Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 07-26-2008, 05:47 AM
hsb39's Avatar
hsb39 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 1)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,384
Default Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Yay! Another one of my political threads. People must hate me by now!

I did this mainly so that this particular part of the Gay Marriage tread could be discussed, and also so that the religious aspect is apparent.

I of course believe that it is right, as people must have learned by now.
__________________
I am currently trying to think of something witty and original to put in my signature.
  #2  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:06 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

The wording of that seems weird to me. Anyway, I say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
  #3  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:08 AM
hsb39's Avatar
hsb39 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 1)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,384
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeveeking929 View Post
The wording of that seems weird to me. Anyway, I say there's nothing wrong with homosexuality.
I'm tired and hungry. Weirdly wording, therefore, is a skill that I am allowed to possess.
__________________
I am currently trying to think of something witty and original to put in my signature.
  #4  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:09 AM
Quaint's Avatar
Quaint Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: What, you don't know?
Posts: 487
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Well, if they can't help their feelings, and really are as unattracted to the opposite sex as straight people are to the same sex, then its fine, it's the way they were made, and if there is a god and (s)he does have conrol over everything, (s)he wouldn't have made them that way if (s)he didn't like it.

Mm-hm.
__________________
  #5  
Old 07-26-2008, 06:11 AM
hsb39's Avatar
hsb39 Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 1)
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,384
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaint View Post
Well, if they can't help their feelings, and really are as unattracted to the opposite sex as straight people are to the same sex, then its fine, it's the way they were made, and if there is a god and (s)he does have conrol over everything, (s)he wouldn't have made them that way if (s)he didn't like it.

Mm-hm.
Yes that is something that I have said to my Christian friends. The Christian God, according to the Bible, chose the people to be homosexual, how can they be inferior if that is the case?
__________________
I am currently trying to think of something witty and original to put in my signature.
  #6  
Old 07-26-2008, 12:34 PM
skiboydoggy's Avatar
skiboydoggy Offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Exploding Robots
Posts: 3,706
Send a message via AIM to skiboydoggy
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

There is nothing inherently right or wrong about a state of being. That is to say, the state of liking others of the same sex. The problems start popping up once that state of being is being acted upon, that is to say, advances on members of the same sex. Even then, there may or may not be anything wrong with it.

I mean, the only real arguments are...

A) Sodomy is bad and wrong.
B) Ew, it's gross.
C) CUZ THE BIBAL SEZ SHO!

At least, that's what it seems like whenever I look at it.
__________________
  #7  
Old 07-26-2008, 01:29 PM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Taken from http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...mosexualuc.htm

Homosexuality is Unnatural

Nature argues against homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle. Homosexuality is simply unnatural. Speaking as plainly as I can, people have "in holes" and "out holes" in their body. Some holes are designed to take things in, while others are designed to rid things from the body. While some holes perform both functions, the duality of function is evidenced by natural design (the ****** is meant to take in a male *****, but also expel an infant child). We should not confuse the obvious and natural purpose of our body's holes.

Natural law entails the idea that our various physical and psychological capacities are intended "for" particular purposes. Once we determine what those purposes are we have a basis for determining what behaviors are virtuous and which behaviors are not; "which actions will tend to help us to realize our ends and which will tend to keep us from doing so." [Edward Feser, "Natural Ends and Natural Law"; available from http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archi...518.html#more; Internet; accessed 25 May 2005.] Edward Feser wrote,

What makes a certain act "natural" has everything to do with whether it in fact involves using a capacity in a way consistent with its natural function or purpose, and nothing necessarily to do with whether or not someone has, for whatever reason, a strong desire to use it that way or some other way. It follows that whether or not someone has, for example, a genetic predisposition to want to engage in homosexual acts is, from the point of view of traditional natural law theory, completely irrelevant to whether such a desire is "natural" in the sense in question, and thus completely irrelevant to the issue of whether such acts are moral or immoral. Edward Feser, ["Natural Ends and Natural Law"; available from http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archi...518.html#more; Internet; accessed 25 May 2005.]

To be "unnatural" requires more than simply using something in a way other than what it was intended for; for something to be unnatural requires that we use it in a way that is contrary to, or frustrates its natural purpose.

The body was made to function a specific way. Men were not made to function sexually with men, nor women with women, but rather men were made to function sexually with women. While a man's ***** can be made to fit into several human orifices, it is clear as to which orifice it is intended to be used with when we consider the substance emitted by the ***** upon orgasm: semen. Semen has only one purpose: to create new life. This purpose can only be fulfilled when it is mixed with a female egg, and such a meeting can only occur while the ***** is inside a ******. A male ***** is designed to function with a woman, period. That is natural. Homosexuality is unnatural because it abandons the natural function of the human body. Even homosexual activists are honest about the fact that homosexuality is not natural, or normal. Lesbian activist Camille Paglia, for example, offered the following observations:

"Homosexuality is not 'normal' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait...." (http://www.narth.com/docs/innate.html)

We determine one's sex by looking at their parts. If one's parts are designed to function one way, and yet their sexual desires are directed in another way it seems reasonable to believe that something is awry. When one's desires do not match the hardware afforded them by nature the problem is not with the hardware, but with the desires. When something is created for a specific purpose and yet an individual is psychologically incapable of using it for its intended purpose, shouldn't this clue us into the fact that something is wrong? This observation alone ought to clue us in to the fact that homosexuality is not natural, nor is it "normal." Homosexuality is a perversion of the body's natural function.

The Argument from Evolution

The theory of evolution argues against homosexuality as well. In a world where only the fit survive to pass their genotypes on to the next generation, homosexuals are doomed to rapid extinction. While I do not personally believe this to be so, from the evolutionary perspective I fail to see how one could not conclude that the homosexual community is evolutionary inferior to the heterosexual community. Because homosexuals cannot produce offspring they cannot continue in the fight for survival, and thus are inferior to the "species" of heterosexuals. There is no denying that the homosexual lifestyle contradicts the natural order of things (even from an evolutionary perspective in which there is no design in the universe, the natural use of our sex organs is still witnessed by examining the reason for which nature favored them: procreation.), and is not conducive to the process of natural selection of their kind. The belief in evolution is inconsistent with a belief in the equality of homosexuality to heterosexuality.

The Argument from Health

I am persuaded that we should be disapproving of homosexual behavior for health reasons as well. Simply put, homosexual activity produces a health risk to society. As a society we have the duty to campaign against behaviors that destroy individual lives and the lives of others. The Gay Report (homosexual researchers) surveyed the sexual habits of homosexuals and

discovered that 99% had engaged in oral sex; 91% had engaged in anal intercourse; 83% engaged in rimming (mouth to anus contact); 22% had fisted their sex partners; 23% admitted to golden showers (urinating on a sex partner); 76% admitted to group or public sex; 4% admitted ingesting feces. These behaviors are breeding grounds for a whole variety of serious intestinal parasites, viruses, and bacteria known collectively as 'Gay Bowel Syndrome.' In addition to these intestinal diseases, homosexual males are also at high risk for anal cancer. Dr. Stephen E. Goldstone, the medical director of Gay Health.com says that 68% of HIV-positive and 45% of HIV-negative homosexual men have abnormal or precancerous anal cells.

Other reports bear out the same sort of conclusions:

Professor Joel Palefsky at the University of California, San Francisco clinical research center says that active homosexual men have a 37-fold increased risk (35 per 100,00) of developing anal cancer than heterosexual men (.8 per 100,000). Homosexuals with HIV develop anal cancer at a rate of 59.4 per 100,000. [See "Diagnosis and Management of Anal Cancer"; available from http://www.analcancerinfo.ucsf.edu/cancer/index.html; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. See also Judith A. Abert, M.D., "Effect of HAART on Incidence of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia Grade 3 Among HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men"; available from http://www.thebody.com/content/art16413.html; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. See also Pragna Patel, MD, MPH; Debra L. Hanson, MS; Patrick S. Sullivan, DVM, PhD; Richard M. Novak, MD; Anne C. Moorman, BSN, MPH; Tony C. Tong, MS; Scott D. Holmberg, MD, MPH; and John T. Brooks, MD, "Incidence of Types of Cancer among HIV-Infected Persons Compared with the General Population in the United States, 1992-2003," in Annals of Internal Medicine, 148:10, pp. 728-736, published May 20, 2008; available from http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/148/10/728; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008. ]

The Centers for Disease Control reports that of the approximately 40,000 new cases of HIV infections eported each year, male homosexuals account for 72%, heterosexuals 15%, and heterosexual drug users 13% of that number. [See "HIV/AIDS Among Men Who Have Sex with Men"; available from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/re...heets/msm.htm; Internet; accessed 30 May 2008.]



there are approximately 40,000 new HIV infections each year-due to large numbers of younger homosexuals engaging in unprotected sex. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 'HIV/AIDS Statistics" fact sheet notes that 60% of all new HIV infections are homosexual men; 25% through injecting drugs; and 15% through heterosexual sex. These statistics alone should be sufficient reason to discourage homosexual sex acts, homosexual marriages, or domestic partnerships. These relationships are breeding grounds for diseases and death." (This information has been quoted from http://64.55.184.74/tvc1/modules.php...p=getit&lid=22)

The Argument from the Public Safety of Our Children

Practicing homosexuals as a group are more prone to sexual molestation of children than are their heterosexual counterparts. The statistics quoted below bear this fact out:

Homosexuals account for only 1-2% of our population. The National Opinion Research Center in 1992 found that 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women identified themselves as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' A 1995 survey of 18- to 49-year-old men published by the Journal of Sex Research indicated that 2.6% of them had engaged in homosexual sex within the prior 12 months; 4% had had homosexual sex within the past five years. In short, at least 98-99% of our population is heterosexual in orientation.

While it is technically correct that heterosexuals account for most molestations (because 98% of the population is heterosexual), homosexuals are much more dangerous to our children on a per capita basis. In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. 32% of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a survey of 153 homosexual molesters, Abel found that they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals 'sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.'

The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescent sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., 'Adolescent Sex Offenders-Vermont, 1984' Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, 'Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,' Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. 'Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,' Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200) From these studies and many more, it is evident that homosexuals molest children at a far greater rate than do their heterosexual counterparts. While they comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for upwards of as many as 40% of all sexual molestations of children. (This information has been quoted from http://64.55.184.74/tvc1/pdf_files/H...dMolesters.pdf)

The Free Republic reproduced the following data/studies:

o Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old. [Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard andAB. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979 Table 443, "Homosexual Sample: Age at First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact," and Table 444, "Homosexual Sample: Age of Partner in First Postpubertal Homosexual Contact."]
o A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles." [Zebulon, Z.A. Silverthorne and Vernon L. Quinsey. "Sexual Partner Age Preferences of Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women." Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 2000 [Volume 29, Number IJ, pages 67-76.]
o Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%." [Ray Blanchard, et. aI. "Pedophiles: Mental Retardation, Maternal Age, and Sexual Orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 28, Number 2, pages 111-127.]
o A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that " . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality." [Kurt Freund, Robin Watson and Douglas Rienzoo "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference." Journal of Sex Research, February 1989 [Volume 26,Number 1), pages l.]
o A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. [W.D. Erickson, et al. "Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters." 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77,83 (1988).]
o In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that "The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent." [Freund, G. Heasman, I.G. Racansky, and G. Glancy. "Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality." Journal of Sex andMarital Therapy, Fall 1984 [Volume 10, Number 3], pages 193 to 200.]
o Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as "chicken hawks" - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. [Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak OutAbout Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275.]
o In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested. [Freund & R.I. Watson. "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study." 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).]
o A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger. [Alan P. Bell, et. aI., Institute for Sex Research. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women [Simon and Schuster, 1980].]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../1399042/posts

Conclusion

In light of the above, what reason would citizens of a civilized society want to promote homosexuality as an acceptable, alternative lifestyle? The statistics show that homosexuality is responsible for increasing the risk of both health problems and our children's safety. Do we desire to promote disease within our society? Do we desire high rates of child molestation? Then why would we want to tolerate the practice of homosexuality, condemning those who speak against the practice for moral and social reasons? I am against homosexuality, not merely because the Bible says it is deplorable, but because it is unnatural, unhealthy, and puts our children at risk. Any sane person in society ought to be concerned about the same, not for religious reasons, but for secular reasons. The only reason I can see to promote homosexual behavior is either ignorance of its social ramifications, or because one confuses a condemnation of homosexual behavior with a condemnation of the homosexual persons themselves.

Contrary to your stated opinion, I am persuaded that the Bible is right on this one. While its teachings may be old they are still relevant to society. I believe they are still relevant because they are of divine origin, unlike the ancient records of astronomers, chemists, and biologists. On the issue of homosexuality, rather than being bruised and battered and yet still clinging to our Bibles Christians can be confident of their position, knowing that the social sciences have demonstrated the evils of homosexual behavior-evils which the Bible spoke against thousands of years ago.
__________________
  #8  
Old 07-26-2008, 01:47 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Well, didn't we already tear that down a while ago?
  #9  
Old 07-26-2008, 02:01 PM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Actually no, you "tore down" about half of it with things that the article already refuted.

Here's some more. The first part is a homosexual's response to the previous article, and the second part is the theologian's response. Notice how they go about everything in a mature and respectful manner, unlike what goes on here.

Bah, it's too big. I'll provide a link.

http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstu...osexualuc2.htm

I must post this for the idiots who bash Christianity though.

Quote:
Do All Christians Treat Gays Badly?

You are right, there are Christians who treat homosexuals as sub-humans. That is regrettable. There is a difference between the teachings of a particular religion as found in its sourcebook (Bible, Koran, etc.), and the way particular members understand (or should I say "misunderstand" or even "ignore") and apply those teachings. Christians morons such as Fred Phelps who hate homosexuals and preach hate in the name of Christ are horrible examples of Christians, in the same way that the Muslim morons who planned and participated in 09-11 are a horrible example of Islam. It is regrettable that some who name the name of Christ respond to homosexuality in the way they do, but it is not representative of Christianity as a whole, and neither does it reflect the teachings of Scripture.

You may find it interesting that recent statistics from the Barna Research Group reveal that a very large group of Christians are not opposed to homosexuality. Among those who consider themselves Christians, 34% believe the homosexual lifestyle should be accepted (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePre...94&Reference=B). That is one in three Christians! While I am appalled by such statistics because they demonstrate just how far the American church has strayed from a Biblical worldview, I point them out to you as evidence that American Christians are not homosexual haters. And that 34% figure does not mean that the other 66% hate homosexuals. I'm sure some of them do, but I would venture to say that all but a few percent of that 66% treat homosexual persons with respect even though they believe their homosexual practices are immoral.
__________________

Last edited by MaskedJackal; 07-26-2008 at 02:05 PM.
  #10  
Old 07-26-2008, 02:26 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

The problem here is that you assume the article is truth. It pays to have at least some skepticism, no? I don't mean just your own article, but in our stuff as well. The article is incapable of arguing from the point of evolution in it that the professor's understanding of evolution is too limited to pose such an argument. And the argument that something that can be done "naturally" versus "unnaturally" is simply not logic.

For example:
""Homosexuality is not 'normal' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait....""

First of all, this has 2 assumptions. The first is that he states he understands nature (which if that is the case, he should have won a nobel prize already), and second that homosexuality is an adaptation. The first states that the norm is procreation. This, of course, states that the norm is the majority. The problem here is that we in science define the norm as "wild type", and use scientific literature's definition of "wild type" (an allele to which the frequency is more than 1%), then homosexuality fits into the defintion of "wild type" and thus the "norm" as well. The second is that the professor confuses adaptation with acclimation. Adaptation is inherently genetic, whereas acclimation is inherently "choice". How can one take someone seriously when his understanding of science and evolution is so flawed?

And this

If I can't take him seriously through science and evolution, then how? Through statistics?

Quote:
In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, 'Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,' Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)
I can twist logic myself as well. 1/3 of the men who are molesting children are heterosexual. This proves that heterosexuality is the cause of child molestation. Clearly heterosexual men should be persecuted.

The problem with statistical analysis is that there is an inherent need to understand statistics BEFORE you can argue from that point of view. I know that you know nothing about statistics as a kid, so how can you simply "argue from authority" when even the authority isn't correct in his understanding of statistics either? Simply said, the studies lack the statistical tools to fully conclude anything. That's the major problem.

From a health perspective, it's always known that lesbians have a much lower STD ratio than even heterosexuals. Does that mean that lesbians are even better a solution from a health POV?

Last edited by Kenny_C.002; 07-26-2008 at 02:36 PM.
  #11  
Old 07-26-2008, 02:29 PM
MaskedJackal's Avatar
MaskedJackal Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,625
Send a message via AIM to MaskedJackal Send a message via MSN to MaskedJackal
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002 View Post
I can twist logic myself as well. 1/3 of the men who are molesting children are heterosexual. This proves that heterosexuality is the cause of child molestation. Clearly heterosexual men should be persecuted.
About 4% of America's population is gay, yet they commit 1/3rd of child molestations.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to conjure up a better response.
__________________
  #12  
Old 07-26-2008, 02:45 PM
Fire Away's Avatar
Fire Away Offline
Elite Trainer (Level 4)
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,768
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
About 4% of America's population is gay, yet they commit 1/3rd of child molestations.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to conjure up a better response.
As Sigma_ pointed out in the other thread, African-Americans are a minority, but they also statistically commit more crimes than any other race. Is being black wrong as well?
__________________


Hi




  #13  
Old 07-26-2008, 02:45 PM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wunschkind View Post
About 4% of America's population is gay, yet they commit 1/3rd of child molestations.

Unfortunately I don't have the time to conjure up a better response.
So you can pick 1 thing out of everything that I said because you agree with it all?

You don't understand the methods of statistics though, just because 4-10% of males are homosexual, and that 33% of child molesters are homosexual, it does NOT mean that homosexuality is the CAUSE of this phenomenon. Statistical analysis comes with a caveat, it does not prove causal relationships between two things. The numbers shown above does little but to show a slight correlation. And if you looked on those statistics, they ALL have small sample sizes (for good reason, because statistics are easily skewed with small sample sizes than large sample sizes). Who's to say that if we follow the law of large numbers, that this phenomenon equates itself up to 4-10% as it may be? Neither you nor I have the credentials to be capable of stating that.
  #14  
Old 07-26-2008, 03:05 PM
skiboydoggy's Avatar
skiboydoggy Offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Exploding Robots
Posts: 3,706
Send a message via AIM to skiboydoggy
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

Go! Ultimate Appeal to Authority Fallacy!

Kenny is smart, Kenny is always right, Kenny wins.

And aeroplanes are unnatural. As are televisions and cellphones. Hell, rocks being adapted into weapons is not a natural use for rocks.
__________________
  #15  
Old 07-26-2008, 04:08 PM
Apocrypha's Avatar
Apocrypha Offline
Master Trainer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Buy a gun. Kill the Batman.
Posts: 288
Send a message via AIM to Apocrypha
Default Re: Homosexuality - Right or Wrong?

It's wrong. That's all I have to say on the matter.
__________________

^ Epic banner made by Anastasia-R ^
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com