Homosexuality

[kejonn]

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 11 2009,02:40)

With the percentages of homosexual men who prey on boys it is only common sense for the Boy Scouts to prohibit homosexual club leaders. But Stu has no common sense. thinker

You still have NOT established that homosexuals are more apt to be predators than hetero men. But don't let facts get in the way!

[kejonn]

Both of these polls are very unscientific, and thus worthless. It is not a poll taken randomly from a large population of both males and females, and judging by the thread participation, only males are voting here. How many girls were approached by an older male?

Better statistics done elsewhere show no correlation with homosexuality and sexual predation.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,22:39)

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 11 2009,02:40) With the percentages of homosexual men who prey on boys it is only common sense for the Boy Scouts to prohibit homosexual club leaders. But Stu has no common sense. thinker You still have NOT established that homosexuals are more apt to be predators than hetero men. But don't let facts get in the way!

I was talking abut the Boy Scouts. Heterosexual predators would not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts. However, a known predator of any kind should not be allowed to be a leader in the Scouts.

thinker

[TimothyVI]

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 12 2009,01:43)

I was talking abut the Boy Scouts. Heterosexual predators would not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts. thinker

That just does not make any sense thinker.

Why would a heterosexual predator who could very likely prey on small boys as well as girls, not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts?

Are you saying that a heterosexual predator would only prey on little girls, and a homosexual predator would only prey on little boys?

I think that a child predator is sick in the head and would prey on children, period.

Tim

[KangarooJack]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 12 2009,03:44)

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 12 2009,01:43) I was talking abut the Boy Scouts. Heterosexual predators would not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts. thinker That just does not make any sense thinker. Why would a heterosexual predator who could very likely prey on small boys as well as girls, not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts? Are you saying that a heterosexual predator would only prey on little girls, and a homosexual predator would only prey on little boys? I think that a child predator is sick in the head and would prey on children, period. Tim

Timothy,
You did not cite my statement in its entirety. Look again.

thinker

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2009,17:27)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) Your pop psychology is trivial t8.   I think this says it all: If you say to anyone from a group that you do not belong to (and especially if it has been persecuted for their looks, culture or beliefs), whether they be negro, jew, homosexual, christian, female, male, poor, foreigner, disabled, then you are persecuting them. You have not actually stated what the persecution is!  And you certainly have not said what part of me telling you that your faith is a lame delusion is PERSECUTION. I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family. Stuart Hi Stu Whats wrong Stu, is t8's logic to sound for you? Quote (Stu @ Aug. 09 2009,05:18) I love the christian but hate the mental illness from which they suffer, while Jesus tells you to hate your family. So there you have it. We hate the mental illness that you suffer as an athiest and the homosexual who thinks its normal to have sex with the same sex, but we love you and the gays! If you consider that persecution, Oh well! Persecution is the homosexual community trying to push their agenda down the boyscouts thoat! As far as your misconstrued understanding of Jesus words, take it up with him, for we have already explained to you his meaning! WJ

It is not the alleged words of Jesus I am interested in really. It is Saul of Tarsus and his homophobia letter to the Romans that makes advocates of the NT the murderous bullies.

The only party here that is actually proclaiming an intention of violence against a specific group, or describing them with their hate word evil is religiously deluded people.

I cannot think of a better example of religious delusion than suggesting people deserve to die for a religious crime (homosexuality, NOT sexual connection without consent) that has no victims.

As for the boy scouts, not only is their requirement to believe in an Imaginary Friend ridiculous for children yet to develop abstract thinking, the statement that they do not allow homosexual members is a joke when you consider the age group they are recruiting. Organisations like this that create a 'sanitised' society (by their own definition) do young people few favours in developing a socially responsible view.

Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or religious belief is illegal in my country but it is always the religious who are pushing for exceptions here and their so they can maintain their Medieval prejudices. In the UK it is more prevalent, for example in the way publicly-funded schools try to get around discrimination laws as they try to favour the hiring of religious staff.

Will you be contributing to this charity?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21….b3.html

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 11 2009,17:39)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 07 2009,21:17) All these homophobia threads.  They are very clear cut and all completely necessary.  Those who started them have comprehensive and widespread data from unbiased research that provides damning evidence of what they are claiming. [/sarcasm] Stuart Hi Stu The word homophobia is a cheap word that has no meaning to us who are not afraid, no more than a newly invented word like “Moralphobia” means to you or the gays! BTW. why do you have so much passion in defending their immoral acts?     WJ

I think loving another human is a moral act, and your moralphobia in opposing the expression of that love, and advocating death for a victimless religious crime is immoral.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 11 2009,10:49)

WhatIsTrue,Aug. wrote: [/quote] Again, so what is wrong with my statement: Quote In other words, it was an arbitrary rule that had no real purpose other than as a stumbling block for God's “chosen people”. I have told you twice now, it is not a stumbling block. It is a law placed to see if the people are serious about obeying it. There are always people who want the good that comes from agreement, but have no idea about the daily tedium. So God included some tedium to see if the people really wanted covenant with him. That is the same as it is with some “Christians” who are willing to “join the church” so long as it does not make them uncomfortable. Or yelled at. Or attacked for their biases. As soon as some neighbor tries to make it hot for Christians, or churches, they fold. Not all Christians, mind you, but enough to make it a problem. Then there are others who are willing to put up with anything as long as it makes for peace in the neighborhood. THAT is not Christianity, that is “churchanity.”

Do you mean like your god's brinkmanship in demanding that Abraham kill his own son?

What is it like to live in an ancient fantasy world?

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,23:53)

I do not post against believers, I post against beliefs. I do not hold anyone in contempt for their beliefs unless such beliefs lead them to infringe upon the rights of others.

Well said.

Stuart

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,06:44)

Both of these polls are very unscientific, and thus worthless. It is not a poll taken randomly from a large population of both males and females, and judging by the thread participation, only males are voting here. How many girls were approached by an older male? Better statistics done elsewhere show no correlation with homosexuality and sexual predation.

Hi Kejonn

I think you are wrong.

Because the poll being in small numbers with the results that are so far stagaring to say the least.

Imagine if the big numbers were done here what it might show.

Your logic seems to be like a man digging up a shovel of dirt and finding a couple of precious jewels is not a good indication that there are more jewels in the area.

WJ

[WhatIsTrue]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2009,01:50)

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,06:44) Both of these polls are very unscientific, and thus worthless. It is not a poll taken randomly from a large population of both males and females, and judging by the thread participation, only males are voting here. How many girls were approached by an older male? Better statistics done elsewhere show no correlation with homosexuality and sexual predation. Hi Kejonn I think you are wrong. Because the poll being in small numbers with the results so far stagaring to say the least. Imagine if the big numbers were done here what it might show. Your logic seems to be like a man digging up a shovel of dirt and finding a couple of precious jewels is not a good indication that there are more jewels in the area. WJ

Wow.  Have you ever taken a class on statistics?  I hesitate to even point this stuff out, because it would be so basic to anyone who has been in such a class for even a week.

Lesson 1 of Statistics 101: The confidence level that you can have in the result of any statistical survey is directly related to the sample size of that survey.  In other words, the smaller the sample size, the less reliable the results.

For example, if I stand on a street corner and ask the first five people whether or not they are gay or straight, what would you conclude if all five people said yes?  Which of the following would you think:

A.  What a precious jewel I have found in my small sample of the population.  I can now conclude that all people are gay!
B.  I should probably dramatically increase the number of people I ask before I draw any conclusions.
C.  Is it possible that the bar across the street, named “The Golden Banana”, might be attracting a disproportionate representation of homosexuals to my survey?

If you answer anything other than 'A', you should be prepared to retract your previous post.  You would be better off mining Christian websites for unfavorable statistics on homosexuals than trying to pass off the polls on this website as anything other than conversation fodder.

By the way, while 'C' is meant as a bit of joke, it is also representative of the fact that the people answering your polls are generally Christians, on a Christian website, who furthermore are also interested in the topic of predatory behavior amongst homosexuals.  Can you see how that might produce slightly more biased results than a real scientific poll of random adults throughout all demographics in society?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2009,14:42)

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,23:53) I do not post against believers, I post against beliefs. I do not hold anyone in contempt for their beliefs unless such beliefs lead them to infringe upon the rights of others. Well said. Stuart

Hi Stu

And just what is it you think we are doing?

Can you show us any statement on here that is against them as humans? No we are against there own beliefs that it is Ok to have sex with the same sex.

We condemn their beliefs which translate into the way they live.

We have said over and over “hate the sin, and love the sinner”, but you guys have demonized us into haters of the homosexuals by labeling us as being Homophobic, when there is not a shred of evidence in our post that suggest such, but merely a pointing out that their actions are against nature and is sin and that the rate of pedophilia against 12-16 year olds is higher than the heterosexuals.

I have invented a new word for you guys….

“MORALPHOBE” OR “MORALPHOBIA“.

WJ

[KangarooJack]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2009,08:23)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2009,14:42) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,23:53) I do not post against believers, I post against beliefs. I do not hold anyone in contempt for their beliefs unless such beliefs lead them to infringe upon the rights of others. Well said. Stuart Hi Stu And just what is it you think we are doing? Can you show us any statement on here that is against them as humans? No we are against there own beliefs that it is Ok to have sex with the same sex. We condemn their beliefs which translate into the way they live. We have said over and over “hate the sin, and love the sinner”, but you guys have demonized us into haters of the homosexuals by labeling us as being Homophobic, when there is not a shred of evidence in our post that suggest such, but merely a pointing out that their actions are against nature and is sin and that the rate of pedophilia against 12-16 year olds is higher than the heterosexuals. I have invented a new word for you guys…. “MORALPHOBIA“. WJ

Stu is a Christophobe.

thinker

[Paladin]

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2009,14:21)

Paladin, I guess this is a case of not defining terms.  Let me illustrate it this way. If I tell my three year old not to eat any cookies before dinner, there is a clear reason behind it.  I don't want him to fill up on junk, or overload on sugar.  But, if, when he gets his dinner, I tell him not to eat any of the food that is on the top left corner of his plate – or he will forfeit his whole dinner – I think that most people would find it extremely petty of me to even think of enforcing such a rule.  It would certainly test his obedience, but it would merely represent a potential stumbling block on his way to eating a full meal. It's a rule that serves no other purpose than to give him another way to disobey me.  What would you call it?

Completely misses the point of my post.

If you and your three year old come to the table to form up some rules of agreement, the result of which is that you will gove him certain priveleges not given to other children of normal households, but which are to be special to your household; and if in this agreement, you list punishments for going back on the agreement, and they are written in terms he can understand, like “time out” or “toys taken away,” etc., and he is capable of understanding the meaning of agreement, and you both enter into the agreement after the terms are listed, if he understands the significance of not eating from one quarter of his plate, and agrees to it, there will be no problem of his making; Unless and until you change either the rules, or the diet, or the plate, without considering his side of the agreement.

This is not a case of God enlisting children in an agreement. He did not hold anyone under the age of twenty, accountable to the terms of the covenant. They were all adults what heard the terms of Covenant, agreed to the terms of Covenant, and entered into Covenant with God.

While I like your analogy using children, it is innappropriate to the illustration precisely BECAUSE God did not deal with children in forming his covenant. He dealt with adults who had the capacity to understand and make agreements.

It would be like the difference between you and I making an agreement, with advantages to each of us for making covenant, and disadvantages if either of us broke covenant; and the same thing happening between myself and your three year old child. It would be unfair to expect your child to accept the consequences of a covenant not understood by him due to lack of experience, or lack of expertise in adult thinking.

Leave out the three year old, consider adult decision making, and adult understanding of consequences, and you will begin to see what really is being considered.

[Paladin]

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,16:08)

(Kejonn)

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 10 2009,12:07)

If you drive up to a stop sign in traffic, do you say “You'll have to do better than that, explain yourself?” Or do you stop? I was informing, not educating. You can go online for your education, you have already been informed. (Kejonn) IOW, another assertion that you can't back up.

(P)Nope! An assertion that needs no “backing up.” Like I told you, I have informed you, your educaton on the subject is YOUR problem not mine.

If you and I are in the same room, and I announce to you, “Your hair is on fire,” it remins for you to ascertain whether or not your hair is really on fire, or if I am making some off the wall assertion that is not possible.

You may assume “off the wall assertion” value to my remark, but that is YOUR decision, and is all right with me. In the meantime, you really should be checking your hair. That would at least be the prudent thing to do.

[WhatIsTrue]

Quote (Paladin @ Aug. 12 2009,05:29)

Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Aug. 11 2009,14:21) Paladin, I guess this is a case of not defining terms. Let me illustrate it this way. If I tell my three year old not to eat any cookies before dinner, there is a clear reason behind it. I don't want him to fill up on junk, or overload on sugar. But, if, when he gets his dinner, I tell him not to eat any of the food that is on the top left corner of his plate – or he will forfeit his whole dinner – I think that most people would find it extremely petty of me to even think of enforcing such a rule. It would certainly test his obedience, but it would merely represent a potential stumbling block on his way to eating a full meal. It's a rule that serves no other purpose than to give him another way to disobey me. What would you call it? Completely misses the point of my post. If you and your three year old come to the table to form up some rules of agreement, the result of which is that you will gove him certain priveleges not given to other children of normal households, but which are to be special to your household; and if in this agreement, you list punishments for going back on the agreement, and they are written in terms he can understand, like “time out” or “toys taken away,” etc., and he is capable of understanding the meaning of agreement, and you both enter into the agreement after the terms are listed, if he understands the significance of not eating from one quarter of his plate, and agrees to it, there will be no problem of his making; Unless and until you change either the rules, or the diet, or the plate, without considering his side of the agreement. This is not a case of God enlisting children in an agreement. He did not hold anyone under the age of twenty, accountable to the terms of the covenant. They were all adults what heard the terms of Covenant, agreed to the terms of Covenant, and entered into Covenant with God. While I like your analogy using children, it is innappropriate to the illustration precisely BECAUSE God did not deal with children in forming his covenant. He dealt with adults who had the capacity to understand and make agreements. It would be like the difference between you and I making an agreement, with advantages to each of us for making covenant, and disadvantages if either of us broke covenant; and the same thing happening between myself and your three year old child. It would be unfair to expect your child to accept the consequences of a covenant not understood by him due to lack of experience, or lack of expertise in adult thinking. Leave out the three year old, consider adult decision making, and adult understanding of consequences, and you will begin to see what really is being considered.

Good point, but you are factually incorrect.

Deuteronomy 29:14-15: “I make this covenant and this oath, not with you alone, but with him who stands here with us today before the LORD our God, as well as with him who is not here with us today… .“

Deuteronomy 32:46: “…Set your hearts on all the words which I testify among you today, which you shall command your children to be careful to observe—all the words of this law.“

What you describe is an individual agreement entered into by consenting individuals, but the old covenant was entered into by a portion of one generation of a people and imposed on all peoples of the current and subsequent generations. It would be like getting one son to agree to the special rules, and then imposing those rules on all of his siblings whether or not they agreed.

Furthermore, read Exodus. Not even the first generation of the “covenant makers” had much of choice. God extorted agreement from them by threatening punishment for non-compliance.

Exodus 12:12-14: “For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD. Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are. And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.”

In context, he is basically saying, “Do as I say, or I will kill your firstborn.” Up to that point, no one had agreed to anything, but there was already a threat of punishment for not following the rules. Once they were out in the desert, which was by God's command, they were a captive audience whose very lives depended upon miraculous intervention.

Under such circumstances, in a modern day court, any agreements made would be considered coerced and invalid. The generation that stood up and “took the oath” was one that had seen God slaughter a number of people for disobeying him, so they were in no better of a position to make a voluntary agreement than the ones who had recently left Egypt.

Do you dispute this history?

If not, then we can get back to my question about what you would call a law that served no other purpose than to potentially trip up anyone subject to that law.

[Stu]

I think fundies DO tell people their hair is on fire when it isn't.

They are that deluded.

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2009,08:23)

Quote (Stu @ Aug. 11 2009,14:42) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 10 2009,23:53) I do not post against believers, I post against beliefs. I do not hold anyone in contempt for their beliefs unless such beliefs lead them to infringe upon the rights of others. Well said. Stuart Hi Stu And just what is it you think we are doing? Can you show us any statement on here that is against them as humans? No we are against there own beliefs that it is Ok to have sex with the same sex. We condemn their beliefs which translate into the way they live. We have said over and over “hate the sin, and love the sinner”, but you guys have demonized us into haters of the homosexuals by labeling us as being Homophobic, when there is not a shred of evidence in our post that suggest such, but merely a pointing out that their actions are against nature and is sin and that the rate of pedophilia against 12-16 year olds is higher than the heterosexuals. I have invented a new word for you guys…. “MORALPHOBE” OR “MORALPHOBIA“. WJ

As I wrote in another of these spurious threads, it is YOU who preaches from a book that illegally incites people to murder homosexuals. If that is not personal hatred then I'm not sure what you consider to be persecution. It must be off the far end of the scale with which I am familiar.

…we love the homosexual as we put her to death…

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 12 2009,06:50)

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,06:44) Both of these polls are very unscientific, and thus worthless. It is not a poll taken randomly from a large population of both males and females, and judging by the thread participation, only males are voting here. How many girls were approached by an older male? Better statistics done elsewhere show no correlation with homosexuality and sexual predation. Hi Kejonn I think you are wrong. Because the poll being in small numbers with the results that are so far stagaring to say the least. Imagine if the big numbers were done here what it might show. Your logic seems to be like a man digging up a shovel of dirt and finding a couple of precious jewels is not a good indication that there are more jewels in the area. WJ

I think you have no clue at all about statistics.

If you put up a poll, then you are most likely to get two main types of respondent:

Those who feel the poll does not concern them and do not respond, and those who were 'approached' and are motivated to reply. The fact that other have voted to say specifically that they were 'not approached' means that the figures in the general population are probably very different.

Just look at the evolution poll. Those results definitely do not reflect the opinion of either Americans or New Zealanders.

Stuart

[kejonn]

Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 11 2009,08:43)

Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 11 2009,22:39) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 11 2009,02:40) With the percentages of homosexual men who prey on boys it is only common sense for the Boy Scouts to prohibit homosexual club leaders. But Stu has no common sense. thinker You still have NOT established that homosexuals are more apt to be predators than hetero men. But don't let facts get in the way! I was talking abut the Boy Scouts. Heterosexual predators would not be a threat to the little boys in the Scouts. However, a known predator of any kind should not be allowed to be a leader in the Scouts. thinker

Then by that reasoning, no men should allowed to be elementary school teachers.

[Author]

Posts