What the Law and the Bible say about Homosexuality.

[Clete]

Correct.

I don't know why you say for something to end it must have a beginning here. Sure the law had a beginning, but that is irrelevant to whether or not it should be enforced after God gave it, or if it has been abolished (rather saying that it has not been). I do see that Romans says that we establish the Law (faith). However, I must accept what you are saying here, though you may be misguided somehow (responding to a point like what is crime or a criminal justice system is admittedly difficult but maybe because we use these words but don't find them in scripture so much (crime is there)(transgression is there)). The reason I say that I must accept it is it is scripture. I can explain my reasoning, but your argument still wins out. End of the law. Period. No. It says end of the law for righteousness. Or, end of the LAW FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. So, yes, it is the end of the law for righteousness, and a law for righteousness has an end or the end of the law is for righteousness. So maybe the law has another purpose. But no one should try to find righteousness in it for their own self. I admit the Law reveals my sin and need for a Savior, Jesus. But I do still want to obey God and therefore I want to obey His Law, His commandments, His commands. There may have been a time in my life where I started by wanting to observe His commands and did not enunciate that I want to observe His Law. Sure there are New Testament commands or commandments, and there is Jesus, without using the word Law. But to accept all of God's commands or commandments I am basically accepting His Law, or Torah. 613 commandments or mitzvot and so forth. But not for my righteousness. For my obedience maybe?

Luke 17:10 "So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "​

Right?!?

Because salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. There is no boasting in the Law. But is there obedience to it? That is my question here now. I hope you don't give up on me or think that I am trying to squirm out of what you are saying. But I believe that I memorized your verse as a child.

The answer to your question is a resounding and emphatic - NO!

Look, you are identified in Christ. You have been crucified with Christ and are hidden in Him. It is no longer you who live but Christ lives His life through you. The law executed you in Christ. What more does the law have to say to one whom it has executed? Can a dead man obey the law? Is a dead man even under the law? Certainly not! You cannot obey a law that has no authority over you.

Should we just do all kinds of evil since the law can do nothing to us? Certainly not! Why would we wish to undermine that which we have been given, namely life, indeed not just life but life from the dead!

But, as Paul has taught us, we are still in this flesh and so we find in us an enemy....

Romans 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.​

So, it is not obedience to the law that you need to focus on, it is Christ! Your righteous will never be found in the law! All you will ever find in the law is frustration, condemnation and death, for that it it's purpose (Romans 7:7-10). Righteousness is found in Christ and in Him only. Christ's righteousness has been imputed to you by God, the Judge of all things. You have been declared righteous and therefore are righteous, whether you act that way or not in your flesh. The key for you is to believe it. Let me repeat that. The key for you is to believe it. The Christian life is not lived by effort but by faith. Faith in what? Faith in the biblical facts concerning your position in Christ. The bible tells us that Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. Do you believe it or not? That is the question. The more real your position in Christ becomes in your mind, the more your effort to be righteous will end and Christ's life can be lived through you. God will not help you to be righteous. Only He is righteous. He is willing to live His life through you but will not share the glory with your flesh. You must crucify your flesh daily and every time you attempt to obey the law, you resurrect your flesh because the law only has anything to say to your flesh. This is why Paul says that if you permit yourself to become circumcised (i.e. place yourself under the law), Christ will profit you nothing.

If a person is not transgressing the Law they may not need to know about it. Unless we are to obey all of it. Obey requires doing something, even if it requires not doing something.

The law has been nailed to the cross and taken out of the way. I strongly urge you to leave it there! You do not need the law, you need Christ!

Good verse and exhortation, thank you. Do you support the criminal justice system until someone gets this point and then you can drop it? Or, do you stand by God's criminal justice system forever at all costs?

It's two different topics.

The law of Moses was not the beginning of criminal justice. It merely expanded and clarified it.

I say again, criminal justice is not about the atonement for sin. It is about proper human government and the just management of a civilized society. So long as human beings are rightly in charge of government, God's criminal justice system stands as the standard for criminal justice.

So, just because you are in Christ and are forgiven of all sin. If, in your flesh, you commit a crime, the government must punish you for that crime an eye for an eye. Christians commit crime all the time. Imagine if they were allowed to plied "forgiven in Christ" during the trial. Would there be a single criminal who would mouth such a plea?

Do you say this because someone ruled not to take care of a person's sins just criminal behavior or what has been deemed criminal?

I don't understand the question.

YES. I don't know if there is anything that we need to know from the murderer, but he shouldn't get off by knowing a lot of things that he needs to reveal. However, you do not specify if the person is a believer.

Sometimes you'll get an answer as to the motive and sometime you will not. But the bible explicitly says not to take any ransom for his life. That would include information that one deemed valuable.

Whether he is a believe or not is irrelevant to whether a murderer should be executed. God will deal with his soul. The government is only to deal with his crime.

We could talk about the differences. One is from God and allows people to make decisions. The other guides man's decisions or makes it impossible to do anything called sin based on preventing anything they can do from being called sin using words or eliminating the things that a person can do that would be considered sin. Does it take care of the root problem, human nature or sinful behavior in the flesh, man's sin nature?


Just now you didn't? Or before? Because I don't know how to clarify or bring more clarity.


I believe they were talked about in the next sentence, maybe answered, twice. But I had read your post and then when I was responding I was reading what I was but was answering one ahead just because of how I was reading it. Sorry.

I couldn't follow any of this. Sounds like a change of subject anyway.

Thanks. That means a lot. I am sorry. I don't know what unresponsive means. But you are measuring something and have seen improvement. It may have had to do with my effort in response or maybe it doesn't or didn't.

Jacob

By "unresponsive" I simply mean that you didn't respond to the point being made from within the context in which is was made. It was as if you were discussing something else that was maybe somehow connected but not really the same thing.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I believe that He already is King. He spoke of His Kingdom in the present before He died.

John 18:36 NASB - 36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."​

He is presently at the right hand of God, but I am working on if He is ruling and reigning.

Matthew 26:64 NASB - 64 Jesus said to him, "You have said it [yourself;] nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."​

I do not know what you mean by referring to Stephen's stoning here. I remember that when I was a dispensationalist I had a reason for getting hung up on something with Stephen, but that may not be what you are pointing to and I have no difficultly with it at present. I don't see this changing as I don't know what it even was any more. Suffice it to say if you are asking about if the kingdom came many go to when Jesus prayed or cried over Jerusalem and say that the coming of the kingdom that had been promised was then delayed.

You aren't talking about a temple with sacrifice, which is okay for the Millennium if you don't associate a coming temple with it, but many do. I don't know what to think about it. So I simply recognize that you are saying something different.

Judges. Elders. Whatever I don't know I don't know and I can say that I don't know. Either? The Law? Some people believe that the Law will come back for the Jews with Christ. It is an idea of dispensationalists.

I am of the body of Christ. I also observe Torah as a proselyte to or of Israel. Do you believe that a person can become a proselyte after Christ died on the cross or rose from the dead?

I have thought recently that my life is a lot less about observing the Law or an identity as a Jew, but in looking for work at my interview today I said that I am Jewish (I was wearing tzitzit and a kippah in addition to my regular clothing) for the purpose of the weekly Sabbath and Jewish Holy Days (not being able to work then), though I was simply saying it not necessarily saying it for that purpose without meaning, though I wondered even wearing what I was if it is basically like lying. A proselyte is a proselyte or a Jew or an Israelite.

Revelation 2:9 NASB - 9 'I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Revelation 3:9 NASB - 9 'Behold, I will cause [those] of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie--I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and [make them] know that I have loved you.​

Here is the verse about proselytes. Is a resident alien a proselyte? Do they live in the land only? Such that the word proselyte has been associated with synagogues which I presume may have been outside of the land of Israel (I haven't checked this, I think I might remember something though).

Exodus 20:10 NASB - 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; [in it] you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you.

Exodus 23:12 NASB - 12 "Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease [from labor] so that your ox and your donkey may rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves.

Exodus 12:19, 48 NASB - 19 'Seven days there shall be no leaven found in your houses; for whoever eats what is leavened, that person shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether [he is] an alien or a native of the land. ... 48 "But if a stranger sojourns with you, and celebrates the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near to celebrate it; and he shall be like a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person may eat of it.

Deuteronomy 5:14 NASB - 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; [in it] you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter or your male servant or your female servant or your ox or your donkey or any of your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you, so that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you.

Deuteronomy 16:11-14 NASB - 11 and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God, you and your son and your daughter and your male and female servants and the Levite who is in your town, and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your midst, in the place where the LORD your God chooses to establish His name. 12 "You shall remember that you were a slave in Egypt, and you shall be careful to observe these statutes. 13 "You shall celebrate the Feast of Booths seven days after you have gathered in from your threshing floor and your wine vat; 14 and you shall rejoice in your feast, you and your son and your daughter and your male and female servants and the Levite and the stranger and the orphan and the widow who are in your towns.​

Jacob

God is dispensational. The bible is full of contraction to the point of meaninglessness if one fails to rightly divide it (i.e. fail to recognize who is being spoken to under which disepensation.)



You are not a Jew. I mean, you could and apparently do practice the Jewish religion but God doesn't care about that any more or less than He cares about whether you practive Bhudism. Both/either will land you in the same place.



The biblical use of the word 'proselyte' refers to a non-Israelite converting to and practicing Jewish religion. That's what the word means.

 

[Clete]

Okay. God created in His image long before that.

Yeah. In what universe does this respond in any fashion to what I said?

Why is it wrong?

I answered this two sentences later.

Why is it wrong? I see the scriptures about how it is wrong.

I answered this one sentence later.

It can be wrong that way,

No, it isn't that it "can be". That is why it's wrong - period.

but I was wondering about the perjury one if you have a scripture that says that it is wrong.

Shalom.

Jacob

What?!

You are so completely hung up on the law and you don't even know the Ten Commandments? What sort of game are you playing here? You'd better get really serious about deciding you want to actually understand what you're talking about because one of these days you won't be discussing this with some anonymous guy on the internet. You will give an account to the God who made you in a face to face that is going to knock your socks off and if I can discover that you're so ignorant of the scriptures as to not even know that the law against perjury is one of the ten commandments, what sort of things are you going to have to explain to your ultimate judge? I'd be scared if I were you! You're relying on your flesh for your righteousness and haven't spent the requisit time required to understand even the most basic aspects of the law nor the foundations of right and wrong.


A question for you....


Is God righteous?

If so, why?


Clete

 

[Gary K]

Yeah, a DREAM WORLD.

You've quit simply misunderstood my point. We do not live in a perfect world where Jesus Christ sits on the throne....nor where godly judges dispense justice. We live in a world where Judges and witnesses can be bribed, where officers of the court do the lying, and where the innocent are often "proven" guilty.

It's all well and good to preach godly justice, and it's quite another to see it taking place while satan is the god of this world. I'm not so naive as to pretend that man can adequately carry out justice as intended by God. Nor am I so naive as to believe that those who count themselves as godly men should be given the power to enforce the same penalties as the Law of Moses enforced.

I've heard it being preached that children who disobey their parents should be put to death. People who have sex outside of marriage should be put to death. At that rate, few would live long enough to be saved by the Gospel of Grace.

So, that's your reasoning to justify conflating license and liberty? The problem in this world isn't the inability to treat others justly and fairly. If that were true no one would ever treat others that way. The fact that there are people who treat others the way God said we should means all this pain the human race inflicts on itself comes from simply refusing to do so. It is simply refusing to put God and His way of doing things first. It's priorities and choices, not inability.

God knows far more than we do about what's inside us. So, when He gives a command it isn't outside of our ability to respond positively. The problem is we don't want to respond positively. A thief isn't a thief because he can't do anything other than steal. He's a thief because he chooses to be a thief. An adulterer isn't an adulterer because they can't help it. They commit adultery because they choose to.

So, because sin is so widespreadd we just need to let it go. It's so popular that there just isn't any use resisting it or punishing it. :dizzy:

Our world is in the condition it is because sin has not been punished. The northern kingdom of Israel, the 10 tribes, was destroyed because they refused to follow God, not because they could not. God is not unjust nor unwise, nor lacking in understanding. His word is true, and respect for God and His word is the beginning of wisdom.

Proverbs 21:10 The soul of the wicked desires evil;
his neighbor finds no mercy in his eyes.
[SIZE=+0]11[/SIZE]When a scoffer is punished, the simple becomes wise;
when a wise man is instructed, he gains knowledge.

Just because the natural heart of humanity desires evil doesn't mean it cannot act otherwise. That's one of the lessons from the book of Job. The devil couldn't force Job to rebel against God even when by all human understanding Job should have just cursed God and died as his wife told him he should do. It's a fallacy that humanity cannot follow God. The truth is we humans just don't want to.

 

[Gary K]

People say straight or heterosexual while a man who is celibate not because of the sin of homosexuality might not choose either of these and may be unwilling to say he is single because one day that may change if it is something that can be said (like it is a choice, when it is the default position before a person becomes married).

I am confused by this post, Jacob. I simply cannot see a point being made. Maybe you could restate this in a way that I can understand.

 

[Gary K]

Thank you.



The common consensus on AIDS is that originated in Africa among non human primates and the cross transference of it in humans wasn't a result of homosexuals. You're going as far back as the early twentieth century, it was never a "gay" disease as some still seem to like to think. The spread of it wasn't just unprotected sex although a main cause sure but that applied to everybody.



No, the first two aren't and the rest are actions. It is not a behaviour either to be attracted to the opposite, the same or both sexes just as much as being attracted to someone isn't. How you may act on that attraction is another thing altogether but if you're straight and are solely attracted to women then there is no behaviour in that, it's simply your orientation.

Arthur,

I simply don't know how to respond to the myths you're repeating about AIDS. It was widespread in the homosexual community before it ever reached the heterosexual community. Do you really think all that promiscuous behavior going on in the gay baths had no real life consequences? There were medical professionals who tried to educate the public about this but they were shut down by political correctness. I'm not going to do the research for you, but there is plenty of evidence for this.

It is also apparent that you need to read a dictionary or two so you can understand that the words behavior and actions are synonyms. In other words, two different words meaning the same thing.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Behavior Be*hav"ior, n.
Manner of behaving, whether good or bad; mode of conducting
one's self; conduct; deportment; carriage; -- used also of
inanimate objects; as, the behavior of a ship in a storm; the
behavior of the magnetic needle.
[1913 Webster]

A gentleman that is very singular in his behavior.
--Steele.
[1913 Webster]

To be upon one's good behavior, To be put upon one's good
behavior, to be in a state of trial, in which something
important depends on propriety of conduct.

During good behavior, while (or so long as) one conducts
one's self with integrity and fidelity or with propriety.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: Bearing; demeanor; manner.

Usage: Behavior, Conduct. Behavior is the mode in which
we have or bear ourselves in the presence of others or
toward them; conduct is the mode of our carrying
ourselves forward in the concerns of life. Behavior
respects our manner of acting in particular cases;
conduct refers to the general tenor of our actions. We
may say of soldiers, that their conduct had been
praiseworthy during the whole campaign, and their
behavior admirable in every instance when they met the
enemy.
[1913 Webster]


WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
behavior
n 1: manner of acting or controlling yourself [syn: behavior,
behaviour, conduct, doings]
2: the action or reaction of something (as a machine or
substance) under specified circumstances; "the behavior of
small particles can be studied in experiments" [syn:
behavior, behaviour]
3: (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other
people [syn: demeanor, demeanour, behavior,
behaviour, conduct, deportment]
4: (psychology) the aggregate of the responses or reactions or
movements made by an organism in any situation [syn:
behavior, behaviour]


Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0 (moby-thesaurus)
44 Moby Thesaurus words for "behavior":
Pavlovian conditioning, act, acting, action, actions, activism,
activity, bearing, comportment, conditioned response, conditioning,
conduct, demeanor, deportment, doing, employment, exercise,
function, functioning, instrumental conditioning, manner, manners,
mien, movements, negative reinforcement, occupation,
operant conditioning, operation, operations, play,
positive reinforcement, practice, praxis, psychagogy, reeducation,
reflex, reinforcement, reorientation, swing, unconditioned reflex,
way, work, working, workings

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Conduct Con*duct", v. i.
1. To act as a conductor (as of heat, electricity, etc.); to
carry.
[1913 Webster]

2. To conduct one's self; to behave. [U. S.]
[1913 Webster]


WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
conduct
n 1: manner of acting or controlling yourself [syn: behavior,
behaviour, conduct, doings]
2: (behavioral attributes) the way a person behaves toward other
people [syn: demeanor, demeanour, behavior,
behaviour, conduct, deportment]

If you're having a hard time with understanding all of this, to behave in a certain way means to act in a certain way. Behavior always directly implies actions. Without actions there can be no behavior nor way of conducting one's self. To make the statement you made is to simply deny the meanings of the words themselves.

 

[Clete]

Arthur,

I simply don't know how to respond to the myths you're repeating about AIDS. It was widespread in the homosexual community before it ever reached the heterosexual community. Do you really think all that promiscuous behavior going on in the gay baths had no real life consequences? There were medical professionals who tried to educate the public about this but they were shut down by political correctness. I'm not going to do the research for you, but there is plenty of evidence for this.

It is also apparent that you need to read a dictionary or two so you can understand that the words behavior and actions are synonyms. In other words, two different words meaning the same thing.





If you're having a hard time with understanding all of this, to behave in a certain way means to act in a certain way. Behavior always directly implies actions. Without actions there can be no behavior nor way of conducting one's self. To make the statement you made is to simply deny the meanings of the words themselves.

As Ok Doser has previously pointed out, AIDS is still almost entirely a "gay" desease...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur,

I simply don't know how to respond to the myths you're repeating about AIDS. It was widespread in the homosexual community before it ever reached the heterosexual community. Do you really think all that promiscuous behavior going on in the gay baths had no real life consequences? There were medical professionals who tried to educate the public about this but they were shut down by political correctness. I'm not going to do the research for you, but there is plenty of evidence for this.

Political correctness has got squat to do with it. AIDS did not originate among homosexuals and calling it a "gay disease" educates nobody. It's that type of ignorance that was spread through the 80's. Are gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners at high risk of contracting it? Yes, does that make AIDS a gay disease or that heterosexuals who engage in the same at low risk? Nope.

It is also apparent that you need to read a dictionary or two so you can understand that the words behavior and actions are synonyms. In other words, two different words meaning the same thing.

They can be although they can also be separate in context and I won't bother pasting a whole load of dictionary quotes in order to make the point that someone as assuredly educated as yourself would surely understand. Although how someone can think that an orientation is equatable to either is still a bit of a mystery...

 

[Right Divider]

Political correctness has got squat to do with it. AIDS did not originate among homosexuals and calling it a "gay disease" educates nobody. It's that type of ignorance that was spread through the 80's. Are gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners at high risk of contracting it? Yes, does that make AIDS a gay disease or that heterosexuals who engage in the same at low risk? Nope.

All sexually transmitted diseases are diseases that highly affect those that are sexually promiscuous. Non-heterosexuals are far more sexually promiscuous than their counterparts.

 

[ok doser]

AIDS did not originate among homosexuals..

right - it is believed to have originated in non-human primates

and calling it a "gay disease" educates nobody.

in the US, it has been and continues to be a disease overwhelmingly of the male homosexual community

It's that type of ignorance that was spread through the 80's.

that's a particularly foolish statement to make - i was working in a hospital lab doing blood analyses through the 80's

in my personal experience in a major hospital serving an urban/suburban community of greater than 1 million people, i can tell you that of the cases we saw, over 95% were homosexual males

Are gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners at high risk of contracting it? Yes

they sure are - and at rates staggeringly higher than any other sub-group of the general population

, does that make AIDS a gay disease

it makes it primarily a gay disease

or that heterosexuals who engage in the same at low risk? Nope.

very much lower risk that is only substantially increased when a homo spreads his filthy disease to a sexually promiscuous girl



If you want to study HIV/AIDS, you don't seek out infected subjects in the elderly population, you don't seek out subjects in childhood populations, you don't seek out subjects in the female homosexual population and you don't seek out subjects in the heterosexual population

you seek out subjects in the male homosexual populations, because that is where the disease overwhelmingly is found

 

[Arthur Brain]

All sexually transmitted diseases are diseases that highly affect those that are sexually promiscuous. Non-heterosexuals are far more sexually promiscuous than their counterparts.

Yeah, most straight blokes have never had multiple sex partners at all...

lain:

 

[ok doser]

RD makes a statement that is clear, unambiguous and accurate (emphasis mine):

Non-heterosexuals are far more sexually promiscuous than their counterparts.

:thumb:

Yeah, most straight blokes have never had multiple sex partners at all...

did you really not understand what RD just said, or are you just playing the troll?

 

[ok doser]

once again artie, facts don't care about your feelings:

male homos have more than twice as many sexual partners over their lifetime than normal men

 

[ok doser]

As Ok Doser has previously pointed out, AIDS is still almost entirely a "gay" desease...

he will ignore this, of course

 

[ok doser]

Disgusting homos:

Dugas is described as being a charming, handsome sexual athlete who, according to his own estimation, averaged hundreds of sex partners per year.[1] He claimed to have had over 2,500 sexual partners across North America since becoming sexually active in 1972....

... Dugas was believed to be part of a cluster of homosexual men who traveled frequently, were extremely sexually active, and died of AIDS at a very early stage in the epidemic....


... many of the patients analyzed reported in excess of 1000 sexual partners, most remembered "only a handful" of names, making their contacts to other cases more difficult to trace.

very few heterosexuals have the opportunity to achieve similar feats - Magic Johnson is one notable exception

 

[Gary K]

Disgusting homos:




very few heterosexuals have the opportunity to achieve similar feats - Magic Johnson is one notable exception

As was Wilt Chamberlain. He actually made Magic seem pretty mundane in matters related to sexual activity.

 

[Gary K]

Yeah, most straight blokes have never had multiple sex partners at all...

lain:

The difference, Arthur, is that heterosexual men aren't having sex with partners that have nearly as high of incidence as AIDS as homosexua men do. Thus, they contract it far less often than gay men do. That doesn't stop it from being risky behavior though. This is one reason God gave laws covering sexual behavior.

 

[Right Divider]

The difference, Arthur, is that heterosexual men aren't having sex with partners that have nearly as high of incidence as AIDS as homosexua men do. Thus, they contract it far less often than gay men do. That doesn't stop it from being risky behavior though. This is one reason God gave laws covering sexual behavior.

Do you have any Biblical support for that idea?

 

[Gary K]

Political correctness has got squat to do with it. AIDS did not originate among homosexuals and calling it a "gay disease" educates nobody. It's that type of ignorance that was spread through the 80's. Are gay men who have unprotected sex with multiple partners at high risk of contracting it? Yes, does that make AIDS a gay disease or that heterosexuals who engage in the same at low risk? Nope.



They can be although they can also be separate in context and I won't bother pasting a whole load of dictionary quotes in order to make the point that someone as assuredly educated as yourself would surely understand. Although how someone can think that an orientation is equatable to either is still a bit of a mystery...

Your first paragraph is just pure nonsense. It has been disproven many times. Homosexual men have been proven to have faulty immune systems that make them susceptible to all kinds of health problems and even more susceptible to AIDS than heterosexuals. That fact that the fake news media spread all the disinformation you're spreading just shows how all you're repeating is propoganda that took the place of non-politically-correct data, and it's been happening for quite a few decades now. Do some research from non-biased resources and find what you've been missing.

Arthur, are you going to continue to use such blatant fallacies? That "orientation" you mention leads directly to homosexual behavior. If they weren't oriented towards homosexual behavior they wouldn't be having sex with other males. I'm not oriented that way and I've never had sex with another male. Neither has any other heterosexual male I've ever known. ***shakes head in amazement***

Your arguments are so weak that I can't believe you're making them.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your first paragraph is just pure nonsense. It has been disproven many times. Homosexual men have been proven to have faulty immune systems that make them susceptible to all kinds of health problems and even more susceptible to AIDS than heterosexuals. That fact that the fake news media spread all the disinformation you're spreading just shows how all you're repeating is propoganda that took the place of non-politically-correct data, and it's been happening for quite a few decades now. Do some research from non-biased resources and find what you've been missing.

Arthur, are you going to continue to use such blatant fallacies? That "orientation" you mention leads directly to homosexual behavior. If they weren't oriented towards homosexual behavior they wouldn't be having sex with other males. I'm not oriented that way and I've never had sex with another male. Neither has any other heterosexual male I've ever known. ***shakes head in amazement***

Your arguments are so weak that I can't believe you're making them.

"Homosexual men have been proven to have faulty immune systems"?! Seriously, if you're gonna bandy about accusations regarding political correctness and propaganda then just read back your own garbage right there. A person who is attracted to their own gender (men or women) are not automatically immune deficient and until you can get your head around the fact that a sexual orientation isn't the equivalent of action or behaviour then what is the point? You don't have to act on it at all, it's just how you're wired. How have you not gotten the most basic aspect of this? So you're straight, right? So am I. Did you need to "prove" this to yourself by action/behaviour?

You want to shake your head alright dude.