Co-operating with Satan
Charity blackmailer Stephen Green’s sense of self-righteous persecution received a boost when the Co-operative Bank asked Christian Voice to close its account because of its anti-homosexual views.
According to the PA (reported in the Guardian), Green has 30 days from June 6 to close the account.
A spokesman for the bank said,
It has come to the bank’s attention that Christian Voice is engaged in discriminatory pronouncements based on the grounds of sexual orientation.
This public stance is incompatible with the position of the Co-operative Bank, which publicly supports diversity and dignity in all its forms for our staff, customers and other stakeholders.
Speaking from his closet in Carmarthen, Green said,
The Co-op bank, for all its fine words, is discriminating against us on the grounds of conscience and religion.
Never mind. CV may not have any money left to bank soon, as it is still pursuing an expensive blasphemy action against the BBC, claiming that Jerry Springer: The Opera portrayed Jesus as a “sexual deviant”, when in fact it portrayed a sexual deviant as Jesus.
UPDATE: Contact details of the Co-op bank, should you wish to express an opinion on their decision.
(Thanks to Scaryduck)
There is no comparison to be made between drug abusers and homosexuals. Homosexuality is perfectly natural, drug abuse is not.
Thing is, nondy is ever going to change your mind “Doctor” as you are an irrational bigot who has absolutely no genuine intention of looking at the facts.
I’m glad that we live in a world where bigotted morons like you are becoming less and less common.
I do have to wonder why the obsession with homosexuality? I find that most sraight people just don’t give a shit about homosexuality. It just doesn’t bother them. I’m beginning to think that maybe you’re not entirely comfortable with your own sexuality.
After all, it is often found that the most violent homophobes are actually gay themselves.
Of course, despite you not actually living in the rational world, you’ll want some evidence to back this up. So here goes….. form this website: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&start=3&q=http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm&e=912
[blockquote]One of the recent studies done at the University of Georgia among convicted killers of gay men has shown that the overwhelmingly large percentage of them (more than 70%) exhibit sexual arousal when shown scenes of gay sex. The core fear, then, for the homophobe is that he himself might be gay, and might be forced to face that fact. The homophobia can be as internalized as it is externalized – bash the queer and you don’t have to worry about being aroused by him.[/blockquote]
Of course you’ll then come out with your old argument about stats being rotten, which you do whenever there’s a chance that they show that your arguments are a load of bollocks.
Wow!!
I suppose that with most men, it only takes a picture of a beautiful woman to wonder why anyone would want to be homosexual. But that’s irrelevant – there are lots of unhelpful things that we are tempted to, and homosexuality is not necessarily the worst or the best of them. Even those not tempted to homosexuality are bound to be tempted to other equally bad things. There’s nothing special about homosexuality in this regard. In its topicality, however, it is special, since it is a topic being hotly debated at this point in history. Im not the only person debating it.
As for killers of gay men, homophobia etc, that deserves nothing but contempt from any rational person. The ground rule is not to let emotion (fear / prejudice / hatred / ‘phobia’) affect rational judgment.
How do we determine what is and isnt ‘natural’? I should say that there’s no way that voluntary activities that cause earlier mortality are likely to be ‘natural’. These include, for example, smoking, promiscuity, drug abuse, homosexual activity, eating unhealthy food, hanging around in gangs, excessive drinking, and so on.
Homosexuality is natural “Doctor”, all but the most irrational bigots (like you) agree on that.
It is evident accross the animal kingdom, including amongst our fellow primates.
And do you have any actual evidence that just being homsexual is dangerous? Could you please explain how a man being attracted to another man is actually physically harmful?
And anybody who believes in such an obviously ludicrous concept as god can not possibly talk to anybody about rationality.
I was under the impression that incidence of homosexuality varied widely from species to species.
Are we supposed to find out how we should be behaving by observing the bonobos? They are more advanced than us, right? ;o)
By your definition, apparently, anything that happens is ‘natural’. OK – mugging of old ladies happens. Therefore it is ‘natural’. The holocaust happened. Therefore it is ‘natural’ for human beings to treat each other that way.
Yes, it is natural. It is attested in nature. So are all sorts of things, both good and bad. But…is it good?
Among the class of ‘things that are natural’, there are some that are beneficial, and others that are not. The question we are engaged on discussing is not ‘Is homosexuality natural?’, since by one definition anything that happens is thereby natural. We are, rather, discussing the question: ‘Is homosexuality good/beneficial?’.
Tell you what “Doctor”….. how is heterosexuality good/beneficial? Answer that if you can.
Also demonstrate how homosexuality is bad/non-beneficial, without referring to anal sex.
Sorry, are you seriously saying that you think “hanging around in gangs” is “unnatural behaviour” that “cause[s] earlier mortality”? Rather than, say, a very basic human trait that pretty much underpins all civilisation?
Stupidest. Argument. EVER.
Hi Andrew-
Heterosexuality makes biological sense, and produces a tangible and wholly delightful product.
It is not possible to discuss homosexuality without anal sex – that is an abstraction which doesnt exist (unless we ignore the vast majority of homosexuality). We already mentioned that altered life-expectancy (as with drugs or smoking)is one non-beneficial fruit – but you know that already.
Joe-
Of course! Supposing gangs were eliminated from the world tomorrow, would life expectancy go up or down? You know the answer already.
Re #57 cd you explain why you think the argument is ‘stupid’? After all, whatever effect a picture has, that effect will be multiplied by a real life woman. (Gasp!)
Not possible to refer to homsexuality without referring to anal sex? That’s the biggest load of bollocks you’ve posted here.
How about lesbians? Not much anal sex there is there?
Come on “Doctor”, demonstrate that homosexuality is bad/un-beneficial. That’s homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform….. you seem quite sure about this, so it should be easy for you to demonstrate.
And your argument which joe quite correctly called stupid, is stupid because you make the incorrect assumption that sexuality is a choice. Nobody wants (in the sense of choses) to be gay, they just are gay.
And one more thing, you say that if gangs are eliminated then the world would be a better place. Comments on this site indicate that you also think the world would be a better place without homesexuals. Can we assume that you would support a worldwide extermination of all homosexuals?
Christopher re comment 45 – Why is marriage a “gender-specific” (sic) term? Because it is in law? If so, why is it so in law? Because it is a specific term. It’s just circular reasoning.
Your answer is not a good reason for why it should be woman-man only.
Also, the muslims and many other religions have multiple-partner marriages, so you can’t say that it inherently means two people either.
Now, using intelligent, rational, sensible, logical arguments, why not gay marriages? All it requires is a change in the law to remove the heterosexual imperative.
Oh, and the reason for age limits is clear, to prevent the abuse of children, so don’t even think of bringing up that pathetic argument again.
Worldwide extermination of homosexuals would make about as much sense as exterminating one’s child when they told a lie. One hopes (and works) for a future where they dont tell lies. The positive solution is always best.
If it were that obvious that homosexuality were natural, this would have been universally accepted by different societies and at different points in history. I’d be more impressed if someone told me this from a society which was not already that way inclined.
The point I dont get is re whether homosexuality is beneficial or not. Ive already pointed out the life-expectancy issue (cf. drugs, smoking) a couple of times. No-one (hopefully) says drugs or smoking are beneficial.
There are plenty of aspects of homosexuality that do not include anal sex – but what Im trying to work out is why you want this rather central aspect omitted in the first place? Isnt that artificial? Why pick on this particular aspect to omit, rather than another aspect? Because you are then more likely to get the answer you want?
Hi Tom-
What is it that tells you that marrying youngsters (and, indeed, abuse of children) is wrong? Is it reason or instinct?
What if someone told you that the instinct on which you possibly base this position is no better or worse than the instinct that tells them there’s something not right about homosexual practice?
I pick on this aspect to omit because anal sex is not exclusively part of homosexuality, and homosexuality is not dependant on anal sex. Just as heterosexuality is not depandant on vaginal sex. I am still heterosexual even when I am not having sex.
Most people would agree that anal sex has it’s risks, but you are arguing that homosexuality itself is bad.
So, please stop avoiding the question and explain what is bad about homosexuality. Thats the act of just being gay, not the acts performed by those who are gay.
Also, please show some evidence that homesexuality reduces life-expectancy. Again, thats homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform.
Just to come back to your first paragraph…. could you describe how a future without homosexuality is going to be acheived? Considering that people are born gay, how do you hope to stop this? What would your vision of the future do to anyone who was gay? Imprison them? Lock them up in the loony bin? Or, as I suspect, would they be executed?
You really do seem to be getting stupider with each post you make Christopher, do something to redress the balance.
Oh dear, I’d better go and stand in the dunce’s corner at once!
It’s interesting that when one speaks of ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’ homosexuals generally protest that their actions cannot be separated from the persons they are. So I repeat: take away anal sex, and what you have left bears little resemblance to homosexuality in the round.
You could equally well say: ‘Come on, Christopher – what have you against smoking? I insist that your answer fails to mention nicotine/tar, but I am patiently awaiting your answer.’
What if nicotine (or tar), which are inseparable from smoking, were the main point in the answer?
If you mean: What have I against people having an orientation that sees them drawn to love and help members of their own gender, the answer is that although I have nothing against it, I have plenty of points in favour of it, which is more to the point.
It’s reason, of course, and you know it is.
If someone made the fatuous statement that you made, I’d call them a twat and point out all the many reasons why they were such a fucking retard. But, of course, nobody, not even you, would be so arrogant as to assume such a thing or so stupid as to make such a statement, would you?
It’s about consent and whether a child can be said to be consenting. For a legal contract, especially one which lasts ad mortem which is what marriage is, a child cannot consider all the options and be said to have consented, it’s as simple as that.
It’s for the same reasons that we have laws against sex with kiddies.
Now, having tried to bring up children getting married and derail the discussion away from your hatred of the gays, why are you against gay marriage? Please answer without recourse to pathetic semantic arguments as you did above. I should point out that I’m not talking about in church here, simply marriage as a legal agreement, such as signed in a registry office.
Well, well the allegeded Doctor ducks the question yet again.
The reason why I am pressing you on this “Doctor”, is that there is no sexual act performed by homosexual individuals that is not also performed by heterosexual individuals.
So answer the questions I asked in comment 63.
And another question too….. if we take away anal sex from homosexuality, what is left does not resemble homosexuality, does this mean that if we take away vaginal sex from heterosexuality, what is left does not resemble heterosexuality? In other words does this mean that a celibate individual is not heterosexual? By your definition it would.
Here are the 3 questions I asked in comment 63, for you convenience.
Explain what is bad about homosexuality. Thats the act of just being gay, not the acts performed by those who are gay.
Also, please show some evidence that homesexuality reduces life-expectancy. Again, thats homosexuality itself, not acts that homosexuals may perform.
Just to come back to your first paragraph…. could you describe how a future without homosexuality is going to be acheived? Considering that people are born gay, how do you hope to stop this? What would your vision of the future do to anyone who was gay? Imprison them? Lock them up in the loony bin? Or, as I suspect, would they be executed?
You want rational debate “doctor”, then answer those questions. Rationally.
Tut! I would think your aggression and unintelligent swearing was enough to put anyone off the antiChristian movement for life – if that is the sort of products it puts out. (Awaits predictable answer.)
Now, as to the issues:
Tom-
Your emphasis on consent has sociological sources. It’s the emphasis that you’re used to in your own society.
There are, of course, plenty of other factors besides consent. Ther are all sorts of other barometers for measuring whether a given practice produces better or worse results than the norm. Does it produce more disease per capita, or less? Does it produce longer life expectancy, or shorter? Does it produce happier people, or sadder? Does it produce stabler societies, or less stable? And so on. How else can one determine which things are positive and which are negative? Is anything wrong with these bnarometers? If so, what? Which alternative barometers would you propose?
I am sure that there are not stats on every one of these things – Im just listing considerations that are relevant. Consent is one relevant issue, rather than being the only one.
Consent is not that easily defined either. Children can consent, to a degree, largely because they are not in a position to know about negative long-term consequences. But there are also plenty of adults who are not aware of negative long-term consequences. And there are also plenty of adults who are aware of the possibility of negative long-term consequences, but prefer to concentrate (for now) upon short-term pleasure.
The gay marriage question I dont understand. If I understand from the statistics that homosexuality itself is (on average) unbeneficial, in addition to failing the tests of biological fruit and physical ‘fit’, then surely its formalising and normalising by the state would be even less beneficial. It would encourage people to see things as life options which they might not previously have seen that way. And there’s one sure way (proven day in and day out by certain societies) of minimising negative practices: failing to present them as possible options in the first place. For example, when (and where) I was growing up, drugs were not even an option, and Im not even 40 yet.
Hi Andrew-
The dubiously healthy practice which is a marginal practice for heterosexuals is the mainstream diet of homosexuals. Wherever something dubiously healthy is the no.1 mainstream practice, then it stands to reason that something is wrong.
I dont believe (tho’ I may be wrong) that you would seek to make me omit this consideration from my verdict unless you already realised that it is a weak point in the homosexual case.
Again, if we omit from consideration all who are actually sexually active – as you propose – we have a very skewed sample.
The closest analogy I have found is with smoking, alcohol abuse or drug-taking.
‘People are born gay’? That is just what requires to be demonstrated. I havent found many gay babies or gay children. Just as I havent found many suicidal babies or children. Just as I havent found many smoiking or drugtaking babies or children.
Would you kill or imprison someone for being suicidal? For smoking or drug-taking? For being promiscuous? No – you’d try to help them – to supply whatever it was that they were missing, whichever lack may have made them that way in the first place. (Tho’ bear in mind that ppl are not just victims of their circumstances. They may have negative tendencies or habits – or acts of will – within themselves as well.)
I don’t know whether anyone has data on family backgrounds of homosexual ppl? – but I feel that a 100% emphasis on genetic factors (which in any case are amoral or morally neutral) and 0% on environmental is not right. Let’s have both/and.
You still haven’t told us what is so bad about being gay Christopher. Answer that question. You have stated that homesexuality is bad. There are homesexuals who never have anal sex, just as there are heterosexuals who never have vaginal sex.
Your entire opinions on homosexuality seem to concern the risks of anal sex. Homosexuality and anal sex are not the same thing.
At what point does homosexuality become bad/non-beneficial? Is it when a man puts his penis in another mans anus? In this case are gay men who only engage in oral sex OK? Can you explain what is bad about lesbianism? Is it harmful to simply be sexually attracted to someone of the same sex? I really can’t see where you’re coming from on this.
And anal sex is the mainstream diet of homosexuality? Let us assume for a while that homosexuals are equally distributed amongst both men and women, ie. there is the same number of homosexual men as there is women. This is unlikely as annecdonatl evidence would indicate that women are more likely to be homosexual than men. But we’ll assume it anyway. As some homosexual men do not engage in anal sex, or are celibate, that means that less than half of all homosexuals do not engage in anal sex. Is less than half really mainstream?
Your analogy with smoking/alcohol abuse/drug taking just doesn’t work. People choose to smoke/abuse alcohol/take drugs, but they do not choose their sexuality. Try asking a homosexual when they chose to be gay.
You claim to want rational debate from other people, while at the same time avoiding it yourself.
No: characteristically, people dont ‘choose’ to do any of these things. That’s the definition of an addiction: something which one can’t prevent oneself doing even though one might (or might not) wish to. ‘Choice’ is a matter of reason and rationality. Whereas cravings for drugs and alcohol are a matter of bodily instinct. Im not sure why people confuse reason and physical craving, or will and physical craving. Surely they must have known the experience of the two of them fighting each other, since their interests often conflict.
For sure, anal sex is mainstream for homosexual men: that we are agreed on.
Lesbianism covers a variety of quite different things: (1) women who are fed up with the unreliability, cruelty and lack of character of men but still need their physical needs met; (2) women who feel they can only be understood properly by other women, or communicate deeply with other women (again, possibly because of some male deficiency), and who naturally associate sex with understanding and communication; (3) ‘butch’ women who feel lust for feminine women; (4) asexual relationships based on companionship – so far as I know, lesbians are less sexually active on average than homosexual men.
I find it hard to deal with such diverse phenomena under the single heading of ‘lesbianism’. Two things seem clear: (i) the extent to which the sexual act is mimicked is presumably sightly less with women; (ii) two women together seems less biologically natural than a man with a woman, and a clear instance of ‘lack of fit’ / ‘lack of physical compatibility’.
Finally, it’s far from the case that my only point is anal sex. I have made the other points several times: life expectancy, average susceptibility to STDs, lack of biological ‘fit’ and of biological fruitfulness.
Answer the questions Christopher.
What a funny answer! Several of the questions have already been addressed in #69.
Now – let’s see if we can find some that weren’t.
(1) What is bad about being gay? Ive mentioned the answers repeatedly. Pragmatically, one obviously knows how good something is by the end result. If the end result is a lower life expectancy, a greater chance (per head) of STDs, a higher level of promiscuity, and no fruit (added to there being no biological fit in the first place) – then it follows (to you) that homosexuality is something we should recommend.
(2) The oral sex issue. There’s a good barometer here. Something counts as sexual intimacy if a partner would normally be jealous about it if it were performed with someone else. Oral sex is included in this, & therefore counts as a form of sexual intimacy. (Sorry, Bill Clinton.)
Male-female sexual intimacy has biological integrity for two reasons: fruitfulness and ‘fit’. Same-sex fails on the first of these criteria, and does less well than heterosexuality on the second criterion.
You mentioned that homosexual acts are also performed by heterosexuals. This prevents anyone from needing to perform them on homosexuals.
So far as I can see, these were the only two questions I didnt address, though please highlight any others if there were any – thanks.
How does being attracted to an individual of the same sex lower ones life-expantancy?
What has caused you to be an irrational bigot?
Also…..
Increased risk in STDs: Risk is negated by correct use of condoms/dental dams
Naturality: No homosexuality for you is not natural. It isn’t for me either. It is for a homosexual.
No fruit: I assume that by this you mean no children. So you would also say that heterosexual sex where one or both individuals is sterile is also wrong?
You say that if homosexual acts are also performed by heterosexuals, there is no need for them to be performed on homosexuals. What kind of bollocks is that? They’re gay Christopher! They only want to have sex with people of their gender!
You had little credibility on this site to begin with “Doctor”, you’re losing it with every post.
And one more question.
You think homosexuality is wrong. Fair enough, that’s your choice. But why does that mean that homosexuality should not be allowed?
Anticipating Andrew’s next answer!!
‘Doctor’ Shell, you must be the most *****ing ****** it has ever been my bad fortune to encounter. If anyone posted half as much *****ing ********* on this site as you, anyone would think they were a *********ing ***********.
Back from the world of dreams……
(1) Homosexuality is something that intrinsically produces no fruit, & never could: that’s the difference from heterosexuality. In the same way that intercourse between different species could not (generally) produce fruit.
(2) You write: ‘They only want to have sex with…their own gender’. Im not sure what ‘wants’ have to do with it. We all probably have things we ‘want’ to do which we know we can’t – e.g. go to Bermuda free. It’s only children who count ‘I want’ as an argument.
(3) In the real world, the susceptibility of homosexuals per head to STDs is significantly greater than that of heterosexuals. Of course, ppl might like them to use condoms – not that that would get to the root of the problem – but the question is more how far they actually do so or not.
Questions “Doctor”.
1) How does being sexually attracted to an individual of the same sex lower ones life expantancy?
2) As heterosexual sex where one partner is sterile is something that intrinsically produces no children, and never could, does this make it wrong or not?
3) Why do you not accept that people are born gay, and thus have absolutely no desire to form heterosexual relationships?
4) How do you explain the presence of homosexuality in other speices? Why does this not indicate that homosexuality is perfectly natural?
5) Should homosexuality be made illegal?
6) If yes, what would be the sentence for someone found guilty of homosexuality?
7) Is it acceptable to deny people basic human rights simply because of the way they were born? If no, then why do you wish to deny homosexuals basic human rights?
8) Your entire irrational attacks on homosexuality are based on what homosexuals do in bed. What do you think of homosexuality itself, ie. the act of being sexually attracted to an individual of the same sex?
9) Do you have a problem with sex that is purely for pleasure? If so, why?
They’re in a random order, but I’d appreciate an answer to all of them. One rule though: As you claim to want rational debate, you must not use any religous teachings in your answers, nor must you use your opinions, except where I’ve asked for them.
For question 1 I want some evidence to back up your answer.
(1) The life expectancy will be lowered on average – not by a simple direct causation between the two things you mentioned, but by a direct line of causation none the less. This line is: being homosexual – being more likely than most to indulge in risky practices – having a lower average life expectancy. We are talking averages here, since there’s no point looking at the small picture, only at the big picture. Every small picture is just part of the big picture anyway.
(2) No – because it is a mechanism that intrinsically makes biological sense. I wonder whether you would disagree on this point, that one mechanism is intrinsically biologically fruitful and the other is not?
(3) Evidence? This is a hotly debated point, so I am not sure why you are treating it as a fact. Remember that some bodytypes are born with a greater predisposition to crime than others. Being born a certain way proves nothing. But in any case, environment plays a massive role. And how many ‘gay’ babies or children have you met?
(4) First, it varies from species to species, so that there is no one species from which we could gauge what is the correct level of human homosexual activity. For some species it is rife, for others non-existent.
Second, since when have we been learning how to live from the animal kingdom. Can you enumerate the other aspects of life in which you learn how to live from the animal kingdom? They have more to learn from us than we from them, given that they are -more or less to a species – creatures of instinct & habit to a greater extent than we are.
Third, how could anyone deny it was natural? Everything that happens is natural, both the good things and the bad things. Im especially interested to know why you make a close connection between ‘right’/’beneficial’ and ‘natural’. ‘Beneficial’ and ‘natural’ are as different as chalk and cheese. So why is it that you apparently assume a connection?
(5) Yes. Let’s take other things that have bad (or worse than average) effects. Drugs can be illegal, and people are steadily criminalising smoking. I wouldnt personally mind restrictions on fatty foods, since people won’t generally make the life-change unless they are encouraged to do so by the system. In particular, there’s no point having schools that engender good habits into children, only for those same children to go out into a world that doesnt much care whether they have good habits or not. If children can develop good habits, those same habits whould be expected all the more of adults, since the word adult means ‘mature’.
In any case, people will still do things whether they are legal or not. Legalising them gives the message they are ok – which would be inaccurate. Hopefully things that are illegal will be done less often than things that are legal (I guess there are exceptions to this – everyone cites prohibition).
There’s nothing strange about something being illegal which has been illegal in large numbers of countries for large periods of history. People always think their own period of history (and their own country) is the best and most normative, but obviously, as they must know, it is not necessarily any better or more normative than any other period, or any other country.
(6) No sentence. What are they lacking that can be provided for them? Character? Something lacking in their family circumstances? Counselling? A better environment? Psychological maturity within their own gender? What is the point in punishing people when something more obviously positive can be done? Punishment will just prolong the agony.
(7) ‘Basic human rights’ dont drop down from heaven. They are agreed by committees, and whatever the committees agree, they can later on change their minds. ‘Rights’ are all in the mind – a human invention – which is not to say that they are not important. They are very important.
Something can’t be classified as a ‘basic human right’ when it was not even seen as a human right at all (basic or unbasic) until recently.
Why is sex for 14 year olds not a ‘basic human right’? How does one define what is and what isnt?
(8) This one I have already answered. I don’t know why ppl ask the question in such a negative way often: ‘What is wrong with being attracted to ppl of your own gender?’ Let’s see it in a positive way: there are plenty of benefits that can come from devoting your life to helping ppl of your own gender, if that is your special gift. That his thoroughly good. But what has that to do with treating a man’s body as though it were a woman’s body? I don’t see the connection.
(9) Yuck, a thousand times yuck. You have just uttered my least favourite phrase: ‘Do you have a problem with…?’. What on earth is this nonsensical phrase supposed to mean? All I do is note that there are negative statistical patterns associated with homosexuality, and therefore homosexuality is to be treated with caution. But those statistical problems are public things: not private to me, but available to everyone. It’s nothing to do with my feelings, emotions etc. – in fact, nothing to do with me at all. It’s to do with publicly available statistics.
‘Religious teachings’? As you look back over my answers, you will note that I never use appeal to biblical teachings as an argument. It would be a circular argument, which is what rules it out of court. As I often say, dogma is teh enemy of scholarship.
On the other hand, where historical matters are concerned, or where the issue is what a writer actually said, then I often appeal to the Bible.
Now, I see I failed to answer your final question – stats on life expectancy.
There was a rather unsatisfactory, though useful, study done around 1985 by Paul Cameron. He estimated average life expectancy from obituaries in gay newspapers and came up with a figure in the 40s. Of course, given an average like this (which may well be inaccurate to some degree) one is unlikely to end up with a life expectancy as good as that of heterosexuals, even on the most generous estimate.
The more recent standard (known to me – Im not an expert) is RS Hogg et al., ‘Modeling the Imapct of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gays and Bisexual Men’ (International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997) 657-61. This gives a figure of 8-21 years’ less life expectancy than average.
In 2001 in the same journal (p1499) the same authors wrote a disclaimer: they had not meant their findings to be used by homophobic people – because their findings were descriptive not prescriptive. Im glad they were against homophobia, but can’t understand their attitude otherwise. Are they completely indifferent about lifestyles that lead to people living 8-21 years less on average? This is inconsistent with the view we take of smoking, for example. Obviously, we want people to maximise their life expectancy. Moreover, it can safely be assumed that those people who live less long are more likely to be unhealthy while they actually are alive, and very often to be unhealthy for the same reason that eventually produces their death. Common sense is to choose life.
I asked you to show how the act of being sexually attracted to an individual of the same sex reduces ones life expantancy. You have not shown this at all.
You have not answered question 9.
Also, homosexual men do not treat a man’s body as if it were a womans body. They treat it as if it was a man’s body.
You keep bringing in the “have you seen any gay babies/children” question. Of course I haven’t. Nor have I seen any straight babies/children. They aren’t developed sexually.
Why do you think that people’s sexuality can be changed with counselling, or the other methods you mention?
One more question, have you ever sat down and had a good long sensible and friendly conversation with a homosexual?
You are glad that the people you quoted were against homophobia? This surprises me, considering your extreme and sickening homophobia.
You also keep using the smoking/drugs/alcohol analogies. These analogies hold no water. Al these things are choices. People choose to smoke/drink alcohol/take drugs. They do not choose their sexuality. All gay people I’ve ever talked to talk about when they discovered they were gay, not when they chose to be gay.
Yes some people do choose to be gay, anecdotal evidence would indicate this, especially amongst lesbians, but these people are in the minority.
All evidence would indicate that sexuality is not a choice.
Hi Andrew-
(a) being sexually attracted to the same sex does mean on average (c) a decreased life expectancy. That is where the stats point. We have to go by stats and prevent speculation. But the chain of causation is not directly from (a) to (c). (b) comes in the middle, and (b) is whatever these ppl on average get up to. That is what (on average) directly causes the lower life expectancy.
Question 9 I did answer. The answer is that it’s nothing to do with my feelings on the matter. It is to do with the statistics. I examine the statistics and any feelings I have are not mere gut reactions, but are the direct result of the statistics. What you are portraying as a matter of private taste is a matter of publicly available information.
If homosexuals were treating men’s bodies like men’s bodies, men’s bodies would be suitably constructed to accommodate this. But they aren’t.
Re babies/children: they are the product of heterosexual intercourse, and heterosexuality is obviously the default option for them, in the long term. What I’m pointing out is that it’s suspicious that gay tendencies tend to enter some ppl’s lives at the same age as other unwholesome tendencies, e.g. smoking, drug-taking, antisocial behaviour. This therefore seems to be an age-related matter.
The choice matter I have already answered, and this one would be good for you to grapple with. An addiction by definition cannot be a choice: it is the very reverse of a choice. An addiction is something that people feel themselves powerless to stop even if they choose.
I have spoken at resonable length with several homosexuals, both within and outside discussion of this question. But there’s no big deal about that. They haven’t got 3 heads or something!! They may have weaknesses, but don’t we all?
You know, I really don’t see the point in this discussion any more. You’re obviously a bigot, and will never accept homosexuality.
I’m just glad we live in a world where irrational bigots like you are becoming few and far between.
Your vision of the future is one where homosexuality doesn’t exist. My vision of the future is one where people like you don’t exist. The world would be a much better place then.
Hi Andrew-
How else is one to tell which people are truly open-minded than by seeing whether they are prepared to debate or not?
You’ve done nothing to suggest that you yourself are open-minded. Indeed your opinions on homosexuality reveal yourself as a close-minded bigot on this issue. I stand by my comments in my previous post.
Two people are confronted with statistics from an academic journal. Person A comments on these statistics and tentatively draws the appropriate conclusions. Person B ignores these statistics.
Which of the two would you say was the more open-minded: person A, or person B?
Statistics are rotten, as you so often say.
You are a bigot Christopher, but that’s fine, as moronic as the attitude is, but don’t try and force your bigotted views on the world, that would be wrong.
Rotten as they are, statistics are the best and most objective evidence we have. When people ignore them, it generally makes me think that they have some motive for ignoring them.
If anyone in the world is a ‘bigot’ (as you put it), surely it is going to be those who seek to ‘make up their minds’ independently from statistical evidence, rather than those who look at the statistical evidence first and make up their minds on the basis of it. Surely anyone would agree on that point.
Can I just get something straight Christopher?
Is your objection to homosexuality based on your opinion that it is “dangerous”, or is it that you just don’t like the idea?
Hi Andrew-
I think you can guess the answer to that question. Which of the following sayings sounds like me? –
(a) ‘Many people are too concerned with feelings at the expense of facts and statistics.’
(b) ‘Many people are too concerned with facts and statistics at the expense of feelings.’
Does that answer your question?
No it doesn’t. You seem to like mulitple choice there so here goes. Which of the following describes your position.
a) You don’t like homosexuality becasuse you are of the opinion that it is dangerous.
b) You don’t like homosexuality because you just don’t like the idea.
Should be your shortest ever reply Christopher, only one letter needed!
Christopher –
“Hi Andrew-
(a) being sexually attracted to the same sex does mean on average (c) a decreased life expectancy. That is where the stats point. We have to go by stats and prevent speculation. But the chain of causation is not directly from (a) to (c). (b) comes in the middle, and (b) is whatever these ppl on average get up to. That is what (on average) directly causes the lower life expectancy.”
Ignoring for a minute the fact that bad stats are in fact worse than no stats at all (the original stats showed giving mothers Thalidomide was a great idea), (b) is by no means necessarily what those people get up to. As has already been demonstated, black people have a lower life expectancy than white people. Is this due to something they do? Some mysterious (b)? Or is it in fact external factors, like a legacy of racism that still puts a disproportionate amount of black people in lower socio-economic groups with poorer access to a decent diet, medical care and housing that in fact is responsible? That’s a rhetorical question by the way.
Likewise, is the currently lower life expectancy (based on extremely flawed figures and backed up by no longitudinal evidence) of the homosexual community in fact due to the persection they currently receive and even worse in the past?
“Question 9 I did answer. The answer is that it’s nothing to do with my feelings on the matter. It is to do with the statistics. I examine the statistics and any feelings I have are not mere gut reactions, but are the direct result of the statistics. What you are portraying as a matter of private taste is a matter of publicly available information.”
No Christopher, what you tend to do is read into statistics that say what you agree with, and ignore statistics that don’t fit into your narrow worldview, paying no attention to things like causation, if they’re actual statistics (or just what you percieve, and as such “must” be stastically true), tester effects, sample size, testing methodolgy and data reliability.
If these points are lacking in the research, then the stats are worse than useless. That’s the sort of critical faculty you lack. Odd how you discount statistics that go against the Bible incidentally, given your supposed worldview.
“If homosexuals were treating men’s bodies like men’s bodies, men’s bodies would be suitably constructed to accommodate this. But they aren’t.”
Our bodies aren’t suitably structured to accommodate a lot of things. Praying, for one – terrible strain on several joints in most traditional positions. Prayer is, therefore, obviously unnatural and wrong, eh?
“Re babies/children: they are the product of heterosexual intercourse, and heterosexuality is obviously the default option for them, in the long term. What I’m pointing out is that it’s suspicious that gay tendencies tend to enter some ppl’s lives at the same age as other unwholesome tendencies, e.g. smoking, drug-taking, antisocial behaviour. This therefore seems to be an age-related matter.”
This age being suspiciously around the age of puberty. Odd that. People’s leanings towards homosexuality (or indeed hetrosexuality) tend to begin at the same tie as their knowledge and development of sexuality period. How bizarre!
This really is the stupidest point I’ve ever seen you make, and that’s really saying something.
(a) Christopher: You said:
You have also in the past said that being gay is intrinsically linked with promiscuity.
You also clearly believe that marriage is a barrier to promiscuity and its attendant ‘ills’.
With this in mind, how can you possibly defend your anti-gay marriage stance? So far, all you’ve said, you’re coming across as a real bigot. Possibly because you’re trying to convince yourself that your own homosexual tendencies are wrong, you remind yourself with these foolish little mantras that have become watchwords for you. When they’re put under some (even minor) scrutiny, they clearly don’t stand up.
(b) Also, you’re obsessed with male homosexuality, whereas Andrew is clearly talking about homosexuality as a whole, namely being physically attracted to the same sex. You really should answer his broader point.
(c) Finally, in point 84 you start:
Have you ever read an article from a proper academic journal? Where are these properly researched and peer-reviewed statistics that you imply deep knowledge and understanding of? When I asked you for statistical proof before, all you could come up with was a 4 month old article in the Times, and even then you couldn’t provide a proper reference for it. Where are any stats? any at all? Why not search medline, and at least then give us an abstract to go from. Well then…
Your eternal obfuscation is utterly frustrating and does your crusade no good, and is made even worse by your insufferable smugness and claims to be representing some pure concept of rational debate.
Christopher: You talk a lot about biological fit (or lack thereof) as being a reason against homosexuality. Does that mean that you don’t object to male homosexuals with thin penises?
LOL. Unfortunately the same argument could be used for insertion into ears, noses, or any other orifice.
I can confirm that every exam I ever sat, my sole revision was to read ‘Punch’. Academic Journals? What are they?
What do you think about the ‘Journal of Epidemiology’ findings? Im no expert – do you know any article with a better or larger sample?
On gay marriage, Ive already made the main points. To normalise something is to sanction/condone it. One doesnt (unless one is confused) sanction/condone harmful things. Christians dont believe in making the best of a bad job – they believe in transformation. In other words, an positive attitude rather than an attitude resigned to one’s fate.
Hi Andrew – you answer is…
(a).
Reminds me of the shortest letter ever. GK Chesterton I think it was (or Arthur Conan Doyle?). He sent to his publisher a letter asking how his new book was doing. The letter read: ? The reply was: !
The point on prayer I didnt get. Ppl can pray in any position they like, and dont need to be stationary, indeed dont need to be avoiding doing anything else at the time. It’s part of the fabric (warp and woof) of life.
With black people the cassation is surely partly social – which is not their fault. Even if it is also partly genetic, that is not their fault either. Neither is a lifestyle consideration. With the homosexual community the age disparity comes down to lifestyle choices (on average). Just as it does with the smoking community and the drug taking community.
The answer to my question is a)? So this means that if being homosexual has exactly the same level of “danger” as being heterosexual, you wouldn’t have anything against it?
And yet again you go with the choice angle. How many times do you have to be told that analogy won’t wash with us? You’re the only person here who thinks that homosexuality is a choice, when it isn’t, as a conversation with a homosexual would reveal.
The point was very much that many supposedly “natural” activities are bad for us. Ultimately, it’s breathing oxygen that creates the free radicals that age and kill us all. But no one suggests we should stop breathing. That our bodies do not seem designed to accommodate things which happen in society does not mean they are bad, because our bodies are in many ways design to break down a die eventually in order to reduce overpopulation, even if used only in entirely “natural” ways. *Everything* is ultimately bad for us, so that is an utterly false way to judge the subjective morality of something.
That the cassation is social was exactly my point, and again, is not their fault. But then you attempt to state that the disparity in homosexual comminities is due to lifestyle choices, something which has absolutely no basis whatsoever. No study has been done into this, and the study you’ve previously refered to explicitly states that such an inferance cannot be made form in it’s conclusion. There is nothing to suggest that it is lifestyle based anymore than it is based in sociality in exactly the same way as stated above.
Could it be, Christopher, that contrary to your false quasi-reliance on statistics, that you plain made this part up? You’ve obviously completely failed to address my points that you repeatedly read “facts” in to statistics that aren’t there, or fail to pay any attention to the reliability of said statistics. This is a textbook example of that fact.
Which “Journal of Epidemiology findings”?
Also, which journal of epidemiology? Int.? Am.? J. Epi. & Comm. Health? Or are you referring to the Journal of Epidemiology published by the Japan Medical Association?
If you’re trying to convinvce people of your arguments and the veracity of your sources, you’d do well to source things, just a little bit.
Medline is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi why not produce the evidence that homosexuality is harmful. Then I can try to find evidence to the contrary.
Or, I could find the rebuttal for you before you even get started…
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
It seems that you are as sloppy with your use of Journal names as you are with your thought processes. The journal that the article you are no doubt referring to was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. The article I have linked to here is written by the authors of the original piece, pointing out that the figures that were valid then are not valid now – there has been a threefold decrease in mortality from HIV in the areas they studied (Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia), therefore the life expectancy will now be significantly greater. Indeed, they even call you and your ilk the homophobes that you are.
Oh, and for the record, a journal does not have findings. It publishes scientists’ findings. So ner!
Pedants, honestly!! I shall be in trepidation before using shorthand for anything now.
Not that I am at all familiar with medical journals. How long have you been familiar with those five? Perhaps a long time, as I know you are an ex-biology teacher – which certainly helps in a debate like this.
The significantly greater life expectancy – does it result in homosexuals having greater, equal, or less total life expectancy than heterosexuals? That’s currently the question we’re looking at, and with some perseverance we can probably get some useful findings.
It’s not shorthand, it’s just incorrect. Shorthand would’ve been the Int. J. Epidemiol. (or Epidemiology, if you wished).
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a biology teacher. I did once for a few months tutor a kid in A-level biology for an hour a week, but I would never presume to call myself a biology teacher. They do far more work than I ever did. That said, although they do so much work, I’d be very surprised if many biology teachers were at all familiar with epidemiology journals. They just wouldn’t need to be. And probably wouldn’t be particularly well-versed in statistics anyway.
I’m a scientist, but I’m not particularly familiar with them myself, I simply searched on medline for “journal of epidemiology” and listed the first 4 I found.
Now then, getting onto the meat of the point, the biggest factor which has significantly affected homosexual life expectancy has been HIV/AIDS. Prior to its’ outbreak, the relative life expectancies (gay v straight) were pretty similar if memory serves (I’ll wager that suicide because of the shame and the eternal necessary secrecy was one of the biggest factors causing any difference).
Given the vast improvements in treating HIV, the average life expectancy will be going up every time we measure it, and in a few years, it will no doubt be pretty much level with the rest of society.
Of course, this is only to talk about homosexual men. Homosexual women have a significantly lower risk of HIV infection than heterosexual women, so their life expectancy may even be higher.
All in all, it’s not homosexuality that leads to lower life expectancy, it’s HIV infection.