.

Far Rider;618257 wrote: :p



You, really want to believe that I am an evil dictator in the waiting. I am not. I don’t get involved in politics in any way other than voting. In fact I rarely offer my opinion, or argue this subject, and I’m not sure how exactly I got involved with this in the first place. I may plead temporary insanity.

I still would like an answer from you on why it bothers you so much for me to openly disagree on this subject? It’s just me, a text base character on the internet, nothing more. So why do you care what I think or say?



Oh really? When the US government was formed, did it include the adoption of open homosexuality? I think not. There was at one time in the US a total prohibition on the activity. I believe the Brits also prohibited it at one time. (not sure where they stand today) I also believe even France had laws against it. I do wonder about germany. I just don’t know for sure.



No, I did not. My reference was to the liberal educational system in the US. The term liberal is used in reference by most media the same way. You placed on it a more global definition, I’m fine with both. If you want to split hairs on semantics go ahead.


I respect your right to think what you wish and to say what you wish. What bothers me is that you label others as sinners becuase they engage in activity you don't approve of and then excpect others not to react. In fact you act aggrieved yourself when others react with vigor..

Far Rider;618472 wrote: Ah, I see. Ok, there is this preponderance that homosexuality is NOT normal because a very large percent of the population does NOT normally engage in that activity.

You’re saying it is normal because… why exactly?


I'm saying that you have failed to show that it is abnormal and that your reliance on scripture renders your assertion that it is, scientifically void. Your numerical argument is also void unless you also wish to condemn all of us left handers in the world - the percentages are within an order of magnitude.

Far Rider wrote: Within my moral code (based on scripture) it is sin, it is abnormal behavior, yes.

In addition to that I said other things, and removed the biblical argument, and said that homosexuality did not make common sense either.

I said it was not natural, based on human anatomy, the parts don’t fit. I said it was not natural based on human biology, in that homosexuality cannot lead to procreation. I said that it also has consequences in that it predisposes humans to disease. I said that because of the HIV factor, it increases the possibility of early morbidity.


The parts obviously do "fit" otherwise they could not, physically, do anything to complain about. That it does not lead to pregnancy is also not a bar as the purpose of sex is not purely procreation. Neither is the fact that it increases the possibility of disease - so does hetrosexual coupling. The morbidity rates from syphilis when first introduced to Europe were nearly as high as that for HIV is now.

Far Rider wrote: So let me sum it up once again.

Morally and Spiritually it is wrong for me, and it is against the bible, and as such God forbids it. And furthermore anyone who engages in the practice of it will suffer the consequences of it spiritually and mentally. (Apparently my opinion)


Totally opinion - no scientific validity

Far Rider wrote: Naturally, as I stated above, anyone who engages in homosexual activity is doing it as an abnormal act to the natural, anatomical, biological, and detriment to their own bodies.

If you want to refute any of the common sense above, go ahead and refute. If you want to tell me you have scientific evidence that it is normal I say present it.


OK - The main difficulty is that decent work is swamped by the trash of predudice but, restricting myself to reputed sources, the New Scientist gives us :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

Which describes how an apparently self defeating trait can be self perpetuating, with links to several other supporting papers and the Proceedings of the Royal Society gives us :-

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf

which gives us chapter and verse on the genetic model itself with extensive references to the preceeding studies.

Far Rider wrote: I have chosen not to present my case graphically, mostly because I don’t want to search web sites for the kind of filth, and pornographic images of homosexuality. But it is easily found on the internet. As well as the consequences of the lifestyle that goes along with it in the form of images of those suffering from HIV/AIDS. Not to mention the effects of it on children and the population of innocent persons who never engaged in the activity.

What concerns me now is that after I presented this common sense information, a number of you will say that it doesn’t matter, it’s still their choice, or they can’t help the way they are born, and they can do what they want. And a number of you will rally to support this openly dangerous activity.


And very thankful I am for that too.

I say let us look at the data that is available. Common sense is only common when it is generaly accepted and it is only sense when it can be backed up with more than opinion.

Far Rider:-6

You keep asking for proof. I don't know if your are aware of it or not but an actual research project often takes hundreds if not thousands of pages to give the details. I'm not about to start giving a paper. If I give the conclusions you will claim its only liberal opinion.

I've checked both Strong's and Vines and neither of them mention homosexuality or lesbianism.

You claim to decide what is right or wrong for you. That I find quite acceptable. However, when you then decide it is right or wrong for others you are presenting a judgment especially when you then call them a sinner.

The Bible is not the basis for my faith. It is a very human production. Jesus Christ as the risen Lord is the basis of my faith. The Bible attests to that but I do not practice idolatry by worshiping it. The "Word of God" is a phrase that belongs not to a book but to the "Word made flesh", Jesus of Nazareth.

If as you say the Bible is translated for its period in history then how do you explain the fact that so many folks disagree on the meaning of some of the words, adultery being one of them. You might try reading the Jewish Encyclopedia for the way in which adultery was viewed in ancient Israel.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A

JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY

In fact the orthodoxy that you would claim to follow is not from the early or original church but from the reformation about 400 years ago. What you are following does not go back to the early church or Jesus but to the reformers who in fact usurped the term Christian and created their own faith. That is why today their are two Christianities.

Your use of the Bible to support your opinion of what you call scientific facts is a misuse of the sacred writings. To read them literally is a product of the reformation. The early church did not read the scriptures that way. They were very knowledgeable of the metaphorical nature of the scriptures.

Do you eat shell fish? Do you wear clothing made of more than one fiber? Do you stone your recalcitrant children?

Once again I will repeat, The only sin in homosexuality is the abuse heaped on them by those who would call themselves Christians.

I would be quite happy to address the Biblical quotes one at a time.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Far Rider:-6

There are some 22 000 Christian denominations around the world. Each has something a little different than the other. What some of these denominations consider acceptable others consider unacceptable. Most claim their view comes from the Bible. Why should anyone accept what any particular denomination says as gospel truth?

Some folks such as yourself consider homosexuality to be a sin and others do not. So here we are into an area where we must each decide for ourselves. My decision may or may not agree with others. No the Bible is not clear on this particular issue.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Far Rider;618675 wrote: Being left handed has nothing on par with practicing homosexuality. Although the numerical data may be similar, being left handed does no predispose one to grave illness.[


It's a direct comparison of a sociological effect whereby a genetic difference in the population has led to the percecution of the minority population - nothing to do with illness, it demonstrates that society tends to discriminate on the basis of "difference" whether that difference is justification or not.

Far Rider wrote: Comparing HIV to syphilis doesnt leave your argument to support morality because fornication, also warned about in scripture as sin, falls into the same catagory. If both male and femal are virgins at marriage and they engage sex with only each other they would never have been predisposed to syphilis.


Specious argument - if both partners are virgins and remain faithful then there is no risk of HIV. Also, my argument is not about morality, it's about your contention that it's wrong because it says so in the Bible and so everybody must refrain and it must be banned by society.

Far Rider wrote: Both fornication and homosexulaity are sexual sins and both predispose those who engage in the risky behavior. ( I conced the reference to sin is my opinion since we are removing this from the religious relm, but I assert the fact that both behaviors still predispose one to higher risk of early death)

The parts dont fit obviously because they were not designed to work together, the anus tears, and bleeds allowing blood to exchange with semen, thus the vector for the spread of disiease much more readily than the penis in a vagina.

I will check on your assertion that syphilis was then nearly as high as HIV is now, I doubt that very seriously, HIV/AIDS is the second leading killer on the african continent, and its spreading.


The majority cause of the hetrosexual spread of HIV in africa is tearing of the vagina leading to exchange of blood.

Far Rider wrote:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

I will explain why at face value I wont accept this study but I promise to delve into it further before I finish on this thread...

... from the article...

please not the highlited words

Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004)

Ok all the blue highlited text leads me to the conlusion that the article is inconclusive. Supposition is not proof. Also noted in the article is that other research is also contoversial, the so called 'single gene theory'...

And this is very typical of whats out there as scientific.


Any and every scientific paper, especially those at the forefront of research, will qualify the statements it is making - the does not make it inconclusive and the paper does come to a definite conclusion. I presented it as a scientific basis for a discussion to get away from just batting opinions about.

Far Rider wrote:

http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/h.pdf

I could not get this link to open.


Unfortunately, at 200KB, it's too big to post here - I could e-mail it to you if you have broadband? It really is an interesting article.

Far Rider;618676 wrote: Bryn,

Here is an article I came across on a cursory search to support my assertions, you may pick it apart at will. For th epurposes of our conversation please disregard the religious information sited below.

http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues ... uality.htm




At last, something other than scripture - though I'm not too sure of the source.

Fine, I've not a problem with that.

WonderWendy3;614107 wrote: ....And still is.....



I understand that he has been the butt of a lot of jokes, but ummm, the man has passed away...It would be nice to show some respect to the Man's family and friends. He did love God, and stood up for what he believed. Right, wrong or indifferent.....


AHMEN

zinkyusa;616141 wrote: Thanks for the tool lecture, maybe I should get a subscription to Poular Mechanics.


Here zinki..........

Juss 4 U



ENJOY.........



http://www.popularmechanics.com/

BTS;618701 wrote: Here zinki..........

Juss 4 U



ENJOY.........



http://www.popularmechanics.com/


Hey thanks, does it tell me what to do with my tool?:p

Far Rider;618992 wrote: My question at this point is do you see anything wrong at all with this? Or is it ok to let anyone do what they want when they want even though it will and has killed innocent poeple?




As I have said repeatedly, my problem is with your trying to discuss issues of scientific fact in terms of the content of the Bible.

I have no probblem with your moral stance (apart from trying to apply it to people who do not accept your take on the Christian faith) but, when it comes to "homosexuallity cannot be an inherited trait because the Bible ......" then I will take issue. Start arguing that from the basis of real studies carried out in a genuine effort to get to the truth then fine but your starting position was only one step removed from "evolution cannot be true because studying the Bible shows the Earth is only 6,500 years old".

Far Rider;619079 wrote: I don’t think I have even mentioned evolution and have been careful not to say ‘created’ in my arguments thus far. And in my previous post I think I stayed pretty much on text and left out the religious argument, I will continue to express my sense of what I’ve seen as to the rise of homosexual activity and I assert that the practice of homosexual activity is learned behavior in humans and not an inherited trait


I never suggested that you did. I was likening your argument to the evolution argument, not suggesting that you had used it. If your argument is of the same order as another that is patently false then it throws doubt on the veracity of your argument.

Far Rider wrote: I’ll tell ya why I think so.



We do not have an increase in the number of homosexuals being born with a trait, what we have is a dramatic increase in access to children during their most formative years and beyond for the purpose of indoctrination into ‘alternative lifestyle’ as it’s so carefully called. And today, 30 plus years later we have openly practicing homosexual activity on highschool campuses and colleges and at the same time wonder why there is so many of them? The dramatic increase in number isnt because of a genetic trait, its because of learned behavior that is now deemed acceptable.


Your argument, cogent as it is, is directed at proving that it is possible for homosexuallity to be a learned trait, using a sample size of one.

I have never tried to suggest that it is not possible for part of the population to be influenced by their environment - indeed, I would suggest that it is almost a certanty that this could happen.

Your argument, however, does nothing to show that it is not possible to inherit either the trait itself or a pre-disposition towards the trait which is the statement that you made that I am arguing against.

Your conclusion is also suspect as it ignores the increased willingness of people to admit to their sexual orientation as the stigma is removed. It is perfectly possible that the incidence of homosexuallity has remained unchanged - just the reporting rate has changed.

Far Rider wrote: My point in my last post was simple. We now have a disease that the prime vector was sodomy and then IV drug use, that is now spreading to the general population with death as the result, and a careful lobby group has, over time, made a large percentage of the population who doesn’t even engage in the activity fight for the ones the rights of the ones who are the cause of the spreading of the disease and VERY FEW folks seem to see it and even fewer are willing to speak up.


As I said earlier, the prime vector in Africa is through hetrosexual mating. Given that HIV started in Africa it is reasonable to assume that it would have spread around the world, albeit at a slower pace, using this vector.



Far Rider wrote: Is this not a MORAL issue from a human standpoint?

It’s far easier today to slam the religious guy and shut him down by saying he doesn’t have a valid leg to stand on (the bible) than to see the obvious history of the problem and look at it logically and set ideas and plans in motion to stop the issue regardless of whether it steps on the toes of the right of an individual lifestyle.

No one is an island unto themselves. Almost everything we do has a consequence to othesr.


The moral issue is up to you - it's within your belief system.

I would no more dream of saying that you have no leg to stand on when presenting your moral argument based on your reading of the Bible than I would of shooting you. That is to say never.

I would, however, say that the use of the Bible is not a prop that you can use to shore up an argument about the possibility of inheritance - for that you need to use a valid scientific approach.

Far Rider;619285 wrote: Oh I see, I think, you want me to throw out logic and observation and move to just pure science? :-3

I will be back with articles for you. But I shall not give my opinion of them since that would be non scientific. :-3


Nothing wrong with logic as long as you've got your axioms right. Taking as axiomatic that homosexuallity cannot be inherited because the Bible says it is a sin is not logic.

Far,

A couple of link would have been better but fair enough. The only comment I'd make is that they appear to be quoting out of date research.

BTW - Who are NARTH? I've not come across them before.

Far Rider;619914 wrote: Psychologists and sociologists and other scientist that help folks recover from additive personalities near as I can figure.

I never heard of them till yesterday.

Hit them in google, I'm sure you can find them easily. I'm not at home right now to grab a link for you.


I found the site - that's how I know where the papers came from as they had no attribution.

almostfamous;619952 wrote: I try and steer clear of threads such as this and quite honestly, I didn't even finish reading it yet, not sure if I even care to. It's the same old argument OVER and OVER and OVER. Pretty sure noone's trying to force their religion on you. Pretty sure noone's mind is going to change regardless of what you say. Pretty sure it won't even be remembered in the grand scheme of things. However, attacking one another and bickering on like preschoolers about who's right, who's wrong, who can quote what, who can link you to "the facts" .. is out-right ridiculous.



We get it. You don't believe in the Bible and if you do, maybe not in it's entiriety (sp?) but irregardless, some do and that is our right. Who are you to challenge someone's beliefs. Accusing someone of judging is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black since you're obviously placing judgment on them as well.



It's just silly to keep having the same arguments over and over but in another thread, especially, considering the thread was to pay respect to Bro. Falwell, not attack or belittle people associated with his religion or beliefs.


Standing OVATION for my GIRL!!:yh_clap :yh_clap

Far Rider;620008 wrote: Wow, uhm, for the record I am not offended. I am discussing and trying to make my points in the normal course. I hope I have not offended anyone, I admit I am defending my position vehemetly but I hope honorably.

If I offended anyone, please let me know.


You offended me Far :sneaky:

I never could stand Falwell. That self righteous lying hypocrite.

RedGlitter;620013 wrote: I never could stand Falwell. That self righteous lying hypocrite.


Why, you straight talker Red :-4

SuzyB;620016 wrote: Why, you straight talker Red :-4


Well...I know I'm going to catch it for saying that but I've been watching this thread for days and I couldn't keep it in anymore. I know a lot of people revered him but just as many thought he was a boil on the @$$ of society.

Far Rider;620008 wrote: Wow, uhm, for the record I am not offended. I am discussing and trying to make my points in the normal course. I hope I have not offended anyone, I admit I am defending my position vehemetly but I hope honorably.

If I offended anyone, please let me know.


I sent you a PM, you are in trouble now MISTER!!:D :-4

almostfamous;619952 wrote: I try and steer clear of threads such as this and quite honestly, I didn't even finish reading it yet, not sure if I even care to. It's the same old argument OVER and OVER and OVER. Pretty sure noone's trying to force their religion on you. Pretty sure noone's mind is going to change regardless of what you say. Pretty sure it won't even be remembered in the grand scheme of things. However, attacking one another and bickering on like preschoolers about who's right, who's wrong, who can quote what, who can link you to "the facts" .. is out-right ridiculous.



We get it. You don't believe in the Bible and if you do, maybe not in it's entiriety (sp?) but irregardless, some do and that is our right. Who are you to challenge someone's beliefs. Accusing someone of judging is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black since you're obviously placing judgment on them as well.



It's just silly to keep having the same arguments over and over but in another thread, especially, considering the thread was to pay respect to Bro. Falwell, not attack or belittle people associated with his religion or beliefs.


Here was me thinking that we were having a civilised discussion about a subject of mutual interest.

At no point did either of us decend into animosity or personal attack and the discussion was moving forward all the time - far from rehashing the same argument over and over we have been making progress towards mutual understanding.

I have great respect for Far - I probably wouldn't have continued the discussion if I didn't, and it was a two sided debate so I'm not too sure why I'm the only one you're having a go at.

I don't think that I was challenging his beliefs - I was challenging his use of the Bible as an arbiter of scientific truth, not of moral correctness. His belief that homosexuallity is a sin is fully understood and accepted but to say that the Bible calls is a sin therefore it cannot be inherited is outside the remit of religion - disputing that is not attacking his belief or his religion.

I have no wish to offend anybody but I honestly think that this was a reasoned discussion within the charter of the forum - it cannot all be word games and joke threads.

Far Rider;620008 wrote: Wow, uhm, for the record I am not offended. I am discussing and trying to make my points in the normal course. I hope I have not offended anyone, I admit I am defending my position vehemetly but I hope honorably.

If I offended anyone, please let me know.


With much honour and some (a few :p) good arguments.

Far Rider;620008 wrote: Wow, uhm, for the record I am not offended. I am discussing and trying to make my points in the normal course. I hope I have not offended anyone, I admit I am defending my position vehemetly but I hope honorably.

If I offended anyone, please let me know.


I don't think either of you were offensive least of all to each other. Passionate disagreement is not the same as passionate dislike. If Bryn and far rider met face to face they would probably spend hours arguing with each other and have a great time doing it.

Some people seem to think an opinion expressed contrary to theirs is uttered only to be deliberately offensive and find offence where none was intended. Especially it seems when it comes to religion offence is taken at the very idea that anyone should dare to question religious faith in any way whatsoever. The idea that no one should be able to question religious belief is one I personally find deeply antagonistic.

I would have joined in but having crossed swords as it were with far rider in the past I know agreeing to disagree is the only likely outcome. If all christian fundamentalists were like Far I would have no problem, live let live is fine by me.

But my objection to the likes of Jerry Falwell is the way he and his ilk believe they have a god given right to force others to live their lives as they think they should be lived and to condemn and punish others as they see fit just because they read the bible that way. Hardly shining exam[les of christian tolerance and understanding. Take away the religious facade and all he was was a narrow minded bigot.

It's a discussion forum for goodness sake. What is the point unless you have something you disagree on?

Well said GMC, I feel the same way about Far Rider. I respect his opinion and his right to voice it. I enjoyed the discussion even if it was passionate at times. FR I'd be pleased to buy you a beer or a sasparillo any day of the week buddy.

Far Rider;620197 wrote: ahahah tell us what you really think Red!:wah:




Well you know me, Far.... :-6