That's true, you've also claimed that homosexuality is responsible for mental illness and drug use.
Demonizing people
- Thread starter Sorcerer
- Start date
That's true, you've also claimed that homosexuality is responsible for mental illness and drug use.
That is a lie. I only said what the science tells us, that those characteristics are correlates of homosexual behavior.
No, it's not an analogy. It's one law in a long list of laws that God gives to Moses.
I'm curious, by what measure do you consider wearing mixed fabrics acceptable? I mean, it's right there in the Bible that you're not supposed to do that.
It's not a lie, Syne. You're implying that homosexuality is the cause.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
1 CORINTHIANS 6:9
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not
deceived: neither fornicators nor idolators,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
20% is the number of HIV infected among gay men. Why is this so hard for you to grasp seeing you yourself quoted the source confirming it?
By "promiscuous" I suppose you mean people who get laid with more than one person in their lives. Wow..that encompasses about the whole human race! lol!
I have repeatedly said "correlation" not "cause", so you are only lying and trolling. You also seem to have trouble understanding the difference between "imply" and "infer". I know what I have implied, while you make up your own inference.
And? Not inheriting the "kingdom of God" is not equivalent to "going to hell". You can live in a kingdom without inheriting it.
Where are you finding this supposed "20%" statistic? It was not in the source I cited. At best, you seem to pulling it from my last link, instead of the one you originally replied to.
Therefore, unprotected sex with an HIV-positive person who has acute HIV infection could carry a transmission risk of up to 2% (the equivalent of 1 transmission per 50 exposures) for receptive vaginal sex and over 20% (equivalent to 1 transmission per 5 exposures) for receptive anal sex. - http://www.thebodypro.com/content/68672/putting-a-number-on-it-the-risk-from-an-exposure-t.html
I do not assume only homosexuals engage in anal sex.
pro·mis·cu·ous
: having or involving many sexual partners
: including or involving too many people or things : not limited in a careful or proper way
: having or involving many sexual partners
: including or involving too many people or things : not limited in a careful or proper way
No, more than one monogamous sexual partner in your life is not generally considered promiscuous.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Uh no. Not inheriting the kingdom of God means your definitely going to hell. That's why Paul called these people "the unrighteous."
Uh yes. Promiscuous means many sexual partners period. Check definition 1 again. Then go ask the average joe on the street how many women he's laid in his lifetime.
Last edited:
More lies from you. You can't even own your bigotry!
Support that claim then.
Magical Realist said:
Where did that quoted link come from? Oh, I see...six pages back. I thought you were talking about a the link in the post you replied to.
It really is no surprise that you do not understand the general use of the word. The "promiscuity" you describe does not significantly effect HIV risk, i.e. it is a red herring
What, you cannot manage to quote me? Just more trolling lies out you.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I see. So when heterosexuals have many sexual partners it doesn't effect risk for HIV but when gay men have many sexual partners it DOES? lol! Your bigotry is so transparent.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Bullshit. You list these supposed correlations to being gay as reasons you condemn homosexuality and then expect us to believe you aren't implying they are caused by it? Why would you condemn something that wasn't the cause of those traits but merely correlated?
Honestly, quoting you is hardly necessary... chances are high that, when you hit that "reply" button, what is being posted to the forum is either lies, misrepresentation, bigotry, or otherwise so incredulous as to be incredible...
quinnsong,
Well there ya go then!
jan.
Well there ya go then!
jan.
This is why some people think there is a ''homosexual agenda' 'the aim of which is to promote their sexual orientation and destroy religion.
You forget that a handful of atheists ''Demonized'' millions, and millions, and millions, and millions of people, effectively in a New York minute. Every Time you imply that the religious are the only demonizers (to me), I shall make it my duty to remind you of that fact just so you don't get carried away.
jan.
Kittamaru,
And the majority of people don't.
That's not the issue though, is it.
''Marriage'' isn't a right (at least in it's original format), it's a spiritual union between a man and a woman. Now even if it is possible for a man and another man to form such a union, it is still not marriage in the same sense, because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. So while the government can force the people to accept that two men can get ''married'', fundamentally it makes no difference, lest we convince ourselves that it is no different. Some of us wish to convince ourselves, and some of us don't.
With regards to being entitled with the same rights as man/woman combo, sure they should. That goes without saying.
jan.
And the majority of people don't.
That's not the issue though, is it.
''Marriage'' isn't a right (at least in it's original format), it's a spiritual union between a man and a woman. Now even if it is possible for a man and another man to form such a union, it is still not marriage in the same sense, because marriage is the union between a man and a woman. So while the government can force the people to accept that two men can get ''married'', fundamentally it makes no difference, lest we convince ourselves that it is no different. Some of us wish to convince ourselves, and some of us don't.
With regards to being entitled with the same rights as man/woman combo, sure they should. That goes without saying.
jan.
Can you give even one example of an atheist demonizing millions (and millions, etc.) of people?
So? It doesn't require a majority to oppress.
Incorrect. Marriage in its "original format" was a transaction. The man bought the woman and she became his property.
That seems like an arbitrary distinction. Marriage used to be something quite different than what it is today, and yet you accept all of those changes (if you even were aware of them, which I suppose is debatable) so why draw the line at gender? Why is that the defining characteristic?
And why not? I ask you again to address the questions above.
But it doesn't go without saying when you've just also said that gay marriage isn't really marriage at all. Typically, that kind of attitude goes along with the notion that gay couples should not share the rights of "truly" married people.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Translation: "this is why I think there is a homosexual agenda to destroy religion." In reality, religion's been doin a fine job at destroying itself since the Enlightenment. We now live in a totally secular world where science is taught in schools instead of religion and even the mere mention of God at the watercooler can solicit a few eye rolls.
Since we ARE in the Religion subforum I think it only appropriate that we limit demonizing to those who basically invented that artform and have been perfecting for millennia. IOW, the religious. Demons ARE basically a religious concept afterall.