Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3

[Truths4yer]

Originally Posted by Truths4yer
It's not clear what a "practising homosexual" is but the personal attributes of those who you debate with are irrelevant to whether or not they identify flaws in your claims.

My point is if homosexuality is just another lifestyle, why aren't more people coming forward and admitting it?

It isn't. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is characterised by persistent romantic and/or sexual attraction to one biological sex. To call it a lifestyle is to suggest homogeneity and that is as inaccurate as to suggest the same for heterosexuality. How are the "lifestyles" of a heterosexual billionaire and a heterosexual impoverished welfare recipient comparable? Even if you want to pretend that "lifestyle" refers purely to sexual exploits, how are the sexual exploits of a celibate heterosexual and one who is "up in da club" every weekend comparable? In summary, the use of the term "lifestyle" is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification for simple-minded people.

Heck, I'm proud of being a follower of Christ and wouldn't denounce my faith even in front of a B. Hussein Obama firing squad.

Is your "lifestyle" similar to every other Christian on the planet?

You're even hesitant to talk about your homosexuality, surely you're not ashamed of it are you T4y?

Not ashamed to discuss sexuality but rather disinterested and it is inadvisable to share too much personal information of any sort online. It is also a needless distraction from debate.

There are two words that I use frequently when someone is claiming that the information that I'm providing is false or not entirely accurate:
Refute it.

The refutation of spurious claims is to point out that they're presenting unsubstantiated claims, though this should be accompanied by a demonstration of some sort. Some sources are reliable, while others are not. Whether or not the researchers are likely to have a bias, whether or not they have a good reputation to loose and the rigorousness of their methodology are key.

• If I say John down the road, who hates religion, states that "there are no gods" for instance, this adds no weight to my claim. WLCraig often like to quote people as if that makes their claims true.
• If John is able to present evidence for his claim however, where he lays out a coherent methodology, with data which can reliably lead to the conclusion he has drawn, then he may well be a good source.
• If John is likely to have a strong bias and his findings aren't peer-reviewed but are highly controversial, it may be more likely that he's made up data or drawn unjustified conclusions from it.
• If John's findings are not reproducible and/or are contradicted by better research then it is likely that they're either falsified or anomalous.
• Alternatively, if John is an expert epidemiologist in a reputable epidemiological institution, which is concerned with epidemiology and indifferent to homosexuality... then when you make an epidemiological claim, John (and his institution) are likely to have relevant contributions. There is a distinction between claims about homosexuality and claims about a given disease disproportionately affecting those who happen to be homosexual however.

The best sources, in order, are as follows, in my view;
1) Peer-reviewed studies,
2) Reputable national organisations with no clear bias,
3) International/long-standing pollsters (E.G. Pew/Gallop).
This does not mean that such sources are always reliable. The reliability of a peer-reviewed study for instance can be gaged by factors such as its journal's impact factor, its methodology and how that relates to its conclusion(s) and the findings of related research.

• A Christian website on archaeology or evolutionary biology is unlikely to be reliable, particularly compared to scientific websites on the same subjects.
• A Christian website on Christianity (Christian beliefs) is likely to be reliable, at least for that denomination.
• A scientific website may also be reliable on some subtopic of Christianity because the only bias of science is towards the truth and this relevance is usually the result of Christianity making scientific claims.

So it is as I said, just a change in location which is affected (mostly cervix for heteros, mostly anus for MSM). The only disparity here is one of healthcare provision...

As you said, most anal cancer in men is predominately caused by anal sex. However cervical cancer in women is brought on by numerous factors:

You think anal cancer isn't :s? Every factor you listed is basically related to HPV so applies to anal cancer too. Here are some others.

• "The social stigma that anal cancer carries with it prevents fair and equitable conversation, awareness, and funding that could support research and care for people with the disease.
• Organ transplant recipients,
• and people taking medications for autoimmune disorders, often are immunocompromised and also are at higher risk for developing anal cancer.
• Anal HPV infections are also present in healthy, heterosexual men. For example, a 2008 University of Arizona study showed that 16.6% of asymptomatic heterosexual men tested positive for anal HPV on their anus, a third of which were cancer-causing.
• This highlights that HPV is nearly an unavoidable infection in sexual active people and can easily infect the entire anogenital region.
• Every year people who do not have any of the above risk factors also are diagnosed with anal precancer and cancer. This is a simple consequence of the fact that the HPVs that cause this cancer are so ubiquitous in the human population."

http://www.analcancerfoundation.org/learn/anal-cancer/?gclid=CPHDu5v-qcICFUvJtAodLn4AoA

Keep in mind that cervical cancer isn't confined just to heterosexual women, lesbos contract it too (in fact, lesbians are over represented when it comes to breast cancer

I love how you slided from one cancer in to a relatively unrelated one. Lesbians aren't overrepresented when it comes to HPV or cervical cancer as far as I recall. Hetero women may even be with HPV. Lesbians are disadvantaged by people like you however of course when it comes to cervical cancer. Again, you're a modern-day pharisee.

Mcintre et al. 2010, Culture, Health & Sexuality, DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2010.508844:
"Lesbians are said to feel excluded by sexual health messages that presume heterosexuality, a finding linked to lower levels of Papanicolaou (Pap) testing."

Tracy et al. 2010, Journal of Women's Health, 19(2), 229-237:
"Many lesbians do not screen for cervical cancer at recommended rates. Nonroutine screeners perceive fewer benefits, more barriers, and more discrimination".


You'll be pleased to hear that the same conclusion can be drawn from your own source concerning breast cancer:

Low rates of health insurance: Many health insurance policies do not cover unmarried partners. This makes it harder for many lesbians and bisexual women to get quality health care.
Fear of discrimination: Many women do not tell their doctors about their sexual orientation, because they don’t want discrimination to affect the quality of health care they receive. This can make it harder to have a comfortable relationship with a provider.
Negative experiences with health care providers: Fear of having a negative experience with a health care provider can lead some women to delay or avoid medical care, especially routine care such as early detection tests.
The 2 biggest risk factors for breast cancer are being a woman and getting older.

http://www.cancer.org/healthy/findc.../cancer-facts-for-lesbians-and-bisexual-women

OR, you could abide by God's plan for human sexuality and marry a woman and be faithful to her all of your life and you wouldn't have to get vaccinations, get screened regularly or avoid serodiscordant partners, etc. etc. etc. (my my, there are so many precautions that homosexuals have to take in order not to get "sick").

How moronic. Every precaution I mentioned applies to both homo and heterosexuals. We've been discussing cervical cancer for instance, which is now massively reduced in hetero women due to routine pap tests. Have you been asleep?

1) Prove a deity exists,
2) Prove it is your one,
3) Prove that we should do what it wants.
You're several steps removed from even beginning to make a justified claim about a god.

Plain and simply put T4y: Whether or not I approve of your buggery, the anal sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated, and bad things happen when it is.

Here you assert the objectivity of purpose. Demonstrate that purpose is objective. When you've done that you can start lecturing your hetero compatriots about anal sex and why YOU should get to dictate THEIR sex lives.

D. T. Haplerin, 1999, AIDS Patient Care STDS, 13(12), 717-730:
"In terms of absolute numbers, approximately seven times more women than homosexual men engage in unprotected receptive anal intercourse."

Bruce Voeller, 1991, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20(3), 233-276:
"Considerably more heterosexuals engage in the act than do homosexual and bisexual men, not all of whom participate in anal coitus."

If you're talking about HIV/AIDS infection by heterosexuals you better acknowledge that those who are contracting it either are:
1). Intravenous drug users (needle using junkies)*
2). Prostitutes*
3). Women who have sex with men "on the down low".

I'll happily acknowledge it when you demonstrate it though it has no apparent relevance. IDU is an entirely separate transmission category and your point 3 is resultant from your hypocritical condemnations.

Sorry T4y, but the reason the vast majority of people leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind is because they know in their heart that they're doing something very wrong. Refer to the numerous testimonials throughout this 3 part thread.

Heavily biased anecdotal evidence with no longitudinal observation you mean? They don't know in their "heart" that something is wrong. They're indoctrinated to believe that it is from infancy. This is why people in many societies may find public nudity immoral, while in other parts of the world, people live naked and others still they wear burkas. You really don't have a leg to stand on.

Founders, leaders and prominent advocates of the ex-gay movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiYeJ_bsQo

1) A video of over 30 former "Ex-gays", many of whom would at one time have given an "ex-gay" testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QntMgewZ90Y

We also know that some prominent cases are fictional:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioQ0JP8Cgy8

The American Psychiatric Association:
"There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change ones sexual orientation."

John Paulk, "Love Won Out" founder and former chairman of the board of "Exodus International", who appeared on “Oprah” and “Good Morning America" in support of ex-gay therapy. He has since issued an apology for his involvement in the ex-gay movement:
"For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the "ex-gay movement"... I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people."

John Smid, former Executive Director of one of the oldest ex-gay ministries, "Love In Action", which he was involved with for over two decades has since claimed the following:
"I've never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual."

Here's what your lifestyle brings: death.

Like Jesus then. As I said, you know almost nothing of my lifestyle. You seem to be a lonely old man with nothing to live for but spreading demonstrably unjustified hatred on this website. You are an archetypal Pharisee.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GFR7
We need a new kind of police force, based on intelligence.
It would be radically different to what we now have.

I have no idea why I would have made such a stupid statement...

Of course when you said "a new kind of police force" you were talking in the same fashion as the person you voted for and now holds the most powerful political office in the world:

You and B. Hussein Obama and many other left-wingers believe that the Judeo-Christian based American Criminal Justice System needs a major overhaul.

 

[GFR7]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GFR7
We need a new kind of police force, based on intelligence.
It would be radically different to what we now have.



Of course when you said "a new kind of police force" you were talking in the same fashion as the person you voted for and now holds the most powerful political office in the world:

You and B. Hussein Obama and many other left-wingers believe that the Judeo-Christian based American Criminal Justice System needs a major overhaul.

I do NOT. I was likely referencing some sociology stuff I had read - I read many academic journals and knew a Sociology Professor who published a piece on new protocol for police. So drop it, Karl.

First you accuse me of being in with Traditional Youth Network , which is an extremist right-wing group which would like to force Orthodoxy on all.

Then you say I'm an Obama leftie.

Then I support Andrew Anglin and am a racist, misogynist Nazi.

Than I am ga-ga over Farage's UKIP.

I must be very great, to be able to be all these things. :think:

Has it ever occurred to you that I'm just a blabbermouth, bouncing ideas around? :chuckle:

 

[Uberpod1]

aCW's real reason for shutting down the thread was an attempt to slow Truths4yer down. That boy's on a roll. His very rational approach seems to outmatch aCW's bloviation with as a great a volume but without the over the top flamboyance.

 

[Eeset]

aCW's real reason for shutting down the thread was an attempt to slow Truths4yer down. That boy's on a roll. His very rational approach seems to outmatch aCW's bloviation with as a great a volume but without the over the top flamboyance.

I read this thread once in a while just to see aCW flounce.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
My point is if homosexuality is just another lifestyle, why aren't more people coming forward and admitting it?

It isn't. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is characterised by persistent romantic and/or sexual attraction to one biological sex. To call it a lifestyle is to suggest homogeneity and that is as inaccurate as to suggest the same for heterosexuality...

Lifestyle and culture are pretty much synonymous:

Lifestyle: . the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group

Culture: The sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another.

Would you like to discuss in detail the homosexual "culture" which I covered in Part 1 of this thread?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Heck, I'm proud of being a follower of Christ and wouldn't denounce my faith even in front of a B. Hussein Obama firing squad.

Is your "lifestyle" similar to every other Christian on the planet?

Yes! We're all followers of Christ and we do our very best to live by the guidelines that He gives us in Holy Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
You're even hesitant to talk about your homosexuality, surely you're not ashamed of it are you T4y?

Not ashamed to discuss sexuality but rather disinterested and it is inadvisable to share too much personal information of any sort online. It is also a needless distraction from debate.

One would think that you'd at least talk about your 'husband'/significant other and where you met (the specific location of the public restroom toilet isn't necessary), whether you two (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you currently only have one boyfriend/husband) have adopted little future sodomites/homosexual activists like yourself, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
There are two words that I use frequently when someone is claiming that the information that I'm providing is false or not entirely accurate:
Refute it.

The refutation of spurious claims is to point out that they're presenting unsubstantiated claims, though this should be accompanied by a demonstration of some sort.
1) Peer-reviewed studies,
2) Reputable national organisations with no clear bias,
3) International/long-standing pollsters (E.G. Pew/Gallop).
This does not mean that such sources are always reliable. The reliability of a peer-reviewed study for instance can be gaged by factors such as its journal's impact factor, its methodology and how that relates to its conclusion(s) and the findings of related research...

Again, as long as the "peer-reviewed studies" meet the approval of the thugs from the LGBT movement, then they're reliable sources (at least in your mind they are).

Feel free to bring up any article throughout this 3 part thread that I've posted and refute it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
As you said, most anal cancer in men is predominately caused by anal sex. However cervical cancer in women is brought on by numerous factors:

You think anal cancer isn't :s? Every factor you listed is basically related to HPV so applies to anal cancer too. Here are some others...

Anal cancer in males is predominately caused by unnatural sex. There are other factors (smoking) which leads to cervical cancer in women. Granted, heterosexual women who contract cervical cancer often times are promiscuous. Following God's plan for human sexuality would solve that problem (and for you lesbians out there, be sure to clean your sex toys!: http://www.empowher.com/sexually-tr.../hpv-sex-toys-and-your-sexual-health?page=0,0 ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Keep in mind that cervical cancer isn't confined just to heterosexual women, lesbos contract it too (in fact, lesbians are over represented when it comes to breast cancer

I love how you slided from one cancer in to a relatively unrelated one.

You didn't have a problem with talking about different kinds of cancer earlier, it appears that you do now. BTW, I've shown in a couple of different posts that women who contract breast cancer often times do so because of having an abortion. Many lesbians fit into that category:

The tie between homosexuality and abortion
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81598

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Plain and simply put T4y: Whether or not I approve of your buggery, the anal sphincter muscle wasn't meant to be penetrated, and bad things happen when it is.

Here you assert the objectivity of purpose. Demonstrate that purpose is objective. When you've done that you can start lecturing your hetero compatriots about anal sex and why YOU should get to dictate THEIR sex lives

I'm not sure if your two mommies told you about the birds and the bees T4y, but you didn't get here because of anal sex.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you're talking about HIV/AIDS infection by heterosexuals you better acknowledge that those who are contracting it either are:
1). Intravenous drug users (needle using junkies)*
2). Prostitutes*
3). Women who have sex with men "on the down low".
*Homosexuals are disproportionately represented in these areas.

I'll happily acknowledge it when you demonstrate it though it has no apparent relevance. IDU is an entirely separate transmission category and your point 3 is resultant from your hypocritical condemnations.

Refer to information provided from the Centers for Disease Control which I've provided in this 3 part thread (or you can look it up on the www yourself).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Sorry T4y, but the reason the vast majority of people leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind is because they know in their heart that they're doing something very wrong. Refer to the numerous testimonials throughout this 3 part thread.

Heavily biased anecdotal evidence with no longitudinal observation you mean? They don't know in their "heart" that something is wrong. They're indoctrinated to believe that it is from infancy. This is why people in many societies may find public nudity immoral, while in other parts of the world, people live naked and others still they wear burkas. You really don't have a leg to stand on.

Keep in mind that it's people like me that can no longer speak out publically that homosexual is an immoral lifestyle (refer to the recent post about Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran). You keep harping about discrimination towards those who engage in homosex; it's 2014 and your side is winning the culture war.

My point? People inherently know that they're going against God's Word, that is why so many change from living the immoral lifestyle we call homosexuality.

1) A video of over 30 former "Ex-gays", many of whom would at one time have given an "ex-gay" testimony:

We also know that some prominent cases are fictional:

Yet another homosexualist who is deeply disturbed by the fact that people are able to leave homosexual behavior (and often times desires) behind.

Not all alcoholics or those addicted to narcotics are successful in leaving their lifestyle behind (and very few ever leave the desire behind, hence the reason they can never drink again), why should homosexuality be any different?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Here's what your lifestyle brings: death.

Like Jesus then. As I said, you know almost nothing of my lifestyle. You seem to be a lonely old man with nothing to live for but spreading demonstrably unjustified hatred on this website. You are an archetypal Pharisee.

For someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do talk a lot about Him.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by GFR7
We need a new kind of police force, based on intelligence.
It would be radically different to what we now have.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Of course when you said "a new kind of police force" you were talking in the same fashion as the person you voted for and now holds the most powerful political office in the world:

You and B. Hussein Obama and many other left-wingers believe that the Judeo-Christian based American Criminal Justice System needs a major overhaul.

I do NOT. I was likely referencing some sociology stuff I had read - I read many academic journals and knew a Sociology Professor who published a piece on new protocol for police. So drop it, Karl...

Has it ever occurred to you that I'm just a blabbermouth, bouncing ideas around? :chuckle:

I give you much more credit than that GFR7/Scot: I'm convinced (since you were at one time a highly paid homosexual journalist) that you're part of an extremely powerful movement with a God-HATING agenda behind it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCW's real reason for shutting down the thread was an attempt to slow Truths4yer down. That boy's on a roll. His very rational approach seems to outmatch aCW's bloviation with as a great a volume but without the over the top flamboyance.

(Wow, the homosexual atheist Uberpod1 can write more than one sentence. Talk about being on a roll).

I read this thread once in a while just to see aCW flounce.

I see that you still enjoy hanging around the gay boyz Judy.

 

[GFR7]

Originally Posted by GFR7
We need a new kind of police force, based on intelligence.
It would be radically different to what we now have.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Of course when you said "a new kind of police force" you were talking in the same fashion as the person you voted for and now holds the most powerful political office in the world:

You and B. Hussein Obama and many other left-wingers believe that the Judeo-Christian based American Criminal Justice System needs a major overhaul.



I give you much more credit than that GFR7/Scot: I'm convinced (since you were at one time a highly paid homosexual journalist) that you're part of an extremely powerful movement with a God-HATING agenda behind it.

This could not be further from the truth. :nono:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I give you much more credit than that GFR7/Scot: I'm convinced (since you were at one time a highly paid homosexual journalist) that you're part of an extremely powerful movement with a God-HATING agenda behind it.

This could not be further from the truth. :nono:

Either you're an extremely well educated (check several pages back for GFR7/Scot's degrees) person who is a blabbering idiot and hence no one should pay attention to what you're posting, or you're not.

Which is it?

 

[GFR7]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I give you much more credit than that GFR7/Scot: I'm convinced (since you were at one time a highly paid homosexual journalist) that you're part of an extremely powerful movement with a God-HATING agenda behind it.



Either you're an extremely well educated (check several pages back for GFR7/Scot's degrees) person who is a blabbering idiot and hence no one should pay attention to what you're posting, or you're not.

Which is it?

I can be both a blabbering idiot (like you, darling :kiss and at other times, a serious poster.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I can be both a blabbering idiot (like you, darling :kiss

(Fag alert)

and at other times, a serious poster.

When will the readers of this thread know if you're being serious or not?

 

[GFR7]

(Fag alert)

When will the readers of this thread know if you're being serious or not?

They'll have to be discerning. :think:

Oh, you're so funny, aCW!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[GFR7]

At first I thought this was you, aCW. Surely down in Kentucky you teach the same to your congregation, and to your fellow Detectives? :think: It is efficient, as a plan, I suppose.

Pastor Promises 'AIDS-Free World By Christmas' If We 'Execute The Homos Like God Recommends'

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...s_if_we_execute_the_homos_like_god_recommends

 

[Truths4yer]

Lifestyle and culture are pretty much synonymous:Lifestyle: . the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group
Culture: The sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguishes one group of people from another.

So you've basically disproven your own point. Neither term applies to homosexuality any more than heterosexuality. I wouldn't even call Christianity a "culture" or "lifestyle" despite the terms being substantially more applicable there than to SO.

Is your "lifestyle" similar to every other Christian on the planet? Yes! We're all followers of Christ and we do our very best to live by the guidelines that He gives us in Holy Scripture.

The impression I've gotten here so far is that even some of the other Christians think you're a joke and there are certainly others I know irl that would think so.

Anyway, when is the last time you buried a child or burned somebody alive due to them being a witch?
​

Again, as long as the "peer-reviewed studies" meet the approval of the thugs from the LGBT movement, then they're reliable sources

How pathetic of you to try and retreat behind this guise of being the victim of LGBT oppression when I don't think I've even contested any of your sources yet. As I said, the usefulness of a study depends upon its methodology and whether the data collected with that methodology supports the conclusion. Typical tactics by heterosexists such as yourself include;
1) Using studies with unrepresentative or even deliberately biased sample populations to make generalisations about all LGBT people,
2) Using anecdotal evidence to do the same,
3) Using non-peer reviewed pseudo-scientific propaganda.
You seem to have a particular penchant for the second one, which tends to reveal more about intellect than dishonesty, though your dishonesty becomes apparent when you persist with anecdotes despite correction.

Feel free to bring up any article throughout this 3 part thread that I've posted and refute it.

You will find all refutations in my main essay on heterosexism:
http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/05/countering-heterosexist-arguments.html
If you want to link me to a specific post... not an anecdote... feel free. Were you molested by somebody of the same sex btw?

Anal cancer in males is predominately caused by unnatural sex.

You see this is why you have no credibility... you don't learn... I, perhaps generously, put it down to dishonesty, rather than stupidity. Medical care, such as anticoagulants or immunosupressants are unequivocally unnatural and their use saves lives. Naturalness is irrelevant to morality. Learn. Do not repeat the same BS which has already been corrected.

Following God's plan for human sexuality would solve that problem

Same principle again here. Demonstrate that your invisible bigot exists or stop referencing it.

You didn't have a problem with talking about different kinds of cancer earlier, it appears that you do now.

./round of applause. This is the first point where you got me. Not on a remotely important point but finally, you actually countered one point I made, bravo. First on this forum since I returned. I was wrong to criticise you for switching between cancers.

The tie between homosexuality and abortion

The only relevant part of the post you linked to was "A recent study found..." and the link you provided for that wasn't to the actual study and neither was the one below it, which is a broken link now anyway. Thankfully I've looked up the actual study.

I'm not sure how much confidence to have in it as;

• its journal appears to have no impact factor and
• the authors cite their own studies very heavily (not a good sign) and
• the odds ratios for some of its findings vary wildly between each cohort.

Anyhow, here are a number of quotes from it.

Saewyc et al. 2008, Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(3), 123–139:
"runaway and homeless youth are at higher risk for teen pregnancy, in part because survival sex or sexual exploitation can increase the frequency of sex and make it difficult to negotiate contraception (Warf et al., in press). A number of studies have documented that LGB youth have equal or higher rates of these risk factors for teen pregnancy compared to their heterosexual peers (Saewyc, 2005)."

"LGB youth may also have factors specific to their experiences and stigmatized identity. Goffman's theory of stigma management (1968) asserts people may engage in a number of strategies to either avoid or to cope with stigma. For LGB youth this may include avoiding disclosure, and simultaneously engaging in heterosexual dating and sexual behaviours as a form of “camouflage,” to avoid being identified as LGB and targeted for enacted stigma (Saewyc et al., 1999). Those who experience harassment and discrimination may choose pregnancy involvement as a way to deny their orientation, to prevent further enacted stigma. Increased substance use and abuse as a way of coping with stigma (Marshal et al., 2008; Poon et al., 2006) can also lead to unintended, and often unprotected, sexual behaviour. Alternately, if sexual education programs ignore LGB youth sexual health issues, they may conclude that the information is irrelevant to their lives, and “tune out” important information about contraception and safer sexual practices. As a result, they may be unprepared for healthy decision-making when engaging in opposite-gender sexual behaviour."

"teen pregnancy involvement for lesbian and bisexual teens was also significantly associated with discrimination due to sexual orientation and more experiences of exclusion, harassment, and violence (enacted stigma). Lesbian and bisexual teens who reported pregnancy involvement were significantly more likely to report discrimination and harassment than teens of their same orientation who have never been pregnant—which suggests that there may be some unique risk factors for sexual minority youth related to issues of societal stigma and social exclusion."

"The results of our study suggest that reducing rates of teen pregnancy among LGB youth will require a focus on reducing levels of stigma and sexual violence towards them. This may in part require interventions in the wider community, but efforts to create friendlier, more supportive atmospheres within schools...(may) have an effect on sexual violence and harassment directed toward LGB youth within the school setting."

Sounds like you're still a Pharisee.

I'm not sure if your two mommies told you about the birds and the bees T4y, but you didn't get here because of anal sex.

Here you assert the objectivity of purpose. Demonstrate that purpose is objective.

You haven't demonstrated that purpose is objective yet. Try again.

Keep in mind that it's people like me that can no longer speak out publically that homosexual is an immoral lifestyle (refer to the recent post about Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran).

Not interested in anecdotes, as mentioned. You're spreading your diatribe right here.

My point? People inherently know that they're going against God's Word

As I said, prove your invisible bigot exists.

Not all alcoholics or those addicted to narcotics are successful in leaving their lifestyle behind

We don't have the leaders and founders of alcoholics anonymous on national TV confirming that they've never seen anybody "cured". No mental health organisations regard heterosexuality or homosexuality to be addictions either.

Homosexuality seems no more superimposable on to a model of addiction than heterosexuality:

• Addictions appear to be initiated by engaging in specific actions (drinking, smoking, substance abuse, gambling) and only manifest in those who engage in those actions. This isn't the case with SO, which arises spontaneously in everybody, with awareness occurring at a young age, independently of any actions.
• Addictions involve an inability to control a certain behaviour, or refrain from satisfying the addiction for a sustained period, yet homosexuals are perfectly capable of doing so, just like heterosexuals. Many people are unattached for long periods. Some people, both homo and hetero are even celibate for their entire lives.
• Addiction also involves doing something despite significant detrimental consequences in your everyday life that arise directly from doing that thing (not indirectly from other people's prejudicial discriminations).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Lifestyle and culture are pretty much synonymous:

So you've basically disproven your own point. Neither term applies to homosexuality any more than heterosexuality. I wouldn't even call Christianity a "culture" or "lifestyle" despite the terms being substantially more applicable there than to SO.

Culture:
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/culture

Your beliefs goes right along with the vast majority of proud and unrepentant homosexuals, so I'm right there when it comes to homosexual culture. In order to know if you fit in with other aspects of the homosexual culture (sitting outside McDonalds Playland's checking out the menu) I'd have to know what sort of things you and whatshisname (or if you have multiple boyfriends like most homosexuals do, whatstheirnames) do for entertainment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Yes! We're all followers of Christ and we do our very best to live by the guidelines that He gives us in Holy Scripture.

The impression I've gotten here so far is that even some of the other Christians think you're a joke and there are certainly others I know irl that would think so.

And let me guess, they look to a homosexual atheist like you (who can't even admit that he's a homosexual) for spiritual guidance?

Anyway, when is the last time you...burned somebody alive due to them being a witch?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, as long as the "peer-reviewed studies" meet the approval of the thugs from the LGBT movement, then they're reliable sources

How pathetic of you to try and retreat behind this guise of being the victim of LGBT oppression when I don't think I've even contested any of your sources yet....

Because you can't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Feel free to bring up any article throughout this 3 part thread that I've posted and refute it.

You will find all refutations in my main essay on heterosexism:
http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/201...arguments.html
If you want to link me to a specific post... not an anecdote... feel free. Were you molested by somebody of the same sex btw?

I would read your blog, but I have very important things to do:

Watch the moss grow...

Regarding being molested: That usually falls under the behavior that you identify with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Anal cancer in males is predominately caused by unnatural sex.

You see this is why you have no credibility... you don't learn...

I'm not the one that engages in a behavior where anal cancer is disproportionately represented. Perhaps you should tell your fellow sodomites to "learn" not to engage in buggery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
The tie between homosexuality and abortion

The only relevant part of the post you linked to was "A recent study found..."

Bisexuality (the "B" in the LGBT acronym) plays a big role when it comes to abortion. Planned Parenthood even talks about abortion in the LGBT teens section.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/teens/lgbtq

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Not all alcoholics or those addicted to narcotics are successful in leaving their lifestyle behind

We don't have the leaders and founders of alcoholics anonymous on national TV confirming that they've never seen anybody "cured". No mental health organisations regard heterosexuality or homosexuality to be addictions either.

Homosexuality is a perversion (you won't hear mental health organizations saying that these days, heck, they hardly acknowledge that pedophilia is one). The fact is that God gave us free will to change, and thousands upon thousands of men and women that have engaged in homosexual behavior have changed.

Ask Him and I bet He'll even help you change T4y.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

At first I thought this was you, aCW. Surely down in Kentucky you teach the same to your congregation, and to your fellow Detectives? :think: It is efficient, as a plan, I suppose.

Pastor Promises 'AIDS-Free World By Christmas' If We 'Execute The Homos Like God Recommends'

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...s_if_we_execute_the_homos_like_god_recommends

I didn't read the article GFR7/Scot, but looking at the subject title it sounds like that particular pastor (who obviously doesn't preach repentance) would be better suited if he gave himself another title:

Mullah.

 

[GFR7]

I didn't read the article GFR7/Scot, but looking at the subject title it sounds like that particular pastor (who obviously doesn't preach repentance) would be better suited if he gave himself another title:

Mullah.

Oh, come, aCW - you surely see his point? He is following Old Testament law. He feels they don't want to repent.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I had temporarily closed the thread because a couple of TOL's homosexualists had mistaken the thread for a place where homosexuals often meet:

As you can see by GFR7 and Uberpod1's recent posts, homosexuals think that the contents of this thread (exposing homosexual behavior and the agenda that goes along with it) is a big joke.

Um, I rather think they (and most others) just regard you as a big joke - or probably a small one actually as you really aren't very funny...

 

[Nazaroo]

I didn't read the article GFR7/Scot, but looking at the subject title it sounds like that particular pastor (who obviously doesn't preach repentance) would be better suited if he gave himself another title:

Mullah.

aCW seems to be afraid of the idea of executing homos,
because obviously a few Roman Catholic 'priests' might have to be included.

Those who are truly and impartially against homos will have no problem
however agreeing with Muslims on the issue of executing homos,
just as we already execute murderers now, and also muslim terrorists.