Hey everyone,
Ill be honest, Im not a religious person at all, but I feel that there must be something greater than us. I was sitting around studying last night and came to the thought that some things that are "wrong" really cant be wrong because theyre not harmful at all. Heres just a few I came up with, and im sorry if this is a double post.

Drinking: While drinking excessively can lead to many ailments, having one or two measured drinks per day is medically proven to lower blood pressure and many other things. It also helps take the edge off after a hard day of work, as long as its taken in proportion (as i said, 1-2 drinks)

Masturbation: One of the things I never understood about religion was the preaching that masturbation is sinful. I see nothing wrong with throwing off a few knuckle children once in a while, because again, its not a harmful thing and while you are stimulating what is a divine act (lovemaking), you are doing so in your own privacy, which doesnt hurt anyone else

Homosexuality: This is what urks me the most. While I find the thought of having relations with another man personally disgusting, I do not understand why religion says that homosexuality is sinful. Yes, people are meant to procreate and this is not possible with two men or two women, but God and the bible preach understanding and love. In my mind, the love a man and a woman share can be equally as powerful as the love two men, or two women can share.

I hope you enjoy my thoughts and i look forward to reading your replies.
Patrick

Most prohibitions in the bible, talmud and so on are a combination of early science and things that the writers found personally disgusting. Their interweaving in the same books gives one the aura of respectibility of another.

Masturbation and homosexuality might even have been medical issues, if fertlility was a problem in biblical times and there was a lack of motile sperm in men in general, or diseases more easily spread through homosexual relations.

thanks for the insight, that does make sense. i guess i have a modern day approach whereas the bible is 2000 years old.

Not really a matter of "harmful" but "right" or "wrong".

A lot of Christians will try to justify what the bible says, etc. as the "best" way....but that's not really the point. I think you can be a homosexual that practices safe sex and be perfectly fine...but that really isn't relevant.

Your confusing what is unhealthy for what is sinful. Many thing that are a sin that is not outright unhealty or evil. For example pride is a sin. Now, I wouldn't exactly call someone evil for having pride, but I have seen some people be so proud, they cannot see stuff right in front of them or believe in things.

I mean there are religions that require us to not take out shoes inside. I don't understand that but I won't say "wow thats so wrong, there nothing wrong with taking my shoes inside". In the end you either believe or you don't.

And a disease in biblical times more easily spread through homosexual relations would be....?

I didnt say I know of any, I was positing reasons why certain prohibitions might have developed. However, since syphilis and gonorrhea are bacterial infections transmitted through fluid exchange and that exploit breaks in the skin, I wouldnt be surprise if they could have spread among homosexuals noticeably more rapidly.

I forget the author but there is a book called 'None of These Diseases' about how Moses, when he instituted the Hebrew standard for living ie health and sanitation was so revolutionary that it points to a divine influence.

For example Moses came from Eqypt, where they taught a cut was to be covered in Donkey dung, and the Bible said to wash a cut in running not stagnent water. Go to the bathroom outside the camp perimeters, etc.

Written by a doctor and it's point were pretty interesting.


The rest of the stuff is not that hard to understand, anyone who thinks homosexuals don't suffer from their practises are kidding themselves. Ask a doctor about the average homosexual male's health status and it is far below the average heterosexual, and that's not including HIV/Aids. It's an unhealthy lifestyle.

You didnt address masturbation.

well the bible says "do not lust for all who have are committing adultery in their hearts"

Last time i checked in order to masturbate you needed to do some lusting.

Though I guess in theory if one could masturbate without lusting it would be ok. That would be a neat trick though.

This is too funny. I was thinking about this on the way home, in connection to another thread where somebody was throwing a hypothetical about a deaf blind mute living isolated from society, and if they eventually would be accountable for sin, and I thought about masturbation with no erotic frame of reference and if it would even be pleasureable.

I think too much.

lol, nh.

Yeah . . . I didn't want to "touch" that one . . . . . . lol- be here all week!

Mattnxtc was right though . . . it would be hard to masturbate without lusting and lust is a sin so . . .

Really? Most of the gay guys i know are in MUCH better shape than the average guy. Most of us would kill to be in that good of shape.

I'm willing to bet there are little differences between the two lifestyles. In regards to sexual diseases--there are manwhores on both sides of the isle, so if there is a difference, it isn't much of one.

Got any evidence to back up your comment, besides some possible anecdotal evidence?

Uh, of course not because it's a total lie. Wasn't that obvious?

Yorke do those shades really block out the sun?

Really, you say you have friends who look healthy and then accuse me of using anecdotal evidence? LOL

AND in regards to sexual disease, the average homosexual male is 245% more likel to report 2 STDs at the same time as heterosexuals.


here's a source that took 20 seconds to google, sorry I don't have these written down for you when you ask:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9302...es/gomulka.html

especially
" American Journal of Public Health, 1985, pp. 193-96.
.
I live in Palm Springs, we have one of the highest concentrations of homosexuals in the country, many are good guys, but that doesn't mean they are healthy. I am not trying to bash gays, but if you can't have a conversation without turning it into implying I'm a homophobe than don't post.

I'm not making wild assertions without support. You are the one that contradicts the proposition that a certain group are generally healthy---and the burden falls ON YOU, not me to prove the case. First off, you apply a horrible stereotype on homosexuals that they're somehow disease magnets--and then take it to the next extreme and call the entire group, unhealthy.



First of all, the 245% stat is not only not in that piece of diatribe you cited, it is an unbelievably misleading statistic. Curiously, it fails to mention what percentage of homosexuals contract any STD in comparison to heteros--a much more reliable statistic. You'd think if such a statistic that shows homosexuals to be disease infested unhealthy individuals exists, it would be well published and available for bigots to proclaim at every turn. It also gives us no frame of reference as to how often it happens. What if 2% of all heteros have 2 STD's at the same time, and just under 5% of homosexuals have 2 STD's at the same time? Is that still a big deal? Did you also know that 30-50% of all women who have Trichomonas vaginalis, also have gonnorea? THOSE WHORES!! You don't even know what types of diseases tend to go hand in hand. The problem is, narrowminded bigots take tiny bits of information like this, apply their twisted prejudices to perpetuate their stereotypes about a group of people they don't like.

And do you really think that posting an article arguing against gays in the military, written by a CHAPLIN in the Marines, will be considered persuasive? Seriously? This article REEKS of selective disclosure of statistics in an effort to justify the military's policy on homosexuals.



What, because you live in an area that is heavily populated by homosexuals, you're now allowed to throw out bullshit stereotypes with impunity and expect people to not think you're a bigot?

I'm all willing to have this conversation if you are willing to actually accept the fact that you're using selective statistics that create the appearance of an unhealthy lifestyle so as to allow yourself to continue to hold your anti-homosexual views. The sad thing is you don't even realize it.

Promiscuousness is dangerous in any form. And anyone who singles out homosexuals by assuming they're all promiscuous is, well, a bigot in my mind.

And of course you discount my source since it is Christian based.

Even though the foot notes contain non Christian studies.

If I say anything negative about homosexuals it's because I'm a homophobe and not worthy to have an opinion.

Not likely to have a discussion when you don't like the facts so you discount them.

I guess saying they have an unhealthy lifestyle is the exact same as saying they are disease magnets.

What can I say, I'm a narrow minded bigot who uses known studies to come up with assertions that a certain lifestlye is unhealthy.

How about the 'fact' that even though they make up less than 2% of population but make up around 70% of aids patients? just bad luck I guess.

Dude, you're making me into a gay basher, which is about as far from the truth as you can go, and all I am trying to point out that they have a unhealthy lifestyle. And this was only in response to OP asking why Bible would say it's a sin.

If you disagree, then fine. But do your own google search before you assume that only Christian bigots think this way.

70 percent in the U.S., maybe- I cant see those numbers being true worldwide.

You've missed my point entirely. You understand that selective facts can be presented in ways that allow readers to draw conclusions that aren't necessarily true, right? That is what michael moore does in a nutshell. You have to understand that selective disclosure of "facts" doesn't give you the entire picture--and you conciously ignore this because those facts reinforce your already held stereotypes/beliefs.

When you have an author who is not only a religious "leader" but also a member of the military, writing on the merits of the military's policy on homosexuals---you have to admit, it isn't exactly the most even-handed discussion of the topic. And what is sad--is that by merely footnoting selective facts without the rest of the conclusions/etc. in those studies--it somehow gives this such an incredible boost of credibility (in your eyes)--while completely distracting you from the true problem with this piece, selective disclosure of facts.

And your 2% of the population and 70% of aids cases...

First off, look here for a study from the WTO:

http://www.aegis.org/files/unaids/june2000/usa_en.pdf

I know it isn't a christian organization, but i hope you find some way to give it some credibility.

If you look on page 6, you will notice a breakdown of the total cases in the US from the beginning of the problem until 2000. As you will see, the total percentage of those who got HIV from homosexual/bisexual contact---is 47.8 percent. And you'll also notice that the numbers of homosexuals contracting the disease has dropped every year for which detailed information is presented. And in the year 2000, only 32.17% of all cases were from homosexual/bisexual contact.

So what does this tell you? YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE STUDIES, NOT TO THE PEOPLE WHO REGURGITATE THE INFORMATION FOR YOU.


Of course the method in which homosexuals have sex increases the risk of transmitting certain diseases---but that doesn't make them less healthy. Otherwise, straight women, who are at a much higher risk of transmitting HIV from their straight partner would be considered to be less healthy than her male counterpart. What about the fact that latinos and blacks, together account for 64% of all HIV cases---are they less healthy than whites? Your conclusion that because a certain disease is more prevelant in certain communities amounts to that entire community being less healthy is illogical at best, bigoted at worst.

Right now we have a homosexual community that has been withheld the means to legally bind a relationship--and at the same time some of the straight community members thumb their noses at the gays saying they can't commit, lack sound family values, etc. I'd like to know how many straight people would jump from one partner to the next if there was no notion of marriage.

And i'm not sure where you get the 2% number---i've heard anywhere from 5-10%--never a number as low as 2%. Maybe that is just wishfull thinking on the part of people who are bent on marginalizing and demonizing a group of people who deserve respect just like everyone else.

The 70% number was off the top of my head, and it is wrong. my bad. Unfortunately you feel that since that number was wrong, therefore everything I have read and heard must also be wrong.

I will not give you that since a military pastor writes a paper it is therfore not true because he is a Christian and it pertains to something he disagrees with. You are presupposing his lack of integrity, and I feel being a pastor AND in the military gives him two points on the positive.

You say: Of course the method in which homosexuals have sex increases the risk of transmitting certain diseases---but that doesn't make them less healthy.

That statement contridicts itself.

The issue is the health of a lifestyle
This Oxford study makes my point;
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...alcode=intjepid

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

I have given thousands of dollars to aids research, attend aids fundraisers and am on the mailing list for same. For you to imply that my statement that their lifestyle is unhealthy is somehow bigoted and illogical is baised because you feel Christains are close minded. You can marginalize and demonize Christains and it is okay because you are enlightened, but when a Christian says something you disagree with, they are bigots.

As far as 10%, that number is from kingsley, he had volunteers contribute to his study, in the 50's. And when the numbers were too low he went to prisons. Surprise surprise many people had had sex with another man in the last year. I can't believe that in 1950's America Susie homemaker didn't rush down to talk about her sexual practises with a stranger.

That must be your version of following the people that REGURGITATE THE INFORMATION FOR YOU.

Dude, some gays are jerks, some are cool, some are honest, some are liars.
Some Christians are jerks, some are cool, some are honest, and some are liars.
I can seperate the person from the group.

As far as marriage, Last month I had a friend and his partner over to my house for dinner we all came to the conclusion that it's the word marriage that is causing the problem. Drop that word and there would be alot less resistance.

We've both beaten this dead horse and I do not like tooting my "Look how not bigoted I am horn" so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Btw all Canadians are short

[quote name='Balloon guy' date='Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 1:00 PM' post='1025221']
The 70% number was off the top of my head, and it is wrong. my bad. Unfortunately you feel that since that number was wrong, therefore everything I have read and heard must also be wrong.

I will not give you that since a military pastor writes a paper it is therfore not true because he is a Christian and it pertains to something he disagrees with. You are presupposing his lack of integrity, and I feel being a pastor AND in the military gives him two points on the positive. [/quote]

While he is obviously a person of good character--he is "employed" by the military and must support the military's policies. He isn't going to discuss any information that in any way contradicts his conclusions.

[quote]
You say: Of course the method in which homosexuals have sex increases the risk of transmitting certain diseases---but that doesn't make them less healthy.

That statement contridicts itself. [/quote]

Then women are less healthy than men, lesbians are more healthy than men, African Americans and Hispanics are less healthy than white people.

You are using ONE indicator of a person's health and applying it across the board in an effort to reinforce your argument that homosexuals are less healthy than heterosexuals. That is inaccurate and misleading. I won't say bigoted because your most recent post makes me rethink my opinion of you.

[quote]
The issue is the health of a lifestyle
This Oxford study makes my point;
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/...alcode=intjepid

CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871. [quote]

They did a probability model based upon data receive from the beginning of the epidemic to 2002 and given the recent advances in education about safe sex and its effect on new AIDS transmissions, not to mention the drug advances---i SERIOUSLY question this probability model. SERIOUSLY question. Hell, people are living 20-30 years with HIV already. I'd have to see more of this study to give it any credibility.

[quote]
I have given thousands of dollars to aids research, attend aids fundraisers and am on the mailing list for same. For you to imply that my statement that their lifestyle is unhealthy is somehow bigoted and illogical is baised because you feel Christains are close minded. You can marginalize and demonize Christains and it is okay because you are enlightened, but when a Christian says something you disagree with, they are bigots. [/quote]

Actually--it has nothing to do with christians--I merely mentioned that most christians have a certain view of homosexuality and that it is wrong--and when you link an opinion article from a member of the military clergy regarding gays in the military---you aren't exactly going to get a fair article. Rather you shoudl expect to read an persuasive opinion piece that selects information and present it in the most favorable light of their already formed opinion. Not exactly the type of information that is likely to persuade someone.

[quote]
As far as 10%, that number is from kingsley, he had volunteers contribute to his study, in the 50's. And when the numbers were too low he went to prisons. Surprise surprise many people had had sex with another man in the last year. I can't believe that in 1950's America Susie homemaker didn't rush down to talk about her sexual practises with a stranger.[/quote]

I don't believe the Kinsey numbers either. But on the radio this afternoon--there was a gentleman who heads GLSEN (kevin jennings) who spoke about a study of students and the abuse they are subjected to. The survey was given to all students (not sure of the sample size, etc.) but their number is around 7%. 2% is too low, 10% is too high. Probably somewhere in between.


[quote]
Dude, some gays are jerks, some are cool, some are honest, some are liars.
Some Christians are jerks, some are cool, some are honest, and some are liars.
I can seperate the person from the group.
[/quote]

true

[quote]
As far as marriage, Last month I had a friend and his partner over to my house for dinner we all came to the conclusion that it's the word marriage that is causing the problem. Drop that word and there would be alot less resistance.

We've both beaten this dead horse and I do not like tooting my "Look how not bigoted I am horn" so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Btw all Canadians are short
[/quote]

And their heads flap all over the place. Ever seen South Park? A bunch of strange people up there.

I do remember hearing in class, though I don't have a source so be careful, that the original estimate of 10% was far too high and that the true percentage is closer to 2-3%.

Like i said in my most recent posts---i agree that 10% is too high. I also think 2-3% is too low considering the other studies i've heard of that say the range is around 5-7%.


Either way--if anyone believes that, because the percentage is only 2-3%, that it isn't a fight worth fighting---well only 3% of the world are Jewish and anti-semitism is still inappropriate--as well are any laws/actions that would treat them as second class citizens.

(note--i know that this isn't why Balloon Guy brought up the number--it is just an argument i've heard a 1000 times and never quite understood why that should impact the analysis).

63% of statistics are wrong.

Overmasturbation can lead to several difficulties; depression and nerve damage to name a few.

It is however safe to masturbate 3-4 times a week and there are certainly people who, if they did not masturbate would build up severe aggression and commit rape or assault.

Masturbation can also relieve a lot of stress, as a second option to sex, why not?

I don't understand male homosexuality, that's why I don't judge or comment about it. I accept homosexuals as equal men and think no less of them because I don't understand them. I do not wish to understand either, because I'm perfectly happy with being clueless about how they feel

All I can say is that women are soft, smooth and smell nice. men are hairy, hard (if in shape) and usually don't smell quite AS NICE. Now I know you could argue for liking the latter but hell nooooooooo!

I can't believe I read this far, or that I'm replying, but I think if there actually is a reason why straight men may live longer than gay men it's probably got a lot to do with the fact that straight men tend to marry women, who then force them to give up things like drinking, smoking, eating lousy food, and staying up late. Gay men have no such problem and in that, and for the peace they must experience during football season when no one wants to change the channel to Martha Stewart Living, I envy them.

Assuming of course that the gay men don't already watch Martha Stewart Living...

Well maybe we should look deaper into the reasons "why" homosexuals may suffer from more health problems. Not like I believe this comment is true but if I did I think it could be explained not by sexual preference but social status.

Our society has socialized people to believe that this behaviour is wrong and deviant. How do you think this effects the targeted group? Feeling like who you are is not accepted or is wrong can have a huge effect on how you view yourself, which in turn could lead to self destructive behaviour ie: drug/ alcohol abuse, suicide, etc. Self respect and self worth is a large effect on how you treat yourself.

I am not saying that this reflects gay people as a whole, but what I am trying to say is that we have to look at the big picture. If gay people have more health problems is it because they're gay? NO! If we make social changes that dont expet people to fall within narrow ideals of what we think is "normal" then we will see a healthier society overall.

Well said, Mandor, well said...

LOL