ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags mormonism

Reply
Old 10th November 2013, 06:11 PM   #161
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Is it OK to have sex with the lights on?
No. And you have to don the special underwear too. Why are the religious so obsessed with sex? The rest of us just enjoy it in its various forms.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:11 PM   #162
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.
Similarly, I fail to see what sexual promiscuity (which is not illegal) among some homosexuals has to do with prohibiting marriage for other homosexuals who want to enter into monogamous relationships.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:12 PM   #163
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
It certainly predisposes them to ignore facts in favour of ideology.
And that supposed tendency to ignore facts in favor of ideology happens to apply specifically to gay marriage.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:23 PM   #164
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.
So far, the only sources that you have been able to provide that claim it is a problem have been highly biased, relying largely on the misrepresentation of the studies that show no harm in being raised by homosexual parents relative to being raised by heterosexual parents.

Quote:
Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.
So "guilty until proved innocent". That's like saying to a neighbor you've just met, "until is see some evidence that you aren't a sexual predator, I have a problem with you".

Quote:
It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.
That's an extremely ironic statement.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:28 PM   #165
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Your logic weaves from wrongly assigning individuals traits because they are sometimes observed in groups to wrongly assigning groups traits that are sometime observed in individuals. It's a gordian knot of poor reasoning.

In fact, the main reason the wife of a straight couple need not take the same precautions is because of monogamy. Once both partners commit to each other, no new sexually transmitted diseases can enter the equation. THE EXACT SAME is true of homosexual couples. They can't catch a sexually-transmitted disease that neither person has.

By that logic, you should be in favor of gay marriage. It encourages pair-bonding and monogamy. It discourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.
The Mayo Clinic page, that skyrider44 himself linked to, says as much:
Quote:
Be monogamous. Another reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to stay in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who isn't infected.
Isn't that a key feature of marriage?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:44 PM   #166
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.
My oldest daughter is a lesbian and has been together with her partner for twenty years. They have two sons by AI. Two wonderful grandsons, we are all happy and thriving, no horrid diseases caused by having sex outside of the religious box and no god to smite us. I know hetero couples who are far worse off.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:51 PM   #167
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.
State and federal authorities seem to have found a very logical reason to intrude. The depravity that went on in some of those communities (and probably still does) provided more than enough justification for the law to intrude.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:58 PM   #168
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...and you'll be providing those sources you you claim show this, yes? Will they be sources you have actually read, or will you be performing research-by-title some more?
You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosex...nd_promiscuity
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 06:58 PM   #169
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.
I am going to assume that this view is based on your beliefs as a Mormon. Given the clearly fraudulent nature of the founding of your religion, why then should anyone take such views seriously? You've done nothing to defend your religion from the well deserved charges of fraud. Absent such a defense the idea that anyone should change their behavior based on Mormon beliefs is just silly.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:06 PM   #170
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,567
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosex...nd_promiscuity

That's a bad place to start. First of all, Conservapedia is quoting a report by "Agape Press." That organization, whatever it was, cannot be found.

The actual survey was supposedly published by The Advocate on August 15, 2006. There is no trace of such a study in The Advocate as far as I could find.

There is no mention of whom The Advocate surveyed, whether they were a representative sample of anything or whether the data was collected in a reliable manner.

The supposed study is from 2006. A newer study shows promiscuity to be decreasing.

Your source does not compare promiscuity among straight men at the same time. Once source I found said that 30% of straight men have had 15 or more female partners.

Nowhere do you even begin to try to find the pandemic threshhold - the average number of partners that would cause the disease to become pandemic.

You still haven't addressed those clean, monogamous homosexuals with no partners (because they're waiting) who want to get married. One of the men donated his sperm to a very nice woman who subsequently died tragically, leaving him the father of a four month-old baby. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:14 PM   #171
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Yes, I shoud have included that. However, as I note in a previous post, I think some of the mental problems that afflict homosexuals are the result of self-imposed guilt.

I worked with a doctor whose son, a returned missionary, is gay. The son suffers from extreme feelings of guilt. Commenting on his son's condition, the doctor--who is convinced people are born gay--asked me, "Why in the world would anyone choose to be a homosexual considering the pain they endure?"
So you meant some homosexuals. Some heterosexuals suffer from self-imposed guilt too. So what?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:37 PM   #172
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
And that supposed tendency to ignore facts in favor of ideology happens to apply specifically to gay marriage.
Well...that, and divorce, and evangelicals murdering their children, and faux "holy books"...quite a list!
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:39 PM   #173
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.
Exactly. You haven't said anything about families in poverty, even though your justification for being Antigay marriage (child welfare) is a greater concern with parents who are poor than parents who are gay.
The sources you cite some this to be true.


Yet, you are not talking against poor parents. This suggests that your argument is pure bigotry and has nothing to do with child welfare.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:46 PM   #174
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosex...nd_promiscuity
Thank you! Let's have a look at your source.

1. "Conservapedia"...and no primary source of the"survey" is provided.

2. You said you had"sources showing that promiscuity was a "problem". Where is your date on the extreme tail of the number of partners among heterosexuals?

3. You make it too easy--how many of those rapaciously promiscuous homosexual men were in monogamous, stable, committed married relationships? (You are, again, arguing against your own position...)
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2013, 09:46 PM   #175
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosex...nd_promiscuity
. You you claim to not be anti gay, and then cite conservapedia, a website devoted to the conservative bible project. An attempt to remove all liberal bias from the bible.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 01:44 AM   #176
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.
Again you miss the point. Of course you have not said anything about poverty. Poor people are an identifiable group. Their children suffer.... and? And? There is no nexus between allowing people to marry and the health of children. It doesn't enter into it until you have a solution in need of a problem.
  • Solution: Don't let gays marry.
  • Problem: Their children will suffer.
Got it now?

Quote:
Again, I haven't said anything about the number of children gays and lesbians can have. What is your point?
What is YOUR point? Why are you discussing children at all? Assuming your premises calls for disallowing gays and lesbians to marry as much as assuming my premise above should or could preclude poor people from marrying.

It's a non-sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other by your own admission. Gays and lesbians will have children regardless. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry can only improve the lives of their families.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 03:56 AM   #177
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I will supply figures/sources in a separate post (out of time for now).
Your claims about alleged gay promiscuity make a very compelling case for legalizing gay marriage.

Most the scandalous US promiscuity statistics you are going to find predate the main core of the AIDS epidemic. Education caused the rates of unprotected gay sex to drop dramatically 80s and 90s. This changed the majority gay culture dramatically. It could be argued that the current push for gay marriage is in many ways the end result of the shift away from rampant promiscuity that began because of HIV.

You keep ranting about the promiscuity of homosexuals as if your information were recent and relevant. Even if your claims about statistics were right, it would make a very profound argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage in order to continue the shift in the gay male culture towards a decline in promiscuity and high risk behavior.

Sure, there are there still bathhouses out there. There Is still a minority of gay men engaging in very high-risk behavior. As a counterpoint, there's the "dogging" culture in the UK and Australia among heterosexuals. The existence of high risk behavior among the fringe sections of a group is no reason to condemn the entire sexual orientation. Should white people in Australia and the UK be denied the opportunity to get married just because there's a minority of women who go out and have sex with strangers in parks while their husbands film the encounters?

Why are you using claims about gay promiscuity to argue against a legal institution like marriage? It's like a doctor advising against an obese man reducing the excess calories in his diet. I honestly don't understand how you can make such an argument. Please explain it to me. I really want to understand how you can use a high risk behavior to argue against something that would encourage a reduction In the high risk behavior.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 05:06 AM   #178
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Originally Posted by Janadele
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.
I am not sure I much agree with the last sentence, but that matter of opinion aside, I must note that the answer, which rather unusually is entirely your own and in your own words, is also directly responsive to the issue. You should take a lesson from yourself!
Just wanted to emphasize this.

The main LDS church is against polygamy as a practice among living people and wants marriage to be one-man-one-woman. Polygamy as practiced today would be considered a sin.

(Specifically, it would be adultery because the wives after #1 would not be considered married by the church and thus having sex with them would be adultery, but in case anyone doubts, here's a quick random example from lds.org: Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve, talking about sins that some church members commit, 1994: "Church disciplinary records make us aware of other serious transgressions rarely reported in the press: adultery, fornication, polygamy, and apostasy.")

Janadele, if you're willing to argue that no one should intrude when FLDS members practice polygamy, even though it would be considered sinful in your religion, then why doesn't the same apply when others enter into relations that your religion considers sinful?
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 06:38 AM   #179
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.
Are you suggesting that there should be a religious test before people move to these areas or towns? As a member of member of a religious group perceived negatively by many, are you sure this is a road you want to go down?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 06:47 AM   #180
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosex...nd_promiscuity
Conservapedia again?

Conservapedia is little more than the ravings of someone who's mental health I seriously question. Have a look at their page on mass–energy equivalence. It's an absolute joke of the sort that induces schadenfreude.
Quote:
Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.
If you have to resort to Conservapedia to support your arguments then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 07:07 AM   #181
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
And that supposed tendency to ignore facts in favor of ideology happens to apply specifically to gay marriage.
What facts are we ignoring? The only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments because you were so eager to post something denigrating homosexuals that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually read them, preferring to believe the bigots who misrepresented them (excepting those sources that you edited in quotation to remove statements damaging to your argument). On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that the Book Of Abraham bears not the slightest resemblance to the actual text of the funerary text from which it was "translated". Yet you can't bring yourself to admit that Joseph Smith was a fraud.



In the case of children being raised by homosexual parents, you claim that there is a lack of evidence and therefor we should judge against same-sex marriage.

In the case of the Book Of Abraham, where we have overwhelming evidence of fraud, you claim that some magical affirmation might surface in the future to contradict this evidence (like maybe the entire field of Egyptology is an elaborate Satanic plot against Mormonism, or more liberal claptrap?) and therefor we are being closed-minded by not giving Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt.

Where is the intellectual consistency?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 08:13 AM   #182
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Your claims about alleged gay promiscuity make a very compelling case for legalizing gay marriage.

Most the scandalous US promiscuity statistics you are going to find predate the main core of the AIDS epidemic. Education caused the rates of unprotected gay sex to drop dramatically 80s and 90s. This changed the majority gay culture dramatically. It could be argued that the current push for gay marriage is in many ways the end result of the shift away from rampant promiscuity that began because of HIV.

You keep ranting about the promiscuity of homosexuals as if your information were recent and relevant. Even if your claims about statistics were right, it would make a very profound argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage in order to continue the shift in the gay male culture towards a decline in promiscuity and high risk behavior.

Sure, there are there still bathhouses out there. There Is still a minority of gay men engaging in very high-risk behavior. As a counterpoint, there's the "dogging" culture in the UK and Australia among heterosexuals. The existence of high risk behavior among the fringe sections of a group is no reason to condemn the entire sexual orientation. Should white people in Australia and the UK be denied the opportunity to get married just because there's a minority of women who go out and have sex with strangers in parks while their husbands film the encounters?

Why are you using claims about gay promiscuity to argue against a legal institution like marriage? It's like a doctor advising against an obese man reducing the excess calories in his diet. I honestly don't understand how you can make such an argument. Please explain it to me. I really want to understand how you can use a high risk behavior to argue against something that would encourage a reduction In the high risk behavior.
I believe it was Paul who said it was better to marry than to burn.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:16 AM   #183
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The Mayo Clinic page, that skyrider44 himself linked to, says as much:

Isn't that a key feature of marriage?
Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 09:25 AM   #184
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
In fact, the main reason the wife of a straight couple need not take the same precautions is because of monogamy. Once both partners commit to each other, no new sexually transmitted diseases can enter the equation. THE EXACT SAME is true of homosexual couples. They can't catch a sexually-transmitted disease that neither person has.
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Quote:
Of course, if you just consider gay people to be sinners who must be marginalized until they give up their ways and embrace the Mormon idea of God ... then none of these arguments really matter.
Why the need to take a cheap shot?
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:41 AM   #185
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,567
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Then why deny marriage to gay men? What harm could marriage do to them? Or, if you want some sort of monogamy test, why deny marriage to two men who have verifiably not had any other partners (at least as verifiably as any male/female couples)?



Quote:
Why the need to take a cheap shot?

I don't believe it is a cheap shot. You have stated that the evidence that homosexuals make bad parents is inconclusive. You have stated that some evidece may exist that the availability of gay marriage reduces promiscuity. You have failed to show any way any of this could possibly affect you personally. Yet, you continue to advocate against gay marriage. You display a shocking lack of understanding as to the sexual practices of gay individuals. Your information about homosexuals is little more than a litany of long-dismissed myths.

You are prejudiced against homosexuals. You have stated yourself that you are judging the matter while "the jury is still out." It's okay to be prejudiced. Many, many people are. Your fellow Mormon on this thread has expressed an abiding religious hatred of homosexual sex. You should admit your bias and deal with it honestly.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:25 AM   #186
HappyDance
Student
 
HappyDance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.
Have you considered that perhaps some gay men are promiscuous because they live in a society that vilifies them for being homosexual and actively discourages them from forming stable, monogamous relationships? After all, it's more difficult to stay in the closet if you're living with one partner for any length of time. Random hook-ups are easier to hide.
HappyDance is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:29 AM   #187
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.
If you want to know just how you sound, just replace "homosexuals" with "blacks" and "homosexual men" with "black men" in the above statements.


You have yet to provide any rational reason to deny gays the same rights/privileges that straights have.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:33 AM   #188
Janadele
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by Pup View Post
... Janadele, if you're willing to argue that no one should intrude when FLDS members practice polygamy...
Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
Janadele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:44 AM   #189
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.
It turns out the data IS there.

The Effects of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Public Health and Welfare

Quote:
This paper analyzes the relationships among same-sex marriage bans, social attitudes toward gays and non-marital sex, and measures of public health and welfare. We hypothesize that same-sex marriage bans may foster intolerance for gays and increase the social costs of same-sex partnerships, which may raise incentives for risky homosexual behavior. We also hypothesize that same-sex marriage bans may codify and signal traditional family values, which may raise the benefits of heterosexual marriage and reduce incentives for non-marital sex. Using micro-and state-level data, we find evidence that same-sex marriage bans reduced tolerance for gays and increased the syphilis rate, a rough proxy for risky homosexual behavior. However, we find no consistent evidence that same-sex marriage bans impacted risky heterosexual behavior,marriage, or divorce.
Fascinating. It looks like stigmatization of homosexuals is what ultimately drives gay promiscuity, and legalizing gay marriage reduces gay syphilis rates.

This mirrors nicely the shift in interracial relationships during the civil rights era. Relationships that are stigmatized or carry a high social cost are destabilized by the social pressure. As the social pressure recedes, the previously stigmatized relationship types stabilize and approach the median.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 12:09 PM   #190
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,464
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.
It would be better news yet if religious conservatives did not confuse holy matrimony with civil marriage.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 12:43 PM   #191
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,587
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.



Why the need to take a cheap shot?
If you were not Mormon would you care if gay people marry?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 01:09 PM   #192
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not.
They, and many other organizations, offer the same advice to heterosexuals for the same reason.

Quote:
Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.
Have I cited that publication, or is this some attempt to insinuate that I must be a homosexual if I am advocating equal rights for them?

Here's something that you seem not to have considered: sexual activity between consenting adults outside of marriage is not illegal. Even in cases of marital infidelity it's entirely up to the couple whether they will remain married, the state has no say in this. Your "some of them are promiscuous" argument is still no different from Jim Crow if you are legislatively penalizing only homosexuals for something for which heterosexual couples face no legal penalties or restrictions.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 01:15 PM   #193
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.
Is that what marriage is about, making people less promiscuous? Even if your stereotypes were true, there is no legal restriction against extramarital sex. So why would this be an issue for homosexuals only?

Quote:
Why the need to take a cheap shot?
How is it a cheap shot? Have you looked at the title of this thread lately? If this isn't about your Mormon beliefs, then why haven't you asked that this discussion be split off to a new thread in Social Issues & Current Events?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 02:52 PM   #194
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
So far, the only sources that you have been able to provide that claim it is a problem have been highly biased, relying largely on the misrepresentation of the studies that show no harm in being raised by homosexual parents relative to being raised by heterosexual parents.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Gay Star News. It isn't exactly a model of objectivity.

Quote:
So "guilty until proved innocent". That's like saying to a neighbor you've just met, "until is see some evidence that you aren't a sexual predator, I have a problem with you".
Your analogy strains credibility because I would have no basis on which to accuse a "just met" neighbor of being a sexual predator.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 03:27 PM   #195
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
What facts are we ignoring?
You reject out-of-hand any data that contradicts your position. In your post immediately preceding this one, for example, you find it expedient to besmirch Conservapedia. I believe it is every bit as responsible and credible as what one finds in Gay Star News.

Quote:
The only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments because you were so eager to post something denigrating homosexuals that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually read them, preferring to believe the bigots who misrepresented them (excepting those sources that you edited in quotation to remove statements damaging to your argument).
So, the public affairs office of the Mayo Clinic is populated by bigots who misrepresented what Mayo physicians and researchers said about taking a cautionary approach to gay sex. Is that your "point"?

Quote:
On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that the Book Of Abraham bears not the slightest resemblance to the actual text of the funerary text from which it was "translated". Yet you can't bring yourself to admit that Joseph Smith was a fraud.
Do you suppose you could have purposely raised a subject that doesn't belong on this thread because "you were so eager to post something denigrating" to the LDS Church?

Quote:
In the case of children being raised by homosexual parents, you claim that there is a lack of evidence and therefor we should judge against same-sex marriage.
What I have said is that research findings appear to be in conflict; therefore, we should opt for the conservative course.

Quote:
In the case of the Book Of Abraham. . . .
You're off topic (again).
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 05:01 PM   #196
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Exactly. You haven't said anything about families in poverty, even though your justification for being Antigay marriage (child welfare) is a greater concern with parents who are poor than parents who are gay.
Be that as it may, the negative effects of poverty on children is not the topic of this thread. It is, I admit, an important topic; however, it should have a thread of its own.

Quote:
The sources you cite some this to be true.
Eh?

Quote:
Yet, you are not talking against poor parents.
Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?

Quote:
This suggests that your argument is pure bigotry and has nothing to do with child welfare.
It does? Well, I'll be danged.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 05:58 PM   #197
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
That's a bad place to start. First of all, Conservapedia is quoting a report by "Agape Press." That organization, whatever it was, cannot be found.
Apparently, you overlooked Footnote 5 in the article. It refers you to agapepress.org/archives/9/152006g.asp. If you click on that link, you will, indeed, reach Agape Press, but with a note saying "Coming Back." Apparently they are updating their web site

Quote:
The actual survey was supposedly published by The Advocate on August 15, 2006. There is no trace of such a study in The Advocate as far as I could find.
I couldn't find it either, but I did run across an interesting article entitled "No One Wants to Be Called a Bigot." Interesting.

Quote:
There is no mention of whom The Advocate surveyed, whether they were a representative sample of anything or whether the data was collected in a reliable manner.
Those questions can probably be answered when the agape site is again operational.

Quote:
The supposed study is from 2006. A newer study shows promiscuity to be decreasing.
That's true, it is decreasing.

Quote:
Your source does not compare promiscuity among straight men at the same time. Once source I found said that 30% of straight men have had 15 or more female partners.
You want detailed documentation from me, but here (above) the best you have to offer is "one source."

Quote:
Nowhere do you even begin to try to find the pandemic threshhold - the average number of partners that would cause the disease to become pandemic.
That wasn't on my schedule.

Quote:
You still haven't addressed those clean, monogamous homosexuals with no partners (because they're waiting) who want to get married. One of the men donated his sperm to a very nice woman who subsequently died tragically, leaving him the father of a four month-old baby. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?
I don't know all the circumstances, so it's difficult for me to comment on the case.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 08:08 PM   #198
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
. . . Why are you using claims about gay promiscuity to argue against a legal institution like marriage? It's like a doctor advising against an obese man reducing the excess calories in his diet. I honestly don't understand how you can make such an argument. Please explain it to me. I really want to understand how you can use a high risk behavior to argue against something that would encourage a reduction In the high risk behavior.
I understand your point, and it's a valid one.

I applaud recent reports indicating that gay promiscuity is declining. I hope that reduction is the result of gay marriages. That may surprise you, but one of my reasons now for opposing gay marriage is the mordant example promiscuity sets for children (assuming they are involved). You may say that some heterosexual parents set bad examples because they, too, are promiscuous. True enough, but the data I looked at (before the recently reported reduction) showed same-sex couples were much more promiscuous than hetereosexual couples.

Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem. Divorce has a devastating effect on most children, especially young children.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 10:44 PM   #199
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,567
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I don't know all the circumstances, so it's difficult for me to comment on the case.

Ask me anything you want to know. I will fill you in on all details that you believe are relevant.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2013, 11:19 PM   #200
Empress
Piggish
 
Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Blandings Castle
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Do you suppose you could have purposely raised a subject that doesn't belong on this thread because "you were so eager to post something denigrating" to the LDS Church?

You're off topic (again).
Why would any of the Mormon scriptures be off-topic in a thread about the LDS church?
__________________
One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse
Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.