• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Openly gay and Catholic

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
No, I don't have personal opinions about gay people.
You're statements say otherwise.

Give it up for lost.
Typical abrahamic response, but no. You'd like that, wouldn't you?

The harm that comes to people who engage in gay sex has been amply demonstrated.
And summarily shown to either be melodramatic or irrelevant to the attempted point. A broken clock is right twice a day, but it's still broken.

Ever watch true crime shows on TV?
Reality TV is your evidence? Oh honey, you thought you did something there...

Sex outside of its proper context, which is marriage, is the mother of all evils.
Spare us your sanctimonious prudish beliefs.

...so-called loving relationship.
Ah, see, there; opinions on gay people. "So called"? How very dare you.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Reality TV is your evidence? Oh honey, you thought you did something there...
It was not Reality TV. I don't watch Reality TV. It was a TRUE CRIME drama.
Try again.
Ah, see, there; opinions on gay people. "So called"? How very dare you.
I said:
Sex outside of its proper context, which is marriage, is the mother of all evils. The harm to individuals and society that comes from sex out of wedlock is extensive, whether it is promiscuous sex or a so-called loving relationship.

Did I say "Gay sex outside of its proper context, which is marriage, is the mother of all evils?"
NO I DID NOT SAY THAT.

I was referring to ALL sex outside of marriage, heterosexual or homosexual.
What I said had nothing to do with gay people. Everything is not about gay people.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Are you serious? That does not sound good since that is exactly what a bigot would say.
Even if a bigot would say that that does not make me a bigot. That is illogical.
The fact that I don't care what people think of me as long as I know I am being honest does not make me a bigot.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Even if a bigot would say that that does not make me a bigot. That is illogical.
The fact that I don't care what people think of me as long as I know I am being honest does not make me a bigot.

I am sorry, but denial is not good either. You should have asked for specific examples. The problem has been far too often when specific examples have been given to you you only go into denial. You already did this when I gave you posts of yours that looked to be very bigoted.

Do you remember about your false claim of "the pot calling the kettle black"?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The harm that comes to people who engage in gay sex has been amply demonstrated.
No it hasn't, your bogus Catholic apologetic website listed so-called harms which fall into 2 categories.

1. Those caused by promiscuity.
By forbidding gay Baha'i from engaging in monogamous gay relationships your law only compounds this issue.

2. Those caused by practices that heterosexuals also engage in.
It is obvious your delusional middleman wasn't concerned with people engaging in oral sex following anal sex etc because He didn't forbid heterosexuals from doing it.

If those practices that fall under category 2 were sufficiently harmful to warrant a ban they would have been banned for heterosexual couples as well.

So you have utterly failed to demonstrate any sufficient harm to warrant a ban on so called "gay sex".

In my opinion.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
  • Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
  • Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
  • Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.
In fact, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men make up more than half of the people living with HIV in the United States and experience two thirds of all new HIV infections each year. Further, young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men 13-24 had over 72% of the estimated new HIV infections in 2010. In 2012, 75% of reported syphilis cases were among gay and bisexual men.

The large percentage of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men who have HIV and STDs means that, as a group, they have a higher chance of being exposed to these diseases. Too many men don’t know their HIV or STD status (if they have a disease or not), which means they may not get medical care and are more likely to unknowingly spread these diseases to their sexual partners.

Most gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men get HIV by having anal sex, which is the riskiest type of sex for getting or spreading HIV. During anal sex, it’s possible for either partner—the insertive (top) or the receptive (bottom) to get HIV. However, if you are HIV-negative, bottoming without a condom puts you at much greater risk for getting HIV than topping. If you are HIV-positive, being on the top without a condom is riskier for giving HIV to your partner.

Recommendations for Gay and Bisexual Men's Health | CDC
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior

The health effects of same-sex sexual behavior are many. The public, government, and judiciary are being lead to believe that same-sex sexuality is a normal variant with interactions and results equivalent to heterosexual sexuality. However, this position runs contrary to professional literature and the track record of history.

Andrè Van Mol, MD

July 27, 2011

The health effects of same-sex sexual behavior are many. The public, government, and judiciary are being lead to believe that same-sex sexuality is a normal variant with interactions and results equivalent to heterosexual sexuality. However, this position runs contrary to professional literature and the track record of history.

By any repeatable measure, the percentage of the population identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender (GLBT) is small. The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that men having sex with men (MSM) comprise approximately two percent of the population, or four percent of the U.S male population.1 The University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center has conducted surveys regarding homosexuality since the late 1980s and deems that approximately two percent of the U.S. population identifies as either gay, lesbian, or bisexual.2 The 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics found that among women ages 18 to 44, 3.5 percent identified as bisexual with 1.4 percent identifying as homosexual, gay, or lesbian. Among men of the same age group, 1.7 percent claimed gay identity with 1.1 percent identifying as bisexual.3

The question of the ultimate origin of sexual orientation is not yet definitively answered, but there is very little evidence that anyone is inherently of alternative sexual orientation.

A 1993 scientific literature critique by Byne and Parsons in Archives of General Psychiatry reviewed the major studies on the subject and found no evidence favoring sexual orientation being either genetically or biologically determined.4

Researchers Friedman and Downey of Columbia University School of Medicine remarked, “At clinical conferences one often hears . . . that homosexuality is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true. . . . The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionist that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.”5

Dr. Francis S. Collins, current Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health and former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, asserted that homosexuality “is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA” and that “whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations . . .” 6 Predisposition is not destiny.

The 2008 American Psychological Association’s brochure Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality: Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”7

GLBT-oriented men and women may not choose their attractions, but, short of force, they do choose their sex partners. From a national health perspective, the issue is not the origins of homosexual or GLBT orientation, but the consequences of engaging in such sexual activity.

The negative health consequences of alternative sexuality are made more understandable by first recognizing the nature of the sexual practices at issue. A 1979 survey in the book The Gay Report revealed the percentage of gay men who engaged in the following practices: 99% oral sex, 91% anal sex, 82% rimming (analingus), 22% fisting, 23% golden showers (urination on another), 4% scat (defecation on another). 8 The book’s two authors were of same-sex sexual attraction. A May 2011 medical journal article found that felching (“sucking or eating semen out of someone's anus”) was a sought-after practice in one-sixth of men’s profiles in “one of the largest Internet websites specifically targeting MSM looking for partners for unprotected sex.”9

The Gay Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site describes the following detrimental effects associated with same-sex sexual practice: higher rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, depression/anxiety, hepatitis, sexually transmitted illnesses (anal papilloma/HPV, gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia), certain cancers, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, eating disorders, and (in subsets) obesity.10

In February 2009 a Canadian GLBT group filed a human rights complaint against the Canadian government and Health Canada asserting that the Canadian GLBT population had poor statistics for life expectancy (twenty years short of standard), suicide, alcohol and illicit drug/substance abuse, cancer, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS, and depression. This is noteworthy in that it challenges the assertion of those claiming the negative health statistics attributed to individuals of GLBT orientation are merely a function of the lack of acceptance of such individuals, and that said statistics would improve with their increased acceptance. Canada provides a highly supportive government, celebration from liberal churches, and a public coerced into silence by hate speech codes, yet the poor health indicators for the GLBT populace remains. This demonstrates that acceptance and affirmation of same-sex sexuality is not the promised antidote for the problems inherent in GLBT sexuality.

To reiterate, The Gay Report, the Gay Lesbian Medical Association, and the Canadian GLBT coalition’s human rights complaint are sources from within the GLBT population.

REDUCED LIFE EXPECTANCY

Dr. J. Satinover documents that homosexuals lose twenty-five to thirty years of their lifespan. Gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, herpes, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted infections, enteric infections and disease, cancers, alcoholism, suicide, and numerous other causes are listed. 11

A 1997 Canadian study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology noted that in urban gay areas, homosexual men had a life expectancy comparable to that in Canada in the 1870s. The researchers concluded, “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.”12

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS/DISEASES (STIs or STDs)

Data presented at the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National STD Prevention Conference showed the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) was over 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM was over 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women.13

Furthermore, a study discussed at the International AIDS conference in 2000 documented that sixteen percent of HIV-positive gay men in a nationwide sampling in the United States admitted to at least one incidence of unprotected intercourse with an unaware partner.14

The CDC also warns on their Viral Hepatitis Scientific Information - Populations at Risk web page, “Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at elevated risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including Hepatitis A, Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, and Chlamydia . . . Approximately 15%–25% of all new Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections in the United States are among MSM.”15

The CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention reported in April 2011 that, “The sexual health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) in the United States is not getting better despite considerable social, political and human rights advances. Instead of improving, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) remain disproportionately high among MSM and have been increasing for almost two decades.”16

A study in a 1999 edition of the American Journal of Public Health found that bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women “to report drug use in the 3 months before the study, a greater lifetime number of male partners, a sex partner who had had sex with a prostitute, an earlier age at sexual debut, and forced sexual contact,” and concluded, “Health workers should be aware of bisexual experience among women, since this may be a marker for multiple risk behaviors for HIV/STDs.”17

A 2000 study in the journal Sexually Transmitted Infections asserted that women who have sex with women (WSW) had higher rates of bacterial vaginosis, hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors (specified as “more likely to report previous sexual contact with a homo/bisexual man . . . or with an injecting drug user . . .”) than the heterosexual control group.18

These sources demonstrate that GLBT individuals not only have higher positivity rates of STIs and HIV, but do not always inform their sexual partners of the presence of such, and that some of their sexual partners could still be of the opposite sex despite a self-identification as same-sex attracted. STIs among GLBT persons are not exclusively a GLBT problem, but can affect the population at large.

Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – Christian Medical & Dental Associations® (CMDA)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior (continued)

CANCER

A 2011 study published in the journal Cancer found gay men demonstrating 1.9 times the odds of reporting a cancer than heterosexual men, while “. . .lesbian and bisexual female cancer survivors had 2.0 and 2.3× the odds of reporting fair or poor health compared with heterosexual female cancer survivors.” 19 In a related interview, lead researcher Dr. Boehmer specified that said cancers were both AIDSassociated and non-AIDS defining. Examples of the latter were given as, “anal, lung, testicular cancer, and Hodgkin’s lymphoma.”20

The American Cancer Society’s web page Cancer Facts for Gay and Bisexual Men specifies that gay men are at increased risk for lung, testicular, colon, and anal cancers.21 Their web page Cancer Facts for Lesbians and Bisexual Women indicates this population finds an increased risk of breast, lung, colon, ovarian, and endometrial cancers.22 For both the groups listed, the risk factors are described as stemming in part from higher rates of tobacco use, alcohol use, and being overweight. For breast and gynecologic malignancies, the Cancer Facts for Lesbians and Bisexual Women page clarifies, “Women who have not had children and have not breast-fed, have not used oral contraceptives, and are older when they first give birth – all factors more likely to affect lesbians and bisexual women – are also at a slightly higher risk.”

The Gay & Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) web site features the page Ten Things Lesbians Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider, which states the following: “Lesbians have the richest concentration of risk factors for breast cancer than any subset of women in the world.” And “Lesbians have higher risks for many of the gynecologic cancers.”23

The GLMA’s web page Ten Things Gay Men Should Discuss with Their Healthcare Provider warns, “Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon cancer.” It also notes, “. . . the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.”24

MENTAL HEALTH

The Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS) asserted, “people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.” Mood disorders, anxiety, having more than one psychiatric diagnosis, and substance use disorders were specified. 25

A 1999 New Zealand Study found that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people were at increased risk for suicidal behavior and ideation, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, tobacco dependence, and multiple disorders compared to the heterosexual subsample.26 The study also reported a prevalence rate of two percent for homosexuality/bisexuality, 2.8 percent if counting any same-sex encounter after sixteen years of age.

A 1999 co-twin control study in adult men, “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” showed same-sex sexual orientation was significantly associated with four measures of suicidality (thoughts about death, wanting to die, thoughts of suicide, and attempt). After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms, three of four measures (except “wanting to die”) remained higher in same-sex attracted people than heterosexuals.27

A 2001 study came to similar conclusions: “Homosexual orientation, defined as having same-sex sexual partners, is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans.”28

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Domestic violence is higher in same-sex relationships. In 2004, with a 50,000 U.S. dollar grant from the Blue Shield of California Foundation, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association launched the "LGBT Relationship Violence Project" to educate medical professionals about the high rate of domestic violence in those communities. "The Blue Shield of California Foundation recognizes that little attention has been paid to domestic violence in LGBT contexts..." said Marianne Balin, manager of the Blue Shield of California Foundation's anti-violence program. 29

In 1993 a Boston program for gay-bashing victims noted that half the calls they received regarded domestic violence. Same-sex-couple domestic violence is called “the second closet,” and has been a taboo subject for conversation. “In a sexual minority, there’s always resistance to airing dirty laundry,” reported Terry Person, director of San Francisco’s Community United Against Violence. 30

One might assume said violence is mainly a male-on-male phenomenon, but the literature refutes this. The Journal of Social Service Research in 1991 published a survey of more than 1,100 lesbians with over half reporting, “they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/ psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”31

A 1994 study in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology reported that 37% of lesbians had been physically abused as adults or children, and 32% were either raped or sexually battered. 32

YOUTH AT RISK The CDC reported on June 6, 2011 the findings of the 2001-2009 Youth Risk Behavior Surveys, which revealed, “gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).”33

In conclusion, we see a substantial body of scientific literature repeatedly confirming that same-sex sexual behavior carriers with it increased rates of HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidality, obesity, hepatitis of various forms, numerous sexually transmitted infections, various cancers, and domestic violence, with substantially shorter life expectancy. The infectious disease problems cross over to the heterosexual population through multiple avenues addressed in the sexually transmitted infections section of this testimony.

Though people generally do not choose their sexual orientation, they do choose the people with whom they have intercourse, save for cases of coercion or violence. One’s sexual orientation will not protect one from the consequences of same-sex sexual behavior, and those consequences can and do affect the population at large. Increased societal acceptance of same-sex sexuality has not thus far proved helpful in reducing the negative health consequences of those sexual practices.

Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.

Behavioral consequences exist and the results are not the same for all sexual behaviors. Technology cannot correct this and blame shifting the negative results of same-sex sexual practice is misguided. Encouragement, let alone celebration, of same-sex sexuality is not a benign mistake, as the record of the health statistics of those practicing GLBT sexuality demonstrates.

Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – Christian Medical & Dental Associations® (CMDA)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member

Ashoka

श्री कृष्णा शरणं मम
Animals are not moral - don't confuse integrity or justice with survival and matriarchal instincts.
You are hard-wired with a conscience because God made you so - animals kill indiscriminately and lose absolutely no sleep over it.

Aristotle thought the same. I disagree. Animals are capable of many things, the concept of right and wrong included. However, I'm getting off topic. Feel free to start a new thread about it.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
It was not Reality TV. I don't watch Reality TV. It was a TRUE CRIME drama.
Yeah, and every Demon Possession movie in Hollywood says "based on a TRUE story". Your example is cold diarrhea.

Yeah, I read what you said bud. Since you seem to be struggling with what I objected to, it's your "so-called loving relationship" nonsense that's the issue here, your puritanical and nonsensical beliefs on non-marital sex notwithstanding. It'd be like me saying that society shouldn't even consider anything said by your so-called "good religion".
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Thus, the Bible speaks to all ages and cultures.
Based on the timing, that's virtually impossible. How can it speak to "all ages" when it was only written and compiled a few thousand years ago.

And, no, there is no folklore or mythology or fictional accounts in the Bible. ...anyone who has understood what they read would be aware of this.
Again, if this were objectively true, then how could you miss the fact that the vast majority of other cultures and their history are missing?

The Bible is VERY important, no doubt, but it simply has a cultural bias and neglects to cover events in other regions and at other times.

Also, there 0 evidence that the scriptures as inerrant and, as a matter of fact, the early Church never claimed that it is.
 

DNB

Christian
Based on the timing, that's virtually impossible. How can it speak to "all ages" when it was only written and compiled a few thousand years ago.

Again, if this were objectively true, then how could you miss the fact that the vast majority of other cultures and their history are missing?

The Bible is VERY important, no doubt, but it simply has a cultural bias and neglects to cover events in other regions and at other times.

Also, there 0 evidence that the scriptures as inerrant and, as a matter of fact, the early Church never claimed that it is.
Man doesn't change - an avaricious woman in 3500 BC, is the same as a materialistic and greedy woman of today. A 10th century philanthropist was motivated by the same sentiments and concerns as a modern day charitable person. People do not change, man's motives and intents, desires and dreams remain the same throughout the centuries.
Thus, the Bible speaks to all ages about morality, sin and repentance, and all other things pertaining to the spirit.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Man doesn't change - an avaricious woman in 3500 BC, is the same as a materialistic and greedy woman of today. A 10th century philanthropist was motivated by the same sentiments and concerns as a modern day charitable person. People do not change, man's motives and intents, desires and dreams remain the same throughout the centuries.
Thus, the Bible speaks to all ages about morality, sin and repentance, and all other things pertaining to the spirit.
Yes, but our understanding of things that affect us has grown significantly. If you said "A woman's hormones largely determines her sex drive" 20 centuries ago, no one would have a clue what you were talking about.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
"A woman's hormones largely determines her sex drive"
Do you think that is true? Do you think that explains why some women lose interest in sex after menopause? But what about the women who don't lose interest in sex? Is that because they are taking hormones?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.

Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – Christian Medical & Dental Associations® (CMDA)
A Christian medical literature with a posit bias against the lgbt community existing with data gathered unscrupulous (such as sourcing their straight controls from churches and their gay controls from bars and nightclubs, aka selection bias and profiling)

All minorities, including racial minorities, have higher than average drug use, rates of clinical depression, riskier sexual behavior, higher crime, etc. But these 'Christian medical institutes' would never then opine 'negative health consequence of being black' as a value judgement against being black.

I've no problem with people having religious preference, but I do have a problem with the bogus science used to prop up their views.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Those who challenge the normalcy and equivalence arguments of GLBT advocates are predictably met with the jamming tactic of being labeled bigots, haters, and homophobes so as to pre-empt reasonable debate. Disagreeing with GLBT sexual practice is neither hatred, harassment, phobia, nor violence, but the expression of opinion firmly grounded in medical literature.

Negative Health Consequences of Same-Sex Sexual Behavior – Christian Medical & Dental Associations® (CMDA)

Because we are friends, Trailblazer, you know that I don't think poorly of you and that I won't disparage or criticize you. We may differ on some things, but I still respect your personal convictions and your spiritual beliefs. Having said that, I have a query for you about the medical article you posted. I think the data presented in the article is most likely biased toward gay people because it is Christian-based, and therefore it's quite possible that it doesn't present the subject from an open-minded perspective. The truth is that most Christians hold biased judgments about LGBTQ people and want to deny them rights and equality. Therefore, I'm not willing to trust the opinions of Christians regarding homosexuality because their religious bias against LGBTQ people would cloud their judgment.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Because we are friends, Trailblazer, you know that I don't think poorly of you and that I won't disparage or criticize you. We may differ on some things, but I still respect your personal convictions and your spiritual beliefs. Having said that, I have a query for you about the medical article you posted. I think the data presented in the article is most likely biased toward gay people because it is Christian-based, and therefore it's quite possible that it doesn't present the subject from an open-minded perspective. The truth is that most Christians hold biased judgments about LGBTQ people and want to deny them rights and equality. Therefore, I'm not willing to trust the opinions of Christians regarding homosexuality because their religious bias against LGBTQ people would cloud their judgment.
With all due respect, it does not matter if one article was Christian-based. You can find the same scientific facts and other facts on other websites that are not Christian or religiously-based. Regardless of any religious or moral concerns, homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle and it is harmful in many ways, and that would be true even if no anti-LGBTQ people had ever existed. I could say more but I don't want to be graphic.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I've no problem with people having religious preference, but I do have a problem with the bogus science used to prop up their views.
I don't have the time or enough interest in this topic, but I am sure I could find ample research that says the same things as this article. It is not bogus science just because it was Christian-based. Christians are just as much physicians as anyone else.

Why can't people just face reality? Regardless of any moral/religious concerns, homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle and it is harmful to the individual who practices it.
 
Top