Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

There's No England Now...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Eh? Various studies have found that increased social tolerance lowers the suicide risk for gay people. Dunno where you're getting your nonsense from. Do you just make up crazy stuff for the fun of it?
    You can play dumb all you want but we've had this conversation before, including actual statistics and I'm not dredging them up again just because you want to fake ignorance.
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Your points are silly, so I ignored them. You can pick any oppressed group - e.g. blacks or native americans
      Neither of those groups are oppressed. Quite the opposite, by every measurable statistics the US government discriminates in their favor on a wide number of metrics (and despite it being blatantly unconstitutional).
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by mossrose View Post
        These kids are "as young as 2 years old"!

        What is it about that that fits the liberal idea of "teaching kids about the world?

        A 2 year old has no concept of their sexuality, so how could they possibly grasp the concept of homosexuality or any other kind of deviancy?
        I think they want to brainwash the kids early when they think the other sex has "cooties"

        It's a recruitment tool.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I think they want to brainwash the kids early when they think the other sex has "cooties"

          It's a recruitment tool.
          They don't have cooties?
          "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            I think they want to brainwash the kids early when they think the other sex has "cooties"

            It's a recruitment tool.
            Corrupting young minds is pretty much their only means of procreation.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              So let me get this right. You can kill an infant without consent but you can't have sex with him/her?
              ^--- This.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by seer View Post
                There is no base line in your morally relative world Carrikature. Stop pretending that there is. Bestiality (which is being implicitly accepted by academics like Peter Singer) or child-adult sex may take longer to fall, but given the left's track record it is only a matter of time.
                Your inability to comprehend my moral code doesn't make it relative or devoid of baselines. It's neither. On the contrary, I have some very hard baselines that are generally accepted by just about everyone.
                I'm not here anymore.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  That would depend on what age is classified as a child. And what happens - as it frequently does - when 14 year olds pass themselves off as being 18 ... easy enough to do, and the older partners then wind up with a nasty reputation for things that they were duped about. I would argue that 14 year olds are as capable of consent now as they were 100 years agone. Protecting them from coercion and inducement is of course another matter.
                  Sure. It's not a black and white issue by any stretch. We do at least attempt to codify where that line is drawn so that there can be less confusion. I'm not in favor of prosecuting your examples here, either. I think part of the problem is a one-size fits all description when there should be various levels. We differentiate murder and manslaughter for a reason. We could probably do something similar for sexual offenses.


                  Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                  Interesting. If both parties be under the influence, who is the offender? "The drunk's defence" (too drunk to know what "I" was doing) increasingly is being removed as admissible under court conditions.
                  Exactly. I'd be the first to say there are double-standards at play here. I didn't say I was in favor of this push by the way, but the push does exist.
                  I'm not here anymore.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                    They don't have cooties?
                    Speaking from personal experience they are absolutely covered in cooties.
                    Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      A bad thing. I mention it only to point out the insanity of liberals bending over backwards to cater to groups with such wildly opposing ideologies.

                      There are plenty of other articles. Here's a look at a 2015 CDC study:

                      Source: CNS News

                      “During 2000-2014, the rise in the P&S [or primary and secondary] syphilis rate was primarily attributable to increased cases among men and, specifically, among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (collectively referred to as MSM),” reported the CDC.

                      In 2014, reported the health agency, “men accounted for 91% of all cases of P&S syphilis. And, of those male cases for whom sex of sex partner was known, 83% were MSM.”

                      83% of 91% equals 75.53%, which means that 75.53% of syphilis cases in 2014 were among homosexual men.

                      Further, “reported cases of P&S syphilis continued to be characterized by a high rate of HIV co-infection, particularly among MSM,” said the CDC. In fact, 51% of the homosexual men diagnosed with syphilis in 2014 were also HIV-positive.

                      “Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for STDs … when compared to women and exclusively heterosexual men,” reported the CDC. “[I]ndividual-level risk behaviors, such as number of lifetime sex partners, rate of partner exchange and frequency of unprotected sex, may contribute to rates of STDs.”

                      On its website, the CDC reported, “Syphilis continues to increase among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men. Recent outbreaks among MSM have been marked by high rates of HIV coinfection and high-risk sexual behaviors (such as sex without a condom, new or multiple partners, and substance abuse). Cases of ocular syphilishave also been reported among MSM. Ocular syphilis occurs when syphilis affects the eye and can lead to permanent blindness. While the health problems caused by syphilis in adults are serious, it is also known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to get and give HIV infection sexually.”

                      http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ex-partner-was

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      The article also mentions a higher rate of STDs among black and Native American people. By your logic, that must mean being black and Native American is bad for your health.

                      Here's a more recent one citing a 2016 study of teenagers done by the CDC:

                      Source: American Thinker

                      In almost every instance, the risky behavior measured – especially behaviors that are often linked to a moral decision – was much more prevalent among teenagers engaging in homosexual activity. In addition, and unsurprisingly, those students with the healthiest outcomes were those who refrained from sexual activity. In most of the risky behaviors measured, the outcomes are not even close.

                      For example, students engaging in homosexual activity were about three times more likely to feel "sad or hopeless" than students who had no sexual contact. In addition, students engaging in homosexual activity were nearly four times more likely to have seriously considered attempting suicide than students who had no sexual contact, and they were six and a half times more likely to have actually attempted suicide.

                      Comparing the same two groups (students engaging in homosexual activity vs. students with no sexual contact), students engaging in homosexual activity were:

                      • Eight times more likely to smoke
                      • 47 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
                      • Nearly three times as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
                      • Three and a half times as likely to be currently using alcohol
                      • More than 11 times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
                      • Nearly six times as likely to be currently using marijuana
                      • More than 16 times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs
                      • More than 18 times as likely ever to have used cocaine
                      • 30 times as likely ever to have used heroin
                      • 23 times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines


                      http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...ual_teens.html

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Here's what that article says when comparing people engaging in heterosexual activity in high school vs. those who don't.
                      • Five times more likely to smoke
                      • Nearly 17 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
                      • Nearly twice as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
                      • Three times as likely to be currently using alcohol
                      • More than nine times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
                      • More than four times as likely to be currently using marijuana
                      • Nearly nine times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs
                      • Nine times as likely ever to have used cocaine
                      • More than seven times as likely ever to have used heroin
                      • Seven times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines


                      Using the geometric mean, most of the difference can be explained by the difference in sexual contact vs. no sexual contact. Which makes sense, as there is a certain amount of risk involved in having sex, so those who are more willing to take risks are more likely to have sex and do all the other things the article mentioned. Since there is still some stigma associated with homosexuality, it makes sense that those who engage in homosexual activity would have to be willing to take a greater risk, and would be more likely to be risk-takers in general.

                      A 2016 Reuters article about a health survey conducted by Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville:

                      Source: Reuters

                      Gilbert Gonzales of the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville and colleagues found that compared to heterosexual women, lesbians were 91 percent more likely to report poor or fair health. Lesbians were 51 percent more likely, and bisexual women were more than twice as likely, to report multiple chronic conditions, compared to straight women.

                      Gay, lesbian and bisexual people were also more likely than heterosexuals to report heavy drinking and smoking.

                      While gays and lesbians reported worse psychological distress than heterosexuals, bisexual people suffered the most, the survey showed.

                      For example, about 17 percent of heterosexual men had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 26 percent of gay men and about 40 percent of bisexual men.

                      Similarly, about 22 percent of heterosexual women had at least moderate psychological distress, compared to about 28 percent of lesbian women and about 46 percent of bisexual women.

                      http://www.reuters.com/article/us-he...-idUSKCN0ZE2XE

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      It also mentions discrimination as a likely cause for the increase in psychological issues. What are your thoughts on that?

                      WebMD states very simply in a 2016 article that "gay and bisexual men are at greatest risk for STDs".
                      It also says young people are at greatest risk. But I haven't heard you attacking young people the same way you go after gay people. (As a young straight person I don't mind personally, but it does seem odd).

                      The following website catalogs a number of studies over the years -- as far back as the 1990's to more recent works -- and shows how they all have consistently reached the same conclusions about homosexuality:

                      http://www.trevorgrantthomas.com/p/d...sexuality.html
                      That article seems to be about problems with anal sex more than anything. I'm not sure that that's any worse for gay people than it is for straight people.
                      Find my speling strange? I'm trying this out: Simplified Speling. Feel free to join me.

                      "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do."-Jeremy Bentham

                      "We question all our beliefs, except for the ones that we really believe in, and those we never think to question."-Orson Scott Card

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                        It also says young people are at greatest risk. But I haven't heard you attacking young people the same way you go after gay people. (As a young straight person I don't mind personally, but it does seem odd).
                        Is anyone denying that young people are more likely to engage in reckless behavior? We all know they do, because their brains are immature and don't benefit from the same wealth of experience as an adult. I mean, if you want to compare gays with teens and young adults and insinuate they suffer from permanent arrested development, be my guest.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          Is anyone denying that young people are more likely to engage in reckless behavior? We all know they do, because their brains are immature and don't benefit from the same wealth of experience as an adult. I mean, if you want to compare gays with teens and young adults and insinuate they suffer from permanent arrested development, be my guest.
                          Ah, more idiocy.
                          "Obama is not a brown-skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away free healthcare. You are thinking of Jesus." Episcopal Bishop of Arizona

                          I remember WinAce. Gone but not forgotten.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
                            Your inability to comprehend my moral code doesn't make it relative or devoid of baselines. It's neither. On the contrary, I have some very hard baselines that are generally accepted by just about everyone.
                            Just about everyone Carrikature? I'm old enough to remember when just about everyone believed that things like fornication, homosexuality, promiscuity, out of wedlock births, etc... were morally wrong. What happen to those baselines? Why is consent a line that can not also be crossed? Look at Starlight, he too holds to the standard of consent, yet he would allow for the killing of infants - of course without their consent.
                            Last edited by seer; 04-25-2017, 05:42 AM.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                              The article also mentions a higher rate of STDs among black and Native American people. By your logic, that must mean being black and Native American is bad for your health.
                              By your strawman logic, you mean.

                              The highest rate of risk by far is among homosexuals.

                              Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                              Here's what that article says when comparing people engaging in heterosexual activity in high school vs. those who don't.
                              • Five times more likely to smoke
                              • Nearly 17 times more likely to smoke frequently (20 or more cigarettes in the month prior to the survey)
                              • Nearly twice as likely to have tried alcohol prior to age 13
                              • Three times as likely to be currently using alcohol
                              • More than nine times as likely to binge drink (10 or more drinks in a row)
                              • More than four times as likely to be currently using marijuana
                              • Nearly nine times as likely ever to have used hallucinogenic drugs
                              • Nine times as likely ever to have used cocaine
                              • More than seven times as likely ever to have used heroin
                              • Seven times as likely ever to have used methamphetamines


                              Using the geometric mean, most of the difference can be explained by the difference in sexual contact vs. no sexual contact. Which makes sense, as there is a certain amount of risk involved in having sex, so those who are more willing to take risks are more likely to have sex and do all the other things the article mentioned. Since there is still some stigma associated with homosexuality, it makes sense that those who engage in homosexual activity would have to be willing to take a greater risk, and would be more likely to be risk-takers in general.
                              Regardless, the highest rate of risk by far is among homosexuals.

                              Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                              It also mentions discrimination as a likely cause for the increase in psychological issues. What are your thoughts on that?
                              I think it's a copout. Homosexuals who have convinced themselves that they would finally be happy if only everybody else would change are living in denial. The problem is with them, not with nature or morality or social norms.

                              Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                              It also says young people are at greatest risk. But I haven't heard you attacking young people the same way you go after gay people. (As a young straight person I don't mind personally, but it does seem odd).
                              Even among young people, the highest rate of risk by far is among homosexuals.

                              Originally posted by stfoskey15 View Post
                              That article seems to be about problems with anal sex more than anything. I'm not sure that that's any worse for gay people than it is for straight people.
                              And who is more likely to engage in anal sex: heterosexuals, or homosexual males?

                              In study after study after study, going back decades, it has been consistently proven that homosexuality is bad for your health.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                I think it's a copout. Homosexuals who have convinced themselves that they would finally be happy if only everybody else would change are living in denial. The problem is with them, not with nature or morality or social norms.
                                I asked you for proof of this before, and I do not believe you responded. You may have simply missed my post, so here it goes again. Your claim was that "after every social victory, homosexuals find themselves just as miserable as before." So I asked if you have evidence for this claim, that there is no increase in level of happiness in the present compared to 20 years ago for them (before most of the "social victories"). Do you have any proof of this claim?

                                In study after study after study, going back decades, it has been consistently proven that homosexuality is bad for your health.
                                The problem is that this always seems to be in comparison with heterosexuals, which seems a pointless comparison for this purpose. "Homosexuals are less healthy than heterosexuals" doesn't really say anything about what homosexuals should do because they aren't heterosexuals (note: I am using "homosexual" and "heterosexual" to refer to orientation, not behavior). The proper comparison would be to compare to other homosexuals.

                                I'll try to explain this with an analogy. Suppose someone with diabetes is trying to evaluate whether they should take insulin as treatment. Well, studies clearly show that people on diabetes who take insulin are less healthy than people who don't have diabetes. But it's downright goofy to use that as a reason to not take insulin, because the option to not have diabetes doesn't exist; you're diabetic, not non-diabetic. Since that part isn't controllable (unless they discover a cure down the line, which is possible), the proper thing to do would be to compare the effect insulin (or any other treatment) has on other diabetics.

                                So I don't think the "homosexuals are less healthy than heterosexuals" is particularly relevant in any statement on healthiness of homosexuality for the same reason; people do not appear to choose to be homosexual, after all. However, one does have the choice on whether or not to act on that orientation, in the same way a heterosexual can choose whether or not to act on it. It seems to me a far more useful comparison would be to compare homosexuals who do act on their orientation (i.e. actually enter into relationships and things like that) versus those who do not (i.e. eschew all such rela). Does the latter provably lead to the same kinds of health benefits, particularly in regards to happiness?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 09:58 AM
                                3 responses
                                11 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                194 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                419 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Working...
                                X