PDA

View Full Version : Ben & Jerry's celebrates gay marriage


Chris F
09-02-2009, 07:20 PM
Ben & Jerry's ice cream honors same-sex 'marriage'
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 9/1/2009 12:40:00 PMAn ice cream company is celebrating homosexual "marriage" in Vermont.


Same-gender marriage is now legal in The Green Mountain State, and Ben & Jerry's has announced that it will temporarily change its "Chubby Hubby" ice cream to "Hubby Hubby" in honor of homosexual marriage. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality tells OneNewsNow that companies like Ben & Jerry's neglect to talk about the dangers of the lifestyle.

"Besides the health aspects, there's also the fact that homosexual behavior is opposed by God, and that's something that we should take seriously," he contends. "All homosexual behavior is sinful, and regardless of what liberals say or what Ben & Jerry's puts on a tub of ice cream, that remains the case."

The public can react by not buying the ice cream products, LaBarbera suggests -- but adds that Ben & Jerry's is probably impervious to conservative criticism at this point.

"The left is really making a fool of itself when it comes to homosexuality. They talk about transparency, but they don't want to tell anybody about the health risks of homosexual behavior," he points out. "They claim to follow God and to be Christian, and yet they celebrate all the things that God opposes...abortion, homosexuality. This is just par for the course."

County Mike
09-02-2009, 07:26 PM
That's gay. I'm switching to Haagen Daz.

Crisco
09-02-2009, 10:46 PM
That's gay. I'm switching to Haagen Daz.

lol beat me to it.



Hey everyone always talks about AIDS with gays but what about the fact that frequent butt stuff can cause hemroids. NOW THOSE SUCK!

Ben and Jerry's isn't that good anyway. Haagen is definately better.

MattHughesRocks
09-02-2009, 11:36 PM
I started out wanting ice cream, now I don't want anything...ever :laugh:

lol beat me to it.



Hey everyone always talks about AIDS with gays but what about the fact that frequent butt stuff can cause hemroids. NOW THOSE SUCK!

Ben and Jerry's isn't that good anyway. Haagen is definately better.

Rev
09-02-2009, 11:58 PM
:rotfl: wow

Chuck
09-03-2009, 02:10 AM
LOL... Frequent... :laugh: .... Butt...:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Stuff!! :unsure-1:

:happy0198:

Bonnie
09-03-2009, 04:44 AM
I started out wanting ice cream, now I don't want anything...ever :laugh:

Yeah, forget ice cream...go with Der Weinerschnitzel.

MattHughesRocks
09-03-2009, 04:50 AM
I actually went to the store after this thread and saw the Chubby Hubby :laugh:
I got Vanilla/Chocolate Yogurt Swirl. Dreyer's :laugh:

Yeah, forget ice cream...go with Der Weinerschnitzel.

Tyburn
09-06-2009, 11:46 AM
:mellow:

atomdanger
09-06-2009, 10:00 PM
I wonder how awkward it would be to work for a company like this,
who as a company supports gay marriage but certainly every employee cannot feel the same way.

Do you think a company should come out with an opinion on things like this?

Tyburn
09-06-2009, 10:28 PM
I wonder how awkward it would be to work for a company like this,
who as a company supports gay marriage but certainly every employee cannot feel the same way.

Do you think a company should come out with an opinion on things like this?

the company dont support. They are just out to make extra money by trying to appeal to a new social group. All they've done is changed one word. Its a quick fix to try and get more money...because thats what companies do

Rev
09-06-2009, 10:48 PM
the company dont support. They are just out to make extra money by trying to appeal to a new social group. All they've done is changed one word. Its a quick fix to try and get more money...because thats what companies do

Naw, something like that in America in times like these, that my friend is a political statement.

Tyburn
09-06-2009, 11:37 PM
Naw, something like that in America in times like these, that my friend is a political statement.

no. If they wanted to do that, they would produce an extra range. The ice cream wouldnt just be marketted under a different gimmick.

BUT believeing that its a political statement is far easier then accepting your working yourself up over nothing. It allows you to unleash a certain amount of distain on a topic you dissagree with...the other doesnt have that carthartic vent attached, and rather makes those who might buy it or show interest as stupidly dupped by a marketting con.

rearnakedchoke
09-06-2009, 11:50 PM
maybe ben and jerry are planning to come out of the closet or something ... but they coulda come up with a better name .. like packed fudge delite, very cherry fairy, or pear flavored queer ...

Neezar
09-07-2009, 12:41 AM
Naw, something like that in America in times like these, that my friend is a political statement.

Agree.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 02:00 AM
maybe ben and jerry are planning to come out of the closet or something ... but they coulda come up with a better name .. like packed fudge delite, very cherry fairy, or pear flavored queer ...

:laugh:

adamt
09-07-2009, 02:16 AM
G____A____Y
O_____I_____E
T____D_____T
_____S_____?

Mac
09-07-2009, 02:32 AM
Noone is gonna state the most obvious gay icecream flavor ?


Ok . From waynes world

"if he was an ice cream flavor , hed be PRALINES & DICK " HA HA HA

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 02:43 AM
G____A____Y
O_____I_____E
T____D_____T
_____S_____?

that is very mean, and totally uncalled for. :angry:

Mark
09-07-2009, 03:35 AM
Besides being a sin AND besides being a sin, isn't the spread of disease the number one danger of practicing homosexuality?

rearnakedchoke
09-07-2009, 03:53 AM
Besides being a sin AND besides being a sin, isn't the spread of disease the number one danger of practicing homosexuality?

nah, that can be a problem for being heterosexual too ... anyone who is promiscuous can have that problem ....

rearnakedchoke
09-07-2009, 03:54 AM
Noone is gonna state the most obvious gay icecream flavor ?


Ok . From waynes world

"if he was an ice cream flavor , hed be PRALINES & DICK " HA HA HA

wow .. i don't even remember that ... LOL ... too funny

Boomer
09-07-2009, 04:00 PM
"if he was an ice cream flavor , hed be PRALINES & DICK " HA HA HA

Im waiting for Sphincters 'n cream

Besides being a sin AND besides being a sin, isn't the spread of disease the number one danger of practicing homosexuality?

Yes, the chances of getting a communicable disease is much higher in the homosexual population then in the heterosexual one. Plus the sexual practices of those communities can cause some health complications too. More so for guys then gals.

Mark
09-07-2009, 04:14 PM
nah, that can be a problem for being heterosexual too ... anyone who is promiscuous can have that problem ....

So you are saying in the 80s the number one spread of aids in the USA wasn't homosexuality?

Boomer
09-07-2009, 04:19 PM
So you are saying in the 80s the number one spread of aids in the USA wasn't homosexuality?

Momma told me that if I shared my popsicles Id get AIDs :blink: That was like 1983.

NateR
09-07-2009, 04:26 PM
Momma told me that if I shared my popsicles Id get AIDs :blink: That was like 1983.

Sounds like good advice. It's probably not a good idea to let just anybody lick your popsicle.

Boomer
09-07-2009, 04:35 PM
Sounds like good advice. It's probably not a good idea to let just anybody lick your popsicle.


:huh: You've been hanging out with dawn too much. now I just feel dirty. :unsure-1:

NateR
09-07-2009, 04:43 PM
:huh: You've been hanging out with dawn too much. now I just feel dirty. :unsure-1:

Isn't this thread about ice cream? Get your mind out of the gutter. :tongue0011:

Boomer
09-07-2009, 04:45 PM
Isn't this thread about ice cream? Get your mind out of the gutter. :tongue0011:

:laugh: :laugh: it was your tone :blink:

rearnakedchoke
09-07-2009, 05:32 PM
So you are saying in the 80s the number one spread of aids in the USA wasn't homosexuality?


no ... i am saying that when AIDS first starting making headlines, it was known as the gay disease ... but because of that, heterosexuals that they could be promiscuous and not worry about it ... we all know now that there are plenty of hetero's with HIV ... what i am saying is that being promiscuous whether gay or not is still a sin and heterosexuals if they think they can't get STD's especially HIV are kidding themselves ...

Mark
09-07-2009, 06:18 PM
no ... i am saying that when AIDS first starting making headlines, it was known as the gay disease ... but because of that, heterosexuals that they could be promiscuous and not worry about it ... we all know now that there are plenty of hetero's with HIV ... what i am saying is that being promiscuous whether gay or not is still a sin and heterosexuals if they think they can't get STD's especially HIV are kidding themselves ...

We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?

MattHughesRocks
09-07-2009, 06:23 PM
Another huge peoblem is that married men that are bisexual are bringing it home to their wives then those woman give it to their unborn babies...so sick...so sad...

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 06:38 PM
Another huge peoblem is that married men that are bisexual are bringing it home to their wives then those woman give it to their unborn babies...so sick...so sad...

My practice tests twice for HIV. Once at the beginning of pregnancy and once close to the end. We can start the HIV cocktail drugs during pregnancy and usually we have decent success at keeping baby from getting it. BUT, the women have be getting regular prenatal care for us to pick it up and has to take her meds as scheduled. I'm not sure all practices do this but it is ACOG recommended as standard practice.


~Amy

MattHughesRocks
09-07-2009, 06:43 PM
It's just a shame that pregnant woman have to even take that kind of a test.

My practice tests twice for HIV. Once at the beginning of pregnancy and once close to the end. We can start the HIV cocktail drugs during pregnancy and usually we have decent success at keeping baby from getting it. BUT, the women have be getting regular prenatal care for us to pick it up and has to take her meds as scheduled. I'm not sure all practices do this but it is ACOG recommended as standard practice.


~Amy

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 07:02 PM
It's just a shame that pregnant woman have to even take that kind of a test.


I agree completely. I see a lot of happiness and goodness in my line of work but also a lot of bad, bad things that I don't like to think about after hours. Seeing the look on a woman's face when given a diagnosis like + HIV status is not an easy thing. Sometimes that's what I see when I close my eyes at night.


~Amy

rearnakedchoke
09-07-2009, 07:14 PM
We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?

i am not saying it is not a factor ... but your source looks like it is pretty old ... nowadays, i would probably venture to say that smoking would be a higher contributer to gays dying than aids ... gays are more likely to be smokers than heterosexuals (maybe cuz they are used to having something in their mouths) ... but with all the education around STD's and access to condoms, std's are probably lower on the scale than other factors leading to death like cancer, heart disease etc.

Primadawn
09-07-2009, 07:31 PM
:huh: You've been hanging out with dawn too much. now I just feel dirty. :unsure-1:

Boomer blames all his dirty feelings on me! :angry:

For the record, I didn't lick Nate's popsicle. Only his face.:laugh:

Mark
09-07-2009, 07:47 PM
i am not saying it is not a factor ... but your source looks like it is pretty old ... nowadays, i would probably venture to say that smoking would be a higher contributer to gays dying than aids ... gays are more likely to be smokers than heterosexuals (maybe cuz they are used to having something in their mouths) ... but with all the education around STD's and access to condoms, std's are probably lower on the scale than other factors leading to death like cancer, heart disease etc.

Here is a more recent article that states that 48% of all men who have aids in the US got it through male to male sexual contact.
http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

Boomer
09-07-2009, 08:10 PM
So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?

Bleed while you poop ?? :huh: I don't know. .. I'm a slow learner here.

i am not saying it is not a factor ... but your source looks like it is pretty old ... nowadays, i would probably venture to say that smoking would be a higher contributer to gays dying than aids ... gays are more likely to be smokers than heterosexuals (maybe cuz they are used to having something in their mouths) ... but with all the education around STD's and access to condoms, std's are probably lower on the scale than other factors leading to death like cancer, heart disease etc.



Actually RNC that is not true. Homosexuals are 50 times more likely to contract aids if they sleep with 10 guys in a week then if a hetero slept with 10 girls in a week. Here is one of many articles

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082609.html

And honestly AIDS is not the only reason it is unhealthy. (children cover your eyes) There are strains of Bactria that are totally resistant to modern medicine that cause gross deformations and eventually slow deaths. The origins of these come from oral sex after anal sex and then kissing. (aka the tootsies roll) There is two specifically that I know of but not even going to try and spell them ... long science words. looking at this from a total moral neutrality, homosexuality is very unhealthy. Besides the obvious threat of a greater risk in AIDS, new forms of disease are being contracted from it that could spread outside of the homosexual community and affect society in general. Looking at it with the moral glasses back on .... God didn't create us that way. Whenever mankind rebels against our created order .. things like this happen.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:31 PM
Besides being a sin AND besides being a sin, isn't the spread of disease the number one danger of practicing homosexuality?
Yes.

but that doesnt mean that its a homosexual disease...I mean, its a sexually transmitted disease that spreads amoung any person who has sex with a carrier...so it can be spread hetrosexually...and in africa, its so rife, that many infants are BORN with HIV because their hetrosexual parents carried the disease.

Besides...its not something to be flippent about like adamt was. Not if you have known people who might have been through such things...whether it was brought on by their own stupidity and carelessness or not...frankly, its not pleasent to watch or see someone die of the smallest of ailments because of what happens when the HIV virus turns the body into AIDS :unsure-1:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:37 PM
So you are saying in the 80s the number one spread of aids in the USA wasn't homosexuality?

It was probably Hetrosexual Prostitutes.

Remember Mark that (well I dont know about the US) in England Homosexual Practise was illegal, and if you were caught you would be put in prison, up to the mid 1980s. So it happened a lot less, and was underground

Hetrosexual Prostitution was leagal at one time, and thus rife. So probably up to the 1980s it was Hetrosexual Prostitution that was the largest spreader..followed after the 1980s by Homosexuality as the two swapped places in lawfulness

Besides...I think the point being made is that Sexually Transmitted Diseases arent limited to the HIV virus (AIDS is a reaction to an illness within a person who carries the Virus, its not the Virus itself) moreover...HIV isnt the only Sexually Transmitted Disease to cause permanent damage and kill.

Shall we talk about syphilis, or ghonnerea? :laugh:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:44 PM
We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?
Not if your CAREFUL.

and to answer your question. Hepatitus. Actually. THAT is the number one danger of practising homosexuality. The contraction of Hepatitus..any of the three strains.

The reason why it is more easy to catch any STD as a homosexual is because the lining of the Anus is a lot thinner and a lot more fragile then the other hole. To contract any disease you must have blood contact....if one is more fragile then the other, one is more vulnerable and more likely to get infected.

BUT your statistic doesnt tell you the percentage of Homosexuals with HIV out of all homosexuals. Supposing for example that 75% of Homosexuals with HIV we only 5% of the population of Homosexuals...and the 25% of Hetrosexuals was 60% of the Hetrosexual population.

That, Mark, is why you can get Statistics to say anything :laugh:

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 08:47 PM
It was probably Hetrosexual Prostitutes.

Remember Mark that (well I dont know about the US) in England Homosexual Practise was illegal, and if you were caught you would be put in prison, up to the mid 1980s. So it happened a lot less, and was underground

Hetrosexual Prostitution was leagal at one time, and thus rife. So probably up to the 1980s it was Hetrosexual Prostitution that was the largest spreader..followed after the 1980s by Homosexuality as the two swapped places in lawfulness

Besides...I think the point being made is that Sexually Transmitted Diseases arent limited to the HIV virus (AIDS is a reaction to an illness within a person who carries the Virus, its not the Virus itself) moreover...HIV isnt the only Sexually Transmitted Disease to cause permanent damage and kill.

Shall we talk about syphilis, or ghonnerea? :laugh:


Syphlis and gonorrhea are curable with antibiotics.


~Amy

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:49 PM
Bleed while you poop ?? :huh: I don't know. .. I'm a slow learner here.



.

Haemaroids :frantics:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:51 PM
Syphlis and gonorrhea are curable with antibiotics.


~Amy

That depends on how long you have had them for before you are diagnosed, :laugh: Particularly the former.

besides...HIV is supposed to be able to be contained and treatable in some way...but I wouldnt go hedging my bets :ninja:

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Not if your CAREFUL.

and to answer your question. Hepatitus. Actually. THAT is the number one danger of practising homosexuality. The contraction of Hepatitus..any of the three strains.

The reason why it is more easy to catch any STD as a homosexual is because the lining of the Anus is a lot thinner and a lot more fragile then the other hole. To contract any disease you must have blood contact....if one is more fragile then the other, one is more vulnerable and more likely to get infected.

BUT your statistic doesnt tell you the percentage of Homosexuals with HIV out of all homosexuals. Supposing for example that 75% of Homosexuals with HIV we only 5% of the population of Homosexuals...and the 25% of Hetrosexuals was 60% of the Hetrosexual population.

That, Mark, is why you can get Statistics to say anything :laugh:

You don't have to have blood contact to get diseases. Many viruses live in body fluids such as saliva and other secretions. Blood contact does increase your risk hugely but it's not just blood that's dangerous.


~Amy

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:53 PM
Besides the obvious threat of a greater risk in AIDS, new forms of disease are being contracted from it that could spread outside of the homosexual community and affect society in general. Looking at it with the moral glasses back on .... God didn't create us that way. Whenever mankind rebels against our created order .. things like this happen.

Boomer...contrary to popular opinion, the Homosexual community did not "invent" the HIV virus :rolleyes:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 08:55 PM
You don't have to have blood contact to get diseases. Many viruses live in body fluids such as saliva and other secretions. Blood contact does increase your risk hugely but it's not just blood that's dangerous.


~Amy

I didnt say Blood. I said Blood Contact. Yes the virus can be in other secretions...but it has to get into the blood stream to infect

Mark
09-07-2009, 08:55 PM
It was probably Hetrosexual Prostitutes.

Shall we talk about syphilis, or ghonnerea? :laugh:

I think you are wrong, go get some evidence. I thought we were talking about aids?

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 08:59 PM
That depends on how long you have had them for before you are diagnosed, :laugh: Particularly the former.

besides...HIV is supposed to be able to be contained and treatable in some way...but I wouldnt go hedging my bets :ninja:


You can have lasting effects of the disease, true. BUT they can cure you with antibiotics and since we hand them out like candy at the doc's offices and ERs mostly people don't have STDs long enough to have them develop into anything besides a relationship killer. You have to have undiagnosed syphlis for years before you get brain disease from it and gonorrhea mostly just causes sterility or ectopic pregnancy if untreated because of PID (pelvic inflammatory disease).

There is no cure or treatment for HIV other than the nasty cocktail of drugs that stave it off. It's still a death sentence.


~Amy

Boomer
09-07-2009, 09:00 PM
Boomer...contrary to popular opinion, the Homosexual community did not "invent" the HIV virus :rolleyes:

If you really thought that is what I was saying then you have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes to your ability to read and comprehend meanings.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:01 PM
I think you are wrong, go get some evidence. I thought we were talking about aids?

Mark the Virus is HIV...you cant contract AIDS..AIDS is a reaction to an illness within the body of someone with an HIV infection. So before we begin, we should be talking about HIV and not AIDS (and if we were, adamt and his obnoxious little acroymn wouldnt work would it)

Secondly, you are talking about AIDS because that was the example first given by Adamt. BUT its just one of many deadly sexually transmitted diseases, that is spread through both hetrosexual and homosexual communities...so actually as I and RNC are trying to point out...the issues about danger involved in homosexual promescuity and sexually transmitted diseases go beyond HIV. For both communities.

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:02 PM
I didnt say Blood. I said Blood Contact. Yes the virus can be in other secretions...but it has to get into the blood stream to infect

A virus just needs a mucus membrane....mouth, eyes, vagina, anus, nares (nostrils), or even the meatus of the penis.


~Amy

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:03 PM
If you really thought that is what I was saying then you have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes to your ability to read and comprehend meanings.

It comes to close Boomer. It comes to close to blaming Homosexuals for HIV...by saying, I presume, that when people go against the natural order, these sort of things happen...as if there is a cause and reaction event...when there is not.

Even if no homosexual ever practised, the HIV virus would still exist...so its not the product of sin, its the product of a fallen world.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:04 PM
A virus just needs a mucus membrane....mouth, eyes, vagina, anus, nares (nostrils), or even the meatus of the penis.


~Amy

isnt that blood contact though :huh:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:06 PM
You can have lasting effects of the disease, true. BUT they can cure you with antibiotics and since we hand them out like candy at the doc's offices and ERs mostly people don't have STDs long enough to have them develop into anything besides a relationship killer. You have to have undiagnosed syphlis for years before you get brain disease from it and gonorrhea mostly just causes sterility or ectopic pregnancy if untreated because of PID (pelvic inflammatory disease).

There is no cure or treatment for HIV other than the nasty cocktail of drugs that stave it off. It's still a death sentence.


~Amy

isnt one of the Hepatitus strains fatal also...I'm sure I was told it was.

I'm glad that I always stayed safe when I practised, and that I dont run those sort of risks anymore.

It doesnt bear thinking about does it :cry:

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:08 PM
Mark the Virus is HIV...you cant contract AIDS..AIDS is a reaction to an illness within the body of someone with an HIV infection. So before we begin, we should be talking about HIV and not AIDS (and if we were, adamt and his obnoxious little acroymn wouldnt work would it)

Secondly, you are talking about AIDS because that was the example first given by Adamt. BUT its just one of many deadly sexually transmitted diseases, that is spread through both hetrosexual and homosexual communities...so actually as I and RNC are trying to point out...the issues about danger involved in homosexual promescuity and sexually transmitted diseases go beyond HIV. For both communities.


Dave, most sexually transmitted diseases are not fatal. Hepatitis B and C yes, HIV yes. The rest are no longer considered deadly. Sure herpes is a bother and warts are unsightly but they don't kill you unless you have a compromised immune system to begin with and they go systemic. Granted I am not talking 3rd world countries where there is limited access to medical care, I am speaking of our ability in the medical community to cure gonorrhea, chlamydia, BV, and syphlis and to treat herpes and warts.


~Amy

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:09 PM
isnt one of the Hepatitus strains fatal also...I'm sure I was told it was.

I'm glad that I always stayed safe when I practised, and that I dont run those sort of risks anymore.

It doesnt bear thinking about does it :cry:


Yes, you are correct about Hepatitis. Strains B and C can be fatal. I am very glad you never contracted either of those or HIV. I wouldn't wish those on anyone.

~Amy

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:10 PM
herpes
chlamydia, BV,
~Amy

out of interest...how recently have those been treatable :huh:

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:11 PM
isnt that blood contact though :huh:

Not really. No blood is exchanged nor does it come in contact with another person. Now if you do have blood contact then your chances of contracting a disease is much higher.


~Amy

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:13 PM
BUT your statistic doesnt tell you the percentage of Homosexuals with HIV out of all homosexuals. Supposing for example that 75% of Homosexuals with HIV we only 5% of the population of Homosexuals...and the 25% of Hetrosexuals was 60% of the Hetrosexual population.

That, Mark, is why you can get Statistics to say anything :laugh:

Well that doesn't make any sense. If 75% of the men with aids are gay and that only represents 5% of the gay population, then that would require gay men to outnumber heterosexual men in the US by 10 to 1. The reality is exactly the opposite.

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:13 PM
out of interest...how recently have those been treatable :huh:


Gonorrhea, chlamydia, BV, and syphlis are treatable with penicillins so they have been curable ever since the discovery of antibiotics. Herpes has been treated recently with medication such as valtrex which helps suppress outbreaks.

~Amy

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:14 PM
Yes, you are correct about Hepatitis. Strains B and C can be fatal. I am very glad you never contracted either of those or HIV. I wouldn't wish those on anyone.

~Amy

its very scary when you hear of...or know someone...who has. I was only on the scene for about 6 months...and I wasnt exactly overloaded with offers neither...so I only knew and heard about these people as aquaintances through other friends. All the same though...its horrible.

You would think that contracting something like that would stop them practising...but it doesnt. Even when they have contracted the disease, they still advertise...and there are unbelievably still takers...even after diagnosis and after both Neg and Pos are aware.

Thats partly what put me off, very early. Its basically not worth the risk, and the fact that they are prepared to risk someone elses health, even if the other is willing particpent...its just not safe.

:cry:

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 09:17 PM
its very scary when you hear of...or know someone...who has. I was only on the scene for about 6 months...and I wasnt exactly overloaded with offers neither...so I only knew and heard about these people as aquaintances through other friends. All the same though...its horrible.

You would think that contracting something like that would stop them practising...but it doesnt. Even when they have contracted the disease, they still advertise...and there are unbelievably still takers...even after diagnosis and after both Neg and Pos are aware.

Thats partly what put me off, very early. Its basically not worth the risk, and the fact that they are prepared to risk someone elses health, even if the other is willing particpent...its just not safe.

:cry:

I have seen people die from full blown AIDS. As a matter of fact one of my first patients was HIV+ and he wrote me the sweetest letter about compassion. In my mind if you knowingly infect another with HIV you are a murderer and if you have sex with them but they don't contract it you are still guilty of attempted murder.


~Amy

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:18 PM
Even if no homosexual ever practised, the HIV virus would still exist...so its not the product of sin, its the product of a fallen world.

But if not for the gays, it would be nowhere near what it is now or what it was in the 80s.

Isn't the product of sin and the product of a fallen world the same thing? The world is fallen because of sin.

Boomer
09-07-2009, 09:18 PM
It comes to close Boomer. It comes to close to blaming Homosexuals for HIV...by saying, I presume, that when people go against the natural order, these sort of things happen...as if there is a cause and reaction event...when there is not.

Even if no homosexual ever practised, the HIV virus would still exist...so its not the product of sin, its the product of a fallen world.

:laugh: :laugh: Wow .. yea you just dropped off the scale. You got this figured out with your extensive life experience and all.

All "sin" is is going against God's design. If he didn't create things to work a certain way, then nothing would be "wrong". So when you do go against God's created order .. sin does affect your life. there is a cause and reaction event. It's easy and spineless to blame the "fallen" world ... and you have no idea if HIV would exist if homosexuality was never practiced. :rolleyes:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:19 PM
Well that doesn't make any sense. If 75% of the men with aids are gay and that only represents 5% of the gay population, then that would require gay men to outnumber heterosexual men in the US by 10 to 1. The reality is exactly the opposite.

well yes...its not true...but the point is, without knowing the additional statistic...and might I add...you cant be sure how many homosexuals there are...then the stats arent as solid as they first seem.

The truth is...many homosexuals are married and with children...many homosexuals are living in the closet...many homosexuals are completely celebate and chose not to class themselves as homosexuals...and the majority of practising homosexuals are NON Militant, and NON scene.

So the medical authorities only know the ones which are out and militant, or ill. For example...do you realize just how staggering a figue is, if your suggestion were proven correct? One in TEN American Men being Homosexual?? thats a LOT of homosexuals...hopefully the figure is nowhere near that...but I have heard some suggest as many as one in five. :blink:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:24 PM
and you have no idea if HIV would exist if homosexuality was never practiced. :rolleyes:

well if Homosexuality didnt invent it...surely it exists independantly.

unless you ARE saying that homosexuality invented it.

I am saying the two are not causally linked in sin. The sin of Homosexuality did not cause the HIV virus to appear.

if it did then what of other diseases...what sin caused the other diseases to appear? Its easy and weak to say because homosexality is such an obvious sin and so tied up with HIV that they are linked.

but blindness is a disease...and those who become blind are not so obviously sinful as to self inflict through sin, the blindness upon them.

THATS the danger with the closeness of your argument saying that sin and disease are cause and effect reactions.

Boomer
09-07-2009, 09:24 PM
the statistic is based off the HIV+ population not the hetro or homo population. 1000 men have HIV 800 are homo 200 are hetro .. all the closest or Bi's just raise the homo stat.

well yes...its not true...but the point is, without knowing the additional statistic...and might I add...you cant be sure how many homosexuals there are...then the stats arent as solid as they first seem.

The truth is...many homosexuals are married and with children...many homosexuals are living in the closet...many homosexuals are completely celebate and chose not to class themselves as homosexuals...and the majority of practising homosexuals are NON Militant, and NON scene.

So the medical authorities only know the ones which are out and militant, or ill. For example...do you realize just how staggering a figue is, if your suggestion were proven correct? One in TEN American Men being Homosexual?? thats a LOT of homosexuals...hopefully the figure is nowhere near that...but I have heard some suggest as many as one in five. :blink:

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:31 PM
well if Homosexuality didnt invent it...surely it exists independantly.

unless you ARE saying that homosexuality invented it.

I am saying the two are not causally linked in sin. The sin of Homosexuality did not cause the HIV virus to appear.

if it did then what of other diseases...what sin caused the other diseases to appear? Its easy and weak to say because homosexality is such an obvious sin and so tied up with HIV that they are linked.

but blindness is a disease...and those who become blind are not so obviously sinful as to self inflict through sin, the blindness upon them.

THATS the danger with the closeness of your argument saying that sin and disease are cause and effect reactions.

So what diseases existed before Adam and Eve fell? I don't even think there was death before the fall. Am I right on this Dave? Just say yes or no.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:37 PM
1)But if not for the gays, it would be nowhere near what it is now or what it was in the 80s.

2) Isn't the product of sin and the product of a fallen world the same thing? The world is fallen because of sin.

1) yes, your probably right. Without a bulk of carriers, the resulting infection would be less spread

2) Not quite. The World IS fallen because of Sin, that is true. However the product of a fallen world is general decay and entrophy due to original sin. its like a building that has fallen into disrepair because the owners have left...if you walk across a floorboard it might break and you might fall through

but that is different to walking across a floorboard in the same empty house of disrepair and falling through BECAUSE YOU JUMPPED UP AND DOWN and the board gave way.

one is the result of Original Sin...one is the result of a specific sin committed. (that of jumping in the analogy)

I argue that HIV is simply an aspect of original sin. Homosexuals, because of there sin might be liable to come into contact...but thats only saying that a heavier person is more likely to fall through a delapadated floor without jumping.

The other argument is that a specific sin, results in a specific punishment I suppose. Therefore BECAUSE of a Homosexuals sin, directly, he gets HIV. Thus if there was no homosexual practise there would be no sin, and no HIV as a response.

The problem there is...all ailments must thus be a response for a particular sin. I had a cold last week...what sin was that a reaction to...and thats a bad road to go down.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:39 PM
So what diseases existed before Adam and Eve fell? I don't even think there was death before the fall. Am I right on this Dave? Just say yes or no.

Yes. You are right.

No disease before the Fall :)

or death

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:42 PM
1) yes, your probably right. Without a bulk of carriers, the resulting infection would be less spread

The problem there is...all ailments must thus be a response for a particular sin. I had a cold last week...what sin was that a reaction to...and thats a bad road to go down.

All ailments are from sin. Thats the truth.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:44 PM
All ailments are from sin. Thats the truth.

so everytime you get sick...you've committed a sin :huh:

do you honnestly believe that being sick is GODs punishment for the sin??

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:49 PM
so everytime you get sick...you've committed a sin :huh:

do you honnestly believe that being sick is GODs punishment for the sin??

I dont know, maybe. Maybe generational sin? i didnt even say my sin but sin.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 09:52 PM
I dont know, maybe. Maybe generational sin? i didnt even say my sin but sin.

Yes...but thats the point Mark

is it just general sin...or a specific sin that you've done.

thats what makes the difference...between a homosexual getting sick because of general sin...and his act of homosexuality being the specific sin that creates the illness.

I do believe Generation Sin exists in the form of curses to the third generation as specified by Scripture....but other then that...I think that sometimes bad things happen...not becase of specific sins...but just because of general sin...which is the product of a fallen world...NOT the product of a specific sin committed by the person who get ill

Mark
09-07-2009, 09:58 PM
Yes...but thats the point Mark

is it just general sin...or a specific sin that you've done.

thats what makes the difference...between a homosexual getting sick because of general sin...and his act of homosexuality being the specific sin that creates the illness.

I do believe Generation Sin exists in the form of curses to the third generation as specified by Scripture....but other then that...I think that sometimes bad things happen...not becase of specific sins...but just because of general sin...which is the product of a fallen world...NOT the product of a specific sin committed by the person who get ill

would you rather have aids or Sodom and Gomorrah?

Mac
09-07-2009, 10:00 PM
the fact that they are prepared to risk someone elses health, even if the other is willing particpent...its just not safe.

:cry:


So what you are saying dave is fags are not only the leading cause of the HIV . But they are also heartless killers ?

I understand now.

Boomer
09-07-2009, 10:04 PM
...then tell me what sin I committed caused last weeks cold :huh:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You always make things about you. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That is not part of my theology and again not close to what I said. it's almost 200am here and you know if I actually thought me posting something would help you I'd dig all night. But the fact is it wouldn't. You bog through life looking for offenses for attention.

We sin every day .. we would all be in perpetual sickness if that was the case. The POINT was the practice of homosexuality is UNHEALTHY period. That the spread of disease is MORE common in the gay community and that can spill over into society.

If you don't like what I said about the cause and effect of sin, oh well. We'll both be dead one day anf God will let us know. We're probably both wrong.

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 10:43 PM
would you rather have aids or Sodom and Gomorrah?

I'd rather not have either. :blink:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 10:44 PM
So what you are saying dave is fags are not only the leading cause of the HIV . But they are also heartless killers ?

I understand now.

Some are. More then you know. :unsure-1:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 10:48 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

1)You always make things about you. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

2) That is not part of my theology and again not close to what I said. it's almost 200am here and you know if I actually thought me posting something would help you I'd dig all night. But the fact is it wouldn't. You bog through life looking for offenses for attention.

3) We sin every day .. we would all be in perpetual sickness if that was the case. The POINT was the practice of homosexuality is UNHEALTHY period. That the spread of disease is MORE common in the gay community and that can spill over into society.

4) If you don't like what I said about the cause and effect of sin, oh well. We'll both be dead one day anf God will let us know. We're probably both wrong.
1) I find that practical beats theory every time :laugh:

2) Well having met you in person...twice, I think I know that your not that offensive :laugh: I cant help that I'm sensative Boomer...aI'm a big softie at heart...but I REFUSE to cry at films...even sad ones...except the animation "All GOOD DOGS GO TO HEAVEN" :cry:

3) we aggree...just not sure we aggree on how it started and whose fault it is :ninja:

4) as always the truth is probably somewhere in between. Some theologians think Humans cant actually ever know or experience the truth, because they cant experience anything without it being filtered through a paradigmn. Guess thats why the ressurectional body is better then the mortal coil :)

NateR
09-07-2009, 11:03 PM
so everytime you get sick...you've committed a sin :huh:

do you honnestly believe that being sick is GODs punishment for the sin??

Illnesses and disease are a consequence of sin, not a punishment for specific sins.

For example, let's say that a mother is cooking in the kitchen and she notices that her 4 year old son is reaching for a hot pan sitting on the stove. She tells him to stay away from the pan because it will burn him. Well, when the mom turns her back and the kid touches the pan and burns himself, is that burn a punishment from the mother? No, it's a consequence of touching a hot pan. The mother didn't intentionally burn her son for disobeying her.

It's the same with contracting STDs. GOD is not striking gays down with AIDs, however, contracting AIDS while engaging in homosexual activity is a consequence of that activity. It's a cause and effect relationship.

Another example, if someone crosses the street without looking and gets hit by a truck. Is it theologically correct to say that GOD created that truck, in the instant that the person stepped over the median, for the sole purpose of striking that person? No, but getting hit by a vehicle is a consequence of crossing the street without paying attention.

Bonnie
09-07-2009, 11:19 PM
WOW! What a thread! From popsicles to penises all under the guise of politics. :laugh:

All right, now for the real ?, which one of you have tried the "Hubby Hubby"? :tongue0011:

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 11:19 PM
Illnesses and disease are a consequence of sin, not a punishment for specific sins.

For example, let's say that a mother is cooking in the kitchen and she notices that her 4 year old son is reaching for a hot pan sitting on the stove. She tells him to stay away from the pan because it will burn him. Well, when the mom turns her back and the kid touches the pan and burns himself, is that burn a punishment from the mother? No, it's a consequence of touching a hot pan. The mother didn't intentionally burn her son for disobeying her.

It's the same with contracting STDs. GOD is not striking gays down with AIDs, however, contracting AIDS while engaging in homosexual activity is a consequence of that activity. It's a cause and effect relationship.



if it were cause and effect, then every homosexual who ever engaged in activity would have the virus. They dont.

its a possible consequence. The same possible consequence that might happen in hetrosexual promescuity.

more then that, just like the kettle would have been hot whether the child touched it or not. The Childs touching does not create the heat from the kettle which burns.

Its not cause and effect. its possible consequences. Thats slightly different to what some have been arguing in this thread, and whilst im prepared to aggree with you on the latter, I'm not prepared to aggree that its the former :)

TexasRN
09-07-2009, 11:25 PM
WOW! What a thread! From popcicles to penises all under the guise of politics. :laugh:

All right, now for the real ?, which one of you have tried the "Hubby Hubby"? :tongue0011:


Ben and Jerrys is too expensive for me. I get the cheapo store brand or Edy's when it's buy 1 get 1 free. And then I eat chocolate chip cookie dough or chocolate PB cup. Yum.... :w00t:

~Amy

NateR
09-07-2009, 11:39 PM
more then that, just like the kettle would have been hot whether the child touched it or not. The Childs touching does not create the heat from the kettle which burns.

I love it when you try to prove I am wrong by agreeing with me. :laugh: The pan was hot first, then the mother warned the child of the hot pan, then the child touches the pan, then the child gets burned.

That's a cause and effect relationship. If you touch a hot pan, you will get burned.

Now, to complicate the example, let's say that the mother begins to tell her son to never touch any pan on the stove, whether it's hot or not. She's trying to prevent the possibility of burns in the future. So, this means that sometimes, if he disobeys her, there might be no consequences at all. However, repeated ignoring of her orders will greatly increase the chances that he gets burned.

rearnakedchoke
09-07-2009, 11:54 PM
Here is a more recent article that states that 48% of all men who have aids in the US got it through male to male sexual contact.
http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

i didn't read the whole article,but did it say how the other 52% of males got Aids??? i am not trying to argue with you, but i think nowadays, gays are more open to safe sex .. i am not gay, but i don't know ...

Tyburn
09-07-2009, 11:58 PM
Now, to complicate the example, let's say that the mother begins to tell her son to never touch any pan on the stove, whether it's hot or not. She's trying to prevent the possibility of burns in the future. So, this means that sometimes, if he disobeys her, there might be no consequences at all. However, repeated ignoring of her orders will greatly increase the chances that he gets burned.


why do you always have to be so....annoying :angry::laugh:

yes...that would work :laugh:

Tyburn
09-08-2009, 12:03 AM
Ben and Jerrys is too expensive for me. I get the cheapo store brand or Edy's when it's buy 1 get 1 free. And then I eat chocolate chip cookie dough or chocolate PB cup. Yum.... :w00t:

~Amy

I never by icecream...for a start I dont really have a freezer I have an ice box in my fridge and whilst it would work alright for a small tub...its full with frozen veg and frozen mince.

Secondly...its too expensive, certainly to buy any branded icecream

thirdly...you know I only want icecream when im really hot...and in England...it just never get hot enough for me to want it really :laugh:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 12:11 AM
Momma told me that if I shared my popsicles I’d get AIDs :blink: That was like 1983.
I always heard the #1 way to keep from getting AIDS is to sit down and keep your mouth shut. :wink:

We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscuous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?
Technically no. A persons sexual orientation has no bearing on the spread of a disease like HIV/AIDS any more then it does cancer or diabetes. The practice of unsafe sex, mostly anal sex, is the reason behind the rapid spread of HIV in the 80's.

Unsafe sex (anal/oral or vaginal) does not = gay. A monogamous gay couple using condoms stands very little chance of contracting HIV. A promiscuous heterosexual coupe who does not practice safe sex has a very high chance comparably.

It's about what kind of sex you're having, the precautions you're taking and whether or not you're practicing monogamy.

The reason it spread so quickly in the gay community had nothing to do with them being gay. Condoms are almost never used in the gay community because there is no chance of getting pregnant. Condoms are a form of BIRTH control not disease control. Most guys hate condoms to begin with but you would be hard pressed (pun intended) to find a guy who would use a condom if his partner was on the pill or, in the case of the gay community had zero chance of getting pregnant.

In the gay community you remove the chance of pregnancy so you remove the need for a condom, or so they thought. No condom = increased chance of contracting HIV.

Mark
09-08-2009, 12:29 AM
Technically no. A persons sexual orientation has no bearing on the spread of a disease like HIV/AIDS any more then it does cancer or diabetes. The practice of unsafe sex, mostly anal sex, is the reason behind the rapid spread of HIV in the 80's.

75% of the people that had aids were gay, but you say the sexual orientation has no bearing????? OK

NateR
09-08-2009, 12:33 AM
Technically no. A persons sexual orientation has no bearing on the spread of a disease like HIV/AIDS any more then it does cancer or diabetes.

In the gay community you remove the chance of pregnancy so you remove the need for a condom, or so they thought. No condom = increased chance of contracting HIV.

It sounds to me like these are two conflicting statements. Didn't you just claim that being gay did not increase a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS, but then you give an example of how being gay increases a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Mark
09-08-2009, 12:36 AM
The reason it spread so quickly in the gay community had nothing to do with them being gay. Condoms are almost never used in the gay community because there is no chance of getting pregnant.

The gay community that im talking about is the one that doesnt use condoms. The ones that spread AIDS chuck!

Bonnie
09-08-2009, 12:45 AM
I think Chuck is referring to being gay and practicing monogomous gay safe sex. :blink: But, I could be wrong. :wink:

Mark
09-08-2009, 12:52 AM
I think Chuck is referring to being gay :wink:

Sorry I didnt know that he was.

Bonnie
09-08-2009, 01:01 AM
Sorry I didnt know that he was.

:laugh: I can see I need to watch my wording around you.

Actually, I think he's a big boob! :Whistle:

Let's try again: I think Chuck is referring to those gays who practice monogomous gay safe sex.

NateR
09-08-2009, 01:07 AM
Sorry I didnt know that he was.

ZING!:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
09-08-2009, 01:19 AM
Bleed while you poop ?? :huh: I don't know. .. I'm a slow learner here.





Actually RNC that is not true. Homosexuals are 50 times more likely to contract aids if they sleep with 10 guys in a week then if a hetero slept with 10 girls in a week. Here is one of many articles

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/aug/09082609.html

And honestly AIDS is not the only reason it is unhealthy. (children cover your eyes) There are strains of Bactria that are totally resistant to modern medicine that cause gross deformations and eventually slow deaths. The origins of these come from oral sex after anal sex and then kissing. (aka the tootsies roll) There is two specifically that I know of but not even going to try and spell them ... long science words. looking at this from a total moral neutrality, homosexuality is very unhealthy. Besides the obvious threat of a greater risk in AIDS, new forms of disease are being contracted from it that could spread outside of the homosexual community and affect society in general. Looking at it with the moral glasses back on .... God didn't create us that way. Whenever mankind rebels against our created order .. things like this happen.

that i agree with ... but i think most of the time, it is the catcher in the relationship that is more at risk than the pitcher ... even in hetero relationships it is harder for the man to catch HIV from a woman (practicing vaginal sex) than the other way around ....

NateR
09-08-2009, 01:40 AM
BUT your statistic doesnt tell you the percentage of Homosexuals with HIV out of all homosexuals. Supposing for example that 75% of Homosexuals with HIV we only 5% of the population of Homosexuals...and the 25% of Hetrosexuals was 60% of the Hetrosexual population.

That, Mark, is why you can get Statistics to say anything :laugh:

This really makes no sense Dave, you just have to look at the official census numbers to see how homosexual men are an extreme minority in this country, then compare that to the numbers that state they are a majority of the AIDS carriers.

According to the 2000 US census, homosexual men made up just 0.7% of the US population. Bisexuals were just 0.49% and Lesbians were 0.32%. So, gay men, bisexuals and lesbians combined only make up 1.51% of the entire US population (and this was taken in 2000 when being gay was more widely accepted than any other time in US history, thus more people were willing to claim it).

So, using logic, when you claim that 0.7% of the population makes up 75% of the disease carriers, then that is a staggering number. Even the more modern number of 48% is ridiculously high. If the chances of contracting AIDS were equal for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, then the number of gay men with AIDS should be roughly similar to 0.7%. So, stating that being gay increases your risk of contracting AIDS would be a logical conclusion to draw from the numbers presented.

adamt
09-08-2009, 02:19 AM
Besides...its not something to be flippent about like adamt was


looks to me like gays are the ones that are flippant....... flippant about natural order and moral law and ABSOLUTE TRUTH and reverence to Our Maker.......

but to be honest? i don't see it as all that flippant... it is quite an accurate acronym..... you taking such quick offense to it is quite surprising....

I'll throw out a few more acronyms I know right off the top of my head....

F#$%^&d
On
Race
Day

Poor
Old
Nigerian
Thinks
Its
A
Caddilac

Can
Hear
Every
Valve
Rattling
On
Long
Extended
Trips

Idiots
Out
Walking
Around




now i'm an iowan.... i can see the cleverness and the humor in the last one.... i'm not too offended....

matt's a chevy man..... i don't think he's gonna be coming on here and telling me i was mean and uncalled for because i made fun of chevy....

you lent credibilty to it by getting offended..... which it was pretty poignant


Even if no homosexual ever practised, the HIV virus would still exist...so its not the product of sin, its the product of a fallen world.

prove it..... i say even if there was no great flood we would still see rainbows, that is about an equal statement......WE don't know that, only God does

so everytime you get sick...you've committed a sin :huh:

do you honnestly believe that being sick is GODs punishment for the sin??


yes and yes

is the sin directly related to the sickness.... that's up for debate, but we've all sinned so..... everytime you're sick you have committed a sin. Sin is worthy of death so it is at least worthy of sickness as well, so we all deserve not only sickness but death, so yes sin= sickness..... now we get back into what i touched on in the insurance debate... how closely do our sickness correlate to our sin? I think they correlate alot closer than most people do... more than just gay people get aids or smokers get lung cancer or drunks get liver disease or fat people get heart disease.... i think most and maybe all disease and sickness is a result of some sort of specific sin... but that is a personal conviction.....


tell me something --- could all the hormones and hormone replacement drugs give women breast cancer or ovarian cancer?? Does refusing to accept children from God by pumping hormones into your reproductive tract to prevent them cause reproductive cancers??? Could viagra cause prostate problems?? I don't know if those specific cases hold true but I do know there has to be examples such as those we don't know about...
Women don't want to "burdened" with children nowadays... at least not til they have their careers anyways... but I have seen studies that show women with several ----as in --- 5+ pregnancies have alot less chance of reproductive cancers.... why???? maybe they get good hormones that cleanse their systems when pregnant i don't know.... and i'm not gonna find those studies cause I am speaking relatively rhetorically, it's just food for thought and hypothetical examples.... that just might be true


...then tell me what sin I committed caused last weeks cold :huh:

what sins did you commit???? I'll figure it out for you.... your theory only holds water if you are sinless and still get sick.... my theory is more supported than yours... people sin and people get sick.... did jesus ever get sick.... So Person never sinned Person never got sick.... so far my theory is batting a 1.000....

I was going to start a thread and actually did a poll on the sin unto death, but i had stirred the pot enough to no avail, so i stopped stirring the pot.... but the sin unto death is a direct consequence of a mature believer knowingly sinning directly against God.... God takes him out....


sodom and gommorrah was a punishment, the Flood was a punishment not just cause and effect.... consequence yes, cause and effect yes but much more

NateR
09-08-2009, 03:06 AM
i think most and maybe all disease and sickness is a result of some sort of specific sin... but that is a personal conviction.....

You're treading into very dangerous theologically territory. While it is true that sickness and disease are realities in this fallen world; not every sick person is sick because of a specific sin they or their family have committed. Jesus refuted that notion in John 9:1-3:

As He went along, He saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"

"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

Sometimes being sick or handicapped is simply the result of being born into a sinful world.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 03:49 AM
Sorry I didnt know that he was.

Ouch!! I'm crushed.. :wink:
I coulda swore there was a moment... on the farm....across a smokey bonfire... our eyes met.... the flames danced..... you smiled.....
:tongue0011:

adamt
09-08-2009, 03:50 AM
You're treading into very dangerous theologically territory. While it is true that sickness and disease are realities in this fallen world; not every sick person is sick because of a specific sin they or their family have committed. Jesus refuted that notion in John 9:1-3:



Sometimes being sick or handicapped is simply the result of being born into a sinful world./


That's not what Jesus said, He said the man was born blind so He could heal him.... do you think people are born disabled nowadays just so Jesus can perform a miracle on them..... and I am asking that a bit tongue in cheek, I don't look to argue this point too much because like I said it is a personal conviction, And like you said and I already know I am treading into very dangerous theologically territory, and don't have the time to argue it now.

But I will say there are many more examples in scripture to support my point of view than refute it. The scripture you cited is one. The disciples themselves believed it. Annaniais and sapphira is another, the communion passage says that people sleep because they take communion without having their heart purged, just to name a few examples.....

Chuck
09-08-2009, 04:00 AM
It sounds to me like these are two conflicting statements. Didn't you just claim that being gay did not increase a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS, but then you give an example of how being gay increases a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS.

I don't think it's a contradiction at all but if you do I'm cool with that. The point is simply that a persons sexual orientation didn't spread HIV.. poor sexual habits spread HIV.

It's like saying cauliflower ear is spread by wrestlers. Is that true? No. It's caused by trauma to the ear. Now it may be that wrestlers who choose not to use protection (head gear) get it more... but it's not the fact that they are wrestlers that causes it.. it's the lack of protection.

:laugh: I can see I need to watch my wording around you.

Actually, I think he's a big boob! :Whistle:

Let's try again: I think Chuck is referring to those gays who practice monogomous gay safe sex.

Did somebody say BIG BOOBS??????????? :D

NateR
09-08-2009, 04:04 AM
That's not what Jesus said, He said the man was born blind so He could heal him.... do you think people are born disabled nowadays just so Jesus can perform a miracle on them..... and I am asking that a bit tongue in cheek, I don't look to argue this point too much because like I said it is a personal conviction, And like you said and I already know I am treading into very dangerous theologically territory, and don't have the time to argue it now.

But I will say there are many more examples in scripture to support my point of view than refute it. The scripture you cited is one. The disciples themselves believed it. Annaniais and sapphira is another, the communion passage says that people sleep because they take communion without having their heart purged, just to name a few examples.....

So, you believe that blind man was somehow the exception to the rule and everybody else who is sick or handicapped is somehow at fault for their own ailment? I think that's nonsense and there is nothing in the scriptures that supports that notion.

You cite the disciples as an example for how people of the day believed this, but completely ignore the fact that Jesus corrected them on that false belief.

To use a personal example again, when my mom was 5-years-old she was knocked through the front windshield of a truck and landed headfirst on the road when the vehicle she was in was rear-ended by a drunk driver. So what sin did she commit that forced GOD to punish her with a lifetime of epileptic seizures as a result of that car accident? Did she not clean up her room when she was told? Or maybe she didn't eat all of her vegetables? She wasn't wearing a seatbelt at the time, but back then seatbelts weren't required by law, so it couldn't have been that. I'd be interested to know what answer your personal theology has for this situation.

NateR
09-08-2009, 04:22 AM
I don't think it's a contradiction at all but if you do I'm cool with that. The point is simply that a persons sexual orientation didn't spread HIV.. poor sexual habits spread HIV.

It's like saying cauliflower ear is spread by wrestlers. Is that true? No. It's caused by trauma to the ear. Now it may be that wrestlers who choose not to use protection (head gear) get it more... but it's not the fact that they are wrestlers that causes it.. it's the lack of protection.

Well, your logic doesn't hold up to the numbers. Like I stated in my response to Dave, if sexual orientation was not a factor in the spread of AIDS, then you would expect the number of homosexual men with AIDS to be roughly equivalent to their demographic. In other words, since gay men make up only 0.7% of the US population, then the percentage of gay men with AIDS should be around 1% or less. However, the actual numbers put them at 48-75% of AIDS patients. How do you account for that, aside from stating that participating in homosexual activity creates a greater risk for contracting AIDS?

Chuck
09-08-2009, 04:30 AM
I don't think it's a contradiction at all but if you do I'm cool with that. The point is simply that a persons sexual orientation didn't spread HIV.. poor sexual habits spread HIV.

It's like saying cauliflower ear is spread by wrestlers. Is that true? No. It's caused by trauma to the ear. Now it may be that wrestlers who choose not to use protection (head gear) get it more... but it's not the fact that they are wrestlers that causes it.. it's the lack of protection.

Well, your logic doesn't hold up to the numbers. Like I stated in my response to Dave, if sexual orientation was not a factor in the spread of AIDS, then you would expect the number of homosexual men with AIDS to be roughly equivalent to their demographic. In other words, since gay men make up only 0.7% of the US population, then the percentage of gay men with AIDS should be around 1% or less. However, the actual numbers put them at 48-75% of AIDS patients. How do you account for that, aside from stating that participating in homosexual activity creates a greater risk for contracting AIDS?

Same as I answered before Nate. Maybe we're just missing each other on this one? :cool:

Why is it that the number of lesbians who contracted HIV was far, far less then the number of gay men? Are the men just "more" gay? A lesbian woman is every bit as gay as a homosexual man right? If your statistics and Marks point were correct then gay women should have HIV at about the same level as gay men.

But they don't. Even though they are just as gay. Because being Gay has nothing to do with spreading a disease. Poor sexual habits spread HIV. It is a fact that gay men have poor sexual habits or did in the 80's. But the spread of their disease wasn't their "gayness" it was their lack of precautions.

It's actually your own numbers that refute your logic.

Primadawn
09-08-2009, 04:35 AM
Am I the only one who REALLLLY wants a popsicle now? :Whistle:

NateR
09-08-2009, 04:35 AM
Same as I answered before Nate. Maybe we're just missing each other on this one? :cool:

Why is it that the number of lesbians who contracted HIV was far, far less then the number of gay men? Are the men just "more" gay? A lesbian woman is every bit as gay as a homosexual man right? If your statistics and Marks point were correct then gay women should have HIV at about the same level as gay men.

But they don't. Even though they are just as gay. Because being Gay has nothing to do with spreading a disease. Poor sexual habits spread HIV. It is a fact that gay men have poor sexual habits or did in the 80's. But the spread of their disease wasn't their "gayness" it was their lack of precautions.

It's actually your own numbers that refute your logic.

Well, male homosexuality and female homosexuality are really two different things. Male on male sex is definitely more invasive and does a lot more physical damage to the body than girl on girl sex (which really just amounts to mutual masturbation), so they're really not comparable.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 04:46 AM
Well, male homosexuality and female homosexuality are really two different things. Male on male sex is definitely more invasive and does a lot more physical damage to the body than girl on girl sex (which really just amounts to mutual masturbation), so they're really not comparable.

For the sake of this discussion they are perfectly compatible. The type of sex they perform may be different but gay is gay.

And if homosexuality is what helped spread HIV in the 80's then the data would support that claim. And it doesn't. Gay women... who are just as gay as gay men are... have and had HIV at far, far less rates. Even though their level of "gayness" is equal.

Homosexuality does not equal the spread of HIV or any other disease.
Poor sexual habits spread HIV.

NateR
09-08-2009, 04:52 AM
For the sake of this discussion they are perfectly compatible. The type of sex they perform may be different but gay is gay.

And if homosexuality is what helped spread HIV in the 80's then the data would support that claim. And it doesn't. Gay women... who are just as gay as gay men are... have and had HIV at far, far less rates. Even though their level of "gayness" is equal.

Homosexuality does not equal the spread of HIV or any other disease.
Poor sexual habits spread HIV.

Um, no. I would disagree with that completely. We're not discussing ideals here, we are discussing reality. There is a very real physical trauma that results from homosexual male sex that simply doesn't occur with lesbian sex. So there is no physical similarity.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:04 AM
Um, no. I would disagree with that completely. We're not discussing ideals here, we are discussing reality. There is a very real physical trauma that results from homosexual male sex that simply doesn't occur with lesbian sex. So there is no physical similarity.

You're certainly welcome to disagree, it's a free country. But I believe you would be wrong.

Sex is neither gay or straight Nate. How is two men having anal sex different from a man and a woman having it?

Again.... the practice of unsafe sex spreads HIV. The sexual orientation of the persons involved makes no difference.

You're welcome to look for data to prove otherwise... but you won't find it. We're talking about a virus Nate... a virus spreads with no partiality from host to host. Race, gender, sexual orientation don't play a role... anywhere.

MattHughesRocks
09-08-2009, 05:05 AM
I'm actually shocked at the percent of people that are of homosexuals. I'd have guessed it to be much, much higher.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:09 AM
I'm actually shocked at the percent of people that are of homosexuals. I'd have guessed it to be much, much higher.

You would think with all the attention the gay community gets and how business and government cater to them that it would be.

But nope.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

The number of Christians in America is far higher then the number of gays and many other minority groups (including ethnic) but you sure as heck won't see business and government to cater to us. :angry:

MattHughesRocks
09-08-2009, 05:11 AM
It's a cryin' shame Chuck.

You would think with all the attention the gay community gets and how business and government cater to them that it would be.

But nope.

It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.

The number of Christians in America is far higher then the number of gays and many other minority groups (including ethnic) but you sure as heck won't see business and government to cater to us. :angry:

Neezar
09-08-2009, 05:12 AM
One of the high risks of practicing homosexuality = getting HIV.

Homosexuality was involved in the majority of HIV contraction cases in the 80's.



This is exactly what Mark said and I can't believe that anyone would be ignorant enough to try to dispute it.

Of course heteorsexuals get HIV. Of course gays can practice safe sex and have less chance of contracting the disease. None of that changes what was being said here.

Neezar
09-08-2009, 05:14 AM
You're certainly welcome to disagree, it's a free country. But I believe you would be wrong.

Sex is neither gay or straight Nate. How is two men having anal sex different from a man and a woman having it?

Again.... the practice of unsafe sex spreads HIV. The sexual orientation of the persons involved makes no difference.

You're welcome to look for data to prove otherwise... but you won't find it. We're talking about a virus Nate... a virus spreads with no partiality from host to host. Race, gender, sexual orientation don't play a role... anywhere.

How does proving that a man and woman can have butt love change the fact that 75% of the men with HIV are homosexuals?

:dry:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:15 AM
This is exactly what Mark said and I can't believe that anyone would be ignorant enough to try to dispute it.

Of course heteorsexuals get HIV. Of course gays can practice safe sex and have less chance of contracting the disease. None of that changes what was being said here.

How exactly does one practice homosexuality???

I mean you're a nurse for goodness sake... did you learn somewhere that a virus seeks out a host based on their sexual orientation?????

I'd love to see that study.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:17 AM
How does proving that a man and woman can have butt love change the fact that 75% of the men with HIV are homosexuals?

:dry:

And please... educate me... how did them being homosexual cause them to get HIV?

Why didn't gay virgins get it? Lesbians? Gays who practiced safe sex?

Neezar
09-08-2009, 05:18 AM
So you are saying in the 80s the number one spread of aids in the USA wasn't homosexuality?

It was probably Hetrosexual Prostitutes.



So heterosexual prostitutes gave HIV to 75% of male homosexuals?

I don't think so Dave. :laugh:

Neezar
09-08-2009, 05:20 AM
And please... educate me... how did them being homosexual cause them to get HIV?

Why didn't gay virgins get it? Lesbians? Gays who practiced safe sex?

I never said that being a homosexual caused them to get HIV. I said that 75% of men who contracted HIV were homosexual.

I think we are discussing two different concepts here.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:30 AM
One of the high risks of practicing homosexuality = getting HIV.
Homosexuality was involved in the majority of HIV contraction cases in the 80's.

This is exactly what Mark said and I can't believe that anyone would be ignorant enough to try to dispute it.

Of course heteorsexuals get HIV. Of course gays can practice safe sex and have less chance of contracting the disease. None of that changes what was being said here.

I never said that being a homosexual caused them to get HIV. I said that 75% of men who contracted HIV were homosexual.

I think we are discussing two different concepts here.

No, in essence you did. You quoted Mark (in blue) then shared your surprise that anyone would be so ignorant to dispute what he said. But what he said is wrong. Period.

"Practicing" Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the spread of HIV. Being Gay does not increase your risk of contracting HIV.

Lesbians "practice" homosexuality... are they at an increased risk of getting HIV? Can you provide any data that supports your belief???

NateR
09-08-2009, 05:38 AM
I'm actually shocked at the percent of people that are of homosexuals. I'd have guessed it to be much, much higher.

Yeah, the statistics are pretty amazing if you look at them:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

76.5% of Americans refer to themselves as Christian

44% of Americans refer to themselves as "born again" or "evangelical" Christians

0.5% refer to themselves as agnostic

0.4% of Americans refer to themselves as atheists

But of course, we're not a Christian nation at all.:rolleyes:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 05:40 AM
Yeah, the statistics are pretty amazing if you look at them:

http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html

76.5% of Americans refer to themselves as Christian

44% of Americans refer to themselves as "born again" or "evangelical" Christians

0.5% refer to themselves as agnostic

0.4% of Americans refer to themselves as atheists

But of course, we're not a Christian nation at all.:rolleyes:

I would love to see those stats through the eyes of Christ...

I imagine they would be quite different.

NateR
09-08-2009, 05:42 AM
No, in essence you did. You quoted Mark (in blue) then shared your surprise that anyone would be so ignorant to dispute what he said. But what he said is wrong. Period.

"Practicing" Homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with the spread of HIV. Being Gay does not increase your risk of contracting HIV.

Lesbians "practice" homosexuality... are they at an increased risk of getting HIV? Can you provide any data that supports your belief???

Um, no. What Mark said is backed up by facts, you're the one who is wrong. "Period." :rolleyes:

We've provided all the data necessary, you're just to stubborn and argumentative today to see it.

MattHughesRocks
09-08-2009, 06:00 AM
But since you can't...you won't :laugh:

What's the difference between being a Christian and born again? Either way your a Christian, right?


I would love to see those stats through the eyes of Christ...

I imagine they would be quite different.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 06:07 AM
Um, no. What Mark said is backed up by facts, you're the one who is wrong. "Period." :rolleyes:

We've provided all the data necessary, you're just to stubborn and argumentative today to see it.

Funny now I know how ChrisF feels...

Mark's a big boy... does he really need 2 Mods to speak for him?

You haven't proven anything.
You haven't answered a single question I asked you.
You simply ignore everything I post and just keep saying the same thing over and over.


Can you explain to me what "practicing" homosexuality means? Where is your definition?

Lesbians "practice" homosexuality don't they??? Where is your data to explain why they don't have HIV at the same rate as men??

In this case I don't think I'm being stubborn at all. I'd be more then open to changing my position if you actually addressed any of the points I brought up.

I think a better example of stubborn would be someone who just posts the same thing without ever addressing any of the other views or answering any of the questions posed to them.

The gay community is one of if not the most persecuted communities by Christians. It's easier to just hate the sinner instead of the sin. It's easier to blame things like HIV and it's spread on them instead of looking at facts.

Maybe you're one of those people, maybe you're not. That's for you to decide. But you haven't answered any of my questions. You haven't supplied any data and you've completely ignored the most basic concepts of medical science. And I'm the stubborn one???? :blink:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 06:24 AM
Technically no. A persons sexual orientation has no bearing on the spread of a disease like HIV/AIDS any more then it does cancer or diabetes. The practice of unsafe sex, mostly anal sex, is the reason behind the rapid spread of HIV in the 80's.

Unsafe sex (anal/oral or vaginal) does not = gay. A monogamous gay couple using condoms stands very little chance of contracting HIV. A promiscuous heterosexual coupe who does not practice safe sex has a very high chance comparably.

It's about what kind of sex you're having, the precautions you're taking and whether or not you're practicing monogamy.



I don't think it's a contradiction at all but if you do I'm cool with that. The point is simply that a persons sexual orientation didn't spread HIV.. poor sexual habits spread HIV.


Why is it that the number of lesbians who contracted HIV was far, far less then the number of gay men? Are the men just "more" gay? A lesbian woman is every bit as gay as a homosexual man right? If your statistics and Marks point were correct then gay women should have HIV at about the same level as gay men.

But they don't. Even though they are just as gay. Because being Gay has nothing to do with spreading a disease. Poor sexual habits spread HIV. It is a fact that gay men have poor sexual habits or did in the 80's. But the spread of their disease wasn't their "gayness" it was their lack of precautions.


And if homosexuality is what helped spread HIV in the 80's then the data would support that claim. And it doesn't. Gay women... who are just as gay as gay men are... have and had HIV at far, far less rates. Even though their level of "gayness" is equal.

Homosexuality does not equal the spread of HIV or any other disease.
Poor sexual habits spread HIV.


Sex is neither gay or straight Nate. How is two men having anal sex different from a man and a woman having it?

Again.... the practice of unsafe sex spreads HIV. The sexual orientation of the persons involved makes no difference.

You're welcome to look for data to prove otherwise... but you won't find it. We're talking about a virus Nate... a virus spreads with no partiality from host to host. Race, gender, sexual orientation don't play a role... anywhere.


Lesbians "practice" homosexuality... are they at an increased risk of getting HIV? Can you provide any data that supports your belief???

So there is a nifty little summary of most of my posts in this thread...

What exactly do you disagree with? Perhaps we're just talking about 2 different things?

Bonnie
09-08-2009, 06:41 AM
Funny now I know how ChrisF feels...

Mark's a big boy... does he really need 2 Mods to speak for him?

You haven't proven anything.
You haven't answered a single question I asked you.
You simply ignore everything I post and just keep saying the same thing over and over.


Can you explain to me what "practicing" homosexuality means? Where is your definition?

Lesbians "practice" homosexuality don't they??? Where is your data to explain why they don't have HIV at the same rate as men??

In this case I don't think I'm being stubborn at all. I'd be more then open to changing my position if you actually addressed any of the points I brought up.

I think a better example of stubborn would be someone who just posts the same thing without ever addressing any of the other views or answering any of the questions posed to them.

The gay community is one of if not the most persecuted communities by Christians. It's easier to just hate the sinner instead of the sin. It's easier to blame things like HIV and it's spread on them instead of looking at facts.

Maybe you're one of those people, maybe you're not. That's for you to decide. But you haven't answered any of my questions. You haven't supplied any data and you've completely ignored the most basic concepts of medical science. And I'm the stubborn one???? :blink:

Because boys are dirty. Girls are taught to wipe from front to back for a reason. You said yourself that homosexual males had sex (no condom) because they knew they couldn't get pregnant. You would think that they would have enough sense to realize that they were making themselves vulnerable to bacteria for sure and disease as a possibility by sticking their winkies (which does have a hole at the end of it) in a place where sewage waste comes out. :blink: Therefore, boys are stupid too! :tongue0011:

As far as blaming the homosexuals for spreading HIV/AIDS in the 80's in the U.S., they are to blame initially. Unless new info has come to light since I researched this for a paper in college. Aids started in Africa where it still thrives today. I don't know who/how it was brought here, but from my research, it started with the homosexual community here and then spread to the heterosexual community due to heterosexuals having unprotected sex with someone infected (most probably a prostitute male or female) and bringing it home to their wife or husband or other sexual partners and the dominoes just kept on tumbling.

I know what you are saying, Chuck, that "being" gay male/female doesn't cause/spread HIV/AIDS; it's practicing unsafe sex that does that. However, I do believe that the very fact that a person is homosexual (mostly males) actively pursuing relationship(s) does increase the risk for them contracting the virus/disease. There is always that "one" time that can happen either due to ignorance (yes, still) or carelessness (thinking just this once can't hurt) and that's all it takes. :wink:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 06:56 AM
Therefore, boys are stupid too! :tongue0011:
No argument there :D

However, I do believe that the very fact that a person is homosexual (mostly males) actively pursuing relationship(s) does increase the risk for them contracting the virus/disease. There is always that "one" time that can happen either due to ignorance (yes, still) or carelessness (thinking just this once can't hurt) and that's all it takes. :wink:

A homosexual actively pursuing a relationship doesn't increase the risk.

A homosexual who doesn't practice safe sex and pursues a relationship does have an increased risk.

:D

How did they slow the spread of HIV?? They didn't tell people to stop being gay or stop having gay relationships because their orientation doesn't spread the disease.

Their poor habits did. :)

Bonnie
09-08-2009, 07:15 AM
A homosexual actively pursuing a relationship doesn't increase the risk.

A homosexual who doesn't practice safe sex and pursues a relationship does have an increased risk.

:D

How did they slow the spread of HIV?? They didn't tell people to stop being gay or stop having gay relationships because their orientation doesn't spread the disease.

Their poor habits did. :)

Chuck, I know darn good and well you know that that is what I was saying. But I forgot that boys are also dense and need "detailed word-for-word explanations" for comprehension. By saying "actively pursuing relationship(s)" it was inferred that said relationship would be a "sexual" one. :rolleyes:

You wienie! :tongue0011:

Neezar
09-08-2009, 12:13 PM
The gay community is one of if not the most persecuted communities by Christians. It's easier to just hate the sinner instead of the sin. It's easier to blame things like HIV and it's spread on them instead of looking at facts.



I see what you are saying here and I am not trying to persecute anyone. But to ignore facts for the sake of what you feel is right isn't helping anyone.

Fact: Male Homosexual practice is involved in the majority of cases where HIV is transmitted.

Therefore, homosexual practice is the number one cause of the spread of HIV. Period.

That has been true here in the US since we discovered HIV. It is still true today.

Find me ANY information that says otherwise.


You are arguing different semantics and act like we don't know the difference in being gay and practicing homosexuality. Geez.

Tyburn
09-08-2009, 12:57 PM
It sounds to me like these are two conflicting statements. Didn't you just claim that being gay did not increase a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS, but then you give an example of how being gay increases a man's chances of contracting HIV/AIDS.

No...what he's saying is having anal sex increases a mans chance of getting HIV....and that can be whether you are homosexual OR hetrosexual...yes...hetrosexuals do it to :ninja:

Tyburn
09-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Sorry I didnt know that he was.

He's not. But I used to be :ninja::laugh:

of course I suppose he could be in the closet...with the amount of males on this website, statistics say that I can be the only one effected :ninja: :laugh:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 01:50 PM
I see what you are saying here and I am not trying to persecute anyone. But to ignore facts for the sake of what you feel is right isn't helping anyone.

Fact: Male Homosexual practice is involved in the majority of cases where HIV is transmitted.

Therefore, homosexual practice is the number one cause of the spread of HIV. Period. Did Nate hack your account?? This is wrong in every possible way and NOBODY has supplied any facts to support this. What is the "practice" of homosexuality? Can you answer that??

That has been true here in the US since we discovered HIV. It is still true today.

Find me ANY information that says otherwise.


You are arguing different semantics and act like we don't know the difference in being gay and practicing homosexuality. Geez.
I don't think you do. By your posts and Nate's I think it's clear you DONT know the difference.

You're simply ignoring the fact that HIV is a virus (and you're a NURSE!) and a virus shows no preference to it's host based on sexual orientation.

So tell me Nate and Denise... does "practicing" heterosexuality make babies??? Are you a heterosexual Nate or do you have to be sexually active in order to claim an orientation? You have shared on here many times that you don't believe in sex before marriage. I agree with that. But would you still consider yourself a heterosexual??? Of course you would. Having sex does not define your sexual orientation.

Lesbians are gay... they have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who are abstinant (still gay!) have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who practice safe sex have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.

IF ANY of what you, Nate or Mark were trying to say is accurate then none of the statements above could be.

You and Nate can't define "practicing" homosexuality because it won't fit into your theory. Which is flawed and completely unproven by both of you.

Here is a fact.... taken from the CDC website...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

Kindly point out to me the part where it mentions sexual orientation..... :wink:

rearnakedchoke
09-08-2009, 02:32 PM
You're simply ignoring the fact that HIV is a virus (and you're a NURSE!) and a virus shows no preference to it's host based on sexual orientation.

So tell me Nate and Denise... does "practicing" heterosexuality make babies??? Are you a heterosexual Nate or do you have to be sexually active in order to claim an orientation? You have shared on here many times that you don't believe in sex before marriage. I agree with that. But would you still consider yourself a heterosexual??? Of course you would. Having sex does not define your sexual orientation.

Lesbians are gay... they have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who are abstinant (still gay!) have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who practice safe sex have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.

IF ANY of what you, Nate or Mark were trying to say is accurate then none of the statements above could be.

You and Nate can't define "practicing" homosexuality because it won't fit into your theory. Which is flawed and completely unproven by both of you.

Here is a fact.... taken from the CDC website...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

Kindly point out to me the part where it mentions sexual orientation..... :wink:

**waiting for response**

TheConcretekid
09-08-2009, 04:06 PM
Here is the real sinful thing going on behind this whole Chubby Hubby thing:

The ice cream flavor consists of pretzel nuggets, which are covered in fudge and filled with peanut butter, in a vanilla malt ice cream base, which is itself swirled with fudge and peanut butter throughout.[/URL]

Peanut butter and pretzel?? I'm from Philadelphia and my city (and the Pennsylvania dutch community) are basically responsible for the pretzel being so popular... I need to read Leviticus again, or the Declaration of Independence, but I'm pretty sure it's written somewhere that it's against every single one of man's and God's laws to put peanut butter on pretzels.

Or maybe God hates [URL="http://www.chubbyhubby.net/blog/"]Singaporean bloggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chubby_Hubby_%28Ben_&_Jerry%27s_flavor%29#cite_note-guardian-0)?

NateR
09-08-2009, 05:24 PM
You're simply ignoring the fact that HIV is a virus (and you're a NURSE!) and a virus shows no preference to it's host based on sexual orientation.

So tell me Nate and Denise... does "practicing" heterosexuality make babies??? Are you a heterosexual Nate or do you have to be sexually active in order to claim an orientation? You have shared on here many times that you don't believe in sex before marriage. I agree with that. But would you still consider yourself a heterosexual??? Of course you would. Having sex does not define your sexual orientation.

Lesbians are gay... they have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who are abstinant (still gay!) have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who practice safe sex have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.

IF ANY of what you, Nate or Mark were trying to say is accurate then none of the statements above could be.

You and Nate can't define "practicing" homosexuality because it won't fit into your theory. Which is flawed and completely unproven by both of you.

Here is a fact.... taken from the CDC website...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

Kindly point out to me the part where it mentions sexual orientation..... :wink:

Okay, since it's clear that we need to spell things out for you. When we say "homosexual act" we're referring to the act of a man putting his penis into another man's anus. Also known as "sodomy." Lesbians don't have penises, thus they cannot do that. This is pretty clear from the discussion we are having, but obviously you are having trouble understanding the concept.

That specific homosexual act creates several physical complications that simply don't exist in lesbian sex.

TexasRN
09-08-2009, 05:33 PM
I never thought I'd see the day where Nate is talking about lesbian sex. :blink:


~Amy

County Mike
09-08-2009, 06:14 PM
I never thought I'd see the day where Nate is talking about lesbian sex. :blink:


~Amy

Time for pictures? :w00t:

Chuck
09-08-2009, 07:15 PM
Okay, since it's clear that we need to spell things out for you. When we say "homosexual act" we're referring to the act of a man putting his penis into another man's anus. Also known as "sodomy." Lesbians don't have penises, thus they cannot do that. This is pretty clear from the discussion we are having, but obviously you are having trouble understanding the concept.

That specific homosexual act creates several physical complications that simply don't exist in lesbian sex.

If there is anyone we need to spell things out to Nate it would be you. :wink:

You're just determined to link this to homosexuality one way or the other aren't you?

When a man and woman have anal sex is that a homosexual act too? Or is it a heterosexual act? Man on Man oral sex or Woman on Woman oral sex is really the only sex act you could consider "homosexual" as it's the only act you would have to be the same gender to perform. Anal sex is anal sex Nate. It's not gender or orientation specific. But you know that. :wink: You just want to direct this towards gay people.

It's the act (anal sex) NOT the sexual orientation of the people performing it that spreads HIV. That has been my point from the very first post.

Poor sexual habits by homosexual men helped with the rapid spread of HIV in the 80's. The cause is the ACT... NOT the fact they are gay.

Now I can see you might need it spelled out for you so I'll give it a shot...

The lack of precaution SPREAD THE DISEASE. NOT the sexual orientation of the people performing the act. You know this. You're intelligent... but you're just determined to make the fact that they are gay the issue here. And it's not. The issue is unsafe sex practices.

Still no questions of mine answered....
Still no data to support your claim....
Still no willingness to abandoned your close minded thinking in the presence of overwhelming FACTS that prove you wrong...

:huh:

Tyburn
09-08-2009, 07:25 PM
Okay, since it's clear that we need to spell things out for you. When we say "homosexual act" we're referring to the act of a man putting his penis into another man's anus. Also known as "sodomy." Lesbians don't have penises, thus they cannot do that. This is pretty clear from the discussion we are having, but obviously you are having trouble understanding the concept.

That specific homosexual act creates several physical complications that simply don't exist in lesbian sex.

If we want to be truely honnest. They can create the same physical conditions by inserting instruments that should not be inserted.

this can create the same physical sensations and damage...but because its an instrument carries far less danger with infection...though not completely safe...I mean...if its not kept hygienically, it dont matter what you shove up there, it can cause an infection

:laugh:

NateR
09-08-2009, 08:07 PM
Time for pictures? :w00t:

:laugh: I was going to ask Chuck if he wanted me to draw him a picture, but I was afraid he might actually take me up on the offer.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 08:19 PM
:laugh: I was going to ask Chuck if he wanted me to draw him a picture, but I was afraid he might actually take me up on the offer.

Nate if I thought drawing you a picture would help get some sense into you I would have drawn you one a long time ago!!! :tongue0011:

NateR
09-08-2009, 08:22 PM
Nate if I thought drawing you a picture would help get some sense into you I would have drawn you one a long time ago!!! :tongue0011:

I have no trouble understanding the point you are trying to make, I just completely disagree with you.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 09:17 PM
I have no trouble understanding the point you are trying to make, I just completely disagree with you.

And disagree you may my friend... but facts are facts... and they're on my side of this discussion. :D

:tongue0011:

Mark
09-08-2009, 10:31 PM
Chuck, a question for you. Your oppinion, in the 80s what group of people was responsible for the spread of aids in america? Why dont you tell me the top three in chronological order. I really like short answers. Thanks

Preach
09-08-2009, 10:46 PM
Chuck, a question for you. Your oppinion, in the 80s what group of people was responsible for the spread of aids in america? Why dont you tell me the top three in chronological order. I really like short answers. Thanks

homosexuals, homosexuals and homosexuals

Chuck
09-08-2009, 11:40 PM
Chuck, a question for you. Your oppinion, in the 80s what group of people was responsible for the spread of aids in america? Why dont you tell me the top three in chronological order. I really like short answers. Thanks

Those who practiced unsafe sex.
Those who used IV drugs.
Those who received blood transfusions.

Mark a question for you. Your opinion, can a virus such as HIV tell if someone is gay or not?

I really like short answers too!! :D
Thanks.

Chuck
09-08-2009, 11:41 PM
homosexuals, homosexuals and homosexuals

Ignorant, Ignorant and Ignorant.

Happy Birthday Ben! :D

Bonnie
09-09-2009, 12:27 AM
Chuck, Mark is asking basically where did the origin in "America", what group of people, did AIDS start with: The answer is white gay men. I don't know how these men were practicing their man joy (condom or no condom). Anal sex is high risk sex condom or not. If condoms are not a sure bet for birth control because they can break, they wouldn't be a sure bet as protection against HIV/AIDS for the same reason.

Even though it is no longer contained/limited to the homosexual community, it is the sexually orientated group of people (white gay men) where HIV/AIDS was first noted as occurring here in America in the early '80s.

Oh, and before you say it, the assumption is "yes" these men were in all probability having anal sex without protection. Or else the condom broke. :biggrin:

Chuck
09-09-2009, 12:53 AM
Chuck, Mark is asking basically where did the origin in "America", what group of people, did AIDS start with: The answer is white gay men. I don't know how these men were practicing their man joy (condom or no condom). Anal sex is high risk sex condom or not. If condoms are not a sure bet for birth control because they can break, they wouldn't be a sure bet as protection against HIV/AIDS for the same reason.

Even though it is no longer contained/limited to the homosexual community, it is the sexually orientated group of people (white gay men) where HIV/AIDS was first noted as occurring here in America in the early '80s.

Oh, and before you say it, the assumption is "yes" these men were in all probability having anal sex without protection. Or else the condom broke. :biggrin:

Bonnie Mark is a big boy I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself. :wink:

I'm quite well educated on the spread of HIV in America and if you've followed along I have yet to disagree with anything you've just posted.

This all started when I disagreed :scared0011: with this comment of Mark's

so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

My response was "technically, no". And that my friend is simply a scientific fact. Being gay is not a factor in contracting HIV (AIDS). It's not the fact that someone is gay, straight, bi or whatever that has anything to do with them contracting HIV. It's the acts that are performed. Do more gay men perform unsafe sex primarily anal? Of course. But to me the act they perform is the factor that contributes to them getting HIV, not their orientation.

This really isn't a big deal to me but it must be to Denise, Nate, Mark and you. I wonder why though?? Is it really that important to point a finger of condemnation at a group of people instead of the acts they perform??

Tyburn
09-09-2009, 12:58 AM
I really like short answers. Thanks

:laugh::laugh:

Tyburn
09-09-2009, 01:00 AM
I really like short answers too!! :D
Thanks.

:rolleyes: as if you do :laugh:

Bonnie
09-09-2009, 02:28 AM
Bonnie Mark is a big boy I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself. :wink:

I'm quite well educated on the spread of HIV in America and if you've followed along I have yet to disagree with anything you've just posted.

This all started when I disagreed :scared0011: with this comment of Mark's



My response was "technically, no". And that my friend is simply a scientific fact. Being gay is not a factor in contracting HIV (AIDS). It's not the fact that someone is gay, straight, bi or whatever that has anything to do with them contracting HIV. It's the acts that are performed. Do more gay men perform unsafe sex primarily anal? Of course. But to me the act they perform is the factor that contributes to them getting HIV, not their orientation.

This really isn't a big deal to me but it must be to Denise, Nate, Mark and you. I wonder why though?? Is it really that important to point a finger of condemnation at a group of people instead of the acts they perform??

I wonder if GOD was making that distinction (between people and the acts they were performing) when he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? :unsure-1:
(not being a smartalec, you just got me thinking :wink:)

I was just answering a ? someone posed about how HIV/AIDS started spreading here in America in the '80s. I thought I was stating a known fact which does happen to point to one particular group of people at that time. I'm sorry if you saw that as condemnation.

Mark
09-09-2009, 02:33 AM
Those who practiced unsafe sex.
Those who used IV drugs.
Those who received blood transfusions.

Mark a question for you. Your opinion, can a virus such as HIV tell if someone is gay or not?

I really like short answers too!! :D
Thanks.

Back in the 80s 75% of the time......... yes

Mark
09-09-2009, 02:42 AM
Those who practiced unsafe sex

And this is the gay man that im talking about. thanks, chuck now we agree on this.

Mark
09-09-2009, 03:03 AM
Bonnie Mark is a big boy I'm pretty sure he can speak for himself. :wink:

Can she not give her opinion?????

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:06 AM
And this is the gay man that im talking about. thanks, chuck now we agree on this.

Uh sure Mark... :wink:

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:11 AM
Back in the 80s 75% of the time......... yes
Cute. :laugh:

Can she not give her opinion?????
Of course she can Mark, can I not give mine? :huh:

NateR
09-09-2009, 03:15 AM
Of course she can Mark, can I not give mine? :huh:

And with that I think we should just let this argument die. Just make sure that you don't ever disagree with Mark again in the future and we can avoid all of this hardship. :laugh:

Mark
09-09-2009, 03:19 AM
And with that I think we should just let this argument die. Just make sure that you don't ever disagree with Mark again in the future and we can avoid all of this hardship. :laugh:

We need people like chuck so that it is interesting. There have been people that have said that I was wrong before.......... but I dont think that I was...haha

Mark
09-09-2009, 03:25 AM
I was just joking

NateR
09-09-2009, 03:29 AM
I was just joking

That's what I thought, I don't think anyone would dare tell you that you were wrong. :scared0011:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

adamt
09-09-2009, 03:34 AM
you know, i've started out quite contrary when I first decided to start posting, but there are a few people on here that I consider "iron".... as in "iron sharpens iron"... mark is definitely one and nate is as well.... I think nate and I have had more disagreements than agreements but i still seem to respect him.... he might hate my guts I don't know, but I always try to be open minded when reading what people's points are and I try to reconsider my point of view as well, some people are impossible, but i can say i will reread a post by mark or nate or rev or play the man or even chuck before some other posters, it's not always what someone thinks as much as how they present it, so yeah we need everyone to keep it interesting.... :)

I have inlaws down in carlinville and we may be looking for a different church to visit while we are down there visiting and I would say the next time I go down there I think I would like to visit nate's church or bible study group, so despite nate disagreeing with me so blatantly I still respect the way he sees things, he's a testimony to his church even when he's wrong ;) I'm glad we can agree on the big main things though....

I don't know where chuck lives and even though he's wrong and gruff most of the time too,, I think I might like to visit his church as well.... he may be wrong but he is kinda clever.....

Mac
09-09-2009, 03:34 AM
That's what I thought, I don't think anyone would dare tell you that you were wrong. :scared0011:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:



Ill just leave this alone :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:40 AM
And with that I think we should just let this argument die. Just make sure that you don't ever disagree with Mark again in the future and we can avoid all of this hardship. :laugh:
No argument from me Nate. :) And I agree... I shall definitely think twice before disagreeing with the Hughes Posse again.


We need people like chuck so that it is interesting. There have been people that have said that I was wrong before.......... but I dont think that I was...haha
:cry: Aww schucks ya big lug!!!! That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me...

Did somebody pay you??? :ninja:

That's what I thought, I don't think anyone would dare tell you that you were wrong. :scared0011:

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Probably not again!!!! :D

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:46 AM
I don't know where chuck lives and even though he's wrong and gruff most of the time too,, I think I might like to visit his church as well.... he may be wrong but he is kinda clever.....

WHAT????? Gruff? Wrong?? Is there another Chuck on this board I don't know about??????? :D

Palm Harbor Florida brother and you are welcome to come worship with me anytime!

I might be in WA later this year so perhaps I could join you as well?

NateR
09-09-2009, 03:47 AM
No argument from me Nate. :) And I agree... I shall definitely think twice before disagreeing with the Hughes Posse again.

Chuck we're just joking about all that stuff. If there weren't people to disagree with him, Mark would never even post here.

Mark and I have had our disagreements in the past and once or twice the argument got a little heated; but that's not something we dredge up on a public forum. Mark's been a close friend of mine for over three years now and it's naive to think that we would agree on everything.

Chuck
09-09-2009, 03:58 AM
Chuck we're just joking about all that stuff. If there weren't people to disagree with him, Mark would never even post here.

Mark and I have had our disagreements in the past and once or twice the argument got a little heated; but that's not something we dredge up on a public forum. Mark's been a close friend of mine for over three years now and it's naive to think that we would agree on everything.


Maybe not agree on everything... but certainly agree on messing with Chuck!! :D

If people disagreeing with Mark is what gets him posting on here then I should probably mention one last point....






























MARK IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Mac
09-09-2009, 04:00 AM
Mark and I have had our disagreements in the past and once or twice the argument got a little heated; but that's not something we dredge up on a public forum. .



Hes not kidding on that one Chuck . I noticed Mark wearing those big j lo glasses for about 3 days . He says he tripped and fell into the door knob , but truth be told , ole Nater puffed his eye up like popeye for him , and that was just over wear they were gonna eat !!!!!! Nate likes to play that calm and quiet roll , till your riding alone with him in a car on a baron stretch of country road . Hell flat haymaker ya while your driving for no good reason , Hey Nate , i got 70% of my hearing back in my right ear , Wont ever miss that turn again buddy!

Chuck
09-09-2009, 04:05 AM
Hes not kidding on that one Chuck . I noticed Mark wearing those big j lo glasses for about 3 days . He says he tripped and fell into the door knob , but truth be told , ole Nater puffed his eye up like popeye for him , and that was just over wear they were gonna eat !!!!!! Nate likes to play that calm and quiet roll , till your riding alone with him in a car on a baron stretch of country road . Hell flat haymaker ya while your driving for no good reason , Hey Nate , i got 70% of my hearing back in my right ear , Wont ever miss that turn again buddy!

:happy0198:

Neezar
09-09-2009, 04:47 AM
Wait....I'm not done yet. :biggrin-1:


I shall prove that Mark was right all along!

Mark, hang in there buddy! I am coming in to rescue you!

:laugh:

Neezar
09-09-2009, 05:07 AM
We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949562,00.html

So the original question is still, what is the number one danger of practicing homosexuality (aside from it being a sin)?

Here Mark states a FACT and gives back up.

How exactly does one practice homosexuality???

I mean you're a nurse for goodness sake... did you learn somewhere that a virus seeks out a host based on their sexual orientation?????

I'd love to see that study.

Well, maybe this one does. Hmmm....



I never said that being a homosexual caused them to get HIV. I said that 75% of men who contracted HIV were homosexual.

I think we are discussing two different concepts here.

I see what you are saying here and I am not trying to persecute anyone. But to ignore facts for the sake of what you feel is right isn't helping anyone.

Fact: Male Homosexual practice is involved in the majority of cases where HIV is transmitted.

Therefore, homosexual practice is the number one cause of the spread of HIV. Period.

That has been true here in the US since we discovered HIV. It is still true today.

Find me ANY information that says otherwise.


You are arguing different semantics and act like we don't know the difference in being gay and practicing homosexuality. Geez.




You're simply ignoring the fact that HIV is a virus (and you're a NURSE!) and a virus shows no preference to it's host based on sexual orientation.

They may be debatable. :wink:
So tell me Nate and Denise... does "practicing" heterosexuality make babies??? Are you a heterosexual Nate or do you have to be sexually active in order to claim an orientation? You have shared on here many times that you don't believe in sex before marriage. I agree with that. But would you still consider yourself a heterosexual??? Of course you would. Having sex does not define your sexual orientation.

Lesbians are gay... they have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.
Homosexuals who are abstinant (still gay!) have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.

See above where I say male sexual practice.

Homosexuals who practice safe sex have little or nothing to do with spreading HIV.


IF ANY of what you, Nate or Mark were trying to say is accurate then none of the statements above could be.

I didn't say that all homosexuals spread HIV. I said that the majority of people with HIV contracted it through MALE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY.

You and Nate can't define "practicing" homosexuality because it won't fit into your theory. Which is flawed and completely unproven by both of you.

Okay definition: Male to male sexual contact. And it fits.


Here is a fact.... taken from the CDC website...
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm

How HIV is Transmitted

HIV is spread by sexual contact with an infected person, by sharing needles and/or syringes (primarily for drug injection) with someone who is infected, or, less commonly (and now very rarely in countries where blood is screened for HIV antibodies), through transfusions of infected blood or blood clotting factors. Babies born to HIV-infected women may become infected before or during birth or through breast-feeding after birth.

Kindly point out to me the part where it mentions sexual orientation..... :wink:

Well, alrighty then. :laugh: Same website that you provided. Scroll on down and take a looky at the stats on HOW the virus was transmitted.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

The majority is male to male sexual contact. To me, that means homosexuals. High risk heterosexual contact is not even close in the running.


Looks like homosexuals are still responsible for the majority of the transmission of HIV.

Neezar
09-09-2009, 05:16 AM
If I said that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer I doubt very seriously that anyone would even dispute it. Do people get lung cancer without smoking? Absolutely. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? Well, no. Yet, 'smoking causes lung cancer' is still the truth! It is the same deal here. The only reason that anyone is getting all riled up about it is because society has trained them to do so. If you speak a truth about gays that might offend them then you must hate them, support hate crimes against them, and believe that they are the root of all evil. Did homosexuals create the disease? No. Are they responsible for the disease? Nope. Are they responsible for the majority (75%) of the spread of the disease in the US? Hell, yeah. And Im only in the wrong if I try to sugar coated or LIE about it. Until we face the truth then there is no way to educate people into changing the way things are.

NateR
09-09-2009, 05:21 AM
Well, alrighty then. :laugh: Same website that you provided. Scroll on down and take a looky at the stats on HOW the virus was transmitted.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

The majority is male to male sexual contact. To me, that means homosexuals. High risk heterosexual contact is not even close in the running.


Looks like homosexuals are still responsible for the majority of the transmission of HIV.

Yep, according to those statistics, male-to-male sexual contact was responsible for more cases of HIV/AIDS transmission in 2007, than all the other causes combined:

Male-to-male sexual contact: 22,472
Injection drug use: 4,939
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use: 1,260
High-risk heterosexual contact: 13,627
Other (including hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified): 198

Female-to-female sexual contact doesn't even factor in.

I know I just said that Mark is not always right, but he sure was this time. :Whistle:

NateR
09-09-2009, 05:28 AM
If I said that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer I doubt very seriously that anyone would even dispute it. Do people get lung cancer without smoking? Absolutely. Does everyone who smokes get lung cancer? Well, no. Yet, smoking causes lung cancer is still the truth! It is the same deal here. The only reason that anyone is getting all riled up about it is because society has trained them to do so. If you speak a truth about gays that might offend them then you must hate them, support hate crimes against them, and believe that they are the root of all evil. Did homosexuals create the disease? No. Are they responsible for the disease? Nope. Are they responsible for the majority (75%) of the spread of the disease in the US? Hell, yeah. And I only in the wrong if I try to sugar coated or LIE about. Until we face the truth then there is no way to educate people in to changing the way things are.

Excellent point, the history of AIDS in America has been so whitewashed over the last couple of decades to make it more politically correct and less offensive. But the truth has remained the same, male homosexual contact is still the number one risk factor for contracting HIV/AIDS.

Chuck
09-09-2009, 05:54 AM
Funny I thought we were letting this thread die Nate??


Denise I hope you feel better getting that off your chest... you're still just as wrong now as you were before but hopefully you've found some peace thru your keyboard. :wink:

I'm curious... How have we stopped the rapid spread of HIV? Was it through teaching people not to be gay?

And Denise I love your definition of homosexual practice... male on male sex :D

I wonder if all those lesbians know they're not really homosexuals?? :blink:

NateR
09-09-2009, 05:59 AM
Funny I thought we were letting this thread die Nate??


Denise I hope you feel better getting that off your chest... you're still just as wrong now as you were before but hopefully you've found some peace thru your keyboard. :wink:

I'm curious... How have we stopped the rapid spread of HIV? Was it through teaching people not to be gay?

And Denise I love your definition of homosexual practice... male on male sex :D

I wonder if all those lesbians know they're not really homosexuals?? :blink:

That's it, even when all the evidence is stacked against you, refuse to admit you are wrong. :laugh:

Gay MEN being the highest risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS has been what we were discussing from the beginning. You're the one who attempted to cloud the whole issue with lesbians.

Mark
09-09-2009, 06:24 AM
Die thread die.......it just wont.

MattHughesRocks
09-09-2009, 06:30 AM
Mark, you said the magic words. Soon as someone starts wanting the death of a thread people like me ( and Mac) will keep coming in here and keeping it on top.

NateR
09-09-2009, 06:32 AM
Die thread die.......it just wont.

We could just close the thread, this way only mods and admin would be allowed to post in it. :ninja:

Chris F
09-09-2009, 06:34 AM
Why you want to kill my thread? No one seems to want to read Kane's take on the myths of equal pay for equal work so this is all i got man. JK:laugh: I think it should die as well.

Chuck
09-09-2009, 11:34 AM
HAHAHAHAHAH sleep Mark, sleep Nate, sleep Denise... the thread is MINE! :ninja::ninja:



We are talking about gays specifically, no one is claiming that living a promiscous heterosexual life is safe.

75% of aids victims in the US are homosexual men, so are you going to tell me that being gay is not a factor in contracting aids?
To me this post is clearly focused on "being gay" being part of the reason you contract HIV. It's a medical fact that NOBDOY on this board can or has disputed the a virus does not infect a host based on sexual orientation.

The practice of unsafe sex, mostly anal sex, is the reason behind the rapid spread of HIV in the 80's.
This was in my very first reply... also a fact, also something nobody on this thread has disputed, in fact you've posted almost the same thing.

Gay MEN being the highest risk group for contracting HIV/AIDS has been what we were discussing from the beginning.
This has NOT been the issue. "Being gay" and "Gay men" are 2 different things. When you say "being gay" which is the post I replied to, you are including not just gay men, but also gay women and bisexuals and the confused folks who have surgeries.

Neezar
09-09-2009, 12:07 PM
Dammit! Someone forgot to lock the door! :angry:




:laugh:

Tyburn
09-09-2009, 12:58 PM
We need people like chuck so that it is interesting. There have been people that have said that I was wrong before.......... but I dont think that I was...haha

your not half as frightening over the net...as you are in real life :unsure-1: :laugh:

Rev
09-09-2009, 05:09 PM
Mark doesnt scare me over the computer, but if he comes knocking on my door then I would change my tune. LOL he needs to come down to Louisiana and kill some hogs with me so they can fear him as well!!

Tyburn
09-09-2009, 05:30 PM
Mark doesnt scare me over the computer, but if he comes knocking on my door then I would change my tune. LOL he needs to come down to Louisiana and kill some hogs with me so they can fear him as well!!

well he doesnt scare me, over the net...but he's...scary in person I think :unsure-1:

MattHughesRocks
09-09-2009, 05:36 PM
I'm not scared :biggrin-1:

Mac
09-14-2009, 05:07 AM
Quick . Someone gimmie the paddles and crank it to power of 10 .


Gimmie 90 ccs of anal sex inuendos in a BEER commercial !!!STAT !!!!!!!!

Im gonna revive this thread , Breatheeeeeee , damn you , BREATHHHHHEEEEEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZX9Rv_2_C0

VCURamFan
09-14-2009, 05:19 AM
Hahaha. Try this one on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6csOu-ZWnMU&NR=1

Tyburn
09-14-2009, 10:24 AM
:laugh::laugh:

Crisco
09-16-2009, 09:30 PM
Quick . Someone gimmie the paddles and crank it to power of 10 .


Gimmie 90 ccs of anal sex inuendos in a BEER commercial !!!STAT !!!!!!!!

Im gonna revive this thread , Breatheeeeeee , damn you , BREATHHHHHEEEEEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZX9Rv_2_C0

What's that? :unsure-1::unsure-1:

Chuck
12-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Wow... this one was a classic!!!! Personally I think it belongs in the Hughes Board HOF but that's just me. :laugh:

And Mark, Nate and Denise are STILL wrong...
:D

Max
12-15-2009, 08:03 PM
unless someone else starts making chunky monkey i will still buy their product.

Crisco
12-15-2009, 08:05 PM
Wow... this one was a classic!!!! Personally I think it belongs in the Hughes Board HOF but that's just me. :laugh:

And Mark, Nate and Denise are STILL wrong...
:D

Was it the anal inuendo that put it over the top for ya chuck?

Mark
12-15-2009, 08:33 PM
unless someone else starts making chunky monkey i will still buy their product.

Its nice to know that you will make a sacrafice for what you believe. I myself will never buy it.

Tyburn
12-15-2009, 11:20 PM
Its nice to know that you will make a sacrafice for what you believe. I myself will never buy it.

I never ate their ice cream in the first place. I dont eat any icecream outside of 1) a cone and 2) possibly vienetta :)

DonnaMaria
12-16-2009, 12:39 AM
Hahaha. Try this one on for size:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6csOu-ZWnMU&NR=1

:happy0198:

I love the clerk!

"Come ron! Take it! It's fee!"

Shane Lee 2
12-16-2009, 02:24 AM
Ben & Jerry's ice cream honors same-sex 'marriage'
Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 9/1/2009 12:40:00 PMAn ice cream company is celebrating homosexual "marriage" in Vermont.


Same-gender marriage is now legal in The Green Mountain State, and Ben & Jerry's has announced that it will temporarily change its "Chubby Hubby" ice cream to "Hubby Hubby" in honor of homosexual marriage. Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality tells OneNewsNow that companies like Ben & Jerry's neglect to talk about the dangers of the lifestyle.

"Besides the health aspects, there's also the fact that homosexual behavior is opposed by God, and that's something that we should take seriously," he contends. "All homosexual behavior is sinful, and regardless of what liberals say or what Ben & Jerry's puts on a tub of ice cream, that remains the case."

The public can react by not buying the ice cream products, LaBarbera suggests -- but adds that Ben & Jerry's is probably impervious to conservative criticism at this point.

"The left is really making a fool of itself when it comes to homosexuality. They talk about transparency, but they don't want to tell anybody about the health risks of homosexual behavior," he points out. "They claim to follow God and to be Christian, and yet they celebrate all the things that God opposes...abortion, homosexuality. This is just par for the course."

YUCK AND YUUUCK!!!

que
12-16-2009, 06:40 AM
that is very mean, and totally uncalled for. :angry:

that's not mean and it's not uncalled for IMO.

if you said "got lung cancer?" to a smoker would that be considered mean and totally uncalled for? no, because it's a valid question and it needs to be asked.

people who have anal sex are asking for aids just like people who smoke cigarettes. it's a disgusting and aid-inducing, deadly habit.

Tyburn
12-16-2009, 12:37 PM
people who have anal sex are asking for aids just like people who smoke cigarettes. it's a disgusting and aid-inducing, deadly habit.
I dont care that what it is...its nothing to joke about, like adamt did. Thats not on.You wouldnt be laughing or making crass jokes if you knew or saw someone dying of such a disease

Max
12-16-2009, 03:05 PM
people who have anal sex are asking for aids just like people who smoke cigarettes. it's a disgusting and aid-inducing, deadly habit.

Im not so sure about that. smoking causes lung cancer, anal sex does not cause aids. Now if someone refuses to use protection and they know their partner has aids, then yes they are asking for it and if they get it I dont feel bad for them.

Chris F
12-16-2009, 05:30 PM
Im not so sure about that. smoking causes lung cancer, anal sex does not cause aids. Now if someone refuses to use protection and they know their partner has aids, then yes they are asking for it and if they get it I dont feel bad for them.

Well Max walking out the door causes cancer this day and age. 1in 2 men will get cancer and 1-3 women will so smoking is one of many things. But I agree that those who practice sexual deviancy like gays, and fornicators and they get a disease they have no one to blame but themselves. However HIV is becoming more common these days with those who are not sexually deviant so not sure how much we should joke about it.

Llamafighter
12-16-2009, 05:41 PM
that's not mean and it's not uncalled for IMO.

if you said "got lung cancer?" to a smoker would that be considered mean and totally uncalled for? no, because it's a valid question and it needs to be asked.

people who have anal sex are asking for aids just like people who smoke cigarettes. it's a disgusting and aid-inducing, deadly habit.



both AIDS and Lung cancer can be acquired other ways.

Llamafighter
12-16-2009, 05:42 PM
I dont care that what it is...its nothing to joke about, like adamt did. Thats not on.You wouldnt be laughing or making crass jokes if you knew or saw someone dying of such a disease

absolutely right

Buzzard
12-16-2009, 06:08 PM
that's not mean and it's not uncalled for IMO.

if you said "got lung cancer?" to a smoker would that be considered mean and totally uncalled for? no, because it's a valid question and it needs to be asked.

people who have anal sex are asking for aids just like people who smoke cigarettes. it's a disgusting and aid-inducing, deadly habit.

If a man and his wife have anal sex, are they asking for aids? C'mon, you're better than that. If you truly believe that, then you need to educate yourself.

Mark
12-16-2009, 06:33 PM
If a man and his wife have anal sex, are they asking for aids? C'mon, you're better than that. If you truly believe that, then you need to educate yourself.

I think what he is trying to say, and what I believe is that if a homosexual gets aids from anal sex and a smoker gets lung cancer I dont feel sorry for them.

Crisco
12-16-2009, 07:16 PM
I think what he is trying to say, and what I believe is that if a homosexual gets aids from anal sex and a smoker gets lung cancer I dont feel sorry for them.

What if someone you knew loved bacon and died of heart complications?

It's kind of unfair to say you have no sympathy for someone when they contract a life threatening disease.

Everyone makes mistakes and I go out of my way to try and forgive as many people as I can.

Love thy brother my brother.

County Mike
12-16-2009, 07:26 PM
Not a fan of the gayness but their Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough Ice Cream is really good.

Mark
12-16-2009, 11:06 PM
What if someone you knew loved bacon and died of heart complications?

It's kind of unfair to say you have no sympathy for someone when they contract a life threatening disease.

Everyone makes mistakes and I go out of my way to try and forgive as many people as I can.

Love thy brother my brother.

Does the Bible say anything about not eating bacon? I have no sympathy for homos I think it is wrong and the Bible does to 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Yes everyone makes mistakes but a homo keeps on making them when they know or should know its wrong.

Im a realist everyone dies. By a threatening disease or anything else. Do you have sympathy for Crab fisherman that know the risk and go out again and again for the money and then something happens to them?

Love thy brother my brother and expel the Immoral Brother

NateR
12-16-2009, 11:29 PM
Does the Bible say anything about not eating bacon?

Not bacon specifically, but it does forbid the eating of pig meat (which by definition would include pork, bacon, ham, sausage etc.). In fact, the Bible forbade the Jews from even touching pig meat:

Leviticus 11:7-8
"and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you."

Deuteronomy 14:8
"Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses."

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 12:02 AM
Does the Bible say anything about not eating bacon? I have no sympathy for homos I think it is wrong and the Bible does to 1 Corinthians 5 and 6. Yes everyone makes mistakes but a homo keeps on making them when they know or should know its wrong.

Im a realist everyone dies. By a threatening disease or anything else. Do you have sympathy for Crab fisherman that know the risk and go out again and again for the money and then something happens to them?

Love thy brother my brother and expel the Immoral Brother

Yes. Try reading the Law Mr Hughes, you will find that there are PLENTY of unclean foods...Certain Meat being amoung them.

You'll find many people who make mistakes, keep on making them even when they know its wrong, Compulsive Liars are the worst

People are always flippent about things when they dont effect them. Stop and think for a moment about how my Parents feel about my Sexuality. A loving, Christian Family, with a Father who has been Ordained into ministry. Thats Awkward now isnt it. From their point of view, as well as mine. What do you think runs through their minds when people find out their only son is "a homo" Embarrisment? Blame? Its very easy to disregard it as a problem thats choice and one that someone can just stop because they know its wrong.

But if it were a friend of yours who you saw dying of AIDS, or if it was someone you were close to who was a "homo" things would suddenly become a lot less black and white, a lot less simple. I LOVE how the people with the harshest views dont actually know, or live with what they talk so flippently about. I know, because I am living it, and I know a lot of people who suffer the same. I have a lot of experience...not just with condemning it in talk...but actually in living in bondage to it, seeing my family suffer because of it, seeing my friends die because of it. Can you say the same??

Chris F
12-17-2009, 01:17 AM
Yes. Try reading the Law Mr Hughes, you will find that there are PLENTY of unclean foods...Certain Meat being amoung them.

You'll find many people who make mistakes, keep on making them even when they know its wrong, Compulsive Liars are the worst

People are always flippent about things when they dont effect them. Stop and think for a moment about how my Parents feel about my Sexuality. A loving, Christian Family, with a Father who has been Ordained into ministry. Thats Awkward now isnt it. From their point of view, as well as mine. What do you think runs through their minds when people find out their only son is "a homo" Embarrisment? Blame? Its very easy to disregard it as a problem thats choice and one that someone can just stop because they know its wrong.

But if it were a friend of yours who you saw dying of AIDS, or if it was someone you were close to who was a "homo" things would suddenly become a lot less black and white, a lot less simple. I LOVE how the people with the harshest views dont actually know, or live with what they talk so flippently about. I know, because I am living it, and I know a lot of people who suffer the same. I have a lot of experience...not just with condemning it in talk...but actually in living in bondage to it, seeing my family suffer because of it, seeing my friends die because of it. Can you say the same??

Dave and NateR The Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts did away with the dietray laws. As Christians we are not subject to them. However we'd be more healthy if we followed them. SO Mark is correct in saying the bible does not forbid bacon for the Christian.

NateR
12-17-2009, 01:51 AM
People are always flippent about things when they dont effect them. Stop and think for a moment about how my Parents feel about my Sexuality. A loving, Christian Family, with a Father who has been Ordained into ministry. Thats Awkward now isnt it. From their point of view, as well as mine. What do you think runs through their minds when people find out their only son is "a homo" Embarrisment? Blame? Its very easy to disregard it as a problem thats choice and one that someone can just stop because they know its wrong.

Dave, that was your decision and something that you CHOSE to put your own parents through. Thus, any shame or embarrassment that they feel is no one's fault but yours.

NateR
12-17-2009, 01:57 AM
Dave and NateR The Jerusalem Council in the Book of Acts did away with the dietray laws. As Christians we are not subject to them. However we'd be more healthy if we followed them. SO Mark is correct in saying the bible does not forbid bacon for the Christian.

I wouldn't say that the Jerusalem Council "did away" with the dietary laws, since that would be beyond their authority. They simply decided to not burden new, Gentile believers with too many rules and regulations. I'm sure that Jewish believers still kept the kashrut laws.

Mark
12-17-2009, 03:44 AM
Yes. Try reading the Law Mr Hughes, you will find that there are PLENTY of unclean foods...Certain Meat being amoung them.

You'll find many people who make mistakes, keep on making them even when they know its wrong, Compulsive Liars are the worst

People are always flippent about things when they dont effect them. Stop and think for a moment about how my Parents feel about my Sexuality. A loving, Christian Family, with a Father who has been Ordained into ministry. Thats Awkward now isnt it. From their point of view, as well as mine. What do you think runs through their minds when people find out their only son is "a homo" Embarrisment? Blame? Its very easy to disregard it as a problem thats choice and one that someone can just stop because they know its wrong.

This is not about you. Are you a practicing homosexual? If you are than I am wrong it is about you! I dont know why you put yourself in this situation. I was not talking about you or to you, your name is Dave not homo. Just drop it (puting yourself in this situation) you shouldnt read this thread if it bothers you.

Mark
12-17-2009, 03:53 AM
But if it were a friend of yours who you saw dying of AIDS, or if it was someone you were close to who was a "homo" things would suddenly become a lot less black and white, a lot less simple. I LOVE how the people with the harshest views dont actually know, or live with what they talk so flippently about. I know, because I am living it, and I know a lot of people who suffer the same. I have a lot of experience...not just with condemning it in talk...but actually in living in bondage to it, seeing my family suffer because of it, seeing my friends die because of it. Can you say the same??

I dont agree with homosexuality at all. I hate it. I dont have homo friends. Will never have homo friends. Would not feel sorry for a homo friend if he had aids if I had a homo friend, which I wont. All I can say is everyone can change but the people that dont want to.

Mark
12-17-2009, 04:00 AM
I know a lot of people who suffer the same. I have a lot of experience...not just with condemning it in talk...but actually in living in bondage to it, seeing my family suffer because of it, seeing my friends die because of it. Can you say the same??

I think alot of people living in bondage to something. I have strugles with certain sin. I dont go off saying that god made me this way. Sounds like you need to get some new friends, straight christain ones.

Mark
12-17-2009, 04:04 AM
Not bacon specifically, but it does forbid the eating of pig meat (which by definition would include pork, bacon, ham, sausage etc.). In fact, the Bible forbade the Jews from even touching pig meat:

Leviticus 11:7-8
"and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.
Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you."

Deuteronomy 14:8
"Also the swine is unclean for you, because it has cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud; you shall not eat their flesh or touch their dead carcasses."

So do you think you sin when you come over and eat pork at my house?

NateR
12-17-2009, 04:31 AM
So do you think you sin when you come over and eat pork at my house?

No, because there is a context issue here. The passage in Acts didn't eliminate the kosher laws, it simply put them in their proper place (meaning, not necessary for salvation) when many Jews at the time treated them as a way to essentially eat your way into Heaven. The Jerusalem Council released Gentile believers from most of the requirements. Pork is never mentioned specifically, but it's still worth noting that 3 of the 4 requirements listed by the Jerusalem Council are dietary laws.

Acts 15:28-29
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

Also, you have to take into account that there is a logical reason behind every law. GOD forbade the Jews from eating pork for a reason. In a desert climate, pork carries parasites and disease. Since the Israelites didn't have refrigeration or the sophisticated food processing technology that we have today, it was simply safer for them to ignore pork altogether.

So, there is nothing wrong with eating properly prepared pork in this day and age.

Mac
12-17-2009, 04:35 AM
So, there is nothing wrong with eating properly prepared pork in this day and age.



Yeah but Mark said eating pork at HIS house . So that wouldnt be properly prepared right ?

Mark
12-17-2009, 04:36 AM
No, because there is a context issue here. The passage in Acts didn't eliminate the kosher laws, it simply put them in their proper place (meaning, not necessary for salvation) when many Jews at the time treated them as a way to essentially eat your way into Heaven. The Jerusalem Council released Gentile believers from most of the requirements. Pork is never mentioned specifically, but it's still worth noting that 3 of the 4 requirements listed by the Jerusalem Council are dietary laws.

Acts 15:28-29


Also, you have to take into account that there is a logical reason behind every law. GOD forbade the Jews from eating pork for a reason. In a desert climate, pork carries parasites and disease. Since the Israelites didn't have refrigeration or the sophisticated food processing technology that we have today, it was simply safer for them to ignore pork altogether.

So, there is nothing wrong with eating properly prepared pork in this day and age.

Good answer my thought exactly. I would not have you come over and sin like that at my house.

NateR
12-17-2009, 04:37 AM
Yeah but Mark said eating pork at HIS house . So that wouldnt be properly prepared right ?

Even if eating pork was a sin, I'd still eat Mark's pork chops. They're just that good! :tongue0011::laugh:

Mark
12-17-2009, 04:37 AM
Yeah but Mark said eating pork at HIS house . So that wouldnt be properly prepared right ?

Im sure overcooked!

Mac
12-17-2009, 04:39 AM
Even if eating pork was a sin, I'd still eat Mark's pork chops. They're just that good! :tongue0011::laugh:



LOL :laugh::laugh::laugh:

NateR
12-17-2009, 04:40 AM
http://www.matt-hughes.com/images/10FEB07/100_3069.jpg

Mac
12-17-2009, 04:41 AM
http://www.matt-hughes.com/images/10FEB07/100_3069.jpg

Yeah , i dont think i could turn those down either.:w00t:

Max
12-17-2009, 04:45 AM
http://www.matt-hughes.com/images/10FEB07/100_3069.jpg

those look amazing

Crisco
12-17-2009, 06:31 AM
So who makes the best steak?

I'm not much of a pork guy.

County Mike
12-17-2009, 11:56 AM
So who makes the best steak?

I'm not much of a pork guy.

Longhorn Steakhouse makes a great steak. mmmmmmm

Llamafighter
12-17-2009, 02:17 PM
http://www.matt-hughes.com/images/10FEB07/100_3069.jpg

Yum!
what kind of sauce do you use?

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 06:36 PM
Dave, that was your decision and something that you CHOSE to put your own parents through. Thus, any shame or embarrassment that they feel is no one's fault but yours.

The orientation is not a choice....the practise obviously is, but thats not what I was refering to...I'm not even sure if my parents know i've ever been practising, because I was in London when I was on the scene and they werent around.

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 06:40 PM
This is not about you. Are you a practicing homosexual? If you are than I am wrong it is about you! I dont know why you put yourself in this situation. I was not talking about you or to you, your name is Dave not homo. Just drop it (puting yourself in this situation) you shouldnt read this thread if it bothers you.

You didnt say "practicing" you just said "homo" how was I supposed to know what you were reffering to...I didnt even know if you differentiated between practise, and the orientation...plenty believe the orientation regardless or practise is sinful.

I dont just stop reading things because they are painful. If I did that I might never read any thread :laugh: Can you imagine me not responding to something that I know about :huh::laugh:

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 06:43 PM
I dont agree with homosexuality at all. I hate it. I dont have homo friends. Will never have homo friends. Would not feel sorry for a homo friend if he had aids if I had a homo friend, which I wont. All I can say is everyone can change but the people that dont want to.

You probably wouldnt know if you had "homo" friends, they would be extremely unlikely to tell you, or probably anyone. The majority of gays are not "out"

Neezar
12-17-2009, 06:44 PM
Yes. Try reading the Law Mr Hughes, you will find that there are PLENTY of unclean foods...Certain Meat being amoung them.

You'll find many people who make mistakes, keep on making them even when they know its wrong, Compulsive Liars are the worst

People are always flippent about things when they dont effect them. Stop and think for a moment about how my Parents feel about my Sexuality. A loving, Christian Family, with a Father who has been Ordained into ministry. Thats Awkward now isnt it. From their point of view, as well as mine. What do you think runs through their minds when people find out their only son is "a homo" Embarrisment? Blame? Its very easy to disregard it as a problem thats choice and one that someone can just stop because they know its wrong.

But if it were a friend of yours who you saw dying of AIDS, or if it was someone you were close to who was a "homo" things would suddenly become a lot less black and white, a lot less simple. I LOVE how the people with the harshest views dont actually know, or live with what they talk so flippently about. I know, because I am living it, and I know a lot of people who suffer the same. I have a lot of experience...not just with condemning it in talk...but actually in living in bondage to it, seeing my family suffer because of it, seeing my friends die because of it. Can you say the same??

Dave, just because we haven't lived something or suffered through it does not mean that we can't have understanding or compassion in regards to it. Goes both ways.

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 06:47 PM
I think alot of people living in bondage to something. I have strugles with certain sin. I dont go off saying that god made me this way. Sounds like you need to get some new friends, straight christain ones.

I Have Christian Friends...they are mostly on this Forum. I speak to them everyday :) In England "Christian" is a relative term in this secular nation...its not like America. I go to a Church semi regularly...but I dont know anyone there really...I dont want to know them...I dont want them to find out about me...if you know what I mean...plus they are all like Women over the age of 60...hardly have a jot in common with me :laugh:

NateR
12-17-2009, 06:59 PM
..plenty believe the orientation regardless or practise is sinful.

Well, lust is still a sin regardless of whether you are gay or straight. So, yes, technically you can be gay and never touch another human being and still be living in sin if you spend all of your time looking at gay porn or lusting after the people around you.

However, Dave, I think your problem is this insistence on classifying yourself as a homosexual. You shouldn't do that. GOD set you free from that lifestyle, so why are you constantly putting yourself back under those chains? If it doesn't feel like GOD has set you free, then that's obviously a lack of faith on your part (the simple fact that your still consider yourself gay is proof of your lack of faith). You might try to say that it is who you really are and to deny it would be dishonest. Well, let me ask you, does the Bible tell us to be true to ourselves? No, Jesus commanded us to deny ourselves, take up our crosses and follow Him.

Tyburn
12-17-2009, 07:16 PM
However, Dave, I think your problem is this insistence on classifying yourself as a homosexual. You shouldn't do that. GOD set you free from that lifestyle, so why are you constantly putting yourself back under those chains?

Mainly because I dont know what else to classify myself as. :ninja: As you know...I need order and Structure... Its important for me to be able to properly define as many areas of my life as possible to avoid what I perceive as chaos

I aggree with you about the lust thing by the way.

Buzzard
12-18-2009, 12:30 AM
What if someone you knew loved bacon and died of heart complications?

It's kind of unfair to say you have no sympathy for someone when they contract a life threatening disease.

Everyone makes mistakes and I go out of my way to try and forgive as many people as I can.

Love thy brother my brother.

:applause:

NateR
12-18-2009, 12:50 AM
:applause:

:weightlifter:

Mac
12-18-2009, 01:54 AM
:applause:



:sneeze:

Crisco
12-18-2009, 06:51 AM
I immediately retract my statement on realization that buzzard agrees with me

=P