Evidence for God from Science

That there is a collaborative and deliberate effort to marginalize, ridicule or to have viewed with disdain those who disagree with the rightness or morality of homosexuality cannot be a question. As in general, is also an effort to have society view homosexuality as a norm on the level of heterosexuality is also unquestionable. The question is, how do we define "being forced upon us?"

I'm willing to concede certain "rights" per our democracy and votes are available to homosexuals that I don't think are moral AS LONG AS those who see it as immoral are given reciprocal consideration - that we have every right to live out how we morally view homosexuality AS LONG AS we do not truly harm anyone in the process. That requires some give and take on ALL sides - as no one can truly have it all. What goes on in another's household is between them and God. Just don't put me in a position of things I consider immoral on my part - i.e. making me a criminal because my morals prevent me from accommodating certain things. Ever hear of free speech - how long have we had it drilled in us that our right to free speech means we're gonna have to let a lot of people say things that we passionately disagree with - as they will have to hear our thoughts on how we vehemently disagree. At the point of where people are truly harmed - that's where I think the line is. It's not being offended or getting one's feelings hurt - going through the courts to force things upon people they find immoral. If that cranks up on a far bigger level - it's already apparent, but not on a huge level yet - then the outcome will be horrific for our democracy!

RickD wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:Last I checked we had legal definitions for both of those terms.

Like Paul said, that's pretty vague.

A general definition of "consenting adult" is:

someone who is legally old enough and is willing to take part in an activity, especially a sexual activity.

And here's the vagueness:

The lowest Age of Consent in the world is 11, in Nigeria. The age of consent is 12 in the Philippines and Angola, and 13 in Burkina Faso, Comoros, Niger, and Japan. Japan often stands out as the only developed country on the list of lowest ages of consent, but local prefecture statutes in most areas of the country raise the effective age to 16-18.

https://www.ageofconsent.net/highest-and-lowest

In the US:

The lowest state Age of Consent in the United States is 16. This is the most common age of consent, and is adopted by Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia.

16?!?!

Most, almost all kids that age aren't mature enough, mentally and emotionally, for sex.

Add to that the whole "mental state" thing ( which comes with lots of baggage such as "under the influence" and "mental capacity") and you see that AGE is simply not good enough for consent.

Strange turn we've taken, but okay...

I'm American, so I'm not going to worry about the age of consent in Borneo. Moving on.

Regarding the age of consent in the US, I agree that 16 is too young for sex or marriage (hetero or otherwise). For that matter, 18 is often too young for the vote, much less the Army. And there are 26-year-olds who have no business renting a car.

Broadly categorizing everyone by age isn't a very good system. It's fine for the middle of the bell curve, but it causes all kinds of problems among the outliers. Unfortunately it's the only system we have. Maybe there's a better one, but I can't think of what it may be.

edwardmurphy wrote:Strange turn we've taken, but okay...

I'm American, so I'm not going to worry about the age of consent in Borneo. Moving on.

Regarding the age of consent in the US, I agree that 16 is too young for sex or marriage (hetero or otherwise). For that matter, 18 is often too young for the vote, much less the Army. And there are 26-year-olds who have no business renting a car.

Broadly categorizing everyone by age isn't a very good system. It's fine for the middle of the bell curve, but it causes all kinds of problems among the outliers. Unfortunately it's the only system we have. Maybe there's a better one, but I can't think of what it may be.

Never been a fan of "good enough" or "lesser of two evils" for that matter ( they go hand-in-hand).
If consenting adult is not good enough ( and I don't think it is for all the reasons outlines) I don't think we can simply say that it's all we have right now so, its Ok.
We can and should do better.
We are too busy trying to not hurt anyone's feelings or finding and easy way out ( kids are gonna have sex so might as well give them condoms) rather than doing what needs to be done which is to instill VALUE in people.
That people understand that THEY have value and that means their bodies have value and that they should NOT be given freely and without regard simply because one can.
Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

Consenting adults engage in activities that are bad for them all the time - smoking for example.
They drink and drive, they get so drunk they pass out and well...they engage in sexual activity that is dangerous and so forth.
I think that if we simply think/say that as long as they aren't hurting anyone, that's ok, that we are wrong because they are, many times, hurting themselves.
Should you simply be ok with allowing a self-inflicted pain and suffering because the person consents ??

From the CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/do ... ds-508.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/20 ... lease.html

Wishing that everyone would just behave the way that you think they should isn't a solution.

Do you have any concrete policy ideas? Are you suggesting that the government should be instilling Christian sexual values in people?

edwardmurphy wrote:Wishing that everyone would just behave the way that you think they should isn't a solution.

Do you have any concrete policy ideas? Are you suggesting that the government should be instilling Christian sexual values in people?

Do you really think that I would suggest the government be responsible?

And I am not stating any Christian sexual values, what I am saying is that this "consenting adult" view is not a very good one and we have shown the reasons AND results, why it is not.

Concrete policy?
Sure, leave morals to the parents when it comes to kids, for obvious reasons.

As for adults, they are responsible for themselves and if they choose to engage in activities that are harmful to themselves, after being educated that they are harmful, then the CONSEQUENCES are THEIR responsibility.
You got an STD? you pay for the treatment and you deal with it.
Engage in an unhealthy lifestyle? ( did you know that the percentage of lesbian women being sexually assaulted by other women is almost 50% ?

Rape of females by females[edit]
See also: Domestic violence in lesbian relationships
Assault by forcible stimulation of female genitalia by a female perpetrator is possible by digital manipulation, oral sex, strap-ons, other dildos or other foreign objects, or tribadism.[27][28][29] A telephone survey conducted in 2010 for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 43.8% of lesbians reported having been raped, physically abused or stalked at some point by an intimate partner; of these, 67.4% reported the perpetrator or perpetrators as being exclusively female. In the same survey, approximately 1 in 8 lesbians (13.1%) reported having been raped in their lifetime, but the sex of their rapists was not reported.[30]

) then you should be TOLD the risks and and it shouldn't be hidden from society ( when was the last time you heard of the issue of sexual assault in the lesbian community?).
I think it needs to be made clear, by facts, that the lifestyles of the LCBT community is not a very healthy one.

It is not right to say, "they are consenting adults, what they do is up to them" and then the rest of us have to foot the bill ( from a societal and monetary POV).

edwardmurphy wrote:Wishing that everyone would just behave the way that you think they should isn't a solution.

Wishing that consenting adult is good enough, isn't a solution either.

PaulSacramento wrote:Do you really think that I would suggest the government be responsible?

It would surprise me, but you seem to be arguing against a longstanding practice that is also a longstanding law.

PaulSacramento wrote:And I am not stating any Christian sexual values, what I am saying is that this "consenting adult" view is not a very good one and we have shown the reasons AND results, why it is not.

Fine. What would be better? When age of consent laws are eliminated what should replace them?

PaulSacramento wrote:Concrete policy?
Sure, leave morals to the parents when it comes to kids, for obvious reasons.

We already do that, generally speaking.

Is this an argument against sex ed?

PaulSacramento wrote:As for adults, they are responsible for themselves and if they choose to engage in activities that are harmful to themselves, after being educated that they are harmful, then the CONSEQUENCES are THEIR responsibility.
You got an STD? you pay for the treatment and you deal with it.

That's how it is now, at least in the US. Does Canada have some program where someone comes in, cures your STD at no charge, and then sends apology notes and flowers to anyone who might have been exposed?

PaulSacramento wrote:Engage in an unhealthy lifestyle? ( did you know that the percentage of lesbian women being sexually assaulted by other women is almost 50% ?

Your data disputes that claim. What it says is that lesbians have a victimization prevalence of 43.8, with 67.4% of those instances having a female perpetrator. So the prevalence of victimization by a female is actually 29.5%. Those numbers are alarmingly high, I'll grant you, but so are the numbers for all of the other categories. If you average them out you find that the prevalence of victimization is 38.7% among humans.

Alarming? Absolutely. A clear-cut indictment of an LGBT lifestyle? Hardly.

PaulSacramento wrote:I think it needs to be made clear, by facts, that the lifestyles of the LCBT community is not a very healthy one.

The prevalence of victimization is lower among gay men than straight men. Your data doesn't support your conclusion.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is not right to say, "they are consenting adults, what they do is up to them" and then the rest of us have to foot the bill ( from a societal and monetary POV).

So what does that look like from a policy perspective?

So I've been thinking about this and came up with this: While there have been reports of people, not giving in to peer pressure apparently, that have been changed by Jesus from homosexuality, most don't accept Jesus and so, the gov't has little to no choice but to legalize LGBT. Remember, Western society is supposed to allow all world views that don't infringe on a lot (like ISIS) so Christianity can't be the final say like it was decades and centuries ago, and with the rise in equality, it's no surprise this is happening.

I gotta say though, the depression and suicide rate among LGBT people are usually higher than the rest of the population. https://www.livescience.com/11208-high- ... eople.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth
I think a lot of this is due to pressure and shaming on the outside community. This is a reason why LGBT is forced on society and why it's called homophobia if you disagree (for whatever reason even not so bad ones). Ppl here, a lot of us, would be called homophobic, though in the true sense of the word many so called ones here are not true homophobes. Instead of showing the way to God many ppl turn away LGBT and so they look to other ways to find acceptance. Ik a guy who came out of the closet and his grandad said he wanted to shoot him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI2ew31oXTg

I personally feel that Shapiro is the most loving towards trans in being brutally honest, and sincerely wanting them to get help, to the point the trans beside him wants to beat the absolute $*** out of him.

Kurieuo wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI2ew31oXTg

I personally feel that Shapiro is the most loving towards trans in being brutally honest, and sincerely wanting them to get help, to the point the trans beside him wants to beat the absolute $*** out of him.

I saw that vid before. That guy wanted to take Ben outside and beat the crap out of him. Not very ladylike.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:While there have been reports of people, not giving in to peer pressure apparently, that have been changed by Jesus from homosexuality, most don't accept Jesus and so, the gov't has little to no choice but to legalize LGBT.

Plenty of homosexuals are Christian and plenty of Christians, including clergy, accept homosexuality as normal and valid. You won't hear that here, where people are overwhelmingly socially conservative, but it's a fact.

edwardmurphy wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:While there have been reports of people, not giving in to peer pressure apparently, that have been changed by Jesus from homosexuality, most don't accept Jesus and so, the gov't has little to no choice but to legalize LGBT.

Plenty of homosexuals are Christian and plenty of Christians, including clergy, accept homosexuality as normal and valid. You won't hear that here, where people are overwhelmingly socially conservative, but it's a fact.

Well then they're not Christians.
They have made up an alternative religion (otherwise known as a sect) where homosexuality is accepted as normal.

Like it or not God does not accept homosexuality. You don't agree with that, that's fine, but don't say you are a Christian.