shagster01
New member
That is why the FDA is studying this?
Drugs, risky sexual behavior linked
- Thread starter Stripe
- Start date
That is why the FDA is studying this?
English is your second language, isn't it? :chuckle:
Ask the FDA. :idunno:
Morpheus
New member
That is all good and well, but people don't take drugs because they are promiscuous, nor are they promiscuous because they take drugs. They are promiscuous because of some deeper problem, and they take drugs because of some deeper problem. That problem may be depression, or bipolar disorder, childhood sexual abuse, or one of any number of other problems. It maybe as simple as having an addictive personality since both drug abuse and promiscuity are addictive behaviors. But to deal with these symptoms you first have to help them find the underlying cause. Just telling someone, "Come to Jesus and these things will go away", is naive at best. He might bring them together with someone to help them work through their issues, but they will not just magically go away. And if you are not trained in such matters it is better to direct them to someone who is since the untrained tend to do more harm than good. Addiction and promiscuity are not a choice to them any more than breathing is a choice for you. You might force yourself to hold your breath for a long time, but eventually you gasp for air. Until they resolve their deeper issues they will be haunted by the symptoms.
Just rhetorically, what bad habits would you like to do away with? Why haven't you just stopped already? It isn't a matter of will. If we could simply will these things away we could achieve sinlessness. Yet we know that this is impossible. We don't need Christ so that he can help us stop sinning; we need Christ because we are unable to stop. Over time He might help us deal with our pasts and bring us peace, thereby helping us to deal with our sinful nature, but it is a slow, difficult process.
I suppose that is why I get frustrated with reading all the judgmental posts on TOL. The people who should most understand the struggles with the weaknesses of the flesh act as if they are immune, driving unbelievers away through their prideful distain. Nobody can honestly read the posts in this thread and believe that it is an understanding calling to unbelievers. It is an attack on some of them, in essence saying, "look at how evil and twisted you are.". The biggest problem with "religious" people is their tendency to focus on the sins of others, instead of on their own, trying to make themselves feel "righteous". Humility is a rare commodity in the U.S. churches.
[Step down from soap box, realizing that I probably just wasted the last 15 minutes of my life on deaf ears]
A great many take them to hide the shame and hopelessness they feel from having been promiscuous and or become promiscuous to support their drug habits to cover it all and its an endless hopeless cycle.
But nowhere in this thread, other than from you and our resident pot head, has anyone said that drugs makes one homosexual or vice versa like you keep pretending was said anywhere.
You know what, i think it best at this point to add you to the ranks with some others who are usually unable to read or stick to a topic, on my ignore and stop wasting my time here trying to have a logical discussion with you. Not possible. :wave2:
Morpheus
New member
You forgot the homos. People become homos because of problems as well.
shagster01
New member
I didnt realize the FDA created this thread, link me.
I asked what the point of the STUDY was.
I know what the point of the thread is.
Morpheus
New member
People don't do one to deal with the other; if they did then one would be the cause and the other the effect. This study, as bad as it was, even acknowledged that there was no cause and effect shown. I've already explained how neither drug abuse, specifically, nor promiscuity are considered causes, but both are symptoms of other issues which cause those symptoms. I already clearly demonstrated where Stripe took this thread from its inception three of my posts earlier; and it was he who narrowed the study from promiscuity in general to homosexuality. His insistence on declaring some nefarious link (where none exists) is the whole point of this thread. If you can discover another primary point I would welcome it.
It is easy to reason with me, but "no it isn't" does not constitute an argument.
Morpheus
New member
Unlike many others I believe that childhood abuse can possibly cause adult homosexual behavior in some cases. Yet I will not exclude the likelihood of predisposition either. There is too much evidence of predisposition to ignore. For those who believe that Go would not do that to anyone, there is also very definitive physiological evidence that some are predisposed to addictive behaviors, bed wetting, even antisocial (psychopathic) behaviors. Not all with these physiological predispositions end up living them out, and not all who have these afflictions demonstrate the physiology; yet the likelihood is greatly increased with the physiological markers. Homosexuality is similar. Where we expect the alcoholic, the drug addict and the psychopath to find some coping mechanisms to manage their drives, God expects not only the homosexual, but the heterosexually promiscuous to learn coping mechanisms to manage their drives. Yet the idea that a homosexual can be changed into a heterosexual is as ridiculous a notion as believing that alcoholism or other addictions can be "cured".
I hope I have explained my position clearly enough. Homosexuality is natural for some, but addiction, rage, obesity, and murder are "natural" for others. Sin consists of many natural behaviors that are unacceptable to God. Yet we all have our own afflictions to deal with. Our inability to rid ourselves of sin should teach us humility toward others.
The thorn in the flesh would be some sin Paul struggled with, though we don't know what it was. It had to be a sin because the Lord replied, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.” Grace is only necessary because of sin.
I don't think you have any idea what this thread is about. :chuckle:
Platitudes?
That's all you've got?
He had bad eyesight.
Morpheus
New member
If I have no idea what this thread is about, then obviously I am not alone. So then spell it out.
You don't need grace for bad eyesight. I've heard that, baldness, speech impediment and shortness. None of which requires grace. All of those speculations miss the point of the passage. The Bible is not a history of sinless men and women save one. The rest all have stories about their distinctions and flaws, yet despite all their flaws God uses them occasionally. It's a book of hope, where even with our weaknesses God can use us if we just let Him. Paul sinned, and he struggled with his sins. Because of his sins he recognized that it was God working through him, and he did not falsely believe it was Paul doing those things. Pride takes credit for God's work.
Your entire post and premise is. There is no such thing as a "homo" in the way you mean it. That is like saying Ted Bundy was born that way.
:thumb:
apparently, to demonstrate just how much of a retard you are :idunno:
Truths4yer
New member
Responses below are to;
1) Stripe
2) lovemeorhateme
3) Nick M
1) Stripe
Firstly, a definition of minority stress:
Some studies comparing LGBT people with other LGBT people, therefore controlling for (eliminating) the variable "homosexuality":
Unsurprisingly, the same trends are observed both among other minorities and within the general population for people exposed to minority stress equivalents:
http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/mental-health-and-substance-abuse.html
2) lovemeorhateme
Here are two nationally representative studies:
3) Nick M
1) Stripe
2) lovemeorhateme
3) Nick M
1) Stripe
Not in the slightest. This isn't a new discovery. The reason why the disparity occurs, along with multiple other health disparities, is well evidenced as being due to minority stress, which arises from heterosexism. I recently updated my essay on this, which features over 100 peer-reviewed studies from high ranked journals. Here's a small sample of the studies covered;
Firstly, a definition of minority stress:
Some studies comparing LGBT people with other LGBT people, therefore controlling for (eliminating) the variable "homosexuality":
Unsurprisingly, the same trends are observed both among other minorities and within the general population for people exposed to minority stress equivalents:
The upshot of this is that those who seek to criticise/stigmatise homosexuality on this basis are both factually incorrect and massive hypocrites. Far more on this can be found in my main essay on the topic:
http://homoresponse.blogspot.com/2011/06/mental-health-and-substance-abuse.html
Please substantiate this claim.
2) lovemeorhateme
Anything that could be called the "homosexual community" certainly isn't encompassing of all homosexuals and likely isn't even heterogeneous itself. Objectively acquired empirical evidence is always needed to generalise. Please see my response to Stripe, concerning substance abuse.
Here are two nationally representative studies:
I wouldn't be especially surprised if promiscuity was a bit higher among LGBT people on average than heteros tbh though if it is, it certainly isn't massively so.
3) Nick M
Sexual orientations are however a term commonly used to reference purely the attractions and this appears to be the only sensible way of defining them:
- Given that we would still classify an adolescent who had not yet had the opportunity to act upon their attractions, or a celibate, as heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.
- We would still classify a man who was raped by or who prostituted themselves to another man as heterosexual if they were exclusively attracted to women.
- Involuntary attractions are therefore both necessary and sufficient to assign sexual orientation, while voluntary actions are neither necessary, nor sufficient to do so.
- Earls & David, 1989, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18(5), 401-419 details heterosexual male prostitution.
- The definition used is not of great significance, as long as it is understood and used consistently.