Freethought & Rationalism Archive

trunks2k · 08-05-2003, 11:19 AM

Scigirl, the reason his links don't work is because he keeps putting periods at the end of the links. Take off the periods, and the links work fine.

lpetrich · 08-05-2003, 11:53 AM

dk:
In the 1950s the divorce rate and out of wedlock births were under 5%.

I don't know where dk gets his numbers from; from this official source, US divorce rates were 10 per 1000 marriages per year from 1950 to 1965; it jumped to 15 in 1970 and to 20 in 1975, and has stayed approximately stable ever since.

In the 1960s public schools were the crown jewel of the Great Society.

This seems like hatred of public schools that goes beyond reason.

Proponents of fornication, adultery, family planning, and no-fault divorce ...

Who are the proponents of the first two?

And what's so terrible about no-fault divorce? What's wrong with divorce by mutual agreement?

Today our prisons bulge with deviants,

Actually, they bulge with small-time drug offenders.

dk:
Christianity teaches the necessity of tolerance, hard work, charity and chastity under the heading of virtue.

Except that the Bible nowhere declares "easy work" to be a sin, and Jesus Christ had commanded that one ought to be lazy and let God Almighty feed and take care of you, as he does the birds and the wildflowers.

(the alleged evils of anal sex...)

However, homosexual women seldom practice anything resembling anal sex.

JamesKrieger · 08-05-2003, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
[B]dk:
In the 1950s the divorce rate and out of wedlock births were under 5%.

I don't know where dk gets his numbers from;

dk is notorious for coming up with completely bogus statistics to support his bigotry, as is evidenced in this thread.

dk is ignorant in his use of statistics at best, and dishonest at worst.

JamesKrieger · 08-05-2003, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Anal sex is a problem because it spreads and incubates deadly multi-drug resistant microbes in the lower digestive tract, especially in epidemical populations like gay communities.
The anal sphincter valve protects the digestive tract from foreign bodies but allows waste to be expelled. It doesn�t take a rocket scientist or a Christian to understand it�s a bad plan to force objects through the anus, especially a penis. If I were to list all the diseases spread by anal sex it would fill up a book. For all practical purposes I can�t stop anyone from anal sex. Given the epidemiological reality and costs accrued it is ludicrous to institutionalize anal sex in a mock marriage, and it has nothing to do with being a Christian or a homobigot.

French kissing is a problem because it spreads and incubates deadly multi-drug resistant microbes in the upper digestive tract, especially in epidemical populations like heterosexual communities. The mouth protects the digestive tract from foreign bodies but allows food to be ingested. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a Christian to understand it's a bad plan to put non-food objects in the mouth, especially a tongue. If I were to list all the diseases spread by french kissing it would fill up a book. For all practical purposes I can't stop anyone from french kissing. Given the epidemiological reality and costs accrued it is ludicrous to institutionalize french kissing in a mock marriage, and it has nothing to do with being a Christian or heterobigot.

JamesKrieger · 08-05-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
If I were to list all the diseases spread by anal sex it would fill up a book.

If I were to list all the diseases spread by kissing it would fill up a book.

If I were to list all the diseases spread by breathing it would fill up a book.

If I were to list all the diseases spread by shaking hands it would fill up a book.

Your argument is a non-argument.

JamesKrieger · 08-05-2003, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
It doesn�t take a rocket scientist or a Christian to understand it�s a bad plan to force objects through the anus, especially a penis.

I've forced out shit through my anus, logs much bigger than a penis.

Another non-argument by dk.

lpetrich · 08-05-2003, 12:23 PM

dk:
The studies contradict one another. The problem isn�t with methods or personalities but with the ambiguities and contradictions innate to the science of psychology and human development. The science is unreliable.

True, social sciences are relatively immature, but they are not worthless.

And making a villain out of social science does not prove much.

Courts put behavioral conflicted experts on the stand thousands of times every day, one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution. At least one expert�s testimony is unreliable, and maybe both.

The problem is that these "experts" are essentially hired guns for whichever side they are on, and that is a side effect of an adversarial court system. I've actually seen some discussion of this problem in publications like Science magazine.

In 1960s social scientists of every flavor from Harvard to Berkley had proven that sexual repression caused sexual disorders, human orientation was a cultural norm, forced busing was the cure for racism and LSD opened young minds to their true potential.

And who were those "social scientists"?

JamesKrieger: If a sexually open society is so bad, then why is it that sexually open societies, like Sweden and the Netherlands, have lower rates of AIDS, HIV, drug use, teen pregancy, crime, etc., than we do?

By 1935 Germany was on the road to economic recovery. Sociologists and economists around the world people thought that proved something. In the Cold War when the USSR exploded atomic/hydrogen bombs, and launched Sputnik, scientists thought that proved something. When the Iron Curtain was torn down scientists thought that proved something. When jet planes flew into the WTC scientists thought that proved something.

And what is that "something" supposed to be?

The hard fact is that gay and lesbians mock sex because gay and lesbian sex has nothing to do with life, except as an obstacle.

I don't see how it's any more "anti-life" than heterosexual sex.

This explains why people in a culture of death (view death as one more problem solved ) find homosexuality virtuous.

What's a "culture of death"?

If you believe Sweden and the Netherlands are immune from MDR microbe, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and crime I would beg to differ. Should epidemiological science loose the race against MDR microbes nobodies immune.

JK never said that those places are immune. And MDR microbes are a big problem in places like hospitals, where it would be hard to call them punishment for sexual sin.

The greatest knowable threat to Europe stems from its own intellectual, cultural, economic and reproductive infertility manifested by a geriatric population so egotistical they can�t bare to raise children.

Or it's simply too awkward for many people to have children in our current society. Do you really think that people ought to have children they can't afford to have? That's supposedly the great sin of welfare mothers.

The Gay Rights Movement poses three empirical and grave threats to civilization.

It took all this time for dk to get to this?

First: they intend to deconstruct the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization.

How is that supposed to be the case? Is the legitimacy of heterosexuality really dependent on the rejection of homosexuality?

Second: they are drawn like a dog to his own vomit into a diseased riddled populations that breeds MDR microbes in prurient driven epidemical subculture.

The old stereotype of promiscuous gay men.

However, lesbians have much safer sex and remarkably stable relationships.

Third gay men can only propagate by preying upon young vulnerable males.

The old "recruitment" myth. People don't get recruited; they join when they discover that they are homosexual.

JamesKrieger · 08-05-2003, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
The studies contradict one another.

What studies contradict one another? How do these papers contradict one another?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

Give us some references of studies that contradict one another. Support your claims with evidence, not sweeping general statements.

Quote:

psychology and human development. The science is unreliable.

How is it unreliable? For example, how are the references that I provided above unreliable? Tell us, oh social science research expert. Specifics, please.

Quote:

Courts put behavioral conflicted experts on the stand thousands of times every day, one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution. At least one expert�s testimony is unreliable, and maybe both.

That's irrelevant and is a red herring. I want you to tell me how the actual social science studies regarding homosexual parenting conflicts. We're not talking about experts on witness stands.

Quote:

dk: Hey, people that put their faith in the social sciences have a religious quality I can respect. In 1960s social scientists of every flavor from Harvard to Berkley had proven that sexual repression caused sexual disorders, human orientation was a cultural norm, forced busing was the cure for racism and LSD opened young minds to their true potential. Hey, whatever rocks your jock.

Another red herring. I asked you if you knew what the fallacy of post-hoc, ergo propter hoc is. You obviously don't, because you're committing it.

Quote:

dk: Problems resonate and manifest in societies amongst dissimilar people along different vectors. For example the Great Depression of 1929 embodied one problem that rolled around the world gaining momentum, but manifested itself across European, Asia, Americas and Australia nations in very differently ways (vectors). By 1935 Germany was on the road to economic recovery. Sociologists and economists around the world people thought that proved something. In the Cold War when the USSR exploded atomic/hydrogen bombs, and launched Sputnik, scientists thought that proved something. When the Iron Curtain was torn down scientists thought that proved something. When jet planes flew into the WTC scientists thought that proved something.

Another red herring. I asked you, why is it that sexually open societies like Sweden and the Netherlands have lower rates of HIV, STD's, teen pregnancy, etc., then we do? Answer the question directly. Quit dancing around and talking about irrelevant shit.

Quote:

The hard fact is that gay and lesbians mock sex because gay and lesbian sex has nothing to do with life,
except as an obstacle.

"Hard fact"? Stating something as a fact doesn't make it so.

Gay and lesbian sex has everything to do with life. It exists, it's always existed, and it will continue to exist whether you like it or not.

Quote:

more problem solved ) find homosexuality virtuous. If you believe Sweden and the Netherlands are immune from MDR microbe, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and crime I would beg to differ.

Who said they were immune? I said they have lower rates of these problems, and they embrace homosexuality. If homosexuality was so bad, then they would have worse problems than ours.

Quote:

microbes nobodies immune. The greatest knowable threat to Europe stems from its own intellectual, cultural, economic and reproductive infertility manifested by a geriatric population so egotistical they can�t bare to raise children.

Another red herring.

Quote:

The Gay Rights Movement poses three empirical and grave threats to civilization. First: they intend to deconstruct the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization.

Refuted by scientific evidence that I posted above.

Quote:

Second: they are drawn like a dog to his own vomit into a diseased riddled populations that breeds MDR microbes in prurient driven epidemical subculture

Refuted. Societies that embrace homosexuality don't have these problems to the same extent that our society does.

Quote:

Third gay men can only propagate by preying upon young vulnerable males.

More bullshit. Homosexuals are not "recruited." The gay population in countries that embrace homosexuality has not increased.

Quote:

If one accepts the nuclear family as essential to Western Civilization,

I don't accept that. This is a made-up premise to your argument (more on this later)

Quote:

then clearly the Gay Rights Movement poses a threat.

Even if your previous premise was true, there's no evidence that the Gay Rights Movement is a threat to the nuclear family.

Quote:

If one accepts HIV as a threat to civilization, then the epidemical populations poses a threat to civilization.

So do other minorities, like hispanics, pose a threat to civilization? They are at a higher risk for HIV than whites.

Quote:

If one accepts teenage males are vulnerable as gay prot�g�s,

Another made-up premise that you pull out of your ass (more on this later).

Quote:

then common decency requires young men be protected from gay evangelists and mentors in the public square.

Gays are not "recruited."

Quote:

I accept all three, not because I�m a Christian but because I can read, count, see, hear, feel, smell and taste.

No, you accept all three because you don't know how to objectively examine evidence. You accept all three because they support a bigotry that you already had. The only thing you know how to do is to make unsupported assertions, and then come up with bogus stats to support those assertions, and then pull wild speculations out of your ass as to the causes behind those bogus stats. You make up your premises, then draw conclusions from those made-up premises, and then claim that you are correct.

Quote:

Do I wish or intend harm to anyone, absolutely not, I wish everyone well especially gays and lesbians that carry so many heavy burdens. I have learned from Christianity to have empathy for what gays and lesbian suffer.

You don't wish everyone well. You don't have any empathy, because your painting gays and lesbians as some evil movement looking to recruit more people to their "kind." You view them as a potential source of the destruction of society. By painting them in such a fashion, you are the one putting the heavy burden on them.

Quote:

I responded to this above, so lets discuss it above.

No, you responded with red herrings.

Quote:

The topic of the thread is� Does Fundamental Christian = Homobigot. The answer is obviously no, there are a plethora of very good reasons to oppose the Gay Rights Movement

And everyone has shown you why your reasons aren't "good."

Nowhere357 · 08-05-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesKrieger
And everyone has shown you why your reasons aren't "good."

Over and over and over again. And again. And again.

Bigots apparently cannot learn - their minds are closed. The only good news is eventually they die off.

scigirl · 08-05-2003, 03:18 PM

Big giant favor -

Could someone please click on some of my pubmed links in my last post and make sure they work for you? I just realized that I access pubmed from my library server and wasn't sure if those links would work for someone who doesn't dial up through the UCHSC library. Thanks a bunch!

scigirl

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-05-2003, 11:19 AM	#91
trunks2k Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 6,997	Scigirl, the reason his links don't work is because he keeps putting periods at the end of the links. Take off the periods, and the links work fine.

08-05-2003, 11:53 AM	#92
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	dk: In the 1950s the divorce rate and out of wedlock births were under 5%. I don't know where dk gets his numbers from; from this official source, US divorce rates were 10 per 1000 marriages per year from 1950 to 1965; it jumped to 15 in 1970 and to 20 in 1975, and has stayed approximately stable ever since. In the 1960s public schools were the crown jewel of the Great Society. This seems like hatred of public schools that goes beyond reason. Proponents of fornication, adultery, family planning, and no-fault divorce ... Who are the proponents of the first two? And what's so terrible about no-fault divorce? What's wrong with divorce by mutual agreement? Today our prisons bulge with deviants, Actually, they bulge with small-time drug offenders. dk: Christianity teaches the necessity of tolerance, hard work, charity and chastity under the heading of virtue. Except that the Bible nowhere declares "easy work" to be a sin, and Jesus Christ had commanded that one ought to be lazy and let God Almighty feed and take care of you, as he does the birds and the wildflowers. (the alleged evils of anal sex...) However, homosexual women seldom practice anything resembling anal sex.

08-05-2003, 12:23 PM	#97
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	dk: The studies contradict one another. The problem isn�t with methods or personalities but with the ambiguities and contradictions innate to the science of psychology and human development. The science is unreliable. True, social sciences are relatively immature, but they are not worthless. And making a villain out of social science does not prove much. Courts put behavioral conflicted experts on the stand thousands of times every day, one expert for the defense and one for the prosecution. At least one expert�s testimony is unreliable, and maybe both. The problem is that these "experts" are essentially hired guns for whichever side they are on, and that is a side effect of an adversarial court system. I've actually seen some discussion of this problem in publications like Science magazine. In 1960s social scientists of every flavor from Harvard to Berkley had proven that sexual repression caused sexual disorders, human orientation was a cultural norm, forced busing was the cure for racism and LSD opened young minds to their true potential. And who were those "social scientists"? JamesKrieger: If a sexually open society is so bad, then why is it that sexually open societies, like Sweden and the Netherlands, have lower rates of AIDS, HIV, drug use, teen pregancy, crime, etc., than we do? By 1935 Germany was on the road to economic recovery. Sociologists and economists around the world people thought that proved something. In the Cold War when the USSR exploded atomic/hydrogen bombs, and launched Sputnik, scientists thought that proved something. When the Iron Curtain was torn down scientists thought that proved something. When jet planes flew into the WTC scientists thought that proved something. And what is that "something" supposed to be? The hard fact is that gay and lesbians mock sex because gay and lesbian sex has nothing to do with life, except as an obstacle. I don't see how it's any more "anti-life" than heterosexual sex. This explains why people in a culture of death (view death as one more problem solved ) find homosexuality virtuous. What's a "culture of death"? If you believe Sweden and the Netherlands are immune from MDR microbe, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and crime I would beg to differ. Should epidemiological science loose the race against MDR microbes nobodies immune. JK never said that those places are immune. And MDR microbes are a big problem in places like hospitals, where it would be hard to call them punishment for sexual sin. The greatest knowable threat to Europe stems from its own intellectual, cultural, economic and reproductive infertility manifested by a geriatric population so egotistical they can�t bare to raise children. Or it's simply too awkward for many people to have children in our current society. Do you really think that people ought to have children they can't afford to have? That's supposedly the great sin of welfare mothers. The Gay Rights Movement poses three empirical and grave threats to civilization. It took all this time for dk to get to this? First: they intend to deconstruct the nuclear family as the basic unit of civilization. How is that supposed to be the case? Is the legitimacy of heterosexuality really dependent on the rejection of homosexuality? Second: they are drawn like a dog to his own vomit into a diseased riddled populations that breeds MDR microbes in prurient driven epidemical subculture. The old stereotype of promiscuous gay men. However, lesbians have much safer sex and remarkably stable relationships. Third gay men can only propagate by preying upon young vulnerable males. The old "recruitment" myth. People don't get recruited; they join when they discover that they are homosexual.

08-05-2003, 03:18 PM	#100
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Big giant favor - Could someone please click on some of my pubmed links in my last post and make sure they work for you? I just realized that I access pubmed from my library server and wasn't sure if those links would work for someone who doesn't dial up through the UCHSC library. Thanks a bunch! scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.