The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 18

By the way, I went and looked at the Catholic Church website and Section IV on homosexuality.  I will admit to cherry-picking in this example, but I found it particularly hilarious.

One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.⁵⁵

Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.⁵⁶

One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.⁵⁷

Source? (emphasis is mine below)

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

 http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/

 Looks like Allen's study doesn't hold water any more than the other ones. Personally I think all the studies are too heavily biased to present the truth of the matter.

Again, I would like to ask if you read the article I posted earlier?

EDIT: Nevermind, I see you've read it.

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

A page which write such sh*t http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk cannot be taken serious...

 First of all, that was written by a different author, secondly, what are your reasons against what that articles says (BTW, I don't have a position here as I don't know enough facts, but I would like to hear your reasons for condemning the article as [a four letter word]).

 I just started with the "How much worse do the risks of gay sex have to be before it rates the same public health warnings as smoking?" it is not only the "gay" sex that has the dangers. It is plain the unprotectet sex (without condom) between two persons, no matter if gay or heterosexual sex...

This part nullifies the complete legitimation of the whole text.

Even if it might be a different author, it is the same homepage, and they won't write anything against what they beliefe.

How much worse do the risks of gay sex have to be before it rates the same public health warnings as smoking? - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk#sthash.H3n0mrHp.dpuf

How much worse do the risks of gay sex have to be before it rates the same public health warnings as smoking? - See more at: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk#sthash.H3n0mrHp.dpuf"

 I must admit I only skimmed the article, but I see your points and agree with them.

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/

 Looks like Allen's study doesn't hold water any more than the other ones.

What is your basis for saying the other study (it's the same study, linked once more directly) doesn't hold water?

TV's Frink said:

By the way, I went and looked at the Catholic Church website and Section IV on homosexuality.  I will admit to cherry-picking in this example, but I found it particularly hilarious.

One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.⁵⁵

Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.⁵⁶

One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.⁵⁷

Source? (emphasis is mine below)

A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

 I just looked at the rest of the sources and the most recent date I saw was 2001...

Looks like you may be right. I honestly don't know enough, and since both sides say the opposite of the other, are both heavily biased, and present heavily inaccurate information, I am not able to form a conclusion. For now I just think my religion has enough evidence behind it that I can let this pass for now. Perhaps the future will prove me right, perhaps it will do the opposite, but currently I think there is too much heat and controversy for the truth to be apparent.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

TV's Frink said:

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=f3da0bfa-c29b-4cbd-964b-a053b4ab6e86

http://m.smh.com.au/national/children-of-samesex-couples-thriving-study-20130605-2nqjy.html

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/does_same_sex_parenting_really_make_no_difference

http://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/the-douglas-allen-study-of-canadian-children-of-gaylesbian-parents-is-worthless/

 Looks like Allen's study doesn't hold water any more than the other ones.

What is your basis for saying the other study (it's the same study, linked once more directly) doesn't hold water?

 The sample group was small, and as far as I can tell, the questionnaires were completed by parents (it mentioned the health questionnaire, so I don't know about the other ones). It is weak evidence at any rate. Even if it holds water, it still leaks.

RO_2, I will give you this much: for a teenager, you are definitely more thoughtful than I might have expected.

But don't feel too good about it ;-)

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Also the sentence "if everyone lived by christian values..." to negate my argumentation is indeed invalid, because the facts are that never eryone will live by those "values" and that is a good thing, because these values are, watched from the outside, illogical and dangerous.

Illogical and dangerous...watched from the outside, atheism is illogical and dangerous. What is your point? How is it illogical and dangerous? In principle it is a loving, tolerant religion. Ooh, love and tolerance! Danger, danger! Cannot coexist with logic!

...

Maybe the religion itself would be tolerant and loving, but not with the people forming the catholic chruch.

I have more that one hobby wich is picet by people form church as dangerous topics. The last thing much of the catholic church people tend to have is tolerance.

No, that is not tolerance. Pope Francis is an excellent example of what we Catholics are, or should be about.

Where is the tolerance they are praying towards role play gamers and metal listeners?

The ramblings on horror movies and computer games, based just on some self definined statistics is very tolerant... not.

Again, not the way it should be. There are also ultra-conservative, almost medieval, Catholics who hold ideas no longer professed by the Church.

Where is the tolerance against love... between homosexual couples?

It is only tolerance towards the picked things.

Catholics should be tolerant towards every person on and off the planet, but that doesn't mean they should tolerate actions they think are wrong. We shouldn't preach a message of guilt and repentance, but a message of love if we want people to change. Our problem is that we approach the issues the wrong way. 

Also it is.. still one big differenc between the message and the interpretation. And here we have the danger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/world/europe/pope-bluntly-faults-churchs-focus-on-gays-and-abortion.html?_r=0

 Pope Francis epitomizes what I think a Catholic should be like in the present day. He focuses on what is truly important and not all the rules which should only be secondary.

TV's Frink said:

RO_2, I will give you this much: for a teenager, you are definitely more thoughtful than I might have expected.

But don't feel too good about it ;-)

 :)

I'll do my best to keep an open mind, hard as it is, and I have plenty of time to change my mind in the future (though right now I hope I won't).

I suppose I shouldn't be suprised buy this non-subject reaching 18 pages after centuries of death and mayhem... but come on...genital friction is not that big a deal. Get over it.

But aren't you worried about burning in hell?

I'm not - it sounds warm and comfy!

Isn't Hell supposed to be cold in places too? Presumably if you moved around enough you could find a very comfy place in hell but presumably being Hell only people who hate comfort would be able to find it.

I'm more worried about the living conditions in places that actually exist rather than made up realms where you have to be dead to enter and the asbestos knickers I'm currently wearing.

If Glasgow is Hell, London is Heller-by-Far.

It depends if you believe in a physical resurrection or not.

Get High!!!

That is all ..............

:)

Now that would be hell with my Vertigo.

I don't believe in Hell.

Sheol, on the other hand* ...

*No, I'm not trying to be obfuscatory here; "Hell" and "Sheol" are two different things IMO.

The subject of homosexuality is gay.

Bingowings comes; serious, on-topic discussion in multiple threads ends. :)