Evidence for God from Science

ageofknowledge wrote:We already know about the facism neoconservatives display but it seems the marxist public indoctrination education centers and the leftist state media cabal have failed to show their hand. An interesting book filled with interesting truthisms about the left and it's connection to facism is:



They are both not RIGHT if you ask me.

What is your opinion on Republicans who support same-sex marriage?

ageofknowledge wrote:

waynepii wrote:

Byblos wrote:I don't know from where you get all this. Biblically, homosexuality is no more and no less a sin than adultery or any other sin.

And homosexuality affects only the participants, unlike adultery which usually has devastating effects on the families of the participants.

If only it did solely affect the participants but homosexuals form political organizations that spend a good deal of time, energy, and money trying to force their brand of sexual immorality on us, our children, our educational system, our culture, our government, our churches, our legal system, etc...

Demanding equal rights is not "force[ing] their brand of sexual immorality on us, our children, our educational system, our culture, our government, our churches, our legal system, etc...".

so homosexuality ends up negatively affecting all of us in important ways unfortunately.

Such as?

Wayne,

homosexuals have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

Such as?

'

homosexuality degrades the moral fabric of a culture, just as does promiscuity, adultery, and divorce.

There are many negative effects to sexual immorality including but not limited to those that practice such sinful behavior, those that have the misfortune to be under their authority (dependent children for example), incidental victims (such as unknowing spouses), as well as society as a whole. Since we are specifically discussing the sin of homosexuality, one place to begin that discussion might be to review health statistics. Here are some:

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Ga ... Effect.pdf

Please actually read the statistics before simply disregarding them out of hand with a quip as most pro-homosexual anti-traditional family advocates do.

ageofknowledge wrote:There are many negative effects to sexual immorality including but not limited to those that practice such sinful behavior, those that have the misfortune to be under their authority (dependent children for example), incidental victims (such as unknowing spouses), as well as society as a whole. Since we are specifically discussing the sin of homosexuality, one place to begin that discussion might be to review health statistics. Here are some:

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Ga ... Effect.pdf

Please actually read the statistics before simply disregarding them out of hand with a quip as most pro-homosexual anti-traditional family advocates do.

If someone's pro-homosexual, they may or may not be anti-traditional family.

jlay wrote:Wayne,

homosexuals have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else.

This is the equivalent of saying "blacks have the exact same right to marry someone of their race as anyone else", which would now be an outrageous statement - but 50 years ago might very well have been used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. It's simply a way of attempting to justify imposing one's views on others.

jlay wrote:

Such as?

'

homosexuality degrades the moral fabric of a culture, just as does promiscuity, adultery, and divorce.

Are you also trying to outlaw promiscuity, adultery, and divorce?

ageofknowledge wrote:There are many negative effects to sexual immorality including but not limited to those that practice such sinful behavior, those that have the misfortune to be under their authority (dependent children for example), incidental victims (such as unknowing spouses), as well as society as a whole. Since we are specifically discussing the sin of homosexuality, one place to begin that discussion might be to review health statistics. Here are some:

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Ga ... Effect.pdf

Please actually read the statistics before simply disregarding them out of hand with a quip as most pro-homosexual anti-traditional family advocates do.

I read the linked article (I've seen similar articles before).

We are not discussing the "sin of homosexuality" (which is based upon a belief system, BTW), we are discussing denying rights to homosexuals.

It's not a matter of hatred... We all sin... It's a matter of doing what is right for you and society. Homosexuality is not good for the person doing it nor for society. Of course people will do it anyway like any other sin, but it should not be endorsed. Not only does it produce diseases, but it also stops society from reproducing and creating children. And if homosexuals produce children via some other fashion, it separates children from their biological father or mother. Not very fair or healthy for the children to separate them from their biological parents. Where are their rights?

waynepii wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:There are many negative effects to sexual immorality including but not limited to those that practice such sinful behavior, those that have the misfortune to be under their authority (dependent children for example), incidental victims (such as unknowing spouses), as well as society as a whole. Since we are specifically discussing the sin of homosexuality, one place to begin that discussion might be to review health statistics. Here are some:

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Ga ... Effect.pdf

Please actually read the statistics before simply disregarding them out of hand with a quip as most pro-homosexual anti-traditional family advocates do.

I read the linked article (I've seen similar articles before).

We are not discussing the "sin of homosexuality" (which is based upon a belief system, BTW), we are discussing denying rights to homosexuals.

There are no legitimate rights denied to individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior to my knowledge. They have exactly every right that I have and I have exactly every right that they have. What they want is the right to coopt the God ordained covenant of marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family unit under the protection of God which has existed since the beginning redefining it as something God finds blasphemous seeking to force this blasphemous rendention of marriage onto society. They would also like special PREFERENCEs with bias regarding the workplace, law, public education, etc.. etc.. etc.. It's gross sexual immorality and those engaging in such things work hard to redefine society in their blasphemous image.

Gman wrote:It's not a matter of hatred... We all sin... It's a matter of doing what is right for you and society. Homosexuality is not good for the person doing it nor for society. Of course people will do it anyway like any other sin, but it should not be endorsed. Not only does it produce diseases, ...

Then your issue is with the specific sexual practice - whomever practices it (none of the practices are limited to homosexuals and are engaged in by at least some heterosexual couples). Of course, even "normal" sexual activity is one the most unhygienic things a person can do.

... but it also stops society from reproducing and creating children.

With a worldwide population approaching 7 billion, is this a major concern? (BTW I remember when it passed 3 billion - around 1960 AIR) And what about birth control? ... surgical sterilization? Do you espouse denying marriage to a heterosexual couple who is unable or unwilling to have children?

And if homosexuals produce children via some other fashion, it separates children from their biological father or mother. Not very fair or healthy for the children to separate them from their biological parents. Where are their rights?

Doesn't adoption by a heterosexual couple do the same thing?

Actually, heteosexual sex, when compared to any other practice, is well designed. Form a purely anatomical standpoint, nothing else makes sense. Even heterosexual anal sex is ridiculously unsuited.

The woman's acidic vaginal secretios help her not only to ward off pathogenic bacteria and yeast, but also comes from probiotic bacteria that help establish this barrier by contributing lactic acid. Te secretions also continually sweep away. The large intestine is not desgined to do this. COmpared to the over 300 species of bacteria, many of which are pathogenic in the anals canal? Sheesh, anal sex is unhealthy and anatomically unsuited. COmparitely, vaginal sex is ridiculously hygenic.

THe stratfied squamous layer in the vagina is far better suited to intercourse than the single layer of cells in the anal canal. THe many layers provide a far better physcal barrier from an immunological as well as purely physical barrier that is well suited to sexual acitvity. With only one layer of cells not designed to withstand this physcial stess, the interanl structure of the bowel is not well suited to the stress of sex. Not to mention the lack of muscular sphincters in the vagina that are found in the anal canal. Anal sex can lead to bowel problems and lacl of control in the sphincters.

And from a MONOGAMOUS standpoint, any unhygenic relations are absolutely minimized. Especially if the parties involved are virgins. Good grief....we cannot complain about te hygiene when the problems are brought abou by the promiscuity of both heterosexual and homosexual partners, NOT of the design itself. All of the secretions are, in and of themselves, perfectly harmless.

I would absolutely agree that promiscuity in both hetero and homosexual acts has produced problems. But this has NOTHIGN to do with the original design of the body.

From a design standpoint, a health standpoint, there is no reason in the world to compare vaginal sex with anal sex.

Far too often such topics are shied away from. Thank you for your openness Zoegirl, great stuff we can all learn from.

ageofknowledge wrote:

waynepii wrote:

ageofknowledge wrote:There are many negative effects to sexual immorality including but not limited to those that practice such sinful behavior, those that have the misfortune to be under their authority (dependent children for example), incidental victims (such as unknowing spouses), as well as society as a whole. Since we are specifically discussing the sin of homosexuality, one place to begin that discussion might be to review health statistics. Here are some:

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Ga ... Effect.pdf

Please actually read the statistics before simply disregarding them out of hand with a quip as most pro-homosexual anti-traditional family advocates do.

I read the linked article (I've seen similar articles before).

We are not discussing the "sin of homosexuality" (which is based upon a belief system, BTW), we are discussing denying rights to homosexuals.

There are no legitimate rights denied to individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior to my knowledge. They have exactly every right that I have and I have exactly every right that they have.

They are asking for the right to marry the person they love.

What they want is the right to coopt the God ordained covenant of marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family unit under the protection of God which has existed since the beginning redefining it as something God finds blasphemous seeking to force this blasphemous rendention of marriage onto society.

You are asking the government to impose limitations on others based on your beliefs (" ... the God ordained covenant of marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of forming a family unit under the protection of God which has existed since the beginning redefining it as something God finds blasphemous ... ")

They would also like special PREFERENCEs with bias regarding the workplace, law, public education, etc.. etc.. etc.. It's gross sexual immorality and those engaging in such things work hard to redefine society in their blasphemous image.

What special preferences are you referring to?

Images such as this are as inappropriate as claiming Westboro Baptist Church is typical of Christians.

zoegirl wrote:Actually, heteosexual sex, when compared to any other practice, is well designed. Form a purely anatomical standpoint, nothing else makes sense. Even heterosexual anal sex is ridiculously unsuited.

The woman's acidic vaginal secretios help her not only to ward off pathogenic bacteria and yeast, but also comes from probiotic bacteria that help establish this barrier by contributing lactic acid. Te secretions also continually sweep away. The large intestine is not desgined to do this. COmpared to the over 300 species of bacteria, many of which are pathogenic in the anals canal? Sheesh, anal sex is unhealthy and anatomically unsuited. COmparitely, vaginal sex is ridiculously hygenic.

THe stratfied squamous layer in the vagina is far better suited to intercourse than the single layer of cells in the anal canal. THe many layers provide a far better physcal barrier from an immunological as well as purely physical barrier that is well suited to sexual acitvity. With only one layer of cells not designed to withstand this physcial stess, the interanl structure of the bowel is not well suited to the stress of sex. Not to mention the lack of muscular sphincters in the vagina that are found in the anal canal. Anal sex can lead to bowel problems and lacl of control in the sphincters.

And from a MONOGAMOUS standpoint, any unhygenic relations are absolutely minimized. Especially if the parties involved are virgins. Good grief....we cannot complain about te hygiene when the problems are brought abou by the promiscuity of both heterosexual and homosexual partners, NOT of the design itself. All of the secretions are, in and of themselves, perfectly harmless.

I would absolutely agree that promiscuity in both hetero and homosexual acts has produced problems. But this has NOTHIGN to do with the original design of the body.

From a design standpoint, a health standpoint, there is no reason in the world to compare vaginal sex with anal sex.

As I said my prior post, your issue is with the practice (anal sex) whomever practices it.

waynepii wrote:Then your issue is with the specific sexual practice - whomever practices it (none of the practices are limited to homosexuals and are engaged in by at least some heterosexual couples). Of course, even "normal" sexual activity is one the most unhygienic things a person can do.

Zoegirl's post clearly cleans up the confusion here.. We have to look at the way things are designed. Of course if you go against the grain there are consequences for that..

With a worldwide population approaching 7 billion, is this a major concern? (BTW I remember when it passed 3 billion - around 1960 AIR) And what about birth control? ... surgical sterilization? Do you espouse denying marriage to a heterosexual couple who is unable or unwilling to have children?

Perhaps we should have another war so that we can dwindle down the population then? What about birth control? Why can't we teach abstinence? What is the harm in doing that?

This is another reason why I became Christian and left my liberal ways.. Why? Because according to the Bible ALL life is sacred, whether in the womb or not. Instead of looking at other human beings as consumers, why can't we look at them as they were made in the image of God? People are precious, not simply animals.. So what about over population? Why can't we live under the earth or sea or on another planet? We practically have the technology to do this now..

Doesn't adoption by a heterosexual couple do the same thing?

At least they would have a father or mother figure... The thing about marriage is that it works for the family UNIT. That being that the biological parents and children are kept protected under the law. Or course that can be broken, but it is reserved especially for the family unit only.