Evangelical Protestants show largest increase in acceptance of gay marriages . . .

[BlandOatmeal]

Bland Oats
The transferral of semen along the same route as urine is clean though,
right?

Yes. The bladder and urinary tract are considered sterile.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...I guess that covers it. God bless and keep you.

...

No, it doesn't "cover it". Homosexual sex does not necessarily lead to STDs and other health issues, same as with heterosexual sex. You really have no reason to judge homosexuals more harshly than you judge heterosexuals. What about all the gay and bisexual men (because let's face it - you're ignoring lesbian sex and just focusing on men who have sex with men - typical) who are in monogamous relationships and practice safe sex? Should you not support gay marriage, then, as a stabilizing factor in gay relationships and culture? I criticize the superficial, promiscuous aspects of gay male culture myself and so I'm fully in support of gay marriage because it would help to promote stability. You're really not helping matters.

I think you've got what I said all garbled up. The blessing stays, though.

Shalom shalom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think you've got what I said all garbled up. The blessing stays, though.

Shalom shalom

I went back and reread what you said and responded to the other parts. Your argument is garbled as it is.

The issue here is behavior. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals engage in risky behaviors (promiscuity, unsafe sex, etc). But both are capable of living responsible, risk-free sexual lives. That's why monogamy needs to be promoted amongst all peoples. (I guess an exception could be made for the truly polyamorous provided they practice safe sex at all times, but I personally don't support having multiple partners at the same time.)

 

[Penumbra]

Wow! I had to check your personal info on this. So, you're a philosopher. I did say "God said..." in referring to the teachings in Leviticus; and indeed, Leviticus itself says that God spoke those words:

If I say god wrote my post, does that make it true? Do you accept anyone that says they speak for god?

Look at the kind of verses Leviticus has:

20:9
“‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

20:27
A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them;

24:13-14
Then the Lord said to Moses: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him.

25:44-45
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.


That's just a quick list. Do you support those things too? Look what kind of text we're working with here. Why in the world should we consider it relevant for laws about homosexuality and homosexual marriage?

What God is implying here, is that these are not just statutes to separate the Jews from non-Jews; they are NATURAL laws, with PHYSICAL consequenses.

The Apostle Paul even goes so far as to describe homosexuality not as a SIN, but as a PUNISHMENT!

What makes you assume god said it?

Why is Paul's opinion relevant?

No, we are not a theocracy; but for our own good, we ought to use common sense. We require people to use seat belts, for their own protection. How much more should we not have laws that promote our health?

Reputable organizations do issue data and recommendations, and they include things like practicing safe sex.

The facts are these:

People engaging, say, in anal sex, are probably equally likely to have a transfer of fluids (blood, etc.), whether the union is same-sex or heterosexual. The BIG difference is that in BIBLICAL heterosexual unions, and even most extramarital unions, the exposure to disease is largely limited to the two engaged in the act. The risk of cross-contamination increases considerably, when there is infidelity or casual sex. In the case of homosexuals, promiscuity tends to be rampant, viz:

Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals
by Matt Slick

Promiscuity

"28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners..."

-- Statistics on sexual promiscuity among homosexuals | homosexual partner statistics | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

With numbers like that, we aren't even talking about a crap shoot: We're talking about facing a firing squad with only one cartridge misfiring.

I hope you can see by now, that I am not doing that. By "unclean", I mean simply, physically and epidemiologically, unclean. God codified lots of things into the Jewish law, that are flat-out good for us. This is one of them.

(covered above)

And any of that has to do with monogamous same-sex marriage how?

Also as a fun fact, lesbians have lower STD rates than heterosexual people, statistically speaking. Everyone always focuses on the guys, though.

I have already covered this. Since the widespread availability of condoms, the rate of STDs has gone up in the US. These devices to not stem the epidemic; they fuel it.

The countries that have the highest HIV rates are where condom use isn't widespread.

Condom STD Fact Sheet

Among "clean" people (i.e. free of STDs), condoms are useful in reducing unwanted pregnancies. In every other case, they are used precisely because of the probability of infection.

-- only if they have STDs (covered above)

Yes -- and especially more effective than encouraging them to practice casual sex because condoms are available. Honey, this has been the norm for millennia.

The nation-wide teen birth rate keeps going down, fortunately, but states with abstinence-only sex education statistically have the highest rates of teen birth.

More info:

Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48), we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status, teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

Source.

Also, in the United States, this is the chart showing which states have abstinence-only sex education.

Here are charts for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis by county. You'll notice they're generally higher in abstinence-only states, especially around the area of the US that is commonly referred to as the Bible Belt.

Two pieces of advice:

(1) Until he says "I do", you don't.
(2) "Why buy a cow, when milk is free?"

I'm a grandpa, four times over. I'm talking about things I know about.

Aw, sorry! :sorry1:

Two disease-free people in a monogamous relationship are no more likely to get STDs than married people.

 

[Skwim]

Whoa! back! Who's CONDEMNING anything? Condemning them to what? Execution? Hellfire? Please be specific.

Well the Evangelical Protestants of course, This IS whom we're talking about, BO.

But just as an FYI for you.

"In contrast, evangelical and, to some degree, black Protestant denominations condemn homosexuality,"
source

". . . most evangelical Protestant denominations, and Orthodox Jews condemn same-sex marriage."
source


"Gay marriage, fundamentalism, and the Evangelical mind:
Aside from St. Paul’s explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior, there is no way — or at the very least, no easy way — to reconcile same-sex marriage with the Christian moral tradition.
source

" Evangelical protestants, on the other hand, will focus on the fact that homosexual relationships are condemned as a major sin in both the old and new testaments,"
source
​

And from our friend WIKIPEDIA come these assorted comments:

"Under a literalist reading, the Bible can be read as condemning homosexuality" [and, by extension, gay marriage].

"passages in the Old Testament book Leviticus prohibit "lying with mankind as with womankind" and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) has been interpreted by some as condemning homosexual practice."

"Baptists view: Homosexuality is not a 'valid alternative lifestyle.' The Bible condemns it as sin."

"The United Pentecostal Church International go on public record as absolutely opposed to homosexuality and condemn it as a moral decadence and sin."

"The Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) similarly condemns homosexuality."

"the Presbyterian Church in America, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church condemn same-sex sexual behavior
​

Point being; Evangelicals do tend to condemn homosexuality, and, by extension, same sex marriage.

(nothing "obvious" here, and no comment necessary.

Perhaps not to you, but it's certainly obvious to me, which is who counts.

How long do you expect me to put up with this?

Not expecting anything out of you except, perhaps, common sense. But feel free to run anytime you wish.

Are you proposing that homosexual marriages should somehow be "different" from heterosexual ones in the eyes of the law?

Nope.

If one allows the legalization of homosexual marriages, then one is also allowing that they are "somehow equivalent" to heterosexual marriages.

Yup. Problem is, my psychic powers are unable to divine your meaning of "somehow" when you say things such as "somehow equivalent." But hey, if you can't clarify, you can't clarify.

The main point in this, which you are trying to dance around, is that those who object to legalizing homosexual MARRIAGES, object because in so doing, they are being forced to accept the practice of homosexuality -- an extremely hazardous behavior.

Nah, They object to it because their religion tells them to. Most homophobia and its assorted variations is simply unthinking bias---emphasis on the "unthinking." Moreover, no one is forcing them to accept any practice at all. They can freely object to, even hate it, all they want. What they can't do, as is becoming increasingly more prevalent, is discriminate against those who choose to "practice homosexuality."

In the "old days", we used to call this a red herring.

Just to bring you up to speed here.

Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.
​

What you are saying, in effect, is that I wasn't "reading this into" what you said. You were indeed implying it, as I thought.

I said what I said. But go ahead and play with it all you want. Mox nix.

Here we go again; but I don't plan on covering this ground again: . . . .

. . . . was connected with it -- AS YOU FULLY WELL KNOW.

Yeah, I kind of figured you'd be tap dancing all around this one. But believe me, Oatmeal, a Fred Astaire you're not.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Outside the bible, there is no evidence that homosexuality is "unclean", or "perverse", or harmful in any way. There's a huge disconnect between the bible and reality. And quoting Matt Slick as a source on anything really discredits any credibility you may have had.

 

[Skwim]

Outside the bible, there is no evidence that homosexuality is "unclean", or "perverse", or harmful in any way. There's a huge disconnect between the bible and reality. And quoting Matt Slick as a source on anything really discredits any credibility you may have had.

I agree, to use Matt Slick is to put the kiss of death on any argument.