tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post7878486990837867429..comments2024-03-27T11:13:34.520-05:00Comments on The Dunamis Word: HIV/AIDS & Health Care Reform, What Do We Really Know?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-28324210980522556662009-12-26T00:25:08.124-06:002009-12-26T00:25:08.124-06:00Supt. Burnett - I hope this is not too late, there...Supt. Burnett - I hope this is not too late, there's no need to reason with atheists and the reprobate, because they CAN'T understand the Word of God. <br /><br />You're wasting your time with Scott. His last post is a dead giveaway -- he said "If I look through the bible" which means he has not "looked through." Also, books are not to be "looked through". They are to be read and/or studied. His point makes no sense because God placed boils (skin lesions) on the Egyptians for not releasing the people of God from bondage.<br /><br />Exodus 9:9 And it shall become small dust in all the land of Egypt, and shall be a boil breaking forth with blains upon man, and upon beast, throughout all the land of Egypt.<br /><br />That's only the 2nd book in the bible, and he didn't get that far. YOU GAVE HIM THE TRUTH, from the Center from Disease Control and other references. He doesn't believe the facts of the CDC, nor the facts of the bible. The lake of fire (Hell) was created for a reason. Unfortunately every body is not going to heaven.<br /><br />Perhaps it's best to focus on people who want to BE SAVED!<br /><br />Blessings and best wishes for a prosperous new year!Philipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-5679536486026879472009-11-23T15:20:58.613-06:002009-11-23T15:20:58.613-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-62603731680996823882009-11-22T11:54:56.859-06:002009-11-22T11:54:56.859-06:00I wrote: Furthermore, I give the specific statisti...I wrote: <i>Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more."</i><br /><br /><b>Well Scott the problem is that there's not a lot of them anyway and if out of the near 14 million that say they are (that also believe in an afterlife and angels and some other stuff in the bible) then there's you, who's a pretend atheist Buddhist? What are you scott an anomaly</b><br /><br />Huh? I'm referring to the % of the US population to the % of the prison population. It's an example of the term is disproportionate, to be out of shape or proportion, which you used in your original post. Yet you don't even seem to know what the word means. Trying to call me anomaly doesn't change that. <br /><br /><b>The destruction of the Cannanites had nothing to do with physical illness, </b><br /><br />If I look though the Bible, I won't find God punishing people using physical illnesses? God wouldn't or couldn't use physical illnesses to punish people in the future? <br /><br /><b>it had to do with a total moral breakdown after over about 800 years of opportunity to change...and it also had to do with a whole community of individuals rejecting what was good, right and true. </b><br /><br />Homosexuality has been going on for thousands of years. As such, they've had thousands of years to change. And, based on this post, you seem to think that homosexuals are rejecting what is good, right and true.<br /><br /><b>the question is why don't YOU and other humanists and those full of anti-God morality avail yourselves to the cause of advising homosexuals that their lifestyle not only dangerous but also destructive and hrmful to themselves and to society in general. </b><br /><br />Harvey, I'm NOT saying that the lifestyle that many homosexuals are living is NOT unhealthy. I'm saying that it's possible for homosexuals to change their lifestyle to be healthy and still be homosexuals. This is evident by the fact that there are a number of individuals who are homosexuals but who do not fit these statistics. <br /><br />But you claim the statistics show this is impossible. This is based on YOUR theological position. Furthermore, you're using the <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redefine.html" rel="nofollow">logical fallacy of redefinition</a> in an attempt to support your theological beliefs. This is the Bad argument I've been referring to.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-18522616728354827132009-11-21T20:15:16.644-06:002009-11-21T20:15:16.644-06:00BTW,
The destruction of the Cannanites had nothin...BTW,<br /><br />The destruction of the Cannanites had nothing to do with physical illness, it had to do with a total moral breakdown after over about 800 years of opportunity to change...and it also had to do with a whole community of individuals rejecting what was good, right and true. <br /><br />Aside from taht, that wasn't too good of a deflection from the topic at hand...<br /><br />the question is why don't YOU and other humanists and those full of anti-God morality avail yourselves to the cause of advising homosexuals that their lifestyle not only dangerous but also destructive and hrmful to themselves and to society in general. <br /><br />Why Scott? I beginning to believe that it's because your subjective brand of morality just doesn't have the nerve...District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-53774504948440368292009-11-21T20:06:47.011-06:002009-11-21T20:06:47.011-06:00Scott,
You said:Furthermore, I give the specific ...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more."</i><br /><br />Well Scott the problem is that there's not a lot of them anyway and if out of the near 14 million that say they are (that also believe in an afterlife and angels and some other stuff in the bible) then there's you, who's a pretend atheist Buddhist? What are you scott an anomaly?<br /><br />You said:<i>"Harvey, HIV can only be sexually transmitted from another person who has HIV. It does not lurk in every man's rectum. If a man only have sex with a single male partner who is also monogamous and has tested NEGATIVE for HIV, then it's 100% positive he could not cannot catch HIV from sexual contact."</i><br /><br />Look scott, have you ever used your common sense to question this:<br /><br /><b>HIV is thought to have originated in non-human primates in sub-Saharan Africa and transferred to humans early in the 20th century. The first paper recognizing a pattern of opportunistic infections was published on 4 June 1981</b><b>[Worobey M, Gemmel M, Teuwen DE, et al. (October 2008). "Direct evidence of extensive diversity of HIV-1 in Kinshasa by 1960". Nature 455 (7213): 661–4.]</b><br /><br />This somehow got all the way down to 5 homosexual men in California where this epidemic broke out and ran through the homosexual community<b>[Gottlieb MS (2006). "Pneumocystis pneumonia--Los Angeles. 1981".]</b><br /><br />Now you mean to tell me out of ALL the groups that could get AIDS the homosexuals were somehow predispositioned for the spread of this disease that somehow and for some reason that it just decides to "jump" on homosexuals and pick on them because??? I don't know...just because???<br /><br />I mean if this came from chimp meat, didn't heterosexuals eat chimp meat too?<br /><br />Why do you think, that this disease initially and radically attacked homosexuals specifically as it continues to do today???<br /><br />Any thoughts as to WHY it has proven to be most virulent through, let's say homosexual contact as opposed to let's say, heterosexual sex???<br /><br />In all your tirade, you NEVER address the issue. You feel it better to condemn people to a totally expected and unhealthy lifestyle INSTEAD of advising them to change because you KNOW and the stats bear out that HIV/AIDS is a killer primarily to the homosexual community...<br /><br />Like I said where's your anti-God, humanist morality in that? Answer IF you could.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-19118372305733554132009-11-20T16:58:06.523-06:002009-11-20T16:58:06.523-06:00then I'll leave you alone to recover from this...<b>then I'll leave you alone to recover from this OBVIOUS shame. You said:A theist could claim that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?</b><br /><br />First, what part of the words "<i> I'm not saying this is a good argument. I'm using it for illustrative purpose only.</i>" don't you NOT understand? <br /><br />Do you think you can ignore parts of my comment so you can attempt to discredit me? This is just another example of your disingenuous tactics. <br /><br />Second, if this entire post is NOT appealing to biblical authority, then you're entire argument is based on SECULAR values, of heath, physical well being, etc. <br /><br />Where was your "compassion" for the Cannontes who God ordered to be completely destroyed, including women and children, due to their "wicked ways?" Was he not justified in committing genocide? <br /><br />So, how do you know these homosexuals are not SUPPOSED to die? <br /><br />In our discussion on evil in an earlier thread you wrote: <b>Other parts of God's nature include his justice, yet [none] says that when God exacts vengeance that it's too much…</b><br /><br />If you suggest God DOESNT want them to die, how do you know this? Wouldn't this be the equivalent of saying God's vengeance is too much?<br /><br />You commented <b>Secondly, I hate being used as a taxpayer to help fund (in a vicarious manner) immorality..but what can we say...it seems to be the American Way.</b> But what it it's really "God's Way" instead?<br /><br />Again, God ordered the entire Cannonte culture to be wiped out completely. Each and every one of them. <br /><br />Shouldn't you be praising God that he "only" increased our taxes and healthcare costs, instead of wiping out the entire US population? Do you not think he would be justified in doing just that? (Wipe out the entire US population based on what you consider "immoral behavior.")<br /><br />If God is in control, and if God is never surprised, then if you pay higher taxes, it's because he allows it. Just like God supposedly "allowed" Obama to become president. It's part of his plan.<br /><br />If this is the case, then you're be the one who is belly aching when you said <b>Secondly, I hate being used as a taxpayer to help fund (in a vicarious manner) immorality.</b> Just as you complained we were "belly aching" on the thread regarding the gang rape of a teenager. <br /><br />Again, I'M NOT SAYING IS A GOOD ARGUMENT any more than when you made it earlier. I'm merely noting that you're appearing to secular ideas when you say suffering should be reduced and that you're making assumptions about God's "vengeance", which you claimed was wrong in a different situation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-34162090414361908622009-11-20T16:56:41.121-06:002009-11-20T16:56:41.121-06:00Harvey wrote: Root-Bernstein then goes on to list ...Harvey wrote: <b>Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men. </b><br /><br />The key word here is MAY. Root-Bernstein is an HIV skeptic as the cause for AIDS. Apparently being a skeptic is OK, just as long as it supports YOUR position.<br /><br />Please see <a href="http://www.anaesthetist.com/icu/infect/virus/Findex.htm" rel="nofollow">Duesberg's Dismal Failure</a>, which discusses the issue of HIV skepticism in detail. <br /><br />To summarize, it's not clear that Root-Bernstein's hypothesis is correct.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-75537959959624016712009-11-20T16:56:10.671-06:002009-11-20T16:56:10.671-06:00I wrote: If you look closely, you'll see the s...I wrote: <i>If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison</i><br /><br /><b>Now why do I find that easy to believe?</b><br /><br />Harvey, do you know what the word 'disproportionate' means? It means <i>Out of proportion, as in size, shape, or amount.</i><br /><br />But does it specify any particular direction? No, it does not. <br /><br />So when I say <i>disproportionate number of atheists in prison</i> it doesn't necessarily mean more, it could mean less. If you actually looked at the statistics, you'd know that. Furthermore, I give the specific statistic in very next sentence, which shows it is disproportionately LESS, not more. <br /><br />Are you even reading my comments?<br /><br /><i>Compared to the number of atheist in the US population, 8-16%, the number of atheist in prison is only 0.12%.</i> This shows that the number of atheists in prison is disproportionally lower by a very significant margin. <br /><br />But if Judeo-Christians make up 80% of the US population, but make up 83% of the prison population, then the number of Judeo-Christians in prison is disproportionally higher, by a small amount. <br /><br /><b>The question is where do atheists come from anyway? </b><br /><br />Harvey, I'm NOT following you down this rabbit trail, only to have you later accuse me from running off topic. Nice try. <br /><br />I wrote: <i>In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?</i><br /><br /><b>WRONG! That will not happen my friend for obvious reasons. the BODY is not made to function the way homosexual men have sex. The rectum does not facilitate safe sex. I placed this in the article:</b><br /><br />Harvey, HIV can only be sexually transmitted from another person who has HIV. It does not lurk in every man's rectum. If a man only have sex with a single male partner who is also monogamous and has tested NEGATIVE for HIV, then it's 100% positive he could not cannot catch HIV from sexual contact. <br /><br />This is a fact, whether you choose to ignore it or not.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-16974165830995194512009-11-20T16:54:16.940-06:002009-11-20T16:54:16.940-06:00Harvey wrote: you have no clue when to step away f...Harvey wrote: <b>you have no clue when to step away from a bad argument. </b><br /><br />That's been my argument all along. You're making bad arguments. And I've been providing concrete examples based on your own posts and comments. You just don't know when to "Step away" from your own bad arguments. <br /><br /><b>homosexual community by attempting to make it seem as if homosexuality isn't as physically, mentally and emotionally damaging as the evidence states that it is…</b><br /><br />Again, this is only when you attempt to redefine define homosexuality as having multiples sex partners, doing IV drugs, etc. Which are all behaviors you do not find admirable in heterosexual couples either. <br /><br />This is the bad argument I'm referring to. <br /><br /><b>That's the ultimate dishonor to the homosexual crowd as I've already stated...what do you want them to do? Continue to suffer and die as the studies show that they do at much earlier stages and ages than the general population of the country? </b><br /><br />What do I want them to do? <br /><br />Get tested regularly for ANY STD. Practice monogamy. Do not do IV drugs. These are the very same prescriptions I would make to EVERYONE, not just homosexuals. And, based on YOUR OWN STATISTICS, this would prevent the spread of HIV. <br /><br />But you want to go BEYOND this, which is not supported by your statistics. Instead this is a THEOLOGICAL position. <br /><br /><b>SHOW SOME COMPASSION that you have in such great abundance without God!!!</b><br /><br />Harvey, do I need to spell this out for you?<br /><br />First, I don't even know if God exist, let alone that he would prohibit same sex relationships. <br /><br />Second, I think two people can have a meaningful same sex relationship. And I think they have the right to such a relationship just like everyone else. This is my compassion. <br /><br />But you ultimately think God will send these people to hell for ANY homosexual relationship, even if such relationship would NOT pose risk to their health and others. Therefore, you think your acting compassionately by prohibiting homosexuality completely. But, again, this is based on YOUR theological position.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-53054956447517028442009-11-20T01:34:55.281-06:002009-11-20T01:34:55.281-06:00Scott,
then I'll leave you alone to recover f...Scott,<br /><br />then I'll leave you alone to recover from this OBVIOUS shame. You said:<i>A theist <b>could claim</b> that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?</i><br /><br />Anyone COULD CLAIM anything, but in the article AS I STATE, I make no special appeal to God, his judgement or his authority...so what does that prove...It proves your inability to be intellectually homoset regarding this issue...<br /><br />You and I disagree over evolution but at least you're true to your beliefs...Here you're a yellow-belly waffler! You're understating and misstating the facts and trying to construe the facts with everything BUT the real issue. <br /><br />The science that you have so much value and respect for when it comes to evolutionary science, you throw out the window on this argument as I've said...I'll digress, BUT step to me CORRECTLY and PLEASE don't underestimate my intellectual abilities by INSULTING me with the horrible obfuscation and diversionary tactics that you've tried...<br /><br />I say BECOME a part of the solution! HELP and care for these people enough to tell them that their practices are placing them in danger...I know this because God tells me so through his word and SCIENCE backs it up...Since you can't speak in the name of my God, then speak in the name of yours...tell then that not even SCIENCE is on their side!!!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-54103931590261522562009-11-20T01:22:29.235-06:002009-11-20T01:22:29.235-06:00Scott,
And since you persist soooo much in this, ...Scott,<br /><br />And since you persist soooo much in this, I can't forget that I pointed out this...or should I say the SCIENTISTS pointed out this:<i>Root-Bernstein then goes on to list a number of diseases that may develop in the rectum as a result of the various anal sexual practices engaged in by homosexual men. <b>It is no wonder that, even apart from AIDS, homosexual men who engage in anal sexual activity have a higher incidence of immunosuppressive disease than heterosexuals.</b></i><br /><br />WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?...you mean homosexual men even have OTHER DISEASES that are at HIGHER RATES than their heterosexual counterparts??? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?<br /><br /><b>That CAN'T be the science, because SURELY Scott would be on the FRONT LINE championing the cause!!! WOULDN'T YA, Mr. science is your god!!!</b> <br /><br />Then the ARTICLE, which I put together, NOT IM MY WORDS BUT IN THEIRS SAID: <i>More recently, Scottish researchers found transmission of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among heterosexuals slower than among homosexual men.</i><br /><br />You MEAN there IS A BENEFIT to doing things God's way??? I NEVER HEARD THAT OUT OF OUR RESIDENT SCIENTIST SCOTT'S MOUTH! I WONDER WHY???<br /><br />C'mon, I know I'm over the top, but this stuff is WHAT'S IN THE ARTICLE and you CARE LESS!!!<br /><br />WHO HAS THE AGENDA AND BE HONEST!!! Because you're sure not being helpful to the cause!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-16639387634095082742009-11-20T01:13:29.443-06:002009-11-20T01:13:29.443-06:00Scott,
You said:"If you look closely, you...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>"If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison"</i><br /><br />Now why do I find that easy to believe? A person that's told they have no moral basis EXCEPT for what they give themselves and find agreement on in society and also told that their genes control their actions an proclivities are probably going to end up in prison or at least in conflict with others including others who also believe like them in surprising numbers even against the grain of the culture...<br /><br />The question is where do atheists come from anyway? Hume taught this cultural commensurable model, and I've questioned, IF most of the culture is Christian, and people are supposed to follow what is culturally commensurate, then how does atheism even EXIST in America...How does Buddhism the ultimate humanist religion even exist in a Christian culture? I guess you're just an anomaly all the way around.<br /><br />You said and asked:<i>In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?</i><br /><br />WRONG! That will not happen my friend for obvious reasons. the BODY is not made to function the way homosexual men have sex. The rectum does not facilitate safe sex. I placed this in the article:<br /><br /><i>"Thus, sexually active persons should be cautioned that, to our knowledge, <b>there are no nonsusceptible persons and that any single sexual encounter may lead to HIV transmission.</b> Research into biologic factors that modulate HIV transmission continues to be hampered by difficulties in identifying HIV transmitters and nontransmitters, infective and noninfective variants of HIV (if the latter exist in vivo), and persons relatively more or less susceptible to HIV infection.</i><br /><br />That's to all right? Heterosexual and homosexual right? That's what science says right? Why don't you respect what science says regarding this issue? Let's get more specific. I also stated this:<br /><br /><i> The increased risk of HIV infection for those homosexuals (and heterosexuals) <b>who engage in anal sex</b> is described by Root-Bernstein as follows:<br />"Immunological contact with sperm, or material carried in sperm, is increased in anal, as contrasted with vaginal or oral, intercourse. On reason has to do with the physiological differences of the rectum, vagina, and upper gastrointestinal tract. Vaginal tissue differs markedly from rectal tissue."</i><br /><br />Look at what else I point out that the SCIENCE (your previous to now god) says:<br /><br /><i>The rectal tissue presents an entirely different picture. The rectum is comprised of an extremely thin layer of tissue, densely entwined with capillaries. It lacks the thick layers of epithelium that protect the vagina and its ability to produce a protective mucus. Moreover, the intestines are studded with Peyer's patches. <b>Located along with the Peyer's patches are concentrations of M cells, which apparently function as portals through which the resident lymphocytes constantly sample the contents of the rectum for foreign material. These M cells have been shown to permit viruses such as HIV to gain access to the immune system from the rectum.</b> Thus, unlike the vagina, the rectum represents a place in the body through which the immune system can easily be reached, even under normal conditions. <b>Since microscopic tears and bleeding can accompany anal intercourse and infections but are rare in vaginal intercourse, anal exposure confers another means for semen components (and viruses) to enter the bloodstream, there to be immunologically processed.</b>"</i><br /><br />What's wrong now? you don't AGREE with the science? You say you think science can help make us BETTER? Why won't you communicate this to the homosexual to help make them BETTER now? Simply because a CHRISTIAN is speaking it? Isn't that a low down dirty rotten BIAS Scott?<br /><br />I men ignore EVIDENCE that could save a life because someone feels uncomfortable when it's communicated? <br /><br />Get a life Mookie!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-55660098593856038762009-11-20T00:46:40.880-06:002009-11-20T00:46:40.880-06:00Scott,
you said:You're only allowing me to co...Scott,<br /><br />you said:<i>You're only allowing me to comment because you think it's an opportunity to further prove your point.</i><br /><br />I've been more than gracious in allowing you to post because you don't stay on topic and you have no clue when to step away from a bad argument. My point is already set forth and an honest reading against what you're trying to perpetrate makes what I'm talking about PROVEN at least against your viewpoint which does the greatest damage to the homosexual community by attempting to make it seem as if homosexuality isn't as physically, mentally and emotionally damaging as the evidence states that it is...<br /><br />That's the ultimate dishonor to the homosexual crowd as I've already stated...what do you want them to do? Continue to suffer and die as the studies show that they do at much earlier stages and ages than the general population of the country? <br /><br />Give the homosexual a chance to live! Get enough backbone to tell them the truth that the SCIENCE which you value and regard so highly (isn't that a trip?) doesn't support their choice in life...Get the NERVE to contribute to society Mr. Need No God To Be Moral...help your fellow man and woman by encouraging them to a better life free of illness that proliferates within their community and is fueled by their activities...SHOW SOME COMPASSION that you have in such great abundance without God!!!<br /><br />Where's it at now? HELP your fellow man instead of pushing him down further letting them believe that everything is OK...DON'T EVER talk to me about your moral goodness when YOU can't even put yourself in the WAY to potentially save a life...all you can do is talk and criticize and display ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of value to this segment of America that's getting infected at a rate of almost 55% per year out of all HIV/AIDS infections...Homosexual MEN becoming infected by the droves and all you can criticize is why I say something...You WEAK, SPAGHETTI BACKED, humanist..,.GET A LIFE AND GET A CLUE!<br /><br />Yes I know I'm not being nice..it's not time for nice, people are dying and all you can think about is what a Christian is saying about it. Truth of the matter is if we waited for humanists like you to get involved based on you "purely altruistic" motives it would be MUCH worse than what it is today. <br /><br />It's time for battle and time to HELP SOMEONE besides yourself!<br /><br />Yea so this ddialogue does BENEFIT my position, because my position is to SERVE those that suffer homosexual or otherwise and the best way to serve them is to ask them to reconsider their ways and look at what they are actually up against in life and ask the question, is it worth it, when things can be som much better?District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-35407504312214068152009-11-19T13:23:01.840-06:002009-11-19T13:23:01.840-06:00At least thanks for staying focused on the issues ...<b>At least thanks for staying focused on the issues this time. I appreciate dialogue like this so we can objectively look at the facts…</b><br /><br />Harvey, <br /><br />First, my point here is that you're not objectively looking at the facts. <br /><br />You're only allowing me to comment because you think it's an opportunity to further prove your point. When this "dialog" no longer benefits your position, I will have "lost focus," etc. <br /><br /><b> Don't the same stats say that about 80% of Americans claim to be Christians? A n even greater percent claim religion of some sort? </b><br /><br />If you look closely, you'll see the study clearly shows a disproportionate number of atheists in prison. <br /><br />Compared to the number of atheist in the US population, 8-16%, the number of atheist in prison is only 0.12%. So, if we use your logic that lower incident rates are "better" we'd conclude that Christianity is somehow "undesirable"<br /><br />Again, this is NOT my argument. I'm merely using it as an example.<br /><br />Furthermore, it's likely that a higher rate of teen pregnancy among conservatives and religious families is because when their daughters get pregnant, they choose to carry the chid to term, rather than abort it. <br /><br />However, this does not change the fact that these same teen mothers have lower scores, worse physical heath and are nearly three times more likely to be incarcerated during in their early 20's. It's all there is black and white. <br /><br />Is the abortion the solution? Of course, not. These risks go down when women wait to have children. We should also provide better support for teen age mothers. Right? <br /><br />Again, I'm NOT suggesting this is an good argument, as I think abortion is an extremely poor form of birth control. I'm using it for illustrative purposes only. <br /><br /><b>However I CAN say that based on the numbers MSM (men having sex with men) are the highest HIV/AIDS rate category in the country..now matter what they believe or practice that's a FACT…</b><br /><br />And I've just used statistics to show that a Christian is roughly 133 times more likely to be in prison rather than a atheist. See how this works? <br /><br />Harvey, let's look at this from the opposite perspective. What's the solution?<br /><br />What do we have to do to prevent the spread of HIV? Well, that depends on the details of how the disease is spread. Right? <br /><br />But is the specific "cure" you're suggesting for this problem (obey God's prohibition against homosexuality) actually based the facts?<br /><br />To be specific, I'm guessing that you think taking any action prohibited by God is irresponsible. Therefore, you think any homosexual behavior, including that which is not at risk of spreading HIV is "irresponsible." <br /><br />You said <b>"In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist." </b> because you think monogamy is defined a single sexual partner between one man and one woman, which you think is a Christian virtue. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be monogamous. <br /><br />But do the statistics you've presented agree support this claim ? No, they do not. <br /><br />In reality, monogamy is defined as the practice of having a single sexual partner. And two uninfected homosexuals who practiced monogamy would NOT be at risk of spreading HIV. Right?<br /><br />What if I said the solution to crime is putting everyone in a medically induced coma? Could I not use statistics to show this would be a highly effective way to reduce crime? Sure. But would this be making a good argument? Of course not. <br /><br />Furthermore, by appearing to heath and well being, you're appealing to secular interests. A theist could claim that God is punishing these people using HIV. Anyone who would have any kind of contact with these people deserve whatever the get. Who are you to question God's judgment?<br /><br />Higher taxes is could be God's way of punishing us as a nation. Since we do not deserve God's grace, we should praise God for merely being alive.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying this is a good argument. I'm using it for illustrative purpose only.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-44725433315465888242009-11-19T10:08:28.434-06:002009-11-19T10:08:28.434-06:00Scott,
At least thanks for staying focused on the...Scott,<br /><br />At least thanks for staying focused on the issues this time. I appreciate dialogue like this so we can objectively look at the facts...<br /><br />What would be surprising about finding that most in jail or most mothers or (teen mothers anyway) were Christians or claimed to be Christian in the US? Don't the same stats say that about 80% of Americans claim to be Christians? A n even greater percent claim religion of some sort? <br /><br />So properly interpret the stats...We could quite reasonably expect to find the stats bearing out those facts when these people are asked about their beliefs...they never ask "are yo a practicing Christian" so you can't make the leap into saying as you're trying to say that practicing Christians are committing crimes and and becoming pregnant teen now can you?<br /><br />However I CAN say that based on the numbers MSM (men having sex with men) are the highest HIV/AIDS rate category in the country..now matter what they believe or practice that's a FACT...<br /><br />I can also say that the HOMOSEXUAL community claims more HIV/AIDS infections per year than the heterosexual community...no matter what they believe, which is aside from the point that is a FACT.<br /><br />What I can say is that transmission of HIV/AIDS in a heterosexual relationship is mechanically more difficult than in a homosexual relationship, no matter the belief systems that's a FACT.<br /><br />What I can say is that practicing homosexuals have per ca pita higher medical costs of both health care and Rx. No matter what they believe that's a FACT.<br /><br />What I can say is that on AVERAGE homosexuals live 20 years shorter life span than one who does not practice homosexuality, no matter what they believe, that is a FACT.<br /><br />Any exception is what can be expected from AVERAGES as actuaries would abide by the law of large numbers...This doesn't change because 1 couple or even a few thousand live longer, the FACT is that MILLIONS don't and many more MILLIONS never make it to any sense of a full life.<br /><br />All this I'm talking ASIDE from IV Rx use and hospital negligence etc...This is what happens and is happening to the homosexual community<br /><br />You display the ULTIMATE in unfeeling toward them by telling them they're fine and nothing to worry about etc...I display the MOST love for them by sounding the alarm and saying, <b>Look at what you're doing to yourselves...THIS isn't worth it!</b>District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-29687862164401591592009-11-19T09:43:34.659-06:002009-11-19T09:43:34.659-06:00The bible defines the term homosexual well. A man ...<b>The bible defines the term homosexual well. A man lying with man as with a woman is an accurate description. </b><br /><br />Actually, this is not a definition, it's a prohibition.<br /><br />Murder is the act of taking someone's life in cold blood. If I killed someone by purposely running them over in my car, this would be murder. This is in contrast to accidentally killing someone who jumps out in traffic. This is a definition. <br /><br />Thou shall not commit murder is a prohibition. It makes a moral judgment about something specifically defined. <br /><br /><b>What else can shorten a person's life span on average of 20 years and end up being called ADMIRABLE?</b><br /><br />Of the two homosexual couples I mended, one is over 50. So, by your "definition", since this couple is monogamous, does not use IV drugs and are still alive, then I guess these men couldn't possibly be homosexuals. Right?<br /><br /><b>There is NOTHING you can say to make it any differently as the stats don't even bear out an alternate scenario. So please quit your bellyaching.</b><br /><br />Harvey, imagine I said the all Judeo-Christian religions are morally wrong and that I could prove it using statistics? <br /><br /><a href="http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm" rel="nofollow">Out of all the prisoners surveyed in March of 1997</a>, over 83% were of the Judeo-Christian faith. While, only 1.1% of the prisoners surveyed were atheists. population. Note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%).<br /><br />Furthermore, <a href="http://www.reproductive-health-journal.com/content/6/1/14" rel="nofollow">a recent study shows</a> a disproportionate number of teen mothers and conservative religious beliefs. And these teens suffer a disproportionate number of problems in the areas of heath, education, abuse and crime. <br /><br /><i>The children of teen mothers in the U.S., on the average, have worse outcomes in a number of ways. They score lower in school achievement tests, have a greater likelihood of repeating a grade, are rated more unfavorably by teachers while in high school, have worse physical health, are more likely to be indicated victims of abuse and neglect, have higher durations of foster care placement, and are almost three times more likely to be incarcerated during adolescence or the early 20 s than the children of mothers who delayed childbearing; the daughters of teen mothers are more likely to become teen mothers themselves</i><br /><br />Now, imagine I complained about these how much of MY tax dollars are being spent on prison housing, the additional health care cost, abuse and crime! Why should I have to pay for the result their Christian lifestyle?<br /><br />Next, imagine I claimed that, as a pastor who finds Christianity "admirable", your "pro Christian agenda" promotes crime, abuse and results in lower standard of education, which makes it harder for people to get jobs and impacts our economy.<br /><br />Despite these statistics being accurate, clearly, this is a BAD argument, wouldn't you agree? <br /><br />The term Christian is NOT defined as crime, teen pregnancies, or poor education, anymore than then term Atheist is defined as crime, teen pregnancies, or poor education. Right?<br /><br />Just because you think Christianity is admirable, this doesn't mean you think crime, teen pregnancies or poor health and education is admirable. Right?<br /><br />So, if this is a bad argument when I make it, why is it somehow a good augment when you make it?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-18405303635354611012009-11-18T22:34:18.546-06:002009-11-18T22:34:18.546-06:00Scott,
The bible defines the term homosexual well...Scott,<br /><br />The bible defines the term homosexual well. A man lying with man as with a woman is an accurate description. <br /><br /><b>Lev. 18:22</b> ~ <i>“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”</i><br /><br /><b>Lev. 20:13</b> ~ <i>“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”</i><br /><br />As I have noted in <a href="http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/homosexuality-the-new-testament/" rel="nofollow">Homosexuality And The New Testament</a> the term was <i>(arsenes en arsenes)</i><br />So there is a thorough and adequate description of an immoral and well condemned sexual act between men (which includes women as well) specified in the biblical text. Not to mentio the Romans 1 passage. It's not in the least bit ambiguous.<br /><br />NOW, aside from all that and as I stated, my article makes no appeal to any of that although appealing to the bible would be adequate and justified...It's a superb rule of faith and practice, but there's enough health and social reason that homosexuality is not a wise sexual choice, and that NOBODY should be calling it admirable under any circumstance because to say so is simply a LIE and deceit based on the stats...<br /><br />What else can shorten a person's life span on average of 20 years and end up being called ADMIRABLE?<br /><br />Name just one activity that is known to have adverse effects on the body and community at large that we hail as admirable?<br /><br />Obviously, you're trying to make homosexuality seem normal too..."boy meets boy, they get married and live in bliss" right? What a FARCE...In the homosexual community, boy meets boy, leans what homosexual activity is about, meets another boy, meets another boy on average about 8 times...<br /><br />IF boy settles down with another boy (or girl for that matter) they may be monogamous but usually MUCH later in life and years...Promiscuity happens in this community and the numbers of HIV/AIDS infections arising from that community are still at levels if not worse than they were 20 years ago, BEFORE this was advertised (falsely) as a disease for all sexually active individuals.<br /><br />There is NOTHING you can say to make it any differently as the stats don't even bear out an alternate scenario. So please quit your bellyaching.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-90850309024852644872009-11-18T20:53:41.500-06:002009-11-18T20:53:41.500-06:00I said: The term homosexuality is not defined by a...I said: <i>The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men."</i><br /><br /><b>What kinda mess is that? Are you that illiterate or just that much of a relativist that nothing is outlined in the bible as being wrong? Well IF that's the case and you make such as startling claim, then HOW could I possibly be using the bible to condemn homosexuality? Since you know so much, I WILL DELETE every comment from you until you address that issue...Mr. bible literacy….</b><br /><br />Harvey, what about my statement that you do not understand?<br /><br />Please pay careful attention. I'm not saying that the Bible approves of homosexuality. <br /><br />I'm merely noting the definition of the term 'homosexual' is neither defined by the Bible nor is it defined by your personal beliefs or opinions regarding the moral status of homosexuality. <br /><br />While you implied it in your post, you just explicitly stated this in the following comment. <br /><br />Harvey wrote: <b>In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist.</b> <br /><br />Either you're trying to redefine monogamous or your trying to redefine homosexuality. <br /><br />First, to be monogamous is to have one sexual partner. However, monogamy does NOT require that partner to be of the opposite sex. Just because you might consider monogamy to be morally good and homosexuality to be morally bad, this doesn't mean that homosexuals cannot be monogamous. <br /><br />Second, to be a homosexual is to be attracted to someone of the same sex. It does not require you to have sex with more than one partner, acquire STDs or IV drug use. <br /><br />Therefore, two homosexuals can be monogamous, without STDs or IV drug use, and would NOT be at risk for contracting or spreading HIV. <br /><br />Again, the term homosexuality is NOT defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage any more than the term heterosexuality is defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-37324384692136093762009-11-18T11:17:17.795-06:002009-11-18T11:17:17.795-06:00Until this jerk named SCOTT can support the biblic...Until this jerk named SCOTT can support the biblical assertions taht he makes he won't be allowd to comment in this post. <br /><br />It's a shame that people like him are only interested in making assertions without even supporting what they say and then saying taht they don't have to. Well YOU have to and I'm tired of your garbage! <br /><br />Thoroughly answer before we put up with anymore of your mess....<br /><br />So brush off your bible scott and support at least ONE of the many assertions you make...That's will probably make at least TWICE out of over 200 or so comments that you've made on this blog...If you can do that and stay on focus you just may be able to add something to the conversation worthwile!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-39914789785490669332009-11-18T11:09:55.959-06:002009-11-18T11:09:55.959-06:00Scott,
You said this garbage also:First, Homosexu...Scott,<br /><br />You said this garbage also:<i>First, Homosexuality is not just about men. Women who have relationships with women are also homosexuals.</i><br /><br />No kidding, tell me something that I DON'T ALREADY LAY OUT THOROUGHLY in the article. <br /><br />You said:<i>"The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men."</i><br /><br />What kinda mess is that? Are you that illiterate or just that much of a relativist that nothing is outlined in the bible as being wrong? Well IF that's the case and you make such as startling claim, then HOW could I possibly be using the bible to condemn homosexuality? Since you know so much, I WILL DELETE every comment from you until you address that issue...Mr. bible literacy....<br /><br />Now you're some biblical authority and by your own admission know NOTHING about God's existence on down the line...<br /><br />So since you're an authority and you make an appeal to scripture to try to debunk my argument...have at it...You're OUTTA HERE until you do!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-63818427641954769782009-11-18T11:03:31.522-06:002009-11-18T11:03:31.522-06:00Scott,
You said:You intentionally choose to lump ...Scott,<br /><br />You said:<i>You intentionally choose to lump promiscuous behavior with same sex relationships because it suites your theologocal agenda.</i><br /><br />Show me where I am unfactual. I provide the references that i didn't concoct for my inforamtion. Where are yours? Only in your mind...That's not good enough!<br /><br />There is no liumping, it's just a fact. In addition monogamous homosexual sex does not exist. Most homosexual aren't like a man and a woman who get togethe from childhood or high school and stay together until only age. I know MANY heterosexuals like that. Most homos experiment firsty to find out what they are and then move on to additional partners...it's not NATURAL or normal...<br /><br />You said:<i>However, a fundamentalist Christian, you think homosexuality is wrong because "God said so."</i><br /><br />IDIOT...did you even read the article? Show me ONE reference otr appeal to the authority of scripture...YOU NUT!<br /><br />Homosexuality is wrong on a number of grounds and faith happens to be one of those grounds which is valid. If your nontheism or at least (non Christianity) after all Buddhism does make you at least a fake religious person...if that's a grounds for any of your assertions, then MINE is valid. the bible isn't outlawed or contraban, but I made NO APPEALS to it in teh article but you bring it up...<br /><br />What does this say? You HAVE AN AGENDA and as always that has nothing to do with the facts at hand only the points that YOU want to make without dealing with TRUTH...that's why I call you an IDIOT...if you're not one, stop acting like one...PLEASE1District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-75695329570935795422009-11-18T10:39:57.589-06:002009-11-18T10:39:57.589-06:00man and women faithful in a monogamous heterosexua...<b>man and women faithful in a monogamous heterosexual relations DON NOT GET AIDS 100% of the time. Lesbians still get the disease...MARRIEDS FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT that is ADMIRABLE, THAT'S what should be promoted! </b> <br /><br />Penetration of any kind, including those of a heterosexual couple has a higher risk of infection than NO penetration. The same drug use by a homosexual individual would also lower the immune system of a heterosexual person. Therefore, LESBIANS (not bisexuals) FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS, would be even lower than a heterosexual couple, given the same factors. <br /><br />Does this mean this behavior should be "admired"? i'm guessing you'd say no. <br /><br />If so, this represents another failure to realize the facts you've presented do NOT support your theological position. <br /><br />Examples? You attempted to show that Professor Behe's research "proved" that humans did not share a common ancestor with great apes and Behe's photo is clearly present on at least two of your articles. <br /><br />But, you failed to realize that Behe himself admitted we DO share a common ancestor with great apes! <br /><br />Again, I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. And you say you're having fun at MY expense?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-59435988910266784102009-11-18T10:39:12.053-06:002009-11-18T10:39:12.053-06:00There no dodge, it's only that you have no clu...<b>There no dodge, it's only that you have no clue what your asking trying to make a point that not in question...Noone is questioning promiscuity or drugs...so it's a NON STARTER!</b><br /><br />Harvey, you know exactly what I'm referring to. You simply refuse to admit it. <br /><br />You intentionally choose to lump promiscuous behavior with same sex relationships because it suites your theologocal agenda. <br /><br />I wrote: <i>First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you</i><br /><br /><b>No what you are doing is being ANNOYING! That's ALL that you are doing. I'm having a little fun at your expense too, you're kinda like a lab rat at the moment.</b><br /><br />Harvey, I've clearly pointed out at least one example of misquoting or other disingenuous behavior in at least four of your posts. Just because you pretend they do not exist, doesn't mean they are not there for all to see. <br /><br />I wrote: <i>You ask:Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this?</i><br /><br /><b>And ABCK ATCHYA...What does me having to be a Christian have to do with it…</b><br /><br />Harvey, a non-theist is a NEGATIVE definition. It indicates the absence of a belief in Gods or God. To be clear, there simply isn't enough evidence to think a God like being has actually done anything in particular, let alone that he disapproves of same sex relationships. <br /><br />However, this wouldn't prevent me from having some other POSITIVE reason to think same sex relationships are wrong. In other words, just because I do not think a supernatural being created the universe, it doesn't mean I necessary think same sex relationships are moral. <br /><br />But what is my actual position? I'm a heterosexual. I do not go around suggesting straight people "try" homosexuality. It's not my thing. But do I think ALL same sex relationships are immoral? No. Why? Again, Obama's statement sums it up quite well. <br /><br /><i>You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.</i><br /><br />Again, because I know several monogamous, non-promiscuous, non-drug using homosexual couples that I conceder admirable. <br /><br />However, a fundamentalist Christian, you think homosexuality is wrong because "God said so." <br /><br /><b>Now YOUR opposition to men certainly CAN'T be based on the evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is both destructive to the body and harmful to society, or else we wouldn't be having this convo right? I mean the homosexuals in Canada even realize the condition they are in BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES and the effects of the disease...why DISCREDIT them in an effort to promote your ANTI-CHRISTIAN and Anti-Christ world view?</b><br /><br />Again, your clearly attempting to redefine the term Homosexual to suit your theological agenda. <br /><br />First, Homosexuality is not just about men. Women who have relationships with women are also homosexuals. The term homosexuality is not defined by any prohibition the Christian Bible might have about men "lying" with other men. <br /><br />Second, the term homosexuality is NOT defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage any more than the term heterosexuality is defined as promiscuous behavior, STDs or IV drug usage. <br /><br />I wrote: <i>Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous?"</i><br /><br /><b>That point obviously got by you YET AGAIN.</b><br /><br />Harvey, I know the point your TRYING to make. And it's transparent. <br /><br />You're trying to redefine the term Homosexual to suit your theological agenda. The frequency in which a person has sex with other partners is NOT part of the definition of homosexuality. <br /><br /><b>even monogamy when one is committed and the other isn't doesn't stop the devastation associated with the disease…</b><br /><br />So, by your "logic", two monogamous men who are not infected, would not become infected. Right? Yet, would these two monogamous men not still be homosexuals? <br /><br />Would these men only be homosexuals if they were NOT monogamous? Really?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-37957878930992092292009-11-16T20:50:15.479-06:002009-11-16T20:50:15.479-06:00Scott,
There no dodge, it's only that you hav...Scott,<br /><br />There no dodge, it's only that you have no clue what your asking trying to make a point that not in question...Noone is questioning promiscuity or drugs...so it's a NON STARTER!<br /><br />The only thing at question is the immoral sexual behavior...HOMOSEXUALITY is immoral no matter who does it...CONCLUDED!<br /><br />You said:<i>First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you</i><br /><br />No what you are doing is being ANNOYING! That's ALL that you are doing. I'm having a little fun at your expense too, you're kinda like a lab rat at the moment. <br /><br />You ask:<i>Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this?</i><br /><br />And ABCK ATCHYA...What does me having to be a Christian have to do with it...YOU RAISE THE ISSUE not me! So it's fair, ARE YOU IN DISAGREEMENT because you're a radical atheistic/Buddhist or is there some moral reason...I spent the article talking about the MORAL, SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL REASONS and you claim it's because of my belief system...IS IT BECAUSE OF YOUR THAT YOU DISAGREE? In fact here's another of your references:<br /><br /><i>You intentionally choose to present this matter as black and white, all or nothing, because it suits your theological agenda.</i> <br /><br />Now YOUR opposition to men certainly CAN'T be based on the evidence that the homosexual lifestyle is both destructive to the body and harmful to society, or else we wouldn't be having this convo right? I mean the homosexuals in Canada even realize the condition they are in BECAUSE OF HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITIES and the effects of the disease...why DISCREDIT them in an effort to promote your ANTI-CHRISTIAN and Anti-Christ world view?<br /><br />You said:<i>"Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous?"</i><br /><br />That point obviously got by you YET AGAIN...the point was that these relationships normally allow the disease to spread and proliferate through the homosexual community as is evidenced today...even monogamy when one is committed and the other isn't doesn't stop the devastation associated with the disease...you're kind of off track and not too focused, although I'm amused I may shut you down because you are drawing individuals away from the point of the article with your sensational rants and ramblings...I'll think about it.<br /><br />Then you say this:<i>"But if we use this same logic, women who ONLY have sex with other women (NOT BISEXUALS), would be "better" than even heterosexual relationships, because they would have a lower HIV incident rate."</i><br /><br />NO, if we use the correct "logic" as you state man and women faithful in a monogamous heterosexual relations DON NOT GET AIDS 100% of the time. Lesbians still get the disease...MARRIEDS FAITHFUL IN RELATIONSHIPS DO NOT that is ADMIRABLE, THAT'S what should be promoted! <br /><br />Now since the benefits are so great WHY SHOULDN'T monogamous heterosexual relationship be promoted?District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357475346759651140.post-3366212004009863822009-11-16T20:27:51.654-06:002009-11-16T20:27:51.654-06:00Harvey,
You are DOGGING THE QUESTION ONCE AGAIN....Harvey, <br /><br />You are DOGGING THE QUESTION ONCE AGAIN.<br /><br /><i>Do you consider promiscuous heterosexual relationships "admirable?" Are heterosexual couples that use drugs "admirable?" Do consider sex outside of marriage "admirable?" I'm guessing the answer to these questions is a resounding NO. And, I think Obama would agree with your whole heartedly. <br /><br />So why would you assume Obama would find these behaviors admirable in a homosexual relationship? I mean, do you really think this is true? Really?</i><br /><br /><b>Are you merely saying he doesn't because of your RADICAL ATHEISTIC beliefs? That's the question you should ask and answer. A mere cursory folling of Obama's speeches point out his affinity for the gay agenda CLEARLY...you're just a radical atheist who's unlearned on the subject. </b><br /><br />Huh? <br /><br />First, I'm pointing out that you're up to your usual technique of smearing anyone who doesn't agree with you. If Obama does share you beliefs then it's somehow necessary to polarize his views and paint him in a negative light. <br /><br />Second, what does me being a non-theist have to do with this? I'm not even sure if a non-material being exists. As such, why would I assume he would disapprove of same sex relationships if he did?. This simply does not follow. Instead, this is your claim.<br /><br />Are there not other theists that agree with Obama? And isn't Obama himself a theist? <br /><br />If so, then it appears you're just using the word Atheist as an attempt to smear my character because I disagree with you. <br /><br />Third, I'm asking because I know several monogamous, non-promiscuous, non-drug using homosexual couples that I conceder admirable. It's obvious that they care about each other very deeply. One couple in particular are upstanding members in their community who owns a business that Laura would probably love to shop at. <br /><br />I believe this is what Obama is referring to when he said: <i>"You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman."</i><br /><br />You intentionally choose to present this matter as black and white, all or nothing, because it suits your theological agenda. <br /><br /><b>on average homosexual men have 8 relationships. Do the numbers and you'll soon figure out that the group proliferating the disease the most out of all possible groups are homosexual men.</b><br /><br />Harvey, would you not consider a heterosexual man who had 8 sexual partners promiscuous? Are you really suggesting you'd consider this behavior admiral?Really?<br /><br />So then why would Obama find it admiral in a homosexual relationship?<br /><br /><b>according to what's stated in the article lesbian women also share a high incidence of mental health issues..</b><br /><br />Gee Harvey, if you were vilified by society for being attracted to women, do you think you it might effect your mental well being?<br /><br /><b>In addition lesbian women cannot be placed in a vacuum and the disease proliferates through their community also along with a myriad of others STD's. </b><br /><br />I guess my point has gone over your head once again. Or perhaps you simply do not want to acknowledge it?<br /><br />Your entire argument seems to resolve around the idea that contact types with the lowest HIV incident types are somehow "better" than contact types with higher incident rates. For example, men who have sex with men is somehow "worse" because they have a higher HIV incident rate than heterosexual couple. <br /><br />Would this not be accurate? <br /><br />But if we use this same logic, women who ONLY have sex with other women (NOT BISEXUALS), would be "better" than even heterosexual relationships, because they would have a lower HIV incident rate. <br /><br />That such a group is NOT listed does not mean that, based on the statistics, such a group would have the lowest incited rate. Does it? <br /><br />Of course, this wouldn't fit with your belief that HIV is God's punishment for ALL homosexual behavior, including include women who only have contact with other women (excluding bisexuals) Would it?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.com