I-Mockery Forum - View Single Post

Kulturkampf · #87

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

There are studies:

"A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers seems to back Wilkins’ claims.

According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago's Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners. All total, 61.3 percent of the area’s homosexual men have had more than 30 partners, and 87.8 percent have had more than 15, the research found."

Quote:

Do you even read the posts or do you just skim them? You pull up yet another biased source (The "Baptist Press.") Try getting a source from a respectable organization, like the NIMH or the American Psychiatric Association instead of an obviously and blatantly Christian and Bible-based source. You're probably going to argue that the BP isn't biased. Well, here, let me explain why it is:

I skim them, and then I forget their precise contacts when I am away.

Quote:

Every time the article writes the word marriage, it puts it in quotes, in obvious contempt. This indicates that the author of the article set out with an anti-homosexual agenda; clearly biased against them and highly likely to misinterpret the facts in their favor.

Goood.

But what does that have to do with the research within the article? The journalist didn't do the research.

Quote:

"Even men and women who are homosexual and have been involved in homosexuality for years have told me frankly that they know of few if any long-term relationships -- male or female," he told BP.

Here's a tip: Personal testimony doesn't count as scientific in any respect. If I told you that every black person I knew steals stereos and listens to rap at 2 in the morning, does that mean you can draw any conclusion from it? Even if they told me so themselves?

Perosnal testimony becomes relevant when you have enough people who notice a shocking trend, but you are right, in thi case it is irrelevent.

Quote:

Evangelicals say that homosexual relationships will never bring satisfaction because, at the core, they involve rebellion against God. Writing in a Crosswalk.com commentary last October, R. Albert Mohler Jr. of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary said that marriage is the "culminating picture of creation’s goodness."

"Because of that void [the homosexual] is trying to fill it the wrong way and the only way he knows to fill it is through sexual encounters," Wilkins said. "But after the sexual encounter is over, the emptiness is even larger.

Biased. If you can't see it, you're just another bigot tool.

this part of the article was not part of what I quoted; I quoted the researc evidence from it. What point are you trying to make?

the journalists didnt make the article, and I would never cite a source made by them for objective debate.

Get a clue.

Quote:

What do you mean by "general sense of sexual deviance?" There have been no correlations of increased sexual deviance, such as pedophilia, among homosexuals. In fact, pedophiles and other such deviances are performed overwhelmingly by men who claim to be heterosexual in normal courtship affairs.

That is because men are, overwhelmingly, heterosexual.

So does that mean heterosexual men are inclined to pedophilia? There seems to be a correlation there.

If you can bring me evidence saying that heterosexual men, per capita, perform more acts of pedophilia than homosexual me, yes, it definitely does.

However, the rate of pedophilia amongst men in general I am sure is small, though perhaps the heterosexuals are more inclined; instead of 1 in 10,000 it becomes more like 2 in 10,000, maybe, for heteros as compared to homosexuals.

I do not pick and choose what facts are convenient for me, unlike my opponents.

Maybe even homosexuals generally have higher IQs than heterosexuals; I would not doubt it or deny it if evidence was brought up. So why don't you do some research?

Quote:

Deviance is the rate of sexual promiscuity of these people, and furthermore the bizarre sexual acts that are sometimes done (let's not discuss it -- I would rather let you win this point than searching for the articles about gerbiles and fisting; I will not comment on this subject any further).

Wait, this is golden. Please, dear boy, tell me, how did you find out about "bizarre" sexual acts if you haven't done any research on them? I would bet you dollars to donuts that you heard about it either from television, your straight friends, or a religious organization condemning the dangers of these practices. I'm not going to argue that fisting and that gerbil thing don't happen and I'm not going to argue that it's normal or healthy, because I don't believe that it is. However, these acts are rare and blown out of proportion to the point of absurdity, and they are certainly not limited to or indeed more prevelent among homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals. What I'm trying to say here is that these deviances are universal to human sexuality, not homosexuals alone.

I have heard about some of these acts from friends, and a few from my mother (she used to share an apartment with a homosexual who still remains her friend; my mother is a liberal, like you).

Again, I am not going to debat eit; I begin to feel queasy.

Quote:

Society will continue to act this way towards them because we don't have a vested interest in being around people of this nature.

People of WHAT nature? People who love and have sex?

No, homosexuals.

You didn't answer my question. What's the "nature?" It's beginning to look like you only don't like them because they're gay. Which is of no consequence to you whatsoever.

No, people who are homosexual.

Quote:

And so, because we are going to exercise our freedom of opposition ot the homosexuals, you can expect that even if they can adopt they will still practice these nasty drug dependencies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. From what it LOOKS like you said, you said that basically you'd still be opposed to homosexual activity even if there were no correlation with drug dependency. Which is called what again, class? Bigotry.

Okay, I am a bigot. Not face my arguments. I'll let you get your name calling out of the way if you feel the need:

Homosexuals statisticlly and provably have higher rates of drug abuse. It is factually demonstrated.

The only non-biased source you cited showed the rates in percentages, which I've already shown to be misleading. If you could show this statistic in actual numbers, citing several independent studies, I would be more inclined to believe you.

How are they misleading,a nd are there any other studies to prove these conclusions as being wrong?

Quote:

It was said: "they become chemically dependent because of persecution."

i say: "They will remain an element persecuted because their behaviors are sickly and frowned upon, and so they will probably remain chemically dependent and thus continue to be unfit for raising kids."

Think about this for a second. Who persecutes homosexuals? People like you. You, frankly, are personally responsible for the chemical dependencies of homosexuals, if what you say is true. You continue to believe they're sick and perverted, and you chide them for it, which drives them to chemical dependencies. YOU are the one making them behave this way. You can't blame them for something that people like you caused.

Yes, we can; they should have more self-control or be straight, or move away from our society.

Quote:

Homosexuality is disgusting. It makes me sick to my stomach, this idea of that.

I happen to think you are disgusting. It's all a matter of opinion, see? I don't know what exactly you find disgusting about it. At the core of it all, homosexuals are the same as you and me. People who love and have sex with the people they love. If you find the act of homosexuality disgusting...so what? Do you have gay men jumping you in alleys and sodomizing you? No? Then why worry about it?

I do not have sex with men, hahaha! How am I the same?I am not going to be in diapers at age 50 because my ass has been reamed for 4 decades, and I am not going to be sleeping with 30+ people in my lifetime and putting myself at risk of STDs on much higher evels.

Now you're just insulting people because you can't defend your irrational hatred and you know it. This would be sad if it weren't funny.

It is not irrational; it is a deviance that they practice that spreads disease and contaminates the society as a whole. And now they want to raise kids.

Quote:

I admire a Libertarian point of view, but I think that giving homosexuals kids and taking their disgusting habits and showing them to be an acceptable idea is ... moronic.

I think you're beginning to slide down a slippery slope, here. What exactly do you think is going to happen if we accept homosexual orientation as a natural part of the scheme of human sexuality? If you think it's going to turn kids gay, think again. Homosexuality is not a choice, any more than heterosexuality is a choice. Let's try an experiment to prove it.

If homosexuality is a choice, you should reasonably be able to will yourself to be attracted to men. You should be able to choose your attraction to men. I dare you to try it, right now, for one hour. Will yourself to be physically aroused by men for one hour. If sexuality is so malleable, you should be able to will yourself straight again, no problem. Will yourself gay and then go find some pictures of attractive men and see if you become aroused.

I don't know why I wasted my time writing that, since you won't do it, or you'll at least lie about it.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your argument right now, but I'm desperately awaiting your response. WILL HE DO IT, FOLKS? WILL HE BE GAY FOR AN HOUR? PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!

[/quote]

LOL, I would never be a gay.