Also, two last poiutns, as I was cut off.

Christainity is not the rleigion of Love and tolerence. it is ta religion based on love. Tolerence is not always identicle to love, and in fact sometimes love demands into,lerence. Before you leap for joy at this seemign admitance of evil, your own claims that you wanted me to leap pff a bridge, and your snide remarks along that vein, and your antireligiosu stance, makes you hightly intolerent yourself.

    Intolerence is sometimes needed for love, for if you love someone, you will want what is best for them, and will want to prevent them form destoryign themselves.

    Also, about the famous seperation of Church and state. Its a lie. well, not the seperation, but the reaosn you offered. Your foundign fathers didnt look back on a hiosotry controled by the (Christain) chruch, and see a hisotry of isurt and thus, in their wisdom, decide to prevent such oppression from ever grippiugn America. The seperation of Church and sttae is not designed to protect the state form Churhc controle, but the opposite.
  The seperation was designed to protect religion, and religiosu freedom.

  Your presentaiton is thus a lie. A popular myth toted as fact.

I will repeat.

The seperation of Chruch and sttae was nto inacted ot prevent the Church form takign over and beign tyranival as it had in the past, rather, the seperation was designed to prevent the state form controling the religon and to insure religiosu freedom.

Its been perverted into protectign the state form religion by modern political parties, who themselve sare antireligioys. Its a lie, and thus easily dismissed.

My, we sure are feeling chatty today. Let’s get to slogging through it.

{Having explained my Dyslexia already, I am shown your open mindedness and tolerence.}

OK, so you’re dyslexic. This prevents you from using a spell checker in what way? If anything, being dyslexic is just another reason why you should use a spell checker. I’m not dyslexic and I use a spell checker every time I post an entry because I want to make sure my points aren’t overlooked because I misspelled a couple of words. There’s even a spell checker you can use in Internet Explorer if that’s the browser you’re using. If it is, I suggest downloading ieSpell and installing it as it will allow you to spell check any web form like the one on this page. If you’re using a different browser then type your response up in a word processor and then copying and pasting it into the web page.

Your insistence on using your dyslexia as a crutch is much like your insistence on using your religion like a crutch. If someone says anything critical of either one of them you start whining about how intolerant and closed minded they are. I’m beginning to suspect you’d whine in such a manner over any criticism you may receive. I sympathize with you on having dyslexia, but I won’t cut you any slack over it. You’re supposedly a journalist. Does your editor let you slide by just because you’re dyslexic? Or does he insist you use a spell checker?

{“Please say yes.”?Tjis is tolerence to you?

No, it’s wishful thinking. It’s also making a point. One which you conveniently managed to dodge by whining about tolerance again.

I am a Chrisyain. I dont liek you bashign my rleigion. Thereofre I am an idiot who deserves to die.

I never said you deserve to die. As for not liking me bashing your religion, well, too fucking bad. There’s a lot about it that makes it very bash-able. Although I would argue that there’s a big difference between bashing and criticizing most of what we do here is criticize, though we do occasionally engage in some bashing.

Hey, we’re only human.

Tht sort of humour is far form prodictive and causes no respect, even fro,m those who wll give you lip service of respect.

Who said I wanted your respect? Who said I was concerned about having anyone’s respect? Answer the fucking question already.

Ad Homonim puns arent really valid points.

It was a perfectly valid point and question, you just don’t want to answer it.

Especially since I already said i woudl be aaisnt any unfair position, if Chrisytain or no.

And the above is exactly why you should be using a spell checker. I have no clue what that sentence says. How do you expect us to even understand you, let alone agree or disagree with you if you can’t even put up a coherent sentence? Yet I’m supposed to be Mr. Tolerance and just guess at what it says and not criticize the fact that you’re too lazy to deal with your condition. Man, if I took that attitude with my ADD I’d have been fired from my job a long time ago.

You give little reason to respect your veiw, as you want to tyranically impose your seclarianism by deconstricting yout oponant.

I haven’t tried to “tyrannically impose” jack shit on anyone. I asked you a simple question and you ranted on about it as if I’d called your mother a two-bit Malaysian whore. No wonder your responses are so damned long. You spend most of your time sputtering and ranting about the questions asked than you do providing a valid defense of your position.

Guess how much I care if you respect my view on the issue? Guess how much I expect you to respect my views on the issue? If you said “little to none” then you’re correct!

I see you don’t bother to respond to my question on your second point and just skip over to point number 3.

Actually most fo my research isnt Religious. Most of it comes form the same peopel who initially said that its not a mental illness, andclaim today its immutable dispite evidence tot he contrary in their own Jorunal. I am addressign the CURRENT APA journals, form 1995-2003. Those rleigious sources?

Are you suggesting that the researchers are intentionally lying about the results of their own studies? If such an obvious contradiction exists between what they’re saying and what the evidence they’re publishing is suggesting don’t you think other scientists would have spoken up by now? Please cite some examples of researchers who are making statements opposed to what their own research shows to be true.

Most of the scientists I have spoeken to, or read papers by, will nto go so far as to claim an extant link. Most of the research you find on the net that does show a link is from faulty research, Like Dean Hammer, which has since been discresited, and yet still makes comon rounds.To date scintrists are far less than willing to clim Genetic linkage to Homosexuality.

Assuming for the moment that what you say here is true, so what? Just because scientists in general aren’t willing to back a proposition one hundred percent doesn’t mean the proposition is invalid, just that more research needs to be done before they’re willing to commit. That’s a good thing and the way a scientist should act until there’s enough evidence to say definitively. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence in support of the proposition or that there isn’t enough to make the proposition worthy of consideration.

Having said that, I’ve seen enough evidence from enough different sources that does seem to indicate that it is genetic in it’s basis to accept the idea as most likely true. Again, however, that’s a minor point in my mind.

So are peopel who engauge in Incest. thus Incestuous coupoles are a Minority. Therefore they need protection. There is much too much an issue when dealing with Hiomosexuality than to dismiss it by a catch phase of “inority protection” which by logicval extension woudl over many acts you woudl consifer also criminal.

You’re using faulty logic. I never said minorities “need protection.“ I said that, by definition, homosexuals are a minority. You’re making the faulty assumption that by calling something a “minority” that we’re automatically implying that they need protection from the majority.

Incidentally, picking incest as an example was a bad idea. Your own Bible promotes the idea of incest in various ways starting with Adam and Eve. I mean, who the hell did their kids have sex with if not each other? For that matter, wasn’t it Lot’s daughters who got him drunk, had sex with him and gave birth as a result? Biblically, there’s no good reason to be against incestuous relationships. I don’t recall a single passage anywhere in the Bible that forbids it. Scientifically, however, there are plenty of reasons to oppose incest. Yet somehow the church likes to claim credit for it. How odd.

Had it ever occured to you tht the restriction may be for a reason?

Yes, it had occurred to me. Which is why I asked you what those reasons might be. I would’ve thought this line of logic would be obvious to someone so versed in its use.

Bothublic and private?

I’m guessing that says “both public and private.“ I have no idea what it means, but OK.

Homosexuality has been shown to lower life expectancy,

Yes, it can lower life expectancy. Especially when there are people out there who feel it’s perfectly OK to beat homosexuals to death. Yeah, that could have an effect on life expectancy.

You know sky diving lowers life expectancy as well, especially when the chute doesn’t open. Shall we ban sky diving as well? People who use too much salt have a lower life expectancy as well, perhaps we should ban salt. People who abuse diet supplements have a lower life expectancy so we should get rid of those too. And hey, cars! People who drive cars everywhere have a lower life expectancy than people who walk so we should ban all cars too! Walking IS healthier!

Lowered life expectancy, while a concern, isn’t necessarily a valid reason to restrict an activity.

cause MORE disease ( and this si not to be shrugged off as religiosu research, its nto all form fundy sites.A lot of it is from the national Boar of Health report. Freely available if you write to Washington DC.)

I would love to hear how homosexuality causes more disease. Please, cite examples. This could be a valid point if true, but you provide nothing to back this claim up.

Also, stress rates are higher.( let me guess, stress is cused by Persecution. Such is the extend of your ability to listen)

You answered your own point. I listen just fine, but you’ve not provided any other valid reasons for why stress rates should be higher for homosexuals than for anyone else. If I were to guess, I’d imagine stress rates were higher not just because of the potential for persecution, but because so many homosexuals are still in the closet and are worrying about what will happen to their relationships with their families and loved ones should the truth ever get out. Stress rates are definitely higher for those homosexuals who are still in the closet that it is for those who have come out.

But then stress rates are higher among people who work as air traffic controllers, much higher even for homosexuals, so I suppose we should ban all air traffic controllers and, as a result, all air travel.

Again, like lowered life expectancy, elevated stress levels isn’t necessarily a valid reason to restrict an activity.

Other features of Homosexuality, which woudl be long, soeak volumes as to why it shoudl peprevented.

You’ve already blathered on this long without really saying anything so, please, go into these other features that speak volumes on why it should be prevented. I’d really, sincerely, love to hear them. Of the three reasons you’ve listed above one of them might be a valid point, but you don’t provide any data to back up that point so it’s questionable at best.

Do you support legalising Incest as well? Form a social standpoint, both Homosexuality and Incest provide the same risk, blurrign the lines and creatign confusion in society. On aprovate level, it invovles health risks both physically and mentlaly. ( I types this in a hurry, but its true nonetheless.)

For someone who likes to quote logical fallacies every chance you get I’m surprised to see you using one. Especially considering that I’ve already pointed out that there is no Biblical reason for opposing incest. It’s a bad argument to make to support your viewpoint as, logically, you shouldn’t have any opposition to incest yourself.

You’re comparing apples and oranges here. Incest and homosexuality are not similar in either the health risks nor in their social standpoint. There are valid scientific reasons to oppose incest starting with the known genetic problems that systemic incest can produce. Homosexuals, unable to reproduce with a same-sex partner, will not produce such systemic genetic issues through their lifestyles.

Its a false prescept to assume that just because I think its morally wrong doesnt give me the right to claim its wrong for othes and prevent it. it is destructive to the peopel who engause in it and society as a whole.

Then by the same logic it’s a false “prescept,“ as you creatively put it, to tell me that my bashing of Christianity, which I feel to be morally wrong and destructive to society as a whole, is something I shouldn’t engage in or that I shouldn’t promote the wholesale outlawing of said religion for the crimes it is guilty of.

In other words, if you feel you have the right to speak out against and try to ban activities and beliefs you disagree with then I have that same right in reverse. You are a hypocrite to accuse me of being intolerant and closed minded when you sit there and engage in the same activities yourself. Hypocrisy is something I have no respect for.

You do not even have a case agaisnt it. Indeed, Chrisyainity has doen a lot of good int he world. Charities, hopsitals, missions to educate, not to mention broken lives repaired. Homosexuality on the other hand has had a long, and well acknowledged, legacy of confusion and dispare which makes any claim agaisnt Christainity pale in comparrison.

You’re right, history is full of examples of homosexuals rising up and engaging in ideological wars that massacred thousands upon thousands of otherwise innocent people just because they didn’t believe in homosexuality. Oh, wait, that was the CHRISTIANS. OK, history is full of examples of homosexuals forcing other people to convert to a homosexual lifestyle or be killed for their refusal to submit to a superior lifestyle. No, darn it, that was the CHRISTIANS again.

The hell I couldn’t make a good case against Christianity. Sure it’s done some good over the years, but then there are a number of homosexuals who have also done charity work of the sort you ascribe to Christians and all without trying to push their ideological beliefs along with the charity.

What amuses me most here is your complete inability to recognize your own hypocrisy. That seems to be quite common among Christians.

Let’s see now, you’re moving on to try and lump my replies to points 5 and 6 into one big pile.

You accuse me of makign statements wihtout backign them up, and here you are makign statements without backign them up.
Chrisainity has not been shown by you or anyone else to hbe harmful.

Dude, we’ve backed those statements up by listing off such well known historical events such as the Crusades and the Inquisitions among others which you brushed off as being mere trifles that really didn’t do any harm and weren’t really representative of the religion. The death of THOUSANDS isn’t HARMFUL?!? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Meanwhile you sit there and make claims like “it was ggenerated by mass hysteria and superstition, not religious persecution” as though the truthfulness of that statement should be self-evident and not require anything to back it up.

Religion doesnt aurtomatically generate evil. Thats just an assumption you make. One that you dotn even try to support.No matter what your opinion is, you havent supported it with anyhtign but cheap shors agaisnt me, and by blind accusations and assumption.

I never claimed that religion “automatically generates evil.“ For that matter there are a number of religions I have absolutely no issues with co-existing with; the much maligned Pagans you like to keep claiming never existed being one such group. Buddhists are another group I largely have no issues with. There are dozens of religions out there that I have no real objections to and that I think don’t generate any great amount of harm through their beliefs or rituals.

For the record I don’t feel that all Christians are evil or inclined toward evil. I have many close friends who are Christian and who are generally wonderful people. I’ve said this before, and I’ll restate it again here in hopes it’ll penetrate your skull this time, that I feel that overall Christianity has done more harm than good and I wouldn’t be sad to see it disappear from the face of the Earth. This is my PERSONAL opinion and I’ve stated it as being such several times. The fact that you can’t determine a statement of opinion from a statement of fact is no problem of mine. You’ll probably blame your dyslexia again.

The only person around here making statements of fact without backing them up and then ignoring the counterpoints raised against him

is you

.

Yet many theocracies are peaceful. Some islands in the pacific ocean are theocracies ( And Christain) and have a much lower crime rate than america, or even europe. One doesnt even have any Jails.

Once again you make a claim without citing any references to back it up. Please enlighten us with the names of these peaceful Christian theocracies. Especially the one without any jails.

Tibet was a theocracy until it was overthrown by Communist China.

Yes, Buddhist as I recall. Are you saying that Tibet didn’t have any issues until China came along?

Sorry, this is just casting stones. You make anothe runsupported claim. “Theocracy is evil” wihtout backign it up. Not that I am for an all out theocracy, btu this si bad form, especially since you blame me for the same.

I never claimed “theocracy is evil.“ You’re again putting words into my mouth. I said theocracy would be the ruin of America and that one only need look at history to see the truth of it and that the Founding Fathers were well aware of this fact. Theocracy and freedom aren’t exactly good bed-fellows. The Founding Fathers wanted a society where a man would be free to believe and do what he wanted without fear of persecution from others as long as he wasn’t harming the person or property of another. You want me to back it up? OK, try this on for size:

We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions ... shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power ... we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society.—John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785 I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself.—John Adams, letter to his brother-in-law, Richard Cranch, August 29, 1756 Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany (1819) The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.—Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.—Thomas Jefferson, to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813 In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.—Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

But then I imagine the intentions of the Founding Fathers would mean little to you who would undo what they have wrought.

Another ad Homonm? You have no reason to speak venhem agaisnt CHristainity, and the evil you geenrate far exceeds any harm I have spoken to you.

It’s “ad hominem” you dolt. And I have plenty of reason to speak ill against Christianity much of which I have already outlined in this thread and others. Please enlighten me to the evil I have “geenrate” in this discussion so far?

Another baseless accusation. Nothign you habe said supports this claim, its just assumed.

Not assumed, based on research and already illustrated several times in this thread alone. Your desire to brush away the crimes already spoken of does not diminish or dilute them, it just shows your willingness to cover your eyes from the truth.

I have read mor ehtan one entry. Beleive me, its mainly AntiChristain. Do you really want me to cite spacifics?

Please do. It would make for a refreshing change from the usual claims without evidence you’ve been providing so far.

That said, I don’t dispute the idea that we tend to concentrate on Christianity here mainly because of the simple fact that Christianity has the greatest impact on us as individuals considering the majority status they hold in the United States. If the majority religion were Muslim and they were trying to pull the same crap that the Christians are then the majority of our attention would be focused on them. Surely the simple logic of this is obvious to someone as intellectually gifted as yourself?

Since paganism isnt much of a majority and has no cnetral unity, this is a bad example.

So you’re suggesting that if Pagans were the majority then they would be engaging in the same sort of attempts at imposition than Christians currently are? Me thinks you should get to know a few more Pagans. From the ones I know I sincerely feel they’d make for a fairly benevolent majority all things considered. Certainly can’t be any worse.

Plenty of times in Asian nations, oh but we arent in those coutnries so it doesnt apply…

Now you’re catching on! I knew it’d sink in eventually.

In other words, you will hate somethign because you disagree with it and tell people who want to voice their opinion, if its based on their religion, that thy are tyrants. Thus you deny the voice of soem peopel and impose your own secularist veiw by default. This is good how?

I don’t hate much of anything, though I do dislike quite a few things. Spinach, for example. I don’t deny others their right to eat spinach, but I do deny them any right to force ME to eat it and those that try to force me to eat spinach are, indeed, tyrants. I’m sure this exceedingly simple analogy will be lost on you so allow me to answer your questions more directly.

I may or may not dislike, or hate, something because I disagree with it. There are a number of things I disagree with, but don’t hate or dislike. Homosexuality, for example. I disagree with it, but I don’t hate it.

I also have never called anyone who just wanted to voice their opinion a tyrant, I have called people who wanted to ENFORCE their opinions as tyrants. But then “voicing” and “enforcing” seem to be synonymous with you.

I also haven’t denied anyone their right to voice their opinion. I could easily just delete any comments you make here and that could be considered a small means of denying you your voice, but I don’t. Instead I allow you to share your voice with everyone who comes to visit my website, how is that denying you your voice? You seem to be assuming that because I criticize and argue against your opinions that I am somehow denying you your voice. Please explain to me how this is so.

For comparison you not only voice your opinions against homosexuality, but you have made it clear that you would restrict and even ban homosexuality if you had the chance. How is that any different from what you accuse me of engaging in?

We both disagree with the idea of homosexuality, but the difference between us is that I don’t feel it’s within my rights to tell someone else they can’t live that lifestyle and you feel that you can. So, my secularist viewpoints seems to be the one that gives everyone the most freedom whereas yours would limit it. My viewpoint is the “tolerant” one whereas yours isn’t. Yet you accuse me of being intolerant because I decry the harm done by your religion. Yes, I criticize your religion and even bashed it, but I have never called for it’s banishment. That would be intolerance, but then it’s clear you’re not familiar with what that word really means.

On other words, all you can do is scorn, and be a hypocrite.

The only person being a hypocrite around here is you as I’ve ably demonstrated already.

You claim that religion does a little good and generates a lot fo evil. That is supported by nothing. You also make baseless accusations and assume thigns without really backign them up.

I said most religions do more harm than good. Again, try not to put words in my mouth. I and others have provided examples of how some specific religions have generated more harm than good. None of our accusations are baseless and we’ve provided references to back them up. Again, the only person making claims without backing them up is you. You really need to re-read this whole thread.

Christainity is not the rleigion of Love and tolerence. it is ta religion based on love. Tolerence is not always identicle to love, and in fact sometimes love demands into,lerence. Before you leap for joy at this seemign admitance of evil, your own claims that you wanted me to leap pff a bridge, and your snide remarks along that vein, and your antireligiosu stance, makes you hightly intolerent yourself.

For being based on love it surly seems to be lacking in it. As for my own intolerance, again, I’m not the one trying to ban anything even though I feel religion causes more harm than good.

Have I encouraged you to leap off a bridge? I suppose you could look at it that way, though a much preferable solution would be for you to just give up your silly superstitions and become a more productive member or society. Failing at that then I wouldn’t necessarily be upset if you followed a bunch of Christian lemmings off a bridge in much the same way that I wasn’t all that upset with the Heaven’s Gate cult when they offed themselves to go meet up with the UFO in the tail of Haley’s Comet awhile back. Is that intolerant? No, it’s just wishful thinking. Intolerance would be me trying to force you to jump.

Intolerence is sometimes needed for love, for if you love someone, you will want what is best for them, and will want to prevent them form destoryign themselves.

Then I think I can say with some confidence that there’s a lot of us out here that would really appreciate it if you didn’t love us. Really, it’s a nice sentiment, but we’d rather have the freedom to think for ourselves and do what we want without you trying to force your religious nonsense on us because you feel you have to love everybody so damned much.

Also, about the famous seperation of Church and state. Its a lie. well, not the seperation, but the reaosn you offered. Your foundign fathers didnt look back on a hiosotry controled by the (Christain) chruch, and see a hisotry of isurt and thus, in their wisdom, decide to prevent such oppression from ever grippiugn America. The seperation of Church and sttae is not designed to protect the state form Churhc controle, but the opposite.
The seperation was designed to protect religion, and religiosu freedom.

Your presentaiton is thus a lie. A popular myth toted as fact.

It is not a lie. Allow me to cite from Thomas Jefferson, the man who coined the phrase in the first place:

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,“ therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.     We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.—Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808).

Here we have no less than Jefferson himself specifically stating the purpose behind the wall of separation saying that ANY CHURCH which uses the POWER OF GOVERNMENT to ENFORCE ITS VIEWS undermines ALL OUR CIVIL RIGHTS.

That’s no fucking myth, it’s a fact and you can look it up yourself.

I will repeat.

The seperation of Chruch and sttae was nto inacted ot prevent the Church form takign over and beign tyranival as it had in the past, rather, the seperation was designed to prevent the state form controling the religon and to insure religiosu freedom.

Its been perverted into protectign the state form religion by modern political parties, who themselve sare antireligioys. Its a lie, and thus easily dismissed.

You can repeat your claim all you want, but that doesn’t make it true. I’ve provided supporting evidence for the current interpretation of the phrase “wall of separation” whereas all you’ve done is say “it’s a lie and a myth” without providing anything to back that claim up.

Sad, pathetic, but not at all surprising from you.

Quit your whining Zarove. If you want to spew narrow minded beliefs and voice ill educated opinions you deserve to hear other’s impressions of your shoddy presentations. Besides I did a spell check of your posts and was able to correct most of your mistakes with just a click, or in the worst case, a point and click of the mouse. If you expect others to take the time to read your words, try to make them resemble words we can recognize without considerable effort. I think it’s more correct to assume that your lazy style and ungenerous comments reflect the type of person you are: One who is quick to talk but doesn’t want to do the work necessary to be understood. If you are dyslexic take more time with your construction. I don’t mean to malign the condition but instead your quickness to desire acceptance of it as a impediment you cannot overcome to any degree.

You said ( and I‘ve corrected your misspelled words simply to make their meanings easier to discern): “Had it ever occurred to you that the restriction may be for a reason? Both public and private? Homosexuality has been shown to lower life expectancy, cause MORE disease (and this is not to be shrugged off as religious research, its not all from fundy sites. A lot of it is from the national Board of Health report. Freely available if you write to Washington DC.) Also, stress rates are higher. (Let me guess, stress is caused by Persecution. Such is the extent of your ability to listen) Other features of Homosexuality, which would be long, speak volumes as to why it should be prevented.”

Yes stress is most certainly a result of persecution. I’ve noticed you seem to be bitching a lot about being a persecuted Christian and I bet it’s causing you some stress. Stress causes the host to experience many adverse effects both automatic and chosen. Stress shortens life spans. It causes immune systems to be compromised. It creates a nervous and despairing state which can lead the sufferer by choice to turn to drugs and suicide as a way to deal with day to day life. Drug use further compromises a healthy system. If you want to use AIDS as an example of an unhealthy lifestyle consider that AIDS began in the gay community and initially spread within the community exclusively because gays tend to sleep with others of the same sex. If a gay man contracted the disease chances are that he would most often expose another gay man to the disease unknowingly. AIDS is an opportunistic disease and that is how we fight it, by using methods to prevent it’s spread like using a condom and abstaining from high risk sexual activities. Now that we know the disease (and most other sexually transmitted diseases) cares little for the gender or sexuality of the host perhaps we can drop the “gays have more sexual diseases crap“. AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease now because gays have learned how to contain it while some heterosexuals still consider it an exotic example of God’s scorn for homosexuality. They actually feel impervious to the “plague“. I’ve had more than my fair share of sexual relations and I’ve never had a sexual disease. In some ways I’m stronger than some gay men and women because I chose not to repress my sexual and psychological leanings. I didn’t abuse drugs too badly (nor was I a stranger to them) and I allowed myself to feel worthy in spite of the hate and invective people like you would knowingly and proudly subject me to. I’m not saying I didn’t have some rough times but let me take this opportunity to thank people like you for that.

    You said: “Christianity has done a lot of good in the world. Charities, hospitals, missions to educate, not to mention broken lives repaired. Homosexuality on the other hand has had a long, and well acknowledged, legacy of confusion and despair which makes any claim against Christianity pale in comparison.”
Christianity may offer food, medicine and care but it often does so with the expectation that the beneficiary will convert, proselytize,  and/or repay the favor with work performed. Missionary’s often wish to further their particular Church’s doctrines and generate income for the church. You can argue that it takes money to finance religious education, but you would be wrong. If the church’s positions are worthy others will accept them eagerly and bartering can allow believers to travel to distant lands to present the faith’s concerns and stances. It would seem more correct to say that the faith’s followers feel better about themselves if others believe as they do and missions are utilized to increase membership and the wealth of the faith.
Homosexuality has had a long and sometimes acknowledged legacy of despair precisely because of poorly educated persons like yourself being the cause of that despair. What I do with my body is of no concern of yours or your religion’s, and comparing homosexual coupling with incest is moronic and simply shows how intolerant and ill informed you really are.
Yes your religion is full of hate and yes your religion has enslaved or caused the deaths of millions either directly or indirectly. I think you need to spend less time reading The Watchtower and The Christian Science Monitor and listening to Rush Limbaugh and try to expose yourself to more open minded and less agenda specific literature and opinion. A great place to start with a myriad of places to go from there would be: http://www.hermes-press.com/nonews.htm “Why You’re Not Getting the News” (Sorry, I can’t get it to show up as an active link.) Les said: “When was the last time I had a Pagan trying to impose his religious views on me through legislation? Ummmm, can’t think of one.”
You responded: “Since paganism isn’t much of a majority and has no central unity, this is a bad example.”
The very reason I am against Christianity is because it is a unified organization which seeks through that stranglehold to legislate my individual rights, misinform me of the way the world is and should be, and represses any contrary viewpoints by labeling them satanic or anti-supportive of a meaningful and responsible life-style. Your religion was begun by a political caste system which sought to control a repressed group’s rights and control it’s activities, and became the Roman Catholic church, which has done more to control and limit individual freedom and self destiny than any organization I can think of including the Third Reich. If alcoholism, pedophilia, excessive wealth at the expense of others and the selling of absolution are admirable activities and lifestyles, I don’t see how a little adult man-on-man (or woman-on-woman) action can be considered so wrong. Do you?

Once again I started writing my piece before you posted yours Les, so I unknowingly repeated some of your points. My fault because I don’t refresh the page after I write my stuff and before I post it. Sorry about that. Still I’ll swear (on a bible if necessary) that we didn’t tell each other what to say.

Sheez.  I get here, and Les has already posted a 400 pager.  Oh well, I’m just going to post me response, then read Les’s, so if mine sounds completely insane, and out of context, that’s because. . .

it is.

L:  Dude, you really need to start using a spell checker or something. This is just getting silly. It makes it very hard to take anything you say seriously.
Z:  {Having explained my Dyslexia already, I am shown your open mindedness and tolerence.}

[Dyslexia is one thing, and I’m sure everyone here would be willing to cut you a certain amount of slack in regards to your disability.  Laziness is not a disability, however, and your refusal to use a spellchecker is indicative of more than disability; it is indicative of an attitude that characterizes not only your process, but your product as well—an attitude that says “I am more important than you.  You must extend yourself further, work harder to understand what I am saying, and accommodate yourself to me.  I have no similar responsibilities toward you, and for you to imply that I do indicates your own lack of tolerance and openmindedness.”  It’s not quite narcissistic, but it’s certainly irritating.

Z:  1: Muslims do, in fact, try to dictate laws. Just not in the west where they are in a Minority. Many nations do follow Muslim Law, and currently in Iraq Muslim leaders want to seize control.

L:  OK, so what’s your point? That because the Muslims try to do it that makes it OK for the Christians and everyone else to do it as well? If all your Christian buddies jumped off a bridge, would you follow them? (Please say yes.)
Z:  {“Please say yes.” This is tolerance to you? I am a Christian. I don’t like you bashing my religion. Therefore I am an idiot who deserves to die. That sort of humour is far form productive and causes no respect, even from those who will give you lip service of respect. Ad Hominem puns aren’t really valid points. Especially since I already said I would be against any unfair position, if Christian or no. You give little reason to respect your view, as you want to tyrannically impose your sectarianism by deconstructing your opponent.)

That’s not an ad hominem attack; it’s a personal expression of contempt for you.  Your command of rhetorical theory is sorely lacking.  An ad hominem attack would be “As a Christian, you’re the type to jump off a bridge if all your Christian friends are doing it—therefore, all your arguments are unreliable, as you’re basically a brainless sheep.”  See?  The insult has to be presented in a manner that it is used to directly attack a specific argument. 

Z:  2: Homosexual marriage is opposed by Many religions, not just Christianity.

This is the ad populum fallacy—“everyone is doing a brand new dance now, c’mon baby do the hokey pokey. . .”    It doesn’t matter how many religions object to homosexual marriage;  “God says it’s BAD” is never a logical argument, as it’s always the appeal to authority (yet another logical fallacy)

L:  And again your point is, what? I thought Christianity was supposed to be the religion of love and tolerance?
Z:  3: opposition to a behavior is not racism, and I am pretty darned sick of Homosexuality being linked to race. It’s not proven to be genetic, and in fact the research indicates the opposite. It’s just popular to claim it’s genetic to win the morality argument and create a false persecuted Minority. (In this vein, there is more links between my Vegetarianism to Homosexual because of it being a behavior, than to differences between black and white.)

[Actually, no one has yet been able to determine whether or not homosexuality is due to genetic processes, early childhood processes of psychological individuation, socialization, or some combination of the three.  I’ve actually read a LOT about all of this because I’m working on gender constructions in Celtic epics for my dissertation.  All of the experts insist they’re right, and they all disagree.  I’ve read most of their arguments, and am still unable to come to firm conclusion on the issue myself.  The POINT however, is that even if homosexuality is not genetic, it is not a conscious choice, but rooted in psychological and social forces that are probably pre-individuation, and which numerous studies have shown are not readily amenable to change by traditional reconditioning methods.  The idea that sexuality can even be split into a trinity of desire (hetero/homo/bi) is still under debate.  Much of the more interesting work addresses the process of eroticisation that leads people to be fetishists, pedophiles, etc.  I’d be more than happy to discuss this, at length, with anyone who’s interested in it, as long as I don’t have to hear “God says its bad” as part of the debate.  I’d like to actually move closer to understanding how erotic fixations and gender identities are formed.  I have no interest in picking a particular group of people and trying to marginalize or “fix” them.]

L:  I suppose whether the research supports the idea of homosexuality being genetic depends on who’s research you’ve been reading. Most of what I’ve seen by those involved in genetics as a science indicates that it does have a genetic basis whereas most of the research I’ve seen from various religious groups tend to suggest it isn’t genetic. If it is genetic then a good argument can be made that persecuting homosexuals is racism.

Actually, a lot of research that is not religiously motivated also points toward homosexuality not being genetic.  The difference, of course, is that this research doesn’t posit that we should then be able to “fix” gay people.

Z:  (Actually most of my research isn’t Religious. Most of it comes form the same people who initially said that its not a mental illness, and claim today its immutable despite evidence tot he contrary in their own Journal. I am addressing the CURRENT APA journals, form 1995-2003. Those religious sources?
Most of the scientists I have spoken to, or read papers by, will not go so far as to claim an extant link. Most of the research you find on the net that does show a link is from faulty research, Like Dean Hammer, which has since been discredited, and yet still makes common rounds. To date scientists are far less than willing to claim genetic linkage to homosexuality.)

 
Actually, Zarove, I think you’re correct about the general trend in studies of the origins of homosexuality.  I think the conclusions you draw from that trend are a little off the wall, however.  There’s still a lot of debate, and many explanations are now tending toward psychological and social conditioning explanations for homosexuality, rather than genetic.  Of course, there’s always the prevalence of animal homosexuality to sort of throw a curve toward the science that claims homosexuality is not genetic. 
I’ve never really understood why anyone sees either side of this debate as being helpful to a political or religious agenda.  For example, homosexuality being either “natural” or “unnatural” shouldn’t have any bearing on whether or not it is tolerated/accepted by society.  It’s entirely “natural” for me to fly into a jealous rage and kill any man that I catch flirting with my wife.  However, this does not make such an action socially acceptable.  By the same token, it may be completely “unnatural” for me to share everything that I own with people who are less fortunate than myself.  In terms of what is good for society, however, this could be seen as completely tolerable, and even worthy of being encouraged.

L:  Regardless of whether it’s genetic or not, people who are homosexual are still a minority by definition. Race and genetics aren’t requirements for establishing a certain class as a minority.

Z:  (So are people who engage in Incest. thus incestuous couples are a minority. Therefore they need protection. There is much too much an issue when dealing with Homosexuality than to dismiss it by a catch phase of “minority protection” which by logical extension would cover many acts you would consider also criminal.)

The phrase “also criminal” is somewhat misleading, as I don’t think Les considers homosexuality criminal.  Nor do I.  As for incest, I’m pretty conflicted on that one.  It’s supposedly a universal taboo (Strauss), but the supposed universality of that taboo has come under serious assault by recent anthropological studies.  Personally, I find it repugnant, but I have to wonder if that’s because I was socialized to find it repugnant, just as I was socialized (by my peers, not my parents) to find homosexuality repugnant?  Whatever the case may be, I have to wonder how damaging incest would be to the social structure, as a whole, as long as it was not combined with the pedophiliac rape that usually accompanies it.  Do I really give a shit if some guy who’s 18 or older wants to marry his mother?  Or father, if you really want to twist the hell out of the more shocking possibilities raised by this.  I don’t think I would really give a flying fuck.  Except to post the link here and say “what a dork.  Talk about a momma’s boy!”.  The only thing that really disturbs me is the pedophiliac aspects.  Again, no one knows what the root of pedophilia is, although there is a shockingly high percentage of people who were abused themselves among the number of people who later become pedophiles.  The main issue, of course, is that pedophiles prey on people who are, by definition, unable to give informed consent.  They’re rapists.  Homosexuals are not rapists.  They engage in activities that they consent to engage in.  Comparing the two is an apples and oranges comparison.  You would have to make a compelling case that homosexuality is damaging to society.  Not that it changes society and social perceptions, but that it harms it.

Z:  4: Calling everyone who is against Homosexuality a Homophobe and bogot is wrong. There are reasonable reasons to oppose, its another of thise complexe issues which people assume is simple, and its easy to villify one side or the other. On a board liek this, villifying peoiple who oppose ( Who are all 100% Christains , by the way, in many peopels minds. They cant fathom the concept of Atheists agaisnt Homosexuality, though many are.) as all Bigots who are irrational is goign to be common. But what about peopel who legitimately CARE about the issue and oppose it based on a mroal styand, and because they honesyly think it the best thing to do? Not based on gear or a desire to controle, but who think sincerely that Homosexuality is morally wsrong?

I don’t vilify people who are homophobic, or against homosexuality.  I used to be hella freaked out by gay guys.  Never really minded gay women, but felt more than a little weirded out by gay men.  As I’ve gotten older, and learned more, and experienced more, I’ve become less and less reactive.  I still laugh at guys who violate my expectations of the masculine by mincing, or lisping, or assuming some other affectation, but I also laugh at other people that have very affected mannerisms.  It’s the affectation that trips me out, not the homosexuality.  But even this is becoming less and less troubling to me, as I come to realize that we are always, all of us, performing our identities, even if we don’t consciously realize that we are doing so.  I feel perfectly comfortable with my own performance, of course, because I’m “normal.”  How do I know I’m normal?  Because I feel like I am, and everyone else seems to agree—must be true then.  Of course, Ted Bundy didn’t feel abnormal, and for a very long time everyone else believed the same.  Don’t get too comfortable with “normal” Zarove, it always comes back to bite you in the ass in the end.  I don’t tend to be too harsh with people who condemn homosexuality, because I remember what I was like, and I would hope that they too would become more rational about the issue as they age.

L: I agree that not everyone who opposes homosexuality is a homophobe or bigot in the most literal definition of those words. I would like to hear what you consider to be reasonable reasons for opposing homosexuality.
As for the people who think homosexuality is morally wrong, fine, don’t engage in it then. No one said you had to participate in it. But that’s not what you want, you want to go further and not allow others to participate in it either.

Z: {Had it ever occured to you tht the restriction may be for a reason? Both public and private? Homosexuality has been shown to lower life expectancy, cause MORE disease ( and this si not to be shrugged off as religious research, its not all form fundy sites.A lot of it is from the national Board of Health report. Freely available if you write to Washington DC.) Also, stress rates are higher.( let me guess, stress is caused by Persecution. Such is the extend of your ability to listen) Other features of Homosexuality, which would be long, soeak volumes as to why it shoudl peprevented.

How interesting.  People should be prevented from contracting diseases and lowering their own life expectancies?  If I hadn’t already given up firearms, alcohol, tobacco, motorcycles and salty food, I’d be soooooo worried about the course of action that you’re advocating.  As it is, go ahead, make it all illegal, it’s not like it’s going to effect ME!
[“Let me guess, stress is caused by persecution.  Such is the extent of your ability to listen.” 
Not bad Zarove!  You ARE familiar with the ad hominem fallacy!  Les can’t listen, therefore his potential argument re: stress and persecution is false.  Well done!]

Z:  Do you support legalizing Incest as well? From a social standpoint, both Homosexuality and Incest provide the same risk, blurring the lines and creating confusion in society. On private level, it involves health risks both physically and mentally. ( I typed this in a hurry, but its true nonetheless.)

[See above for my response.  Children are not legally capable of consent, therefore are not able to make decisions that might expose them to those physical and mental risks.  However, if some guy decides he wants to sleep with his sister, or mother, after he grows up, I don’t really give a fuck.  I think it’s sad.  He probably should have been allowed out of the house more, but whatever—I don’t think he should be unable to get a job, or buy a house, because he’s weird.  Hell, there are people out there who get married to the first person they have sex with, and spend the rest of their lives with them, because of religious reasons.  I think that’s dangerous to society and the couple’s children, but I’m not going to start a campaign to make it illegal.]

Z:  It’s a false precept to assume that just because I think its morally wrong doesn’t give me the right to claim its wrong for others and prevent it. it is destructive to the people who engage in it and society as a whole.

Uh, nobody is asserting that “false precept.”  We’re asserting that you have not proven that homosexuality falls beyond the pale of the destructive and dangerous activities that are permissible by our society.  Personally, I don’t think it’s that dangerous.  Even if it was, though, the Govt. isn’t our mother YET, and I don’t see any reason to speed the process.  You have to demonstrate the truth of your position Z, not just assert it.  You can claim whatever the hell you want, but if you don’t convincingly demonstrate it’s plausibility, don’t be surprised when people just look at you like you’re insane

L:  Say, I think Christianity is a pretty stupid, pointless and harmful religion to participate in. Should I be allowed to pass laws that restrict your right to get married if you’re an admitted Christian? How about laws allowing me to fire you over it or not rent an apartment to you? What? You say that’s not fair? Well that’s what you’re proposing here with the homosexuals.

Z:  (You do not even have a case against it. Indeed, Christianity has done a lot of good in the world. Charities, hospitals, missions to educate, not to mention broken lives repaired. Homosexuality on the other hand has had a long, and well acknowledged, legacy of confusion and despair which makes any claim against Christianity pale in comparison.)

Actually, there’s quite a case against Christianity.  You refuse to acknowledge it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not there.  Christianity has done a lot of good, I admit.  It’s also done huge amounts of harm, and continues to do so every day.  As far as I’m concerned, the ideal would be to combine the humanitarian impulse of Christian ideology with a secular rationality that would reject the superstition that leads to religious tyranny.

5: Z: Again, those ” Quiet practicing” pagans didn’t really exist. Or at least no evidence has occurred. There is no historical evidence for persecution of Pagans in the middle ages.

L:  The hell there isn’t any evidence. Anyone not a Christian is, by definition, a Pagan as it’s a Christian word invented to describe just such a class of people. Christian history is rife with examples of the religion being used as a justification for all manner of atrocities. You need to study up on your world history a bit more.
Z:  An aside to that is, witchcraft and Paganism are not the same thing. Modern day usage has them linked, but again I repeat, the majority of Pagan cultures also banned witchcraft. Witches where not the priests and priestesses of the old religion, and Rome summarily killed suspected witches without trial for centuries before Jesus was even Born. And I doubt they cared about Moses’ law concerning witches.
Those killed for witchcraft where not killed for practicing an ancient Pagan religion, nor where they killed because it was believed they where. In fact the vast majority where Christian themselves.
As to the cause, it was generated by mass hysteria and superstition, not religious persecution.
L:  You make a lot of claims without providing anything to back them up. Religion is often the cause of superstition and mass hysteria.

Whatever.  I don’t really care about this aspect, at all, except as interesting history.  I don’t care for the same reason that I don’t care whether the founding fathers were Christians or Deists.  The founding fathers also thought women and propertyless men shouldn’t vote, and that black people could be owned as property.  I think the Constitution is a remarkably useful document, considering what freakin’ Neanderthals those guys were.  My own support for the separation between church and state is predicated upon a conscious consideration that any social policy or law worth supporting should be able to stand upon the ground of reason, rather than religious authority.  If religion is used as a guide to establish law, it will inevitably result in irrational and quite possibly unjust law.  Religion is also invested in “conversion,” whereas rationality leads to a social policy which embraces diversity.

Z:  6: You need to open your mind to the benefits of religion. As a Christian, the net users I encounter assume I am automatically anti-everyone else. I am not. Religion has been shown to improve lives in many Psychological studies. Granted, not all religions do. ( Cults, as you mentioned.) But many, such as (using a nonchristian example) Buddhism has been shown to reduce stress through its practices. As well as to help focus life.

I spent about three months immersed in Tibetan Buddhist practice in a Buddhist communal center in Boulder Colorado.  Personally, I think they’re as freaky as Christians, and some of the shit they believe is just as superstitious and weird.  Yes, meditation is calming, but it’s remarkably similar to autohypnosis, which is not religious, and can produce the same benefits.  Nor do I deny the benefits of religion, for SOME people.  Some people also benefit from having needles jammed into their backs by acupuncturists—that doesn’t mean that every schoolday should open with a general round of stabbing your neighbor in the back with a few needles.  Most atheists don’t object to private religious observance.  We DO object to it when it is cited as a justifiable reason to adopt some social policy.  And our reasons for these objections are rational reasons.

L: There are certainly some benefits to religion. The question is: Are the few benefits that religion provides worth the evil it also generates? I’m of the opinion it doesn’t balance out in the end.
Z: You accuse me of making statements without backing them up, and here you are making statements without backing them up.
Christianity has not been shown by you or anyone else to be harmful. Religion doesn’t automatically generate evil. That’s just an assumption you make. One that you don’t even try to support. No matter what your opinion is, you haven’t supported it with anything but cheap shots against me, and by blind accusations and assumption.}

Wow.  Christianity has not been shown by anyone to be harmful?  When a religious freak puts up a “fags burn in hell” monument next to the grave of a gay guy who was beaten to death, Christianity is causing harm.  When people tell their children that they should pray away disease, religion is causing harm.  When our leaders declare that God wants us to drop bombs on other people, religion is doing harm. 
Yes yes, I know, religion doesn’t kill people, people kill people.

Z:  Religion is a tool, not designed to be oppressive.

Guns are tools too.  Unlike guns, however, you can take your religion to school.  You just can’t force me to pack heat too

L: Right. All those rules in the Bible that people are supposed to follow under pain of death by stoning, no, those aren’t oppressive at all…
Z:  Saying Christians would turn America into an oppressive theocracy if given the chance doesn’t give enough credit to Christians like me, who often fights Christians and nonbelievers because both seem irrational.

No offense Z, but I don’t want to rely on you to defend me from your misled brethren.  I’ll defend myself, and I’m confident that I’ll do it with more vigor and passion than you would bring to the fight.  Because it’s me whose going to end up on the fire if I fail.  Of course, you’re NEXT, but I’m not sure how much thought you’ve given to that.

L:  One need only look at history to see the truth of how turning America into a theocracy, Christian or otherwise, would be its ruin. The Founding Fathers set up the wall of separation specifically because of history’s examples.
Z:  Yet many theocracies are peaceful. Some islands in the pacific ocean are theocracies ( And Christian) and have a much lower crime rate than America, or even Europe. One doesn’t even have any Jails.
Tibet was a theocracy until it was overthrown by Communist China

My car is red.  It is raining.  It is raining because my car is red.  Z, check your Engl 101 text for the section on logical fallacies. 
China is a fairly “peaceful” regime.  They don’t have as many murders as we do.  But they run over their own students with tanks, and execute prisoners for transplant organs, etc., etc.  Being dead is quite “peaceful” but I don’t recommend it.

Z:  Sorry, this is just casting stones. You make another unsupported claim. “Theocracy is evil” without backing it up. Not that I am for an all out theocracy, but this is bad form, especially since you blame me for the same.}

Allow me to clarify then.  Theocracy inevitably leads to concentrated power in the hands of a few, who inevitably use this power to limit the freedoms of others.  A few exceptions on some island in the middle of fucking nowhere do not disprove the general case demonstrated throughout history.  You provide NO convincing evidence that an American theocracy would be benign, and I can provide innumerable examples of what religious leaders are attempting to do NOW when their power is limited by the establishment clause.  I can’t imagine that removing the wall that protects me from their tyranny would somehow convince them that they no longer need to try to control my thoughts and actions.  My position is entirely rational, and is motivated by the strong need to defend myself from people who would try to exert unwarranted influence over my person.

Z:  As to your ” Don’t preach to me” conclusion, again, I am defending historicity and the faiths potential for good. I did not address you specifically with lines such as ” You are damned to Hell, repent now.” did I?
Why assume I am doing anything other than addressing the cruelties aimed against the faith? Why assume this is a proselytizing mission?

The cruelties aimed against the faith?  It’s fascinating that you’re SO conversant in the cruelties against the faith, and completely blind to the faith’s cruelties against the faithless.  Your “Faith,” and many others, have been making war on my kind since the beginning of recorded history.  Forgive me my skepticism when you claim that those were isolated incidents, and that you guys aren’t like that anymore.

Z:  {Another ad Hominem? You have no reason to speak venom against Christianity, and the evil you generate far exceeds any harm I have spoken to you.}

Whaaaaa!?!?!!?  Atheists have no REASON to speak venom against Christianity!?!?!?  What are you, fucking blind!?!?!?  How about that “Christian” bastard that wouldn’t rent to me and my wife because, at the time, we weren’t married?  Who the fuck is he to deny me housing because I don’t share his religious convictions?  And how about the rental application that I filled out where they asked me “what Church I went to”?  OK, Z, whatever.  I can see the “My reality is real, your’s is false” attitude emerging again.  For you to dismiss the suffering of others as being non-existent is the height of arrogance.

Z:  Historically, Christianity did less damage than it is believed.( Please do not cite specific examples, i said less than is believed, not none.) Other groups have done lots of damage on their own.( No, I am not just trying to hide shortcomings of Christianity by blaming others, but making a point.)

L:  Christianity’s crimes are legion and well documented. There’s no need to fabricate more when there is already plenty for them to be ashamed of.
Z:  {Another baseless accusation. Nothing you have said supports this claim, its just assumed.}

:ignore: :ignore: :ignore:  I can’t heeeeeaaaaaar you!  Nyah nyah nyah!
No, Z, Christians slaughtering people, trying to push creationism in schools, trying to assert their right to determine what I do with my own body, these are not unsupported assertions, these are observable facts.  You might as well assert that gravity is merely “asserted,” and that I can’t prove that it’s responsible for objects falling.

Z:  Nothing is served by hating something that, by and large people have demonstrated no knowledge or understanding of. ( The theology they seem to understand is primitive and often wrong, though much is based on their predetermined hatred distorting the theology.)
So why cast disparage against one faith and not others? Muslims would take the political reigns of they could, and have in many nations. So would Buddhists. All religions have that as an operative agenda, why hate one for it?
There is no need for farther hatred, and my last point is that claiming Christianity is a force of hatred is not proven by being a force of hatred Against Christianity, and taking cheap shots isn’t welcomes.
L:  Who said we limit our dislike to one particular religion? You appear to have read one entry on this website and concluded all of it is directed towards bashing the Christian religion. The truth is we generally tend to think there are a number of major religions worthy of our disdain. That said, there are others that seem to be much more benign and as such aren’t as problematic to try and live with.

Z:  I have read more than one entry. Believe me, its mainly Antichristian. Do you really want me to cite specifics?}

Atheism is not anti-Christian.  It’s indifferent to Christianity, as an ideology.  Atheists, as people, are often anti-Christian because we spend much of our lives trying to get religious freaks to stop telling us what to do.  We don’t come to your church and teach, so don’t come into my fucking classroom and try to make me pray.

L:  When was the last time I had a Pagan trying to impose his religious views on me through legistlation? Ummmm, can’t think of one.
How about the Buddhists? Nopes, can’t think of a single time for them either.
Z:  Plenty of times in Asian nations, oh but we arent in those coutnries so it doesnt apply…} Christians? Lots of times. Muslims? Not as much as Christians, but still up there a bit. The fact remains that Christians are a majority in this country and thusly are the most likely to have had an impact on me and thusly will earn the majority of my scorn.
{In other words, you will hate something because you disagree with it and tell people who want to voice their opinion, if its based on their religion, that thy are tyrants. Thus you deny the voice of some people and impose your own secularist view by default. This is good how?}

I don’t want to deny the voice of any people.  Religious people should have the same rights of speech as everyone else.  If some kid wants to pray silently in my class, I don’t give a damn.  If he needs to slaughter a chicken, I’m going to ask him to step outside, because that’s a little disruptive.  I don’t care how many people are out there telling me I “should” do something, or not do something, either.  Feel free to tell me what I “should” do, as much as you want.  You can even tell me I’m going to burn in hell, or that I’m evil.  I don’t really care.
But if you try to pass a law that says I have to pray at certain times, or profess my belief in god in order to participate in any social function, then yes, I am going to hate you.  And your oppressive, didactic, self-righteous religion of contemptus mundi and death worship.

Z:  Should the Muslims or the Pagans or one of the other groups rise up and supplant the Christians as the majority and then goes about trying to legislate their viewpoints onto me then they will end up taking the majority of my scorn, but as long as Christians are number one here things will continue as they have…
{On other words, all you can do is scorn, and be a hypocrite. You claim that religion does a little good and generates a lot of evil. That is supported by nothing. You also make baseless accusations and assume things without really backing them up.}

That is supported by nothing, that is supported by nothing, that is supported by nothing. . . (look, I said it three times, it must be true.)  Z, Les and most of the atheists on this board have provided more support for every claim they’ve made than you have provided for yours.  You can claim that this is not true, but you can also claim that pink rabbits periodically fly out of your butt.  Until you prove it, it’s still just shit to me.
OK.  This is my final note.  I refer you, Z, back to the point I made at the top of this post.  Several people on this board have already gone around and around with posters who clearly feel that it is OUR responsibility to exert all the effort in these little discussions, and that no similar effort should be required from them.  I’m one of the people that have done this, and willingness to continue doing so is wearing thin.  So here it is.  I can’t speak for anyone else, but if you refuse to use spellcheck in the future, I will not engage with your post, no matter how outrageous or stimulating it might be.  I’m sure everyone is willing to make allowances for your handicap.  If you insist that your handicap is OUR responsibility, in toto, however, and not yours, don’t expect much sympathy.

Not a problem, Brock. I spent a couple of hours working on that today so chances were high that someone would end up posting at the same time I was.

I read your post Brock, as well as Les’, and I can see certain consistencies in the way that we all approached Z’s posting.  Having seen what you guys posted, I now realize that I could have just taken the last hour off, and been perfectly happy with the responses.

Oh well.  I’m quite sure our posting will have no discernible impact on Z, but I, at least, feel better knowing that I am not completely isolated, philosophically, from my fellow humans.  It’s reading your guys’ postings on SEB that makes it easier for me to just sigh and go “whatever” when I am confronted, sometimes daily, with some of the more heinous examples of fanatacism.

So thanks.  Your postings are not falling on deaf ears, even if you are just preachin’ to the choir.

I’m glad you and Les both took the time to deal with some of the facts Zarove graces us with. (I’m beginning to think I’ve had farts with greater intellects than his.)Besides, you both covered the bases much more completely and sensibly than I did. I only read “homosexuality should be prevented” and thought “must destroy backward boy”. Sorry, insensitive remark there.

I think I can begin to understand how you have felt about homosexuality in the past. When I consider a man and woman doing it I have to remind myself that even though it’s not natural, they have every right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. I can even overlook, to some extent, the female gushing and prostrating and the “yeah your gonna see god tonight baby” braggadocio and cock of the walk posturing of the male.

I also have a distaste for a mincing effeminate male and take no flak toughness of some lesbians, although I realize they are simply personifying what society expects to see in order to lessen the discontinuity. If others in society can put us in a box and easily define us they are more at ease and that allows all concerned to be more at ease. Still, I was never a big fan of all that reverse role playing, or role playing in general, and I hate to put idiots at ease

To repeat - great responses made by you and Les. Reading your posts left me feeling a little farklempt. So I cried, dried my eyes and smiled a big ass smile for the mentshes of the world. No big whoop. It was like butta, like a bigggg stick of butta.
(Ok, I didn’t really cry. Real men don’t cry, not even gay real men)

Ok, I didn’t really cry. Real men don’t cry, not even gay real men.

They don’t? Shit. I must not be a real man then. I’m a sentimental old bastard and a good sappy movie will turn on my waterworks within moments. Oh well, I didn’t want to be a real man anyway.

Thank you all for jumping in there…I had to take a break from Zarove. I at first approached him as possibly wanting to debate his points but soon came to understand that he is pushing his agenda and will NOT make any concessions even in the face of researched examples. I cannot argue for long when I lose respect for the person I am engaged in a supposed dialog with.

Thanks for your points, several of which I wish I had thought of myself.

Incidentally, typing in “Zarove” into Google returns some very interesting results. Our little buddy here seems to have been pretty active on various religion and sci-fi message boards. Seems he’s been banned for being generally clueless on quite a few of them as well. I hadn’t bothered to look before as I had assumed he was a one-trick pony and it took awhile before he showed up again, but after reading his responses here and at various other sites I’m starting to think that he can’t be much older than maybe 15 or so.

He seems to have a largely undeveloped and somewhat half-assed grasp of logic and it’s use in debating an issue, but from what I can tell he gets almost all of his information on history and reality from fundamentalist Christian websites. He has a highly developed sense of credulity as is evidenced by some of the discussions he’s gotten into on the Sci-Fi message boards he’s been on. He questioned why, for example, the show Psi Factor was classified as science fiction at one site when it’s supposed to be recreating true events. The idea that he could believe something as ridiculous as Psi Factor explains a lot about his religious convictions and parroting of the standard nonsense found at most fundy sites. The more outrageous something is the more likely he seems willing to buy into it. Still, I’ll give him points for a twisted form of youthful idealism.

I think I can begin to understand how you have felt about homosexuality in the past. When I consider a man and woman doing it I have to remind myself that even though it’s not natural, they have every right to do whatever they want with their own bodies. I can even overlook, to some extent, the female gushing and prostrating and the “yeah your gonna see god tonight baby” braggadocio and cock of the walk posturing of the male.

I’d just like to throw out two quick additional responses to those remarks—
1.  I think it would be more accurate to say that my experience was like being a Klan member that needed deprogramming.  The scary thing is that I wasn’t “programmed” by any specific cult or group, just by my peers on the playground.  I see a much more tolerant attitude in many of my students, and I truly believe that times are-a-changin.‘  I also think there are some haters out there who recognize this fact, and are freakin’ out hardcore.  I see the level of anti-gay violence in our society as being reflective of a “last-gasp” by those dinosaurs.

2.  “Straight” posturing wigs me out too, when it’s over the top.  Frequently, it’s over the top.  But again, I don’t think these affectations are something people [gay or straight] necessarily “choose” to do.  Judith Butler talks a lot about the way that people “perform” their gender, but she’s not saying that they do so because they choose to do it—it’s ingrained in them through social and psychological conditioning, from the moment they’re born, or its a reactive response against conditioning forces.  (I would argue that that’s what Barbie and GI Joe are FOR). 

As for WHY society feels the need to create these reified gender binaries, and reacts violently when these structures are challenged [as in drag shows], well, that’s an area that has a lot of potential for understanding all SORTS of social behaviors and cultural assumptions.

And my postings have now become SO off topic, and so much about my own little area of interest, that I should probably just abandon them here.

(besides, I have to go do a Google on Zarove.  Maybe it’ll be worth a giggle or two.):chuckle:

OK, so you’re dyslexic. This prevents you from using a spell checker in what way? If anything, being dyslexic is just another reason why you should use a spell checker. I’m not dyslexic and I use a spell checker every time I post an entry because I want to make sure my points aren’t overlooked because I misspelled a couple of words. There’s even a spell checker you can use in Internet Explorer if that’s the browser you’re using. If it is, I suggest downloading ieSpell and installing it as it will allow you to spell check any web form like the one on this page. If you’re using a different browser then type your response up in a word processor and then copying and pasting it into the web page.
Your insistence on using your dyslexia as a crutch is much like your insistence on using your religion like a crutch.

{ 1: I dont use my rel;igion like a crutch, thats simpley put a lie. In fact, you are weaker than I and in need of more a critch. You have to pretend to be storng by relying on insults and barbs at other people, to give others the impression of s trength, but your lack of knopwledge of history and lack of understanding of ANYTHING, from claimign the witch trials are purely based on Chrosytain beleifs to claimign seperation pf Church and Sttae was designed to protect the state, you illustrate time and again just how much a crutch your insults and cheap barbs are. you attack and try to tear down others, because you cannot build yourself, or anythign else, up.

2: Spell checkers often make the mistakes worse. Yrust me on this, I have tried, and because technically I cant read, I cant tell of the spell checker got it right either.}

If someone says anything critical of either one of them you start whining about how intolerant and closed minded they are.
{ Not so, I can take critisism well, But i cannot abide hatred and intolerence. Youi claim rleigion is intolerent, and cant show it. You LIE about history or propogate lies. You say I use religion as a crutch with NO proof and rely on nothign but insult after insult.

  I am nto sayign you ar eintolerent because you disagree with me, I am sayign you are intolerent because you are.You are the one who cant stand ctritisism, otherwise you woudl make jokes at my expence. Nopte, in all my posts I have remained respectul and NOT insulted you. You on the other hand have resprted to several cheap shpts, leading me to ask, who uses the crutch?}

 

I’m beginning to suspect you’d whine in such a manner over any criticism you may receive.

{ I am whining. You know its whining because it disagrees with youy. I use religion as a critch. You know I use religion as a crutch because I am religioys.

  This is nothign but your atemtpo to distory my actual charecter through a filter, to artificially make me seem weaker so you will appear stornger. In reality, you cant defend your position, which is weak and often based on ignorance and bigotry. Which I have illustrated before you try to turn this around.

  Now stop attackign me personally and try to address the acutal points.}

I sympathize with you on having dyslexia, but I won’t cut you any slack over it. You’re supposedly a journalist.

{ Formerly, and I had editors to correct the spelling.}

Does your editor let you slide by just because you’re dyslexic?

{ False sttaement. I didnt slide, I just mispelled words, and he corrected them. Really not that hard.But the work was never late.Nor infirior.}

Or does he insist you use a spell checker?

{ No spell checker. He corrected the writings for ther final draft.}

No, it’s wishful thinking. It’s also making a point. One which you conveniently managed to dodge by whining about tolerance again.

{ This poitn being what? That you can claim I am whinign because I am not agreeign with you? Is this bully mentality your crutch?}

never said you deserve to die. As for not liking me bashing your religion, well, too fucking bad.

{ Nice rude behaviour. You diotn have to show repsect, you have to pretend to be storng. The more curse words the better. Dotn bother tryign to be logical, just insult peopel and call them weak and claim they are whining… that works much faster.No need to think, or be civilised…}

There’s a lot about it that makes it very bash-able.

{ Like what? The fact that you disagree with it? The fact that you can misrepresent the hisptry? The fact that you dotn understand it? Exactly what is so bashable? Nothign on this thread other than the tired old “Christainity brings war and bloodshed” routine, which is dismissable when one actually examines the facts. Bashing it is just cheap smear.}
Although I would argue that there’s a big difference between bashing and criticizing most of what we do here is criticize, though we do occasionally engage in some bashing.

{ No, most of what you d is bashing. You misrepresent the beleifs, then attack those. Further, you claim peopel who beleiv eint eh religion use the religion as a crutch, this is not true but honesty osnt nessisary here, is it? Sorry, uoi just bash it. And to no avail.}

Hey, we’re only human.

{ Thats an excuse? Or am I some sort of divinity myself because I dont stoop tp this level?}

Who said I wanted your respect? Who said I was concerned about having anyone’s respect? Answer the fucking question already.

{ More rude behaviour. Are you sure I am the one thats usign a critch, I shall reask?}

It was a perfectly valid point and question, you just don’t want to answer it.
{ What queatsion is this then? that I am avoiding? }

And the above is exactly why you should be using a spell checker. I have no clue what that sentence says. How do you expect us to even understand you, let alone agree or disagree with you if you can’t even put up a coherent sentence? Yet I’m supposed to be Mr. Tolerance and just guess at what it says and not criticize the fact that you’re too lazy to deal with your condition. Man, if I took that attitude with my ADD I’d have been fired from my job a long time ago.
{ The snetence isnt incoherent, you just claim it is to make yourself appear right about this and blame me soem more. Incedentally this sint my job.Its rfecreation.}

I haven’t tried to “tyrannically impose” jack shit on anyone. I asked you a simple question and you ranted on about it as if I’d called your mother a two-bit Malaysian whore.

{ More profanities. This guy must be tough…

  That aside. You didnt ask a simple wueastion, nor have I ranted. Stop charecterising me in a false way to support your artificial image of me as weak minded and in need of a critch, its just projecting your own inadequacies.}

No wonder your responses are so damned long. You spend most of your time sputtering and ranting about the questions asked than you do providing a valid defense of your position.

{ ActuallY I have presented many calid defences. Here is a list.

1: The witch trials where nto caused by Chrisyain beleifs, but existed long before Chrisytainity did.Indeed, fewer peopel where killed for witchcraft in Chrisyain Europe than Pagan europe.

2: The first ammendment does not attemtp to protect the govenrment from religiosu controle based on religious disasters in the past, but rather attemtos to protect the religions by preventign state regulations.

3: Chrisyainity des not have a bloody past as peopel say, and usually the only things peopel can cite are the c rusades, the witch hunts, and the Inquesition. witch trials have been covered, cusades are no different than any other land war, and the Inquesition is exactly like the House Unamerican committee, or any number of Societ inqueries,and not unique to Chrsyainity. Nor are the Christain. They are roman Catholic, which is a small part of the faith, not the totality.

4: By lashign out and makign rude jestures, you show yourself inadequate. You must therefore project your weaknesses on another to tear them down to feel some measure of releaf from your own failures and shortcomings.

5: Religion is not a critch to the religious, saying this is nothign but slander you use to artificially appear strong which to the descernig shows you to be weak and pathetic.

    Thats just a sample.}

Guess how much I care if you respect my view on the issue? Guess how much I expect you to respect my views on the issue? If you said “little to none” then you’re correct!

{ But the assumptuion that I dont repsect you because you critisise my faith is not true. You claim I use my faith as a cruitch, how so? You claim that rleigion generates closed minds, how so? You claim much about me that you dont know, nor can, based on a predjusice, and then if I call you on it I am whinign and cant take critisism. The reverse appears trie to me.}

I see you don’t bother to respond to my question on your second point and just skip over to point number 3.

{ Which queatsion was this? I havebnt been here in a whole, and may have simpley overlooked it you know.}

Are you suggesting that the researchers are intentionally lying about the results of their own studies?

{ No, I said that the leaders of the APA voted to remove Homosexuality from the journal as a mental illness based on political pressure. The heads of the board arent researchers, nor did they hide the research. }

If such an obvious contradiction exists between what they’re saying and what the evidence they’re publishing is suggesting don’t you think other scientists would have spoken up by now?

{ They have.Want soem names?}
Please cite some examples of researchers who are making statements opposed to what their own research shows to be true.

{ This is a falsification of what I said. I said that the APA np longer recognised Homosexuality as a mental ilness for political reasons, not that they lied about research. Thusfar the APA has not made a firm stand n the cause of Homosexuality, and always claism that researhc is “Onoing.“ I blamed the sensationalists on the media for propogatin the Gay Gene myth whenever any researcher finds any potentially promising results in that area, and on their negelct to follow up on those stories when the researhc is later isproven.}

Assuming for the moment that what you say here is true, so what? Just because scientists in general aren’t willing to back a proposition one hundred percent doesn’t mean the proposition is invalid, just that more research needs to be done before they’re willing to commit.
{ Kinda missed my point here. Most researchers are leanign away fromt her Genetic causeation of Homosexuality precisely because the evidence is agaisnt it.I am not sayign a proposition is invalid because they havent commited to it 100%, I am sayign the researhc they have yeilded revelas less and less room for a Gay Gene to even exist. The more research we do the less likely that link becomes. }
That’s a good thing and the way a scientist should act until there’s enough evidence to say definitively.

{ Which doesntreally effec twhat I said which you copletely misconstrued. I will ask again, its a rnning queation in this post. Are you sure I am the one using the crutch?}
That doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence in support of the proposition or that there isn’t enough to make the proposition worthy of consideration.

{ Not the way you presented my statement, but my actual statement is this. There is no proof that a Gay Gene exists, and experemental Data is actually opposed to the proposition.}

Having said that, I’ve seen enough evidence from enough different sources that does seem to indicate that it is genetic in it’s basis to accept the idea as most likely true. Again, however, that’s a minor point in my mind.
{ Name the se soruces. They are probabely all online pro gay sites. Most respected Journals do not feel as storngly as this, and when I say this let me reiterate… ther eis so far no evidence that it is genetic and some to suggest its not.}

You’re using faulty logic. I never said minorities “need protection.” I said that, by definition, homosexuals are a minority. You’re making the faulty assumption that by calling something a “minority” that we’re automatically implying that they need protection from the majority.
{ That was implicit in your argument.}

Incidentally, picking incest as an example was a bad idea. Your own Bible promotes the idea of incest in various ways starting with Adam and Eve.

{ Actually the Tporah speaks agaisnt incest.}

I mean, who the hell did their kids have sex with if not each other?
{ And you cit me on faulty logic.

1: Adam and eve where not nessisarily the only two Humans. Many Torah interpretations that came before Darwin suggest Adam was the first of a kinfd of man, not nessisarily the first man.
Durther, you onfuse the sutuation. God had yet to prohibit Incest.
Further, there is alo the survivability law of nature. The Bible speaks agaisnt killing but allows killign in self defence as well. As do Most laws. Homosexuality is nevera survival option. But on occassion Incest can be, if only a brother and sister survive after aleins wipped put the earth with a death ray for instance. ( Not that the alein death ray thing is goig toi happen. just an outrageous example.)

    All this aside, you are ignorant of much, and attemtpo to pretend to be more knowledgable than I… typocal.}
For that matter, wasn’t it Lot’s daughters who got him drunk, had sex with him and gave birth as a result?

{ Their actiosn where also pubished. This is itsself faulty logic. Only an idiot woudl claim this. It also mentions King David having an affair wiht a marired woman, that doesnt mean its condoned.The Bible had to record the events as they where after all.}
Biblically, there’s no good reason to be against incestuous relationships.

{ So I suppose the law of Moses doesnt count to you?}

I don’t recall a single passage anywhere in the Bible that forbids it.
{ Then rather than asusme you are knowledgable about Christain beleifs, try actually studying the religion you mock.

Here are a few verses for you.
Leviticus chapter 18
6.  None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness: I am the Lord.
7.  The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8.  The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness.
9.  The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10.  The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for theirs is thine own nakedness.
11.  The nakedness of thy father’s wife’s daughter, begotten of thy father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s sister: she is thy father’s near kinswoman.
13.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister: for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman.
14.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father’s brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife: she is thine aunt.
15.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son’s wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness.
17.  Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for they are her near kinswomen: it is wickedness.
18.  Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time

Thsi seems like Biblical support for an antiIncest stand… But I am an idiot, and you knwo so much more than me…}

 

I was Using the KJV.

Scientifically, however, there are plenty of reasons to oppose incest. Yet somehow the church likes to claim credit for it. How odd.

{ see above. The Church advocated an anti-Incest rule long before science made that link… saying the churhc took creidt for somethign after the fact is a lie here. Most natiosn where practicing Incest, egypt, assyria, caanan.But the Israelites where forbidden to do so. Claimignthat thereare no inset laws int he Bible is idiicy.}

Yes, it had occurred to me. Which is why I asked you what those reasons might be. I would’ve thought this line of logic would be obvious to someone so versed in its use.

{ for Homosexuality, the lines where drawn for both personal and social protection. I will elaborate.
  Homosexuality leads to mental distresses even in otlerent societies, like Norway, as well as health issues. Socially, acceptance of Homosexuality always leads to confusion in soicety over who is sexually interested in who and undermines the family. I will elaboarate further if you woudl like.}

Yes, it can lower life expectancy. Especially when there are people out there who feel it’s perfectly OK to beat homosexuals to death. Yeah, that could have an effect on life expectancy.
{ what about in nations wher eits accepted and they arent routinely beaten to death and still live 10-40 years less than heterosexuals? False analogy here, tryign to villify the opposition.}

You know sky diving lowers life expectancy as well, especially when the chute doesn’t open.

{ False analogy. Skydiving isnt a lifestyle that sconsistantly effects quality of life. In fact its not a lifestyle at all. By the way not all Homosexuals who fie young die violently.}
Shall we ban sky diving as well?

{ See above.}

People who use too much salt have a lower life expectancy as well, perhaps we should ban salt.

{ Id we banned salt we woudl die, we need a certain leel of sodium to live.}
People who abuse diet supplements have a lower life expectancy so we should get rid of those
{ You know, we did get rid of smoking. By th way your analogy is still false.}

 

too. And hey, cars! People who drive cars everywhere have a lower life expectancy than people who walk so we should ban all cars too!
{ Actually thi si a lie. There are no imperical studies that show a link to driving cars and a lowered life expectancyu. If you hrow in accedents, I can just as easily fa;l down the stairs. This tactisc is simpely dishonest. }

Walking IS healthier!

{ You are deperate arent you?}

Lowered life expectancy, while a concern, isn’t necessarily a valid reason to restrict an activity.

{ Actually the above things you listed dont lower life expectancy on a consistant pattern. The majority of homoexuals DO die young and NOT as the result of beign beaten to death. everyone uses salt, otherwise we die. Cars themselves dont lowrr life expectancy, this si a lie. Diet supplements thet are already debating poutlawing.}

I would love to hear how homosexuality causes more disease. Please, cite examples. This could be a valid point if true, but you provide nothing to back this claim up.
{ Data comign soon.(Been a whole since I needed the names of the spacific articles.)}

You answered your own point. I listen just fine, but you’ve not provided any other valid reasons for why stress rates should be higher for homosexuals than for anyone else.
{ I will b bak wihthat after new years sometime. But its impressive data, if you cae to rad it.}

I were to guess, I’d imagine stress rates were higher not just because of the potential for persecution, but because so many homosexuals are still in the closet and are worrying about what will happen to their relationships with their families and loved ones should the truth ever get out
{ Tjhats an assumption based on your own predjudices, the stress rates remain the same or go up in natiosn where its an acepted practice.}

Stress rates are definitely higher for those homosexuals who are still in the closet that it is for those who have come out.
{ Not realy, this is just your assumptioin. Again, I will cite evidence for you.}

But then stress rates are higher among people who work as air traffic controllers, much higher even for homosexuals, so I suppose we should ban all air traffic controllers and, as a result, all air travel.
{ Another flase analogy. Ther eis a differenc ebetween a high stress job and a high stress lifestyle.}
Again, like lowered life expectancy, elevated stress levels isn’t necessarily a valid reason to restrict an activity.
{ Yes it is. It really depends on factrs you didnt take into acocunt. I mean you said skydiving lowrrs life expectancu. It doesnt unless the chute dont open.That doesnt happen most fo ghe time. Homosexuality’s stress level is constant and prevaids all aspect of their life, and yet prodices no viable end.Unlike air traffic controlers who at least get to leave work every now and again.}
You’ve already blathered on this long without really saying anything so, please, go into these other features that speak volumes on why it should be prevented. I’d really, sincerely, love to hear them. Of the three reasons you’ve listed above one of them might be a valid point, but you don’t provide any data to back up that point so it’s questionable at best.

{ Actually all of the above is valid, you just like pretending its not. Then again you make a lot of assumotiosn and then present those as facts. No matte rhwat I say, no matter fi the case is iron clad, you will still disagree that its valid, because its agaisnt your worldveiw which you use as a crutch to prevent you from colliding with a harsher reality.}

For someone who likes to quote logical fallacies every chance you get I’m surprised to see you using one. Especially considering that I’ve already pointed out that there is no Biblical reason for opposing incest.

{ Yes there is, there are laws in Leiticus.You just where unaware of them when you blathered on about your claim that there are no incest laws int he Bible.You just hoped I woudl;tn know enough to answr it.}

It’s a bad argument to make to support your viewpoint as, logically, you shouldn’t have any opposition to incest yourself.

{ 1: The Bible does prohibit incest.

2: Not everythign I support hasd a Biblical basis, just because you claimed religion is a critch I use doesnt mean it is.}

You’re comparing apples and oranges here. Incest and homosexuality are not similar in either the health risks nor in their social standpoint.
{ Actually they are. This is a lie.Of not hwo are they different?}

There are valid scientific reasons to oppose incest starting with the known genetic problems that systemic incest can produce.

{ Interestignly the health risks and mental trauma of Homosexuality is NOT cause enough tp prohibit this though. So why are the health risks valid reason to disallow incest?}
Homosexuals, unable to reproduce with a same-sex partner, will not produce such systemic genetic issues through their lifestyles.

{ no but they will result in a shift in stability of society. I will, next year, return to tell why.}

Then by the same logic it’s a false “prescept,” as you creatively put it, to tell me that my bashing of Christianity, which I feel to be morally wrong and destructive to society as a whole, is something I shouldn’t engage in or that I shouldn’t promote the wholesale outlawing of said religion for the crimes it is guilty of.

{ Becaue you dotn base this on anything. I have scentific reasosn to oppsoe Homosexuality. Which I will post in detail after I vompile it all for your parusal. You have NO proiof that Religion is guity of any crume, or is harmful in any way.

  You just make assumptions, like the much mentioned crutch statement. How do you know I use rleigion as a crutch? Just by cirtue that I am religious? Thats not really logical itsself.
    How is religion immoral?
We have poroven that you are incompetent in hisotry, now let me ask you. Most people who are Christain dont do anyhtign remotely llegal. Out of the millions of CHristains in the world, only a few thousand are in proson for diestgryctive bevaviours. Which is the same as all rleigions and even atheism. Exaclty how is it Harmful?

  How is it immoral?

What crimes is it guoilty of?}

In other words, if you feel you have the right to speak out against and try to ban activities and beliefs you disagree with then I have that same right in reverse.

{ except this sint simpley me disagreeigj with it, its a matterof health and social stability. Yours is a matter of predjudice and personal hatred kept aloft by lies and disinformation. You cannot rationally argue agaisnt religion, you just make assumptiosn like sayoing that peopel who hold to the faith are Incapable of dealign withh the real world. This isnt base don any fact, jyst your assumption based on yor own predjusdice. You also lie about hispotry. You didnt even acknowledge that the first ammendment was designed to protect religion.}

You are a hypocrite to accuse me of being intolerant and closed minded when you sit there and engage in the same activities yourself. Hypocrisy is something I have no respect for.

{ Actually I am not. Hypocracy is sayiogn oen thign and doing another. which I dont do. I dotn bash Homosexuals for instance. I havent een bashed you. I do want it banned but thats for the health of the individuals as wll as society. You can claim this of treligion but cannot put forth an argument in favour of it. Indeed, you are just as simpel minded as you claim I am when you make such sweepign accusations. Need I remin you you claimed the Bible made no opposition to Incest? How much of religipon do you know or understand exactly?}

You’re right, history is full of examples of homosexuals rising up and engaging in ideological wars that massacred thousands upon thousands of otherwise innocent people just because they didn’t believe in homosexuality. Oh, wait, that was the CHRI