The bible and homosexuality

Propaganda. Let's see your evidence for this.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 03:17 AM

Great example. As I suspected, these are merely more pseudo-statistics that aren't questioned by those using them to make their point. Someone sees a percentage in a publication, it gets recycled and re-used until it becomes accepted as 'fact,' and you have another '1 in 10 people is gay' myth that is so deeply entrenched, people get defensive when the statistic is challenged(very similar to YECs responding to biblical challenges). Criticism of sample population used in SMS survey:

quote:

---

To apply information about some subgroup (the "sample") to the larger group (the "population"), the sample must be "representative" of the group. A sample is representative if each member of the group has an equal chance of being in the survey.
  —http://www.noglstp.org/economic.html

---

That's bad enough without the fact that the study was comissioned by a group with a clear agenda: demonstrate to advertisers of gay publications that gay households had a great deal of disposable income.The other studies cited? Even worse: Bias. Should be treated the same way Pat Robertson's survey results are treated - as an outlier at best. Yeah those ever accurate internet censuses (censi, censisticles?). That it was anonymous lends extra authority to the results. I'm sure the sample set was statistically valid.Unfortunately these sorts of statistics are almost worthless; and even more reliable surveys should be questioned until the sample population, selection criteria, variance, and actual verbiage of the questions asked are made available in order to see how the result was obtained. Additional information such as the type of average used is also necessary. Mean can be very different than median.But whether gays, lesbians, and bisexuals have more money or are better educated as a group doesn't really matter: they are still human beings who should be afforded the same rights and respect that every other human being deserves.Jar and others have made eloquent posts explaining how the bible, with the exception of Leviticus which is apparently against everything, does not encourage people to be homophobic or biased against non-heterosexuals.Besides, it's insinuated that Jesus is bi-sexual: he spends an inordinate amount of time with Mary M. and James. Who does he love best? He can't make up his mind. The entire crucifixion is clearly a grand metaphor for sexual identity crisis and desires not conforming to accepted socio-religious practices.This message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 04:42 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 06-13-2004 04:43 AM

There is a fantastic sketch about this subject in the first season of Mr. Show (an old HBO sketch show with David Cross and Bob 'President of Beers' Odenkirk). The premise is a religious, 700 Club type program where the 'reformed homosexual' (David Cross) recounts how many times he has fallen from the hetero wagon but keeps coming back to be saved. The sketch ends with the show's host plugging David's future relapses at the upcoming Mardi Gras and Gay Pride parades.This message has been edited by custard, 06-15-2004 02:09 PM

Ahh, but that isn't always entirely true is it? I don't know about you, but when I was younger it was not unheard of if I, or one of my buddies, was approached, unsolicited, and asked if we wanted to rub our butts up against some guy's Sherman.That was never a comfortable encounter as it always came as an unexpected non-sequiter and you were usually too shocked to do anything else but stammer "uh - er - no, I'm not into Shermans, man."No doubt these types of unwelcome encounters (also made famous recently by the likes of George Michael) provide ammunition to people who already find homosexuality distasteful or immoral. Something like this occurs and it serves to re-affirm what homophobes 'already know' about gays.The thing to remember though, is that most guys, regardless of sexual orientation, are pretty much horny scumbags; and these advances are probably no worse, on average, than those by heterosexual men toward women.This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 03:39 AM

Interesting. Although I'm not sure that safety is really the issue. I think the question Rrhain and Z were arguing was whether it was 'natural'; specifically whether the anus was designed to admit entry of foreign objects.I think Z made a strong point that, by the definition of design/function of the anus, it isn't 'natural' although I saw Rrhain argued that everything a human being does is natural because man is part of nature.I think the back and forth here demonstrates that the argument whether anal sex is natural or not is moot: it depends on your definition of natural, and even if the function of the anus is to act primarily as a one-way opening, using it for something other than that doesn't mean it's unnatural.For example, I doubt too many people would argue the primary function of the human mouth is to provide oral sex, but lots of people use it for that purpose. Does that make oral sex 'unnatural,' and therefore, wrong?This message has been edited by custard, 06-16-2004 11:05 PM

Same thought occurred to me when he made the analogy. HPV, generally, is a benign disease which, while unsightly on men, really has no negative affects. Yes there are some strains of HPV that have been linked to cervical cancer, but that is a small percentage of the thirty or so types of HPV out there. Even then, not all women who are exposed to HPV contract it. And not all who contract the strain of HPV that can cause cancer actually contract cervical cancer.
(HPV FAQ here: Attention Required! | Cloudflare)To say that HPV is a reason not to have sex (which you could still contract from your spouse anyway), is almost as ridiculous as saying we should stop shaking hands to prevent the spreading colds or molluscum (warts on your hands).Since the topic is homosexuality, HPV is even less germain to the argument that homosexual sex is 'wrong' because gay men can't develop cervical cancer; and I'm not sure how effectively lesbians could spread HPV - although that last thought makes me think I should do more {ahem} research on the subject.This message has been edited by custard, 06-17-2004 07:48 PM

Not according to the police report he's the one at fault for masturbating in front of an undercover policeman. Are you contending the police illegally entrapped him?George Michael contended the same thing several times AFTER he pleaded no contest to the charge. Now the ninth circuit of appeals has determined the arresting officer can go ahead and sue him for defamation.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 09:10 AM

(*BLINK!*)You did not just ask that did you?What is one of the functions of the vagina? To collect and hold sperm until it can fertilize the ovum? So part of its function is to allow entry of the penis in order for this to happen.Which one of the functions of the anus is to allow entry of the penis?

They all say it feels good? None of the people who try it ever say "you're never sticking that up my butt again!" Really? Fascinating.

So you've resorted to name calling? How original.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to that. That's why I wrote:

quote:

---

What is one of the functions of the vagina?

---

Not 'the primary function;' one of the functions. Maybe yours, but I can gaurantee that's not one of the functions of my little starfish. In any case, I don't see that anywhere in Gray's Anatomy. I'll have to write them so they can put in an addendum in the next edition.Additionally, here is some evidence as to why one might not want to engage in anal sex (looks like I was mistaken about gay men not being affected by HPV):

quote:

---

Anal cancer is an uncommon, often curable cancer that produces slow-growing tumors and lesions in the anus and nearby anal anatomy. Most anal cancers are associated with human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes warts on the anus and genitals, similar to cervical and other cancers of the reproductive system.

​

Incidence and Prevalence
Anal cancer affects men and women, but it is the only cancer with a greater prevalence among men who have sex with men (MSM) than in the general population. About 35 in every 100,000 MSM develop anal cancer, compared to less than one in every 100,000 heterosexual men. The risk for anal cancer in HIV-positive men is twice as high as that for HIV-negative MSM.

---

This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 08:31 AM

They can consider it not to be a function of their vaginas until the cows come home, that doesn't make them correct. That they choose not to use it for that purpose doesn't invalidate the function. If they choose not to have children, it doesn't invalidate the function of their uterus. Nice try though. If I can save even one person from anal cancer, my life will be fulfilled. Of course, just to be contrarian, you could run out and receive some anal sex. That would teach me.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 09:03 AM

Again, you can keep saying this is true, but that doesn't make it true. You can stick things up your anus and into your rectum all night long for all I care - whatever works for you, but it's pretty funny that you think an actual function of the anus is to stimulate a penis.Just because something is an orafice doesn't mean part of its function is to have a penis inserted in it. Using your logic the mouth, ears and nostrils (depending on size of course), and the knot hole in the garden post all share the function of penile insertion.What if someone has an empty eye socket? Would that now have a penile insertion function? But why stop at holes? The armpit might serve pretty well. How about behind the knee?Absolutely fascinating.

No. That comment was intended to be glib.

I don't think either anal or oral sex is unnatural or immoral.Your confusion is understandable though as I have been arguing against the claim that one of the functions of the anus is for sex. I think that argument is off the mark and an unnecessary argument that smacks of being contrary for the sake of being contrary.This message has been edited by custard, 06-18-2004 12:25 PM