Hawaii Governor Signs Bill Banning Help for Homosexual Youth, Claims ‘Sexual Orientation Is Not an Illness’

HONOLULU, Hi.– The Democratic governor of Hawaii has signed a bill banning professional counselors from helping struggling youth resist homosexual feelings.

“[S]exual orientation is not an illness to be cured,” Gov. David Ige claimed during the signing at the state capitol building on Friday. “We accept you and love you just the way you are.”

He asserted that efforts to change homosexual youth “absolutely [have] no place in our beautiful islands.”

Senate Bill 270, which passed the House earlier this month and the Senate in March, specifically prohibits professional counselors from providing “sexual orientation change efforts” to homosexual youth under 18. It contends that the services place homosexuals at risk of harm, “including depression, suicidality, loss of sexual feeling, anxiety, shame, negative self-image, and other negative feelings and behaviors.”

“No person who is licensed to provide professional counseling shall: (1) Engage in or attempt to engage in sexual orientation change efforts on a person under eighteen years of age; or (2) Advertise the offering of sexual orientation change efforts on a person under eighteen years of age,” the bill reads.

“Any person who is licensed to provide professional counseling who engages in or attempts to engage in the offering of sexual orientation change efforts on a person under eighteen years of age shall be subject to disciplinary action by the appropriate professional licensing authority,” it warns.

While counselors are prohibited from helping youth turn away from homosexuality, the legislation notes that the ban does not apply to any counselor who conversely “provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person” who has homosexual feelings, or “facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development…”

  • Connect with Christian News

Mathew Shurka, a strategist with the “Born Perfect” campaign, which seeks to end “conversion therapy” in states nationwide, cheered the signing of the bill, stating, “As a survivor, I know how harmful conversion therapy can be, and I could not be happier that Hawaii has taken this important step to protect the health and safety of its LGBTQ youth from this terrible practice.”

As previously reported, the Scriptures teach that all men are born with the Adamic sin nature, and have inherent inclinations that are contrary to the law of God, being utterly incapable of helping themselves. It is why Jesus outlined in John 3:5-7 that men must be regenerated by the second birth, or they cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven.

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” he declared. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

2 Corinthians 5:15-17 also teaches, “He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto Him which died for them, and rose again. … Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • afigmentoftheinternet

    Leftist dictator of Hawaii says: ” I know what’s best for you. You no longer have a choice.”

    Mathew Shurka says: “Hail the Fuhrer”!

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      the most cruel thing to say to anybody …. saved or unsaved ….. is ….. “You are not capable of change” or “you do not need to change ever” …… so just go back to your pitiful life and let the government handle it ……. the government is the one who beats you to a pulp with a crutch and then says “I am here to help you” …………

      • afigmentoftheinternet

        Absolutely!!

      • Croquet_Player

        Well, you may tell people whatever you like. You simply can’t send minors to torture camps under the guise of “medical treatment” in an attempt to “convert” them. There is no legitimate medical establishment worldwide that supports “conversion therapy”. In fact it is agreed, by every legitimate medical organization worldwide, to be harmful, and a complete failure in its aims to “change orientation”. But of course, once they’re eighteen, you may plead your case, and convince them to go to bogus “therapy” practiced by charlatans all you like. But not before.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          “You simply can’t send minors to torture camps under the guise of “medical treatment” in an attempt to “convert” them”

          so all you have is mischaracterization and lies ….. wow …. so if i send a child to a hospital for surgery ….. that could be called a ” torture camps under the guise of “medical treatment”” ….. WOW …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            There are many Christians who oppose conversion therapy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            K …. SO WHAT ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, for all the stick some of us are taking for this being a Christian site, it shows we aren’t opposing Christians at all.

          • Croquet_Player

            No, and kindly don’t put words in my mouth. You cannot “send a child to a hospital for surgery”. You can (and absolutely should) send a sick child to a doctor, and they will make the determination about what the appropriate course of action is. No legitimate medical establishment supports “conversion therapy” at it is well known that it does not work and is harmful.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            these children … AND ADULTS have no physical malady …….. “No legitimate medical establishment supports “conversion therapy” …. SO WHAT ……….

          • skinnercitycyclist

            SO THAT is why the government of Hawaii put a stop to this crazy “therapy.” Are you having trouble following the basic argument here?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i follow that we are not talking about pastors performing surgery ….. what we are talking about is the QUELLING of free speech … especially religious speech ………

          • skinnercitycyclist

            Bullshit. This is child abuse, not free speech.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            TOS violation …………..

          • skinnercitycyclist

            And you are a POS violation. Go fuck yourself.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            was nice not knowing you ….. TOS VIOLATION …. AGAIN ………

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            May God Rebuke you.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            May God rebuke you

          • Croquet_Player

            Medical quackery is illegal. As of course it should be to protect people from useless and/or harmful products or “treatments”. That’s what.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            quackery is an opinion …….. accepted medical opinion gave us THALIDOMIDE …….

          • Croquet_Player

            Medical opinion also got off thalidomide. New drugs always have potential unknown side effects, and therefore risks. Should we avoid all risk and never try a new drug again? Of course not. We’ve tried “conversion therapy”. Just like thalidomide, we’ve discovered it doesn’t work and causes harm.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Medical opinion also got off thalidomide.”

            right ….. but not until after numerous birth defects had destroyed lives of children ….. so what you want to hold up as a paragon of something ……. is just mans arrogance in thinking he knows better ….. and FYI ….. all you have to do is watch TV for about an hour and check out all the adverts for lawyers suing the medical community for this injury and that …… IATROGENIC injuries ……….. and just so you do not have to look it up ……. that means “induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures.” ……..

          • Croquet_Player

            It is one of the best things about science that it has a self-correction mechanism built in. Everything is up for review, and there is a process for rigorous testing and scrutiny. And patients need not follow one doctor’s advice, but are welcome to seek second, and third opinions. When my friend had a near-fatal heart attack, he was under the care of a team of doctors, who worked together to come up with the best plan for his treatment. (That was two years ago, he’s doing fine now, after surgery and medication). Do they get it wrong sometimes? Sure. But if you have health problems, the best chance you have for recovery is to see a medical doctor.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “about science that it has a self-correction mechanism built in”

            yup … because GOD made it that way ….. but YOU ARE not about God … you are about putting your faith in a creation of God …… “need not follow one doctor’s advice, but are welcome to seek second, and third opinions” ….. except when someone wants to label it QUACKERY … then they are not allowed ….. when the FACT is …. that UNTIL “a self-correction mechanism” has been used and the proper result has determined it to be safe ….. it is ALL QUACKERY …… and we do not know when this or that is put one the market and is used ……. FYI …. HEMP was called “quackery” and made illegal ….. and many have been DENIED the BENEFITS of it …… just because some wanted it to be gone ….. and the motivation was MONEY ….. as is ALL MEDICINE …..

          • Croquet_Player

            Hold on, then every profession could be described that way. Everyone who goes into law has no concern for justice and the rule of law, but only money. Everyone who goes into architecture has no care for the nicest buildings a budget can provide, but only money. Name your profession. If money is the single goal for doctors, who are no different than anyone else in professional goals, then it’s the single goal for everyone else too. I think people who fairly do a good job are entitled to make an honest living. Are you really that cynical? I don’t think you are.

            If you and your family are in a terrible car wreck, or all come down with some serious disease and are terribly ill, (which I sincerely hope never, ever happens to you, or any of us, and all our family, friends, etc.) will you ask the EMT’s to drive you all to your local hospital, or your local church? This is not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of sensible “best course of action”. Do you have a pastor or religious officiant? Let’s ask that person where a seriously ill or injured person should be taken.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the bad far outweigh the good ….. nothing new there ………

    • Bob Johnson

      Nope. It is just that caveat emptor has never been the law of the land.

  • Railpirate

    Let’s return to earth for a second, and let’s recognise together, that this ban needs to exist because the methods of the current “treatment” have been proven time and time ineffective and extremely damaging (Up to doubling the suicide rate for LGBT youth over the already heightened suicide risk of LGBT youth) effects of these “therapy” and the fact the basis behind them has been repeatedly rebuked by the scientific community at large.

    I guess I can make my point with this analogy.
    I have chronic migraines (With aura), If there was a treatment for my migraines, but it’s been proven not to work and cause me further mental or physical damage, I would want those treatments to be banned.

    • Lexical Cannibal

      But I have so many stories about people who were cured! For real cured! What? No, they’re cured–what? No, they’re not just pretending as part of a coping response to psychological abuse, don’t be absurd! Please, if all your “research” and “clinical trials” and “ethical protocols” weren’t clouding your vision, you’d see that this is how God wants them to live: broken and afraid and ready for him to save them.

      /s

      • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

        Science denial is a terrifying thing. Years of study and research and trying to figure out what makes people tick – all of that is commendable and should be encouraged, but there’s always going to be people who will say no, it’s just icky and we must stand up to it because religion. Thankfully most Christians are finally starting to see that it’s not a disease and doesn’t require a cure.

      • Railpirate

        I’d like to note I did respond, with a bunch of links included to scientific papers and resources, but that Christian News Network doesn’t always approve these posts, and it sometimes takes a few days if they are. I’ll wait up to 2 days to see if it shows up, if not I’ll have to post it without links to sources which bugs me a lot. (I’ll mention the pages by name in that case).

        • Lexical Cannibal

          I wish the very best of luck, because I’ve never had one of those posts approved by moderation once (or denied for that matter; they sit in limbo to this day). On the off-chance it wasn’t clear; my tongue is planted firmly in cheek, so I hope you didn’t spend all that time only to fail to post a rebuttal to a person who agrees with you :-p

          On the real though, that migraine condition sounds rough. My Fiance suffers from migraines with auras as well which severely inhibits her balance and equilibrium, so I have a picture of how that blows. We’ve already had our share of helpful people offering no shortage of cures, treatments, and “have you tried”s, some of which I see you’ve already attracted here, yourself.

          • Railpirate

            I did have one post approved one time (After almost a week) (two still in limbo).

            “On the off-chance it wasn’t clear; my tongue is planted firmly in cheek,
            so I hope you didn’t spend all that time only to fail to post a
            rebuttal to a person who agrees with you :-p”
            – I always forget what /s means, I kind of did do exactly that >_<. I mean I have the resources on hand in a document, not the first time I've been argueing people, I save my sources, so it didn't take *that* much time.

            I didn't think people would respond to the migraines thing, I only put it here as a simple analogy and didn't want any attention on it. I am just a human, not one to need extra attention because I have migraines in an unrelated discussion.

            I guess I do like to respond now, because your fiance also has migraines.
            It took a long time to find out what caused them (Sudden blood pressure shifts), and it was hard to mostly eliminate the things (Especially certain foods, partially because they cause such shifts naturally, partially because of allergies and intolerances) that resulted in said shift. I am glad I don't have attacks as much as before, for me I have the following Symptoms (Please don't pity me):
            – Aura's making it impossible to see properly.
            – Distortion of movement in arms, fingers and legs.
            – Tingling of limbs (Usually a lot heavier on one side of the body then the others).
            – Desorientation (Sometimes)
            – Balance issues (Sometimes)
            – inability to feel tounge, resulting in difficulty speaking. (Usually but not always)
            – Unclear thought process. (Usually but not always)
            – Clouded feeling in head.
            – Headaches (About half of my attacks go headacheless)
            – Throwing up (If induced by allergies only usually).
            – Shivering uncontrollably. (relatively rare)
            – Feeling cold. (common)
            – Pain behind eyes. (usually a strong indication I am going to get an attack within a few hours to days if combined with mild distortion of movement and/or tingling.)
            – Muscle pain (Especially in the neck).
            – Emotional Euphoria or extreme cranky-ness (before attack)
            – Inability to controll Emotions.

            As you can see, Quite a lot of things here are also Stroke warning signs (I know someone who had a stroke, he was freaked out by how scarily similar it was from the persons perspective as well), and I've had attacks before that made my parents or friends question if I was having a stroke. I've gone through MRI's revealing I thankfully never had a stroke or TIA (Which is a mini-stroke which resolves itself). Did your wife ever had an attack on that scale? How do you with your wife deal with the issue of attacks sometimes being almost non-seperateable from a stroke?

            I do want to note then, that I now have medication, it's not perfect, it basically makes me unable to concentrate so I can only take it when I get an attack, it shortened my attacks from 6-48 hours on avarage (yes, I've had attacks lasting up to two days before) with a week to a month recovery afterwards to just 2-4 hours of migraine with usually not even a day of recovery time before feeling reasonably well again, so long I also keep track of my food carefully.

            Do you know any of your Fiance's triggers? Is there anything I can do to help find out potential extra triggers/reasons?
            Please do tell. The last thing I want is your Fiance to needlessly suffer.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      Chelsea Manning tweets suicide note, alarming picture of a person standing on a ledge ready to jump ….. HE was treated as YOU would have him treated ….. mutilated and mangled and made a grotesque caricature of himself ……. and HE is more damaged now than ever before …… but HE should stay as HE is because YOU deem HIM unworthy of others help ……. WOW!!!!!

      FYI ……. try some CBD oil for your migraines and see if it helps ……….

      • james blue

        Don’t think Manning is a good example to make the point you are trying to make. There’s a whole lot of hate directed towards that individual for various reasons beyond the targeted hate for the trans thing you are displaying.. .

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          oh please ….. HE is not hated …… HE is pitied ….. there is no hate directed at HIM by anyone other than the ones who think HIS mutilation was a good idea ………..

      • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

        Chelsea Manning is not a homosexual.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          a difference with NO DIFFERENCE …… and BTW ……… it is LGBT …… LESBIAN GAY BISEXUAL TRANS …..they have put THEMSELVES ALL under a collective banner …….. and the ONLY truth in any of that is ……. they ALL suffer from the same collective malady ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The only sense they’re under a collective banner is that they are oppressed. They are entirely different matters.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But wouldn’t you argue that he’s “born that way”?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That isn’t known. It might form in early life.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So just like homosexuality. Got it.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Probably, or left-handedness.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t realize what you just admitted to. 🙂

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            How can I admit to something when the science isn’t conclusive?

            Are you saying “born that way” means that we should lump all people born with distinctions together? What does a left-handed person have to do with a homosexual? What does a homosexual have to do with a transgender person?

            Sexuality is about attraction.
            Transgender is about identity.
            They are not the same thing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You admitted that science isn’t conclusive for the cause of either homosexuality or transgenderism. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there is no homosexual (or trans) gene. None.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Just because it hasn’t been identified or discovered doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, first problem.
            It might not relate to a gene at all, second problem.
            How many homosexuals have been turned into heterosexuals by your faith? 0.00% isn’t a figure to write home about. Third problem. (And I’m not talking about the “therapy” where you convince a homosexual to live a celibate life, that isn’t turning anyone straight).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, quite a few who practiced homosexuality have been converted. It’s not rare at all. You can find testimonies all over YouTube.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It is not recognized by science. If a man is homosexual you can’t make him be attracted to females.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wasn’t citing YouTube as a scientific journal. 🙂 I was merely pointing out where taped testimonies can be found.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            In many of those testimonies, the supposed “cured” person was caught cruising in a gay bar right after. When science says it can be changed, I’ll believe it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s actually not true. There are plenty of born again Christians who once practiced homosexuality. Don’t be so close minded.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Technically you are correct. Born again Christians who practiced
            homosexuality and were told to stop having sex. Guess what? They’re
            still homosexuals…you haven’t changed their attractions, you’ve just
            insisted that they be shut off.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s not true. There are born again Christians who used to practice homosexuality who are completely new creatures in Christ, and who have fulfilled lives.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Whatever language you care to use, they’re not heterosexuals now. It’s not possible.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            With God all things are possible.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, then let’s just say this is something God’s never done, either because He has no interest or because He isn’t interested in fixing what isn’t broken.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Just because you are ignorant of the fact doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Just because science has no proof of it doesn’t make me ignorant.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You try too hard.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Or maybe you are just anti-science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Is that why it’s my field of choice? 🙂 Try another one.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Oh it is, huh?
            So then you’re OK with evolution? Why do I have a feeling you’re not?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Not all scientists believe in evolution.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Only the ones we take seriously as scientists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean like Newton? Dr. Damadian? Pasteur?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Correct. Newton and Pasteur at least have birthdates that might excuse it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            When do you think Pasteur was born? How about Dr. Damadian?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Pasteur, early 1800s, which is why I’m cutting him a bit of slack.
            Damadian might be brilliant in certain respects but if he denies evolution he can’t be taken seriously in that respect.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            When do you think Darwin was born?

            By the way, I can name plenty of modern scientists who do not believe in evolution. It’s funny that you, as a non-scientist, thinks she/he knows better than actual scientists. 🙂

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Why does it matter when Darwin was born? I’m giving lots of leeway to people born a century or more ago for clinging to outdated thought.

            What is funny is that there is an entire branch of science called evolutionary biology which you are essentially calling fraudulent.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            So you’re gonna criticize people for using Wikipedia, but then you’ll cite YouTube….

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I wasn’t trying to pass YouTube off as a scientific journal. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I didn’t say you were, but you were certainly trying to pass it off as a reliable source, were you not?

            And, I thought we established that I clearly wasn’t trying to pass Wikipedia off as a scientific journal, I was pointing at things I got from Wikipedia that were FROM scientific journals that had has citations TO those journals at that.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You just said yourself that the science isn’t conclusive. So how are then so sure that it is NOT genetic? At any rate though, I think you’re arguing a point that no one else brought up. You’re the only one who seems to be concerned about it being something you’re born with or not. The general consensus of science is that sexual orientation, whether determined at birth or after, is not chosen. If it’s not chosen, what difference does it make if people are “born that way” or if it’s developed in childhood or whenever?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I was quoting you. 🙂

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Quoting me with what?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Are you getting me confused with other people again? Because I have no idea what you’re talking about.

          • Railpirate

            “You admitted that science isn’t conclusive for the cause of either homosexuality or transgenderism.”
            “As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there is no homosexual (or trans) gene. None.”

            Your two statements here contradict eachother, as you argue theres no gay gene, because science isn’t conclusive, but if science isn’t conclusive, then it by definition can’t say something is or isn’t true, meaning within a single post you just managed to make a valid point then disproof your own statement with that point. Oops?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No oops. 🙂 Trying reading my statement again. I was quoting the poster in the first statement. The last statement you quoted are my own direct words.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You know, usually when people quote something, they use those handy things called quotation marks, or maybe even some bbcode if they wanna get really fancy. When you said someone admitted the science wasn’t conclusive on the matter, first of all that wasn’t a quote, and the word “admitted” implies that they admitted to something you were trying to tell them is true, or that you believe yourself. So that implied that you also believe science is inconclusive on the matter. That’s why it looks like you are contradicting yourself. I wouldn’t say, for example, “he admitted the Earth is flat,” because that’s not something I believe. I’d say “so-and-so says the Earth is flat.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I was referencing your quote. Sorry you have trouble understanding that.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            OK, well, first of all, I think you were referencing what Rhesus said, not me. But whatever, it doesn’t matter, I’d say the same thing anyway. Still, though referencing what someone said is not a quote. Call me pedantic if you want, but it’s not the same thing. And there’s the matter of you saying someone “admitted” something, but apparently it’s not what you believe. You said he “admitted the science was inconclusive”, yet in the very next sentence you seemed to have a contrary opinion.

          • Railpirate

            I fully realised that you did, that however doesn’t refute that you contradicted the quote without refuting the quote, meaning you still made the exact same error.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Please reread my post. You are mistaken.

          • Railpirate

            I stand corrected, but it still doesn’t work.

            “As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, there is no homosexual (or trans) gene. None.” <— Would require Consistant proof (Burden of Proof Fallacy)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s inaccurate.

          • Railpirate

            Please elaborate on why you think you do not require to fullfill Burden of Proof here. Just claiming something is not accurate without evidence as to why and how isn’t a valid argument (For the exact same reason: Burden of Proof”)

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You often misuse basic logic terms.

          • Railpirate

            There is thee things wrong with that statement.

            1. It’s an Ad Hominem (Personal Attack, rather then adressing topic at hand) and a Red Herring. (Distraction from topic at hand.)
            2. If I do, then you’d need to back that up as well (Burden of Proof).
            3. Even if I’d do that (Which to my knowledge I don’t at this point), that doesn’t have a causality over whether that also happened here, meaning if you are correct (Which I am pretty confident off you aren’t), you still wouldn’t have a point due to that if you couldn’t fix issue 2.

            Still awaiting your elaboration on why Burden of Proof wouldn’t apply here and/or a fullfilling of Burden of Proof on your claims.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sorry, but you’re rambling now. 🙂

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they are all under a sinful nature …….. and they are all in unrepentant sin …………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I wonder what sin you think a transgender person is guilty of, since they aren’t even doing anything.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            IDOLATRY …….. it is all plain out and out NARCISSISM ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Your statement makes no sense, idolatry is worshipping an object and narcissism is self-love. A transgender believes themselves to be the opposite gender than what they are. So neither of the words you use can apply.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” idolatry is worshipping an object and narcissism is self-love”

            they are not mutually exclusive …… and the OBJECT is SELF …….. ummmmm ….. DUH …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            But not love of self. It’s identity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ……. love of self is NARCISSISM ….. denial of self towards another is love ….. love is not self centered …… homosexualism and transgenderism is about destructive self love ….. it is conceit ….. it is not self worth …… it is NARCISSISM ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You should really invest in a dictionary. I don’t believe you know what half the words you are using even mean.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do not understand the BIBLICAL definition … and this is a CHRISTIAN site ….. maybe YOU should read up ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            There is no such thing as a Biblical definition, there is only a definition. I would like you to tell me what homosexuality, which is simply the attraction to another person of the same sex, could possibly have to do with narcissism. It would be like me telling you that you don’t actually love your wife, you actually only love yourself.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “There is no such thing as a Biblical definition”

            there CERTAINLY is …. this is a christian forum ….. about topics of interest to CHRISTIANS ….. for CHRISTIANS to discuss ….. you are welcome to be here ….. BUT ….. YOU CAME HERE ….. we did not go looking for YOU …… and if you want to participate ….. then the DEFINITIONS are ours …….. NOT YOURS ………. and if you do not like it ….. TOO BAD …….

            “It would be like me telling you that you don’t actually love your wife, you actually only love yourself.”

            and that happens ….. EVERYDAY ….. so what ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Every person I have ever met, whether Christian or not, uses the same definition.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            When Amos uses a word, it means just what he chooses it to mean.

          • Railpirate

            Christian or not will not change the definition of a word, which has nothing to do with Christianity, rather has to do with linguistics.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            your “linguistics” ….. and “definitions” ……. ALL CAME FROM SCRIPTURE …….. there was no fixed spelling and definitions to words ….. UNTIL A CHRISTIAN ….. William Tyndale …. came along and wrote it ….. and the source material was SCRIPTURE …….. and AGAIN …… if you do not like the definitions used here ….. you are free to seek discussion ELSEWHERE …………

          • Railpirate

            “your “linguistics” ….. and “definitions” ……. ALL CAME FROM SCRIPTURE”

            Plain wrong, to give an example: Car, the word car did not appear in scripture.

            ” William Tyndale”

            No william Tyndale did not decide definition nor created dictionaries. Definition of words as basic concept of language has been around as long as language (This is what we call Linguistics) has and dictionaries already existed in Roman times before the birth of Jesus Christ.

            “if you do not like the definitions used here ….. you are free to seek discussion ELSEWHERE …………”
            Didn’t question your definition, you used two different definitions interchangeable, which is an issue with your argument, not with my liking of whether or not you supply arguments.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            in English … NOPE ….. not until Tyndale did it ….. he gave the English speaking world the English dictionary …. sorry … FAIL …….

          • Railpirate

            The earliest dictionaries in the English language were glossaries of
            French, Spanish or Latin words along with their definitions in English.
            The definition of the English word Dictionary was made common in the 1220’s, also establishing where English definition comes from (Outside of slow changes to definition due to social use and understanding). Tyndale was over a century later.

            (Not that it’d matter either way, as the origin of English Dictionaries has no causality to what currently is or isn’t the definition of words.)
            A good example of that is the word “Silly”.

            It used to mean “happy, Lucky or Blessed” and now means “the absurd or ridiculous.”.

      • Railpirate

        CBD oil had no effects on my migraines sadly, been there, done that.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          Magnesium at the onstart. It’s usually effective. You might want to read “Heal Your Headache” by Dr. David Buchholz. It gives some good tips on identifying triggers.

          That said, I agree with you that therapy does next to nothing for homosexuality. Therapy does next to nothing for just about everything. Jesus Christ, however, is the Cure.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Except that you cannot cure what is not an illness.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Sin is a sickness, and Jesus Christ is the Cure.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Falling in love isn’t a sin.

          • bowie1

            It’s not love because the people are risking their health when engaging in un-natural relations.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Not relevant, because heterosexuals are at the same exact risks. A monogamous relationship is at no health risk whether a couple is homosexual or heterosexual. Love happens in both situations.

          • Railpirate

            I do have to note that factor of risk is higher with gay sex compared to straight sex in most cases. The thing is, neither risk nor perceived naturality is an argument here.

            – Risk isn’t a great factor either way to use here. A car is over 700 times more risky then taking a plane for the same long distance journey. Would you not take a car because of that risk? Maybe? Does that make it not a form of transportation? No, Definately not.
            – Nature isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy, whether true or false. It’s called Appeal to Nature fallacy.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I take greater issue with the statement that it is not love.

          • Railpirate

            Which is what you already stated. I just added on another part of argument 😉

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Yep, we are on the same page!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “A monogamous relationship is at no health risk whether a couple is homosexual or heterosexual. Love happens in both situations.”

            all lies you have been told ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Fine, then please do explain to me how an STD is going to magically show up between two completely monogamous people.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            mostly … for the depravity that they choose ….. monogamous is a myth for the homosexual and the transgendered …… and there are several articles detailing this …. and EVEN DAN BARKER does not call it “monogamous” …… but “MONOGAMISH” or as he puts it ….. they CHEAT WITH PERMISSION ……. and that is not monogamy ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Oh, I’ll tell the monogamous gay couple who’ve been together 40 years that they’re not really monogamous, then. I’ve honestly never heard such utter nonsense. You haven’t got proof of this so why even pretend?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I’ll tell the monogamous gay couple”

            myth ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            So you know me and the people I associate with, and I don’t?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            irrelevant …….. red herring …. not a refutation ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It’s very relevant when you tell me that you know better than aI do what I am experiencing in my life.

          • Railpirate

            What you just said is an Anecdotal evidence fallacy, now his sources can be invalidated by the fact they don’t support the argument and questionability of quality, lack of peer review on the study and one being a news article, rather then a study, but that doesn’t make it work any more, or less, to make this fallacy in response.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            He has never met me and doesn’t know the people I know, and is telling me he knows situations I have experienced which he hasn’t. Where’s the fallacy?

          • Railpirate

            I’d like to note that I pointed out his fallacies as well in a seperate post responding to him. The issue is that you use an argument from personal experience without further supporting it with scientific evidence (links and our names in this case, as Christian News Network doesn’t allow links). (That is an Anecdotal evidence Fallacy.)

          • Railpirate

            The issue isn’t that other people are making a red herring, It’s that you didn’t provide evidence for your claim, instead providing outdated data (A lot of newer data exists and the study is heavily flawed either way, which I’ll gladly write a rebuke for if you really want me to, even if that’s technically not needed as the evidence provided in the study relies on, as noted on mostly outdated data.) and a news article, then calling anything contrary to that a myth based upon said flawed evidence, with that shutting down conversation of that flawed evidence, while in addition NEITHER SOURCE ACTUALLY CONTAINS ALL CLAIMED TO BE MONOGOMOUS RELATIONSHIPS, meaning your argument wouldn’t support your conclusion either way. – This means you, are actually the one who made the red herring, to begin with.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the data HAS NOT CHANGED one iota ….. as the BEHAVIOUR has not changed ONE IOTA ……. so FAIL …….. there is no FRESHNESS DATE on SCIENCE that is TRUE …… and YOU are free to find a study that refutes it …… AND YOU CANNOT ….. and why …….

            BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH …………… and the TRUTH is not REFUTABLE …………

          • Railpirate

            ” there is no FRESHNESS DATE on SCIENCE that is TRUE”

            False Equivecation of “Freshness date” on scientific method (Which indeed doesn’t exist) with changing demographics of monogomy, not even accounting for flawed methodology.

            “and YOU are free to find a study that refutes it …… AND YOU CANNOT ….. and why …….”

            Request to proof negative fallacy, must first proof own evidence is valid in the face of critique on it, which you haven’t, you’ve just repeated “it’s the truth”. (You can claim a thousand time trees float, and claim it’s the truth but that won’t make trees float)

            And you didn’t at adress the fact your proof wouldn’t cover almost half of your argument as pointed out.

            You also didn’t adress the fact that one of your two sources was a news article which contained no sources, therefor isn’t any proof at all.

            Seems like you are in addition to making fallacies and using caps to scream high and mighty, are also ignoring arguments you can’t answer, especially when mistakes are made. (Everyone makes mistakes in argument now and then, doesn’t help anyone to refuse to acknowledge them if you dó make them)

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I don’t know who you are sir, but to me you are the gift that keeps on giving. I commend you on your patience.

          • Railpirate

            Debate is part of my job, Patience is required. I apreciate the compliment by the way 🙂

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, I appreciate it because I have been called a liar more times in this thread than I can count, and it’s frustrating when I know that I am not any such thing. But I lack the patience to wade through all the screaming capital letters and sentence fragments.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “False Equivecation of “Freshness date” on scientific method”

            right ….. so you should STOP TRYING to use it as one ………. DUHHHHH …………….

          • Railpirate

            Continued to ignore all arguments. Noted.

            I also explained exactly where *your* false equivecation lies, by confusing demographics with scientific method (and now additionally noted, I didn’t realise before: Methods of research that do, or don’t comply with said scientific method.) which also got no response but to say back I shouldn’t use false equivecations, without a given basis to note I made one.

            Rather tiring.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there was no false equivocation ………… so of course i ignored it ……….

          • Railpirate

            “the data HAS NOT CHANGED one iota”
            “there is no FRESHNESS DATE on SCIENCE that is TRUE”

            I made a claim on whether the data is correct (outdated), not the method. Yet you equivecated the outdatedness onto science, rather then the data.

            The data does change, social demographics are constantly shifting.
            Heck, I have to deal with that in my day to day life, Elderly people are going outside more then 10 years ago causing higher use in public transportation (Which is the field I work in), because of a shift in the demographics actions.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Wait a minute….your “evidence” that monogamous same-sex couples are a myth was, as I recall from elsewhere in the conversation, a few headlines, one saying many same-sex couples are not, and one saying most are not.

            Now, I don’t know, perhaps you mean something different by “myth” than I think you do, but I always thought it meant something that does not exist. As in “mythical creatures”, dragons or unicorns or something like that. Even if what those headlines say is completely true, they’re implicitly saying that monogamous gay couples do exist. If some things are either A or B, and then you say most or many of those things are A, that means that the rest of them, however many that is, are B.

            It’s like if you said left-handed people are a myth, then tried to back that up by saying most people are right-handed. You refuted your own argument.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            dragons exist ….. unicorns exist ….. homosexuals exist ….. and while they seem to be “flirting” with the idea of monogamy …… there is no real interest to actually do it ……. and the fact is none of them REALLY do monogamy ….. they do what they want to call MONOGAMISH …… which is really asking or being given permission to cheat and have sex with others …… and while like all the other bastardizations of the English language they are perpetrating …… MONOGAMISH is not monogamy ….. and it is the LGBLTs bastardization of language that is causing your confusion ….. like how HOMOMIRAGE is a marriage ….. WHEN IT AINT ………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I have, and others in this thread have said they have, personally known monogamous gay couples. You know these people better than the people who actually know them personally?

            And even besides that, besides anyone knowing anyone personally….many or most is not ALL. Those headlines you gave did not support your point.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “personally known monogamous gay couples. You know these people better than the people who actually know them personally?”

            all men tell lies to make themselves look good in the eyes of others ….. like pastors who are pedophiles …. and the ones that say they NEED a new jet airplane ….. and people like yourself who want others to think they are good because they defend poor helpless homosexuals and so they hope to have that light shine on them to make themselves look good as some paragon of virtue because that is all you are trying to do right now ….. when you aint good in the least ………….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I believe in what I believe in because I believe it, not because I think it will make me “look good as some paragon of virtue.” Why is that so hard for some people to believe? Do you just have that much trouble accepting that people who believe things you don’t actually sincerely believe them? It’s just like the people (you’re probably one of them, I bet) who think that if someone is on the other side of the political spectrum from them that that means they’re out to “destroy the country” or even that they’re part of a “conspiracy” or some such thing. Same sort of question there: Why is so hard to believe that someone sincerely wants what is good for the country but just has a bit of a different idea on what that means? You don’t see me going on like that about religious-right types like you, do you? No, you don’t. I might completely disagree with a lot of your beliefs, they might be diametrically opposed to what I believe in myself, I might think you’re a little bit off your rocker for having some of them….but I’m willing to accept that you do actually have those beliefs. Maybe that’s just too much to expect from some people, I guess.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I believe in what I believe in because I believe it, not because I think it will make me “look good as some paragon of virtue.””

            sure … BUT … you also believe it because it will make you look good to others …. and if it did not ….. then you would not do it ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            No, that doesn’t make any sense. If I really believe something, I won’t abandon that belief just because it is unpopular.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. you picked your belief BECAUSE it was popular ….. to the people you want to be accepted by ………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            No, I just believe it. Sorry if you can’t accept that, but it’s the truth.

          • Ted Broussard

            Are you hoping that if you say “homomirage” enough, people like your friend Lady Checkmate might start using it in a sentence every two seconds like she does with her ridiculous “alt-left”, hoping it catches on amongst likeminded bigots?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i do not care one wit if anyone else says it ….. it is still a MIRAGE …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It takes bravado to make a blanket statement like that about every single married homosexual person. It’s enormously ridiculous both from the standpoint that you can’t possibly know any of them and that there’s no data anyplace that confirms it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they say it ABOUT THEMSELVES ….. and it is their own NARCISSISM or PRIDE that makes them say it …… so you are taking issue with the wrong person …. go talk to those whom you seek to defend ….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No. They don’t say it about themselves. What, ALL homosexuals say it about themselves? Don’t forget, that’s the demographic you’re claiming to speak on behalf of. ALL. And guess what, your “narcissism” claim made no sense before, and it still makes no sense. If you’re narcissistic, there isn’t a second party involved, so it’s a completely ridiculous word to use.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Don’t forget, that’s the demographic you’re claiming to speak on behalf of. ALL.”

            nope … that is the demographic i am speaking TO ….. and if they cant hear the truth … it is not my problem …. it is theirs ………. FYI …. NARCISSISM causes a person to USE OTHERS to get what the NARCISSIST wants …… “there isn’t a second party involved,” is a lie …..

            People with this condition are frequently described as arrogant, self-centered, manipulative, and demanding. They may also concentrate on grandiose fantasies (e.g. their own success, beauty, brilliance) and may be convinced that they deserve special treatment. These characteristics typically begin in early adulthood and must be consistently evident in multiple contexts, such as at work and in relationships.

            People with narcissistic personality disorder believe they are superior or special, and often try to associate with other people they believe are unique or gifted in some way. This association enhances their self-esteem, which is typically quite fragile underneath the surface. Individuals with NPD seek excessive admiration and attention in order to know that others think highly of them. Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder have difficulty tolerating criticism or defeat, and may be left feeling humiliated or empty when they experience an “injury” in the form of criticism or rejection.

            Related Personality Disorders: Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic, Paranoid.

            Symptoms
            Narcissistic personality disorder is indicated by five or more of the following symptoms:

            Exaggerates own importance

            Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence or ideal romance

            Believes he or she is special and can only be understood by other special people or institutions

            Requires constant attention and admiration from others

            Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

            Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals

            Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy

            Is often envious of others or believes other people are envious of him or her

            Shows arrogant behaviors and attitudes

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            How can you say “there isn’t a second party involved”? OF COURSE there’s a second party, it’s the partner involved. In what possible sense can that be called narcissism? Would you call a husband with a wife narcissistic too? What’s the difference?

            You’re educating ALL homosexuals on this subject which is one you appear to know nothing about? How does that work?

            You presented an article on narcissistic personality disorder, well done. I could cut and paste that too. It’s got nothing to do with
            homosexuality, so if you can manage to find a source online that links them, you might not be see as so far off base.

            Repeating, or in your case screaming, “narcissism” over and over doesn’t prove anything except that you can scream a lot.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YOU said there was not a second party involved … or are you forgetting what YOU wrote …..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I know what the word “couple” means. It means two, which means the word “narcissism” doesn’t work.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE … it means they are BOTH NARCISSISTS ……… using the other for NARCISSISTIC self gratification …… and they do harm to themselves, to their “partner”, to their families, and to society in general ….. they destroy societies ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, you’re confused. The self-gratification you’re talking about which is solo in nature starts with the letter M and ends in “bation”. Homosexuals, on the other hand, who now have the right to marry, desire marriage in the first place precisely because they want to be part of a couple, which again is the exact opposite of what you’re talking about.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … that is YOUR definition ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And the definition I use is the one shared by everyone else.

            You can’t just keep screaming NARCISSISM in this conversation without knowing what it means. You haven’t said why it’s narcissism, you just keep screaming and pounding your fists insisting that it is. I could say FIRE TRUCK and do the same thing you are.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            THIS is what it means ………

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Exaggerates own importance

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Is preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence or ideal romance

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Believes he or she is special and can only be understood by other special people or institutions

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Requires constant attention and admiration from others

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Is often envious of others or believes other people are envious of him or her

            this is NACISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            Shows arrogant behaviors and attitudes

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, what you have described is narcissistic personality disorder, not homosexuality. There is no correlation between the two. At all. Anywhere.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … NO DIFFERENCE ….. they are exactly the samething …. and it describes the homosexual and their relationships to a “T” …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            So because homosexuals can’t reproduce, that’s narcissism?

            You’re doing some incredible mental gymnastics to try to convince yourself that homosexuals cannot feel love for one another. Guess what, they do. That’s why they desire to be married.

            You’re trying to pass off a completely ridiculous idea that a homosexual is attracted to the same sex because they are secretly obsessed with themselves. That makes no sense, it has no backing in the scientific community, and I’ve NEVER heard anyone make such a claim. At what point are you going to let this go, Amos? It’s not working.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so because they are SELF CENTERED persons who really care nothing about their “PARTNERS, their FAMILIES, and SOCIETY …. and they contribute nothing to that ….. and they are only interested in their own gratification at the expense of every other thing …. and they DESTROY society …… they are NARCISSISTS ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            They aren’t self-centered, clearly, if they want to devote themselves to another person (just like straight people).

            “they contribute nothing to that” – opinion.
            “only interested in their own gratification” – opinion.
            “at the expense of every other thing” – uninformed opinion.
            “they destroy society” – opinion.

            We know your opinion, we’ve known if for a while, it would be nice if you could back it up with facts.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they do not want to “devote themselves to another person” ….. CLEARLY ….. that is an excuse for their own self centered gratification ….. to make themselves the center of attention …….

            “”they contribute nothing to that” – opinion.” ….. NOPE … AGAIN ….. EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE ……… Take a number of homosexuals, both sexes, put the males on one island, put the females on another island ……..give them anything they want or desire ….. deprive them of nothing ….. but they cannot leave and they cannot have the opposite sex …… come back in 60 years …… nothing will be left …….. society DIES ………. ………. ZIP, ZERO, NADA ….. DEATH …… that is all you get …… THAT IS NARCISSISTIC SELF GRATIFICATION ….

            YOU DO NOT EVEN NEED TO ACTUALLY DO IT ……. this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT …… and you KNOW …. EMPIRICALLY …….. that is it true ………….. and its RESULTS are ZIP, ZERO, NADA …….. DEATH …….. FYI … death = nothing …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            “they do not want to “devote themselves to another person”

            The fact they want the right to marry shoots that theory apart pretty soundly. They wouldn’t want marriage if it was simply for “self-gratification”.

            Putting gay men on one island and lesbians on another (is this a fantasy of yours, by the way?) and saying they will die is a biological reality, it doesn’t prove narcissism. Many of them would probably form very strong romantic bonds in their time there. How on earth does that prove “narcissism”? Are you suggesting there is some goal of homosexuals to turn the entire earth gay so that the population dies out? I really hope that’s not what you’re saying here, but it sure sounds like it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “The fact they want the right to marry shoots that theory apart pretty soundly.”

            the FACT that HOMOMIRAGE destroys society ….. NOPE ……… as it contributes NOTHING to society but DEATH ……. only their SELF CENTERED SELF GRATIFICATION called nacissism …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Calling it homomirage isn’t reinforcing anything but your hatred of gay marriage. Once again, we’re here to discuss facts.
            Alan Turing is the man responsible for the modern computer. He was homosexual. Did he contribute nothing to society but death? You want more examples? You know I’ve got them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Putting gay men on one island and lesbians on another (is this a fantasy of yours, by the way?) and saying they will die is a biological reality, it doesn’t prove narcissism.”

            so you cannot defeat the empirical argument … and you want to make it “my fantasy” …. and then the death of any society based on it (HOMOMIRAGE) dies…… and that desire to exclusion of anything including their own deaths due to their desires does not prove narcissism ….. it proves they do not care about anything but their own desires ….. and that IS NARCISSISM ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            There IS no empirical argument. At least, not one you’re making.
            Stick a bunch of male dogs in one room and females in another and they’ll all die out, too. Going to call the dogs a bunch of narcissists?
            Homosexuality and homosexuals exist. They are identical to everyone else. They fall in love the same, marry the same, divorce the same, and have identical experiences. You’re sitting there trying to say that they don’t really love each other, that it’s narcissism, well where is there a SINGLE person who’d agree with you?

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Homosexual people, who have existed all throughout history, and in just about every society there has ever been, destroy societies? Uh huh, sure…..

            Or, wait, is it just when they start to get equal treatment, is that when the society begins to be destroyed? Well let’s see here….same-sex marriage is now legal in 25 countries by my count….looks like we’re all still here, and society is too. Hmm.

            And how on earth does a same-sex relationship harm families? If it does, it’s probably most often due to intolerant, homophobic people who are the ones doing the “destroying.”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Homosexual people, who have existed all throughout history, and in just about every society there has ever been, destroy societies? Uh huh, sure…..”

            the evidence is EMPIRICAL ….. they do NOTHING to BUILD a society ……. and here is the evidence ……

            Take a number of homosexuals, both sexes, put the males on one island, put the females on another island ……..give them anything they want or desire ….. deprive them of nothing ….. but they cannot leave and they cannot have the opposite sex …… come back in 60 years …… nothing will be left …….. society DIES ……….

            YOU DO NOT EVEN NEED TO ACTUALLY DO IT ……. this is a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT …… and you KNOW …. EMPIRICALLY …….. that is it true …………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Your “thought experiment” is utterly ludicrous. It proves precisely nothing. You do realize the same exact thing would happen if all the people in it were heterosexuals, right? And no one would expect to build a long-lasting society based on a scenario like that, anyway.

            Also, just what do you think “empirical” means? I’ll just show you, since you seem to be using it incorrectly:

            Empirical: derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

            A thought experiment is not empirical evidence.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it proves that homosexuality leads to DEATH of all its participants and SOCIETY dies with it …… no one born … NO SOCIETY … it DESTROYS society …………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Again, the same thing would happen if the people were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, whatever. So your little thought experiment only proves that if people don’t have sex, they won’t have children. I think most of us have figured that one out already.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … put a bunch of men AND women on the islands and you WILL have society …. it will not die as it is what society is built on …. LIFE ….. not DEATH ………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You were talking about men on one island, women on the other, and in your own words, “they cannot leave and they cannot have the opposite sex.” If you made all the people heterosexual instead of homosexual as in your example, nothing would be any different. Sure, if you “put a bunch of men and women” on each island, and let them do as they will with each other, you’re good to go. But again, the same could apply for heterosexual people or homosexual people. Homosexual people can have sex with the opposite sex, you know. It wouldn’t be what they would prefer to do, obviously, but if they were faced with the task of rebuilding society by themselves, they would be able to do it. So, again, your little scenario proves exactly nothing, except I guess that homosexual sex doesn’t produce children….which I knew already. So congratulations, Captain Obvious.

            Also, now I wonder what happened to the rest of the world in this scenario. Was this small group of homosexuals somehow the only people to survive some sort of apocalypse? If so, how was it only homosexuals? What, was the only place that gave enough shelter from the nuclear blast (or whatever it was) a random gay bar somewhere? Or did some government decide to exile them just for kicks?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. we are TALKING about …. HOMOSEXUALS ….. denied nothing and to be allowed TO ACT ACCORDING TO THEIR DESIRE …… and the RESULTS of that …… and when HETEROSEXUALS are given the EXACT SAMETHING ….. and are allowed to ACT ACCORDING THEIR DESIRES …… and the RESULTS of that …… and this is key ….. they are DIAMETRICALLY and POLAR OPPOSITE desires and outcomes ….. one is LIFE and SOCIETY ….. and the other is DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL ……….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            NOPE ….. we are TALKING about …. HOMOSEXUALS ….. denied nothing and to be allowed TO ACT ACCORDING TO THEIR DESIRE

            “Nope” yourself. You specifically said they would be denied even the chance to have anything to do with the opposite sex, which makes your argument pointless, since the same sort of thing would happen with people of any sexual orientation in that situation. It’s just a weird, pointless thought experiment anyway. Why would such a scenario be even remotely likely?

            and the other is DEAD AS A DOOR NAIL ……….

            Well, that’s the final outcome of all of us, eventually.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “”Nope” yourself. You specifically said they would be denied even the chance to have anything to do with the opposite sex”

            right ….. because THEY DO NOT THINK THEY NEED OR DESIRE IT ………. and that is what they are being afforded …. without anyones JUDGEMENT but THEIR OWN ….. and they will all DIE and leave NOTHING but the stench of their death ………..

            samething does not APPLY to heterosexuals ….. as they DESIRE the opposite sex ….. and given that they will follow that desire …. the outcome is OBVIOUS and EMPIRICAL …….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous
            By Hanna Rosin

            Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples
            by: Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D.

            Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret
            By SCOTT JAMESJAN. 28, 2010

            When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

            “I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

            Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            One article doesn’t speak for every homosexual couple, how silly. I know many monogamous gay and lesbian couples who would never dream of cheating on their partners.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and yet they do …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Maybe read other articles then, not just the ones that reinforce your confirmation bias.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            back at ‘cha sport …… my “bias” is towards the TRUTH ….. and SCRIPTURE is the TRUTH ….. and what i accept is that whatever is written MUST support that TRUTH ……… and i get it that YOU do not GET IT ………….. as you reject the truth ……

            DOES TRUTH EXIST ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I’m not talking about scripture, I’m talking about you spitting out 25-odd year old HIV statistics and other completely dishonest things.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            no, no, no, no, no ….. ACCORDING TO YOU …… it is SCIENCE ….. there is no FRESHNESS DATE on science …….. and there are FURTHER studies that CONFIRM it ….. and the only one here being DISHONEST and LYING ….. is YOU …….. see ….. what YOU cannot come to terms with is this …… what YOU want for them will cause their PREMATURE DEATH …… and what i want for them ….. WILL GIVE THEM A LONG LIFE …… let me restate that ….. YOU WANT THEIR DEATH AND I WANT THEIR LIFE TO BE LONG ……. and YOU are the LIAR ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I never said science doesn’t change. I said it is always changing. Amos, go back to school. Get an education. You cannot keep screaming “liar” at people when your comprehension is at fault.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. I SAY true science DOES NOT CHANGE …… if YOUR science changes …… then it AINT SCIENCE ….. it is FALSE SCIENCE ……. and all you have then are LIES ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Then you simply don’t understand how science works.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope ….. SCIENCE either SUPPORTS the truth …… or …. IT IS NOT SCIENCE ……….. it is OPINION ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The methods and treatments from 1997 are simply not the methods and treatments from today. They changed with time and better knowledge. Both were science.

          • Railpirate

            False Equivecation (again): Science, the study of what is, definately changes as our understanding increased by new evidence being presented.

            What is (In manner of existant mechanics) doesn’t.

            You just used the two interchangeably to make an argument.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Science, the study of what is,”

            your “understanding” has NOTHING to do with the truth ….. the truth does not change …. and if the SCIENCE is true ….. IT DOES NOT CHANGE ……..

          • Railpirate

            I really have to sigh here.

            I did not say Science is truth, I said Science is the study of “What is”.

            A study is a method of actively trying to verify and get information from the world around us (In this context) by the scientific method (In this case). Those two things, as I already explained last post, are not identical to eachother, yet you are still claiming they are.

            Which is a false equivecation fallacy, the same one I just pointed out.
            (All you confirmed now is that you either ignore logic, Don’t know what false equivecation is, or that your English skills are to poor to be able to understand the basic concept of synonymousness.)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I really have to sigh here.

            I did not say Science is truth”

            i am saying …… IF THE SCIENCE IS NOT TRUE ….. then IT AINT SCIENCE ….. sigh all you want ….. cause if it aint … it is just garbage opinion ……..

          • Railpirate

            “IF THE SCIENCE IS NOT TRUE ….. then IT AINT SCIENCE”

            Correct, and that’s why there is frequent updating of what we know in science in almost all fields, that doesn’t equate science with the definition of truth.

            That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method (Which offcourse updates when we have new, more accurate information via said method), not specifically Truth itself.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “That means science is our current understanding of truth”

            NOPE …. the truth is ALREADY KNOWN ….. science DOES NOT DETERMINE THE TRUTH of anything ….. in fact SCIENCE TELLS US NOTHING …… we look at the results and then we decide if we accept it or not …… and what it means ….. but science determines nothing …

          • Railpirate

            “NOPE …. the truth is ALREADY KNOWN ”

            We wouldn’t need science or religion is we knew the truth about everything.

            “science DOES NOT DETERMINE THE TRUTH of anything”

            Never claimed it did.

            “in fact SCIENCE TELLS US NOTHING …… we look at the results and then
            we decide if we accept it or not …… and what it means ….. but
            science determines nothing …”

            This shows more about the fact you know absolutely nothing about the scientific method then anything, no, humans do not “decide” if they accept it, the scientific method is a meticulous process to avoid such subjectivism in studying “what is”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “We wouldn’t need science or religion is we knew the truth about everything.”

            we know the truth about this subject ….. you reject that truth …..

            “humans do not “decide” if they accept it, the scientific method is a meticulous process to avoid such subjectivism in studying “what is”.”

            they most certainly pass all information through the lens of their mind and then DO decide if they accept it or not …… it is called DISCRIMINATION …. and YOU do it every hour of everyday …….. so that is a lie …. there is no neutral ground to stand on ….. that is a lie ….. science most certainly does not avoid subjectivism … that is a lie ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            truth is the measuring stick that science relies on …. there is nothing higher than truth …. if you say we need science to know the truth then science is higher than truth …… NOPE …. fail ….. truth DOES NOT CHANGE ….. if science is changeable or indeterminate then you are saying there is no truth ….. FAIL …… FAIL …… FAIL …… FAIL ……

          • Railpirate

            “truth is the measuring stick that science relies on …. ”

            This makes me honestly sigh, Science exists so we can proof what is true or not objectively. Without Truth, no Science, correct. But that doesn’t mean the answers we get via the scientific methods will always be true, if that was the case pseudoscience wouldn’t exist and we would never need to update our scientific findings if we get more information about a subject we didn’t previously have more information on. I am kind of appalled by how you attempt to twist definition and ignore the argument to make your point.

            ” if you say we need science to know the truth then science is higher than truth”

            If I need legs to kick a ball, that does not make my legs higher then the ball. If I need a knive to cut something that does not make the knive higher then the object I’d cut. If I need Mathematical Methodology to understand an equation this does not make Mathematical Methodology higher then the equation.

            That doesn’t seem to work as an argument.

            “truth DOES NOT CHANGE”

            Though I never claimed this and it has no value to your argument as all you are doing at this point is attack your own strawman, It’s extremely flawed as well:

            If I kicked a ball with my left foot for my entire life, it is true that I only kicked the ball with my left foot. If I then kick the ball with my right foot, the previous statement isn’t true anymore. The truth that I didn’t kick the ball with my right foot before a certain time didn’t change, but more time elapsed, the situation changed, making the same statement (I only kicked the ball with my left foot) not be true anymore in the current.

            “if science is changeable or indeterminate then you are saying there is no truth”

            I said neither, So you are just attacking your own strawman.
            – The scientific method does not really change.
            – I didn’t say science would be indeterminate itself, but any statement where there is undiscovered factors applicable to the objective won’t be determinate, even if the methods to get there is. If this wouldn’t be the case we would never have to correct previous scientific results on anything, because the initial conclusion would always be correct.

            “….. FAIL …… FAIL …… FAIL …… FAIL ……”

            It seems you have a habbit of throwing tantrums the moment you can’t answer statements anymore and start using caps more and more, not to speak of an excessive amount of dots. You might want to try not throwing tantrums, it doesn’t make your argument any better, and it’s not exactly helping with the formatting of your (Counter) arguments.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” Science exists so we can proof what is true”

            NOPE ….. science only CONFIRMS the truth ….. truth exists whether we can prove it OR NOT …………

            truth needs no proof …… truth is the ultimate standard ….. truth does not rely on any science, math, logic, imagination or any other thing ….. if those things stop being used the truth would still exist and be knowable …… your thinking process is bassackwards …….

          • Railpirate

            ” Science exists so we can proof what is true”

            “NOPE ….. science only CONFIRMS the truth ….. truth exists whether we can prove it OR NOT …………”

            I mean, you just repeated what I said here contradicting your own earlier statement.

            “truth needs no proof ……”
            If something has no proof we can’t confirm it’s truth, truth will exist without proof, but we won’t know what the truth is without proof,
            That is what science does, it is the study of “what is”.
            You really are still attacking your own strawman, as I never made the claim that truth doesn’t exist without proof.

            “truth is the ultimate standard”
            Elaborate, as that’s not a definition of “truth” I heard before.
            The Dictionary (Merriam Webster): “the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality”
            (The further part of your statement relying on this I will ignore till you elaborated, as otherwise I could possibly be responding to a fallatic argument, which doesn’t help anyone.)

            “if those things stop being used the truth would still exist”
            Correct

            “and be knowable”
            Knowing definition: “having or reflecting knowledge”
            Knowledge definition: “the fact or condition of being aware of something”

            It could theoretically be known, but not proven at all, meaning no argument on existance of anything (Except for things imideately observable, such as that my grandparents died, or that my friend was hit by a car). No progress could ever bemade because nothing could be proven, as proof is required (or supplied by accident) when something is done that works. (Making a car by accident would result in you learning proof of at least part of how motion and propulsion works, or making it possible to proof that).

            While technically correct, what you did here really, as now demonstrated makes your argument impossible, as then no one, including you would be able to know what the truth is, and we wouldn’t currently have technology in any way shape or form, because we never where able to proof what is true, to base technology on in the first place.

            So once again, you’ve attacked on me on claims I didn’t make (Strawman Fallacy), Made a claim requiring different definitions which I’ve asked you to clarify (Likely False Equivecation Fallacy), then made a correct statement which wouldn’t help your argument.

            Anything else?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “”NOPE ….. science only CONFIRMS the truth ….. truth exists whether we can prove it OR NOT …………”

            I mean, you just repeated what I said here contradicting your own earlier statement.

            “truth needs no proof ……””

            the truth is self evident … it needs NO PROOF ….. truth exists whether you accept it as proven OR NOT …….. science only CONFIRMS IT ….. it does not PROVE anything ….

            there is no “contradiction” ………

          • Railpirate

            You are still attacking the same strawman you made against me, ignored 90% of what I said and still didn’t define what definition of Truth you are using.

            And if Truth is self evident and needs no proof, then how de we as humans know what the truth entails? Exactly, Proof, What method do we have to find out what is the truth? Science.

            “science only CONFIRMS IT ….. it does not PROVE anything”
            Considdering it confirms by providing proof you just managed to contradict yourself within your own sentence.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i ignore it because 1. it is too long …. and 2. i usually stop after the first nonsense i.e contradiction ….. truth is scripture ….. and if the so-called science varies from scripture then it is baloney and false science ….. science cannot determine the truth on its own ….. as it has NO WAY to determine “scientifically” if it is true and accurate ………

            all truth is revealed by the ONE who created all this ……… and if you do not have that … you will never know if you are in truth or not …….

          • Railpirate

            “truth is scripture”

            Ah, so you did make a false equivecation as I noted, by equating your religious beliefs with the definition of truth as factually verified information.

            “and if the so-called science varies from scripture then it is baloney and false science …..”

            Okay, science denialist (Why does that not surprise me). And what would stop anyone from making that argument against your religious beliefs without any evidence? Nothing.

            “science cannot determine the truth on its own ….. as it has NO WAY to determine “scientifically” if it is true and accurate ………”

            You are correct entirely here, the thing is: it doesn’t matter.

            I’ll quote Dr. Jeremy P. Shapiro, who explains the issue better then I ever could:
            “Proof exists in mathematics and logic but not in science. Research
            builds knowledge in progressive increments. As empirical evidence
            accumulates, there are more and more accurate approximations of ultimate truth but no final end point to the process. Deniers exploit the distinction between proof and compelling evidence by categorizing empirically well-supported ideas as “unproven.” Such statements are technically correct but extremely misleading, because there are no proven ideas in science, and evidence-based ideas are the best guides for action we have.”

            What You’ve essentially done is made a requirement of perfect proof, to then claim anything it says is bullocks. There’s a massive difference between an imperfect approach and total ignorance. Then argued your religion is “truth” because of that.

            To reduce that to simpler terms: You comitted a perfectionist fallacy (And to an extend a false dillema fallacy) and followed it up with a rather blatant black and white fallacy with no empirical evidence for the claim causing a burden of proof fallacy.

            “all truth is revealed by the ONE who created all this ……… and if
            you do not have that … you will never know if you are in truth or not
            …….”
            And neither will you, because that’s self affirming, The religion says it’s true and it’s true because religion says so. The most basic of fallacies, circular logic fallacy was made here to support the argument. (Sidenote: This is also why religion in many countries cannot be used to dictate any laws or rights over people who don’t share that religion.)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Ah, so you did make a false equivecation as I noted, by equating your religious beliefs with the definition of truth as factually verified information.”

            they are not “religious beliefs” ….. but i get why you want to frame it in that way …. because you do not know what you are talking about ……

            DOES TRUTH EXIST …….. it is a yes or no …… and is it KNOWABLE ….. that is also a yes or no ….. your answer or your failure to answer will answer all questions about you ………

          • Railpirate

            “they are not “religious beliefs” ….. but i get why you want to frame
            it in that way …. because you do not know what you are talking about
            ……”

            Burden of Proof would be on your side to proof your religious beliefs are entirely factual, I am waiting. Till then, for all intents and purposes, as they are literally defined as such, they are religious beliefs.

            “DOES TRUTH EXIST …….. it is a yes or no …… and is it KNOWABLE
            ….. that is also a yes or no ….. your answer or your failure to
            answer will answer all questions about you ………”

            You are still attacking the same strawman, Neither have anything to do with the question, as I never questioned whether truth exists (I am not a truth-relativist) in the first place in argument, and whether (all) truth is knowable wouldn’t really effect the question, as if not (all) truth is knowable then neither via your claims nor my claims will it be knowable, or it wouldn’t effect the question on how something is knowable to begin with.

            It’s also very telling that every time I point out the inconsistancies you make with your own statements are ignored, time and time again, and that you are still ignoring practically all arguments, Still, now for days, haven’t fullfilled burden of proof a single time and that you keep attacking strawman arguments I never made in an attempt to counter me. Might want to start maybe ever so slightly adressing the mistakes, holes, contradictions and irrelevant argument you make.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Burden of Proof would be on your side to proof your religious beliefs are entirely factual,”

            in YOUR opinion …… and nothing else ….. truth is either accepted or reject it ….. you reject it …… it is not my job to CONVINCE you of the truth ….. it is my job to PRESENT THE TRUTH to you ……….. truth is SELF EVIDENT and REQUIRES NO PROOF ….. because to state TRUTH NEEDS PROOF is to say there is something higher than truth ….. and if that is true ….

            THEN IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT ……………..

          • Railpirate

            “Burden of Proof would be on your side to proof your religious beliefs are entirely factual,” “in YOUR opinion …… and nothing else …..”

            Burden of Proof, Definition:
            The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant (if philosophical) or Proof (If factual) for their position.

            No sufficient Proof was provided for a claim of fact, Burden of Proof wasn’t fullfilled, still waiting for you to fullfill it.

            ” truth is either accepted or reject it ….. you reject it ……”

            I made no statement on what I accept or reject, I made a statement that you made a fallacy that invalidates the argument you made and shown where the fallacy lies.

            “it is not my job to CONVINCE you of the truth …..”

            It is indeed not your job to convince me, it is however your job to proof it, if you make claims about what the truth is contrary to the proven basis.

            ” it is my job to PRESENT THE TRUTH to you ……….. truth is SELF EVIDENT and REQUIRES NO PROOF …..”

            If it was Self Evident (Which literally means Providing Proof for Itself) you would’ve proven your statement. You did not. Also something to note here, is that if you tell you don’t need to fullfill burden of proof, you actually have burden of proof on why you wouldn’t need to as well, which also wasn’t fullfilled.

            “because to state TRUTH NEEDS PROOF is to say there is something higher than truth ….. and if that is true ….”

            This is illogical. If a hit and run happens and no one knows who did it, proof would be needed to see what the truth is. In this case the truth of who comitted the crime. As now demonstrated: Proof is by definition intrinsic to verify what is the truth. That doesn’t make proof “higher than” truth? You provided no logical basis to make that claim on. (Which rather ironically is you just making the same fallacy again trying to dismiss you made the fallacy in the first place.)

            “….. and if that is true ….
            THEN IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVE IT ……………..”

            And now we don’t just have a Burden of Proof situation, you’ve now also comitted a “shifting the burden” fallacy. Claiming I have to disproof a situation that has no proof to begin with.

            Your argument is not going to magically work better by repeating your own words over and over again.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “”Burden of Proof, Definition:
            The burden of proof is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant (if philosophical) or Proof (If factual) for their position.”

            and that ….. WOULD BE YOU ….. SHOW how and in what way there is something higher THAN TRUTH …… YOURS is the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM …… so put up ….. OR TAKE A HIKE MIKE …………..

          • Railpirate

            Firstly: Starting to tantrum again? The amount of caps and insults suddenly increased again.

            “and that ….. WOULD BE YOU ….. SHOW how and in what way there is something higher THAN TRUTH ……”

            As pointed out, I never made this claim, I even gone out of your way to explain you are attacking your own strawman here and why it doesn’t work, which was ignored. (again).

            “YOUR claim and your rejection of truth is that truth needs to be proven
            so your claim is the PROOF is higher than TRUTH …… again …..
            SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM …… or take a hike …………”

            You claim “the truth” is your religious beliefs, but provide no proof to support the claim, instead you claimed it is self-evident but you won’t provide any proof that it is self-evident, then attack someone else for rejecting the claim because you provided no proof saying he needs to provide proof.
            That is rather literally the definition shifting the Burden Fallacy.

            (also once again: you didn’t respond to over half of the argument, Ignored rebukes of your logic and refused to clarify your fallacies, still waiting.)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “SHOW how and in what way there is something higher THAN TRUTH ……”

            YOUR claim and your rejection of truth is that truth needs to be proven so your claim is the PROOF is higher than TRUTH …… again ….. SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM …… or take a hike …………

          • Railpirate

            As pointed out, I never made this claim, I even gone out of your way to
            explain you are attacking your own strawman here and why it doesn’t
            work, which was ignored. (again, and yet again now).

            You are still attacking the strawman you made, rather then what I argued.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “As pointed out, I never made this claim, I even gone out of your way to
            explain you are attacking your own strawman here and why it doesn’t
            work, which was ignored. (again, and yet again now).”

            no strawman ….. that is the essence of your being here …. to PROVE that science is higher than truth ….. that science is REQUIRED to know truth …. and it aint ….. AGAIN ….. IS THAT TRUE ……… and if the answer is YES ….. and for you it WOULD HAVE TO BE …… because that is what you are arguing …. then ….. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT ……

          • Railpirate

            “no strawman ….. that is the essence of your being here …. to PROVE that science is higher than truth …..”

            I still never said that. I still already gone out of my way to even give you an explanation on why I didn’t and why that wouldn’t work. Which you are still ignoring.

            “that science is REQUIRED to know truth ….”
            Nope, my argument is Proof is required to *know* the truth. This shouldn’t even be something I now still have to explain to you after already doing this so many times, it’s one of the most simple logical fallacies you can confirm yourself. Let’s give you an analogy:

            – A policeman shot a woman.
            – The woman died from the wound

            Scenario A:
            We know the woman was shot from finding her body. There is a security cam that filmed the incident.

            We know the truth of the situation because there is video tape showing us exactly what happened, which proofed the Policeman shot the woman.

            Scenario B:
            We know the woman was shot from finding her body. There
            is no camera, whitness or alternative that can proof what exactly
            happened.

            We don’t know what the truth is of the situation that
            happened because there is no proof for the situation. *There is no
            indication here that the police officer did anything, he would’ve still
            done it, we just wouldn’t be able to confirm it due to a lack of proof.*

            Let’s try this with your argument about what truth is now:

            – The bible is truth. (This is just for example in this analogy, this is not a statement I am actually making)

            Scenario A (Real Life):
            We cannot confirm whether the book you are referring to for your religion has any actual relation to god. Therefor we don’t know the truth. *Even though the bible would still be truth.*

            Scenario B (What would be required to make your argument about truth work):
            Some form of proofable confirmation exists that the bible is truth and is the word of god, therefore we know the truth.

            We can’t know, if there is no proof. Regardless of what could, couldn’t, is or isn’t correct. And that’s the issue with your entire argument to begin with, which is what I argued you on. (Heck, I already gave analogies before this to say the exact same thing simplified.)

            “and if the answer is YES”

            Simple answer here: the answer to your question isn’t yes. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i have already refuted this ……

          • Railpirate

            Considdering it’s the first time I gone into the argument of the Begging the Question Fallacy on your side, how exactly did you pre-existantly refute a new argument?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “instead you claimed it is self-evident but you won’t provide any proof that it is self-evident, ”

            contradiction in terms …. why would i provide proof of what is SELF EVIDENT ….. FAIL …..

          • Railpirate

            “SELF EVIDENT” Is it self evident that am omnipotant double gendered entity in the sky let humans write a book with the objective truth he created in it?

            Self Evidence is something which provides evidence for itself, like 2+2=4. You can actually proof something is self-evident. In this case it’s self evident based on the existing mathemathical rules.

            So no, Asking you to proof something is self-evident is not contradictary, if the factors required for it to be self evident aren’t provided. (Which they aren’t here.)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Is it self evident that am omnipotant double gendered entity in the sky let humans write a book with the objective truth he created in it?”

            nope … as it is not truth …… EVIDENTLY …….

            “Self Evidence is something which provides evidence for itself, like 2+2=4”

            EXACTLY …. and why it is not in need of “proof” …… of any sort ……

          • Railpirate

            “EXACTLY …. and why it is not in need of “proof” …… of any sort ….”

            2+2=4 wouldn’t be self evident if we didn’t know the meaning of these numbers and symbols. You’d need to proof what they mean for the statement to become self-evident. (as I said, you can refer back to mathemathical rules for the meaning of these numbers and symbols.)

            Some Statements might be Self-Evident, but we don’t know yet, because not all information required to understand that is available to us, for example: Let’s assume we ask someone the “2+2=4” question, who has no knowledge of mathemathics or they might be too complicated to understand right away, therefor requiring a proper explanation or additional proof of reasoning as to why it’s self-evident.

            I am at a loss however, at this point. I asked you almost entirely at the beginning, what the definition of “truth” you are using is, which has still not been clarified. I think it might be a good idea to verify that first before continueing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            No strawman ….. these are your statements ……

            “That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method”

            no it is not …….. AND you are saying SCIENCE is higher than truth as truth cannot be known without science …..

            “We wouldn’t need science or religion is we knew the truth about everything.”

            show the SCIENCE that proves that to be true ….. because as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” ……

            “If something has no proof we can’t confirm it’s truth, truth will exist without proof, but we won’t know what the truth is without proof,”

            truth is either accepted or rejected …… truth exists outside of ANY confirmation of it …. outside of any “proof” of it …. “but we won’t know what the truth is without proof,” ….. IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT ….. Where is your science to PROVE THAT …. because as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” ……

            again … NO STRAWMAN ….. your words ……..

          • Railpirate

            “AND you are saying SCIENCE is higher than truth as truth cannot be known without science …..”

            I don’t see any such words or indication in what you quoted from me, All I said is that science as a study is our current understanding of truth by proof via the scientific method, that has no effect on what truth is or isn’t, there’s simple no causality, I never claimed that, you are still saying I did and attacking that strawman.

            “show the SCIENCE that proves that to be true …..”

            *sigh*, you are equating logic principle of causality with science here to make this argument, which is a false equivecation. Causality is verifyable by an act as simple as bowling, you roll the bowling ball, which causes the pins to fall. Your action has causality to the rolling of the ball, the rolling of the ball has causality to the knocking of the pins.

            “…”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” ……”
            Yes? That is quite literally the definition of science. (Merriam Webster Dictionary): “knowledge
            or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of
            general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method”

            “truth is either accepted or rejected ……”

            An apple is sliced, I can observe the apple is sliced. Would rejecting that the apple is sliced make the apple any less sliced? No. That does not work.

            ” truth exists outside of ANY confirmation of it …. outside of any “proof” of it …. ”

            I never argued otherwise.

            “”but we won’t know what the truth is without proof,” ….. IS THAT A
            TRUE STATEMENT ….. Where is your science to PROVE THAT …. because
            as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth
            by study via the scientific method” ……”

            You are making a mistake here. You are equating The logical concept of Proof, With Study via the Scientific Method, which can (But isn’t in all situations) a way to find proof for things.

            Allow me to demonstrate proof: Assume the following situation:

            – I win a coin flip five times in a row.
            – I cheated, which is measurable by the coins weight, the coin looks somewhat odd

            In Example A, you have a scale, In Example B you don’t.

            Example A:
            After seeing me win a coin flip 5 times in a row you suspect I am cheating. You suspect I am cheating because the coin looks odd and I had a statistically unlikely amount of wins, you decide to grab your scale and weigh the coin, confirming that the coin was tempered with. You now know I cheated.

            Example B:
            After seeing me win a coin flip 5 times in a row you suspect I am cheating. You suspect I am cheating because the coin looks odd and I had a statistically unlikely amount of wins, but there doesn’t seem to be a way to proof I cheated. You currently do not know I cheated. *Even though I still cheated.*

            You are ignoring that Proof is required to know any objective, as demonstrated above. It indeed won’t change what the objective is (in this case “truth”), but it does make your argument invalid, as there is no way to confirm the bible is gods words, nor that if it is derived from gods word that it survived translation over the years correctly (notice: I am already assuming that your god exists here): Therefor your claim that you know what truth is, is impossible, there was no imperical evidence given for that claim. If you do have imperical evidence for that claim, please hand me imperical evidence for the claim, that’d solve the entire burden of proof fallacy you made at the start confirming your argument meaning your argument works and I now know what the truth is.

            Another way to affirm your claim, without proof won’t work, is that you aren’t the only one making the same claim of such absolute knowledge with conflicting knowledge. Muslims also claim absolute knowledge in their religious texts the same way, yet only one of the two can be correct (assuming those are the only two options, which they aren’t, theres about 20.000 religions that make claims this way). Yet with your logic it’s possible for both to claim they are completely and objective in knowledge of the truth, which contradicts itself. A paradox, so you will.

            So no, I did not make a strawman, I am still supporting my original point that you are making a burden of proof fallacy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so let me see you use science to prove that science is true ……….. that science is a means of truth ……

            The statement, “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge,” is not scientific knowledge—that’s to say, we cannot determine the truth-value of this statement using the scientific method. With what sense can we observe the truth of this statement? Or what scientific tests can we perform to prove this statement? The truth-value of scientism is not empirically verifiable nor quantifiably measurable, and consequently is not subject to scientific inquiry—it’s an assumption.

            But this is a fatal problem for the believer in scientism—namely, scientism is not real knowledge. If science can’t verify the truth of scientism, then how can scientism itself be a legitimate form of knowledge?

            The answer is, It can’t.

            Why should anyone believe scientism is true if it’s not real knowledge? If scientism is not real knowledge, as implied in scientism itself, then it’s self-refuting, and thus should not be accepted as a reasonable worldview.

            ~ Karlo Broussard

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Basically this is just a shorter version of what Railpirate said, in my own words, but anyway:

            Science doesn’t change. What does change is our knowledge of the truth of things, our knowledge of the way the world works, which we obtain through science.

            if you say we need science to know the truth

            Science is really nothing but figuring things out through observation and experimentation. Sounds like a pretty darn good way of knowing the truth to me. What’s a better way than that?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … nope ….. truth is SUPPOSED to be part of your knowledge … unless you reject truth …… then you have thrown away the map and you are just lost ……… science does not lead to the truth … it will if TRUE support the truth …. but if it does not then it is not science …and we do not get to “fill in the gaps” with false knowledge that makes us feel good because that we chose to reject the truth …….

            so it comes down to this ….. DO truth exist and is it knowable without any other information ……… YES IT IS …………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            again … nope

            “Nope” to what? What exactly in what I said do you disagree with? Because I’m having a hard time figuring out just what that is. Are you trying to tell me you can know the truth without any observation or experimentation? If so, then how?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Are you trying to tell me you can know the truth without any observation or experimentation?”

            it is self evident …. it requires no test ….. a child 6 months old knows that gravity exists with NO PROOF ….. and the child knows the consequences of ignoring it ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            How do you suppose the child knows gravity exists?

            Most likely, he’s seen things fall after being dropped, or perhaps fell down himself a few times. You know what you call that? What I was just talking about – observation. That’s what I’m saying, people make observations, sometimes experiments, to arrive at knowledge.

            Like if someone told you it was raining but you wanted to make sure. What would you do to verify that? Probably look out the window, right? Observation!

            If some piece of knowledge is “self-evident” to us, it’s because we’re basing that on prior observations and/or prior experimentation.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a 6 month old has no ability to understand what they are seeing as their vision is not clear yet beyond about 1 foot …… and he certainly has no explanation as to what cause it …… and yet they are BORN knowing it ………. and it requires nothing to “prove” it ……..

            The statement, “Scientific knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge,” is not scientific knowledge—that’s to say, we cannot determine the truth-value of this statement using the scientific method. With what sense can we observe the truth of this statement? Or what scientific tests can we perform to prove this statement? The truth-value of scientism is not empirically verifiable nor quantifiably measurable, and consequently is not subject to scientific inquiry—it’s an assumption.

            But this is a fatal problem for the believer in scientism—namely, scientism is not real knowledge. If science can’t verify the truth of scientism, then how can scientism itself be a legitimate form of knowledge?

            The answer is, It can’t.

            Why should anyone believe scientism is true if it’s not real knowledge? If scientism is not real knowledge, as implied in scientism itself, then it’s self-refuting, and thus should not be accepted as a reasonable worldview.

            ~ Karlo Broussard

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Well, just don’t ever pretend that you care that something is scientifically proven or scientifically accurate or anything like that, since you only care about science when you think it’s backs up what you already believe. (which is itself not a very scientific way to go about things)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i absolutely care if it CORRECTLY confirms the truth because God created truth and science for that purpose AND He created a world where we can obtain CONSISTENT results so that we can confirm that what God said is truth …….. “which is itself not a very scientific way to go about things” ….. truth comes BEFORE science …… truth is ABOVE science ….. truth does not care one wit if the “science” we do does not confirm truth …… truth still is in effect ……. and false science does not alter truth one iota …… there is no “NEW TRUTH” created …….. there is ONLY ONE truth ……….. that is the PROPER order ….. that IS science …. you want to throw away the map of truth and then think science will make a map for you if you just “experiment” enough ….. and all you will ever get from that is ERROR …………….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            So, yeah, okay, you just agreed with what I said, you only care about science if it seems to confirm what you already believe, and I guess you just ignore it when it doesn’t. Ever heard of the “Texas sharpshooter fallacy”? Or maybe “confirmation bias”?

            The rest of what you said is pretty much all stuff I never said, strawman arguments yet again. I never said “new truth is created” or “truth is altered.” We obtain new knowledge. We learn things we did not know before. We discover truths we did not know before. Our knowledge is altered.

            I also never said science is “above” truth, or beside truth or under truth or whatever. That doesn’t make any sense. I said science is basically the tool we use to figure out how things are. It’s a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Though, I guess I place more value in it than you do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Or maybe “confirmation bias”?”

            ahhhh … i see …. so confirmation OF THE TRUTH is wrong ….. and you think that is science ….. AGAIN …. science has NO MEANS using science to CONFIRM the truth of the science ….. all you are confirming is ERROR ……….

          • Railpirate

            Circular logic fallacy.

            Your argument requires on the pre-existing assumption of truth, rather then imperical evidence for the claim. [What you perceive as truth] is truth because it’s [what you perceive as truth]. – You did not adress the Confirmation Bias Fallacy as your rebuke relied on another fallacy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have no proof that circular logic is invalid ….. and …. YOU continue to use it ……… as you say science determines truth ….. and when you are asked to PROVE that ….. you say it is in the science …….

            . you have absolutely no means of determining that result from science is in fact TRUTH ….. because science has no mechanism or process for determining truth …….. and yet you are asking for proof of truth …. THAT YOU CANNOT PROVIDE ………….

          • Railpirate

            “you have no proof that circular logic is invalid”

            Your perception of Truth is truth because it’s what you perceive as truth. <– This is circular logic. I can beautifully put this in perspective with an analogy:

            Hillary clinton's words are true because the words come from Hillary Clinton.

            Or if that doesn't suit you, it also works by replacing Hillary Clinton with anything else that contains any information of any kind, or any other person. Anything from [Your perception of truth] to a computer drive, to Trump to a literal book.

            This is illogical.

            "as you say science determines truth ….. and when you are asked to PROVE that ….. you say it is in the science ……."

            Which only is an issue is because you are using a different definition of the word determines. Whereas I intended to use this definition:
            "to find out or come to a decision about by investigation, reasoning, or calculation"
            You've been claiming I am wrong based on this definition:
            "to bring about as a result"

            Which would've been abundently clear had you looked at the entire argument I made out of context, but either way, I clarified it now, I admit I could've been clearer as to which definition of the word "Determines" I was referring to.

            The first definition (Which I intended) is literally what science does, not an affirmed result of science to define science, therefore no circular logic was comitted on my part.

            ". you have absolutely no means of determining that result from science
            is in fact TRUTH ….. because science has no mechanism or process for
            determining truth …….. and yet you are asking for proof of truth
            …. THAT YOU CANNOT PROVIDE …………."

            If I recall I already rebuked this statement a few responses ago which I got no response on, let alone a valid rebuke of the argument I made there, might want to check up on that first before repeating the same claim.

            "YOUR claim and your rejection of truth is that truth needs to be proven
            so your claim is the PROOF is higher than TRUTH …… again …..
            SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM …… or take a hike ……….."

            I still never made this claim. You are still attacking the same strawman rather then the actual argument.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. truth is the truth because it is the truth …. there is no your truth and there is no my truth …… there is the truth …AND …. there is the truth YOU will accept … as you reject truth ………..

          • Railpirate

            “…. truth is the truth because it is the truth …. there is no your truth and there is no my truth …… there is the truth”

            I never argued this. Truth isn’t relative to one person, that is completely correct. Mind responding to the actual arguments I am making instead of making up random arguments and claiming I said things I didn’t?

            ” there is the truth …AND …. there is the truth YOU will accept … as you reject truth ………..”
            No, I reject any claim of truth without proof as you can’t claim something is true without proof. A really simple, small scale anaology on this is: I can claim to know that if I flip a coin I’ll get tails first, but I won’t know for sure, because there is no way for me to proof that outcome would occure. It doesn’t work as you can see.

            In order to KNOW what truth is, you need proof, otherwise you can’t KNOW, You’d be believing, Estimating or Hoping for example.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “In order to KNOW what truth is, you need proof,”

            IS THAT STATEMENT TRUE …..

            as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” and “No, I reject any claim of truth without proof as you can’t claim something is true without proof” …… so WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE to prove that statement is true …………

          • Railpirate

            “…… so WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE to prove that statement is true …………”

            You are asking me to proof the default option, which is kind of odd, but okay then.

            There is a cat currently in my birdhouse in my garden.
            Is this statement true? You can’t know. I didn’t provide proof for the statement.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “As you can see, this isn’t functional logic that can be applied.”

            it is not circular logic because all of your examples are just self defeating contradiction ….. FAIL …….

          • Railpirate

            Yes, Exactly, Circular logic is a self defeating contradiction, that’s why I made an analogy where the subject could be replaced with your perception of logic, to show your own argument doesn’t work.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. but just because one is does not mean it is the other ……. circular logic is not necessarily self defeating ….. and you have no science to prove your statement about it …. so it is not truth … IN YOUR worldview at least …… BTW …. you do not get to use “logical fallacies” ….. because as you have said “That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” … so all your statements about them existing ….. DO NOT EXIST ….. as you have no SCIENCE to prove them ………

          • Railpirate

            “circular logic is not necessarily self defeating”

            That’s correct, but I am talking about a Circular Logic Fallacy (That is quite honestly a mistake in wording on my part, My apologies.)

            “and you have no science to prove your statement about it …. so it is not truth … IN YOUR worldview at least ……”

            This statement doesn’t make sense. I said Science is our current understanding of truth by the scientific method, since when is that exclusionary? I didn’t say it was THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY (Heck, I even SPECIFICALLY adressed there might be more accurate ways to determine what is true that we don’t know off yet.) to determine the truth of something. It also relies on the implication you made (not me, I even rebuked the implication already) that Science is the only method to determine anything. General Observation, Logic, Maths and other methods can, depending on the case also be used. In this case we are in a logic argument, so the “rules” (Or much rather, the functionality of) logic applies.

            At this point, you’ve also in addition to making a misrepresentation error in my argument, Selectively ignoring argumentation, Mixing multiple topics from different conversations in without context, making a few dozen red herring fallacies, Consistant Burden of Proof issues, you also made an Ad Hoc Rescue fallacy repeatedly, which is an attempt to justify your own position by trying to repeatedly shoot down another persons counter arguments without adressing the issues in your own statement.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Your argument requires on the pre-existing assumption of truth,”

            ummm ….. DUH ….. Truth PROCEEDS EVERYTHING …… why has it taken you so long to catch on to that FACT …………

          • Railpirate

            You conveniently left out:
            “Pre-existing *assumption* of”

            The issue isn’t truth itself, it’s your pre-existing assumption on it, where the circular logic is occuring, because you claim your pre-existing assumption of truth is truth based on your pre-existing assumption of truth, as I literally just explained last comment.

            All you’ve done now is make a strawman fallacie and attacked that, by leaving out part of the argument I made.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. the ASSUMPTION you are making is that SCIENCE is a PREREQUISTE to the truth ……… and this is very simple …..

            IS THAT TRUE ……… and if the answer is YES ….. and for you it WOULD HAVE TO BE …… bexause that is what you are arguing …. then ….. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT ……

            you do not have it ….. because science does not prove the truth ……….because science cannot determine the truth …… SIMPLE ………

          • Railpirate

            Aaaand you’ve ignored literaly the entire rebuke of your logic, answer please.

            Further to adress your post, you are just repeating what you already claimed and I already dismissed, rebuked or things I simply never said.

            “NOPE ….. the ASSUMPTION you are making is that SCIENCE is a PREREQUISTE to the truth ……… and this is very simple …..”

            Nope, I never made that claim at all.

            “IS THAT TRUE ……… and if the answer is YES ….. and for you it
            WOULD HAVE TO BE …… because that is what you are arguing …. then
            ….. WHERE IS THE SCIENCE TO PROVE THAT ……”

            Nope, that is not what I argued at all.

            “you do not have it ….. because science does not prove the truth
            ……….because science cannot determine the truth …… SIMPLE
            ………”

            I’ve already explained to you how that is technically correct but misleading and in no way actually in support of your argument. (Which you’ve conveniently ignored.)

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” because you claim your pre-existing assumption of truth is truth based on your pre-existing assumption of truth”

            FIRST …… it is not an “assumption” …… SECOND ……. is that true ….. where is your scientific study that proves that assertion that it is “assumed” …. because as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” ……

          • Railpirate

            “FIRST …… it is not an “assumption” ……”

            Assumption definition: “an assuming that something is true without imperical evidence.”

            You did not give imperical evidence for your argument that what you view as true is actually true, therefor it constitutes to the definition of assumption until you proof so otherwise, which is a burden of proof fallacy,- If there was no burden of proof here there would be no circular logic, because then the proof for the fact would already be presented outside of that circle as well.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. not an assumption….. but more importantly …. YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE to prove the TRUTH of that statement of it being an assumption …. because as you said …”That means science is our current understanding of truth by study via the scientific method” …… and you have YET to provide ANY SCIENCE they that is true ………..

          • Railpirate

            I’ve already repeatedly shot down the argument you made against me based on what I said about science.

            The only thing left here for me to respond to is that what you said is not an assumption: Whether you made an assumption or not isn’t actually relevant, The issue is that the argument itself is an assumption, because there is no way to logically follow the argument without making assumptions due to a begging the question fallacy.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Science can’t use science to confirm science? That seems to me to be nothing but talking in circles. What better way to do you suppose there is to find out how things in the universe work and operate, other than observation and experimentation?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Science can’t use science to confirm science? That seems to me to be nothing but talking in circles. ”

            then …. YOU SHOULD STOP DOING THAT ….. because that is what you are arguing ……… you have absolutely no means of determining that result from science is in fact TRUTH ….. because science has no mechanism or process for determining truth ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Then I will ask you basically the same question I already asked you, but you never answered: What is a better “mechanism or process for determining truth”? What is the “mechanism or process” you use, then?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            man has no ability to determine the truth outside of God …… God has revealed the truth …… anything outside of that revealed truth is false and a lie ……….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            OK….so “God’s revealed truth” is the Bible, right? How do you know that to be truth?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well for one ….. scripture describes that statement you just made about “has God really said” ….. and all the unbelievers like yourself …. continue to say it …….. and that happened in Genesis 3 …… that is like right at the beginning ….. and you all cant come up with a better attack ……… scripture is self authenticating and its truth is self evident ….. even if you do not get it …. not my problem ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is self authenticating and self evident ………… other books contradict scripture in significant ways ….. diametrically opposed ideas cannot both be true ….. so if you cannot figure it out from there …. again … YOUR problem …. not mine ………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “Self-authenticating”? Really? You’re telling me the Bible proves itself??

            Suuuure, and that’s not circular reasoning at all…….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well … lets see ….. Isaac Newton wrote a book on Calculus ….. and the PROOF WAS IN THE BOOK ….. so i guess we can throw out calculus ….. lots of text books contain proof of what they say is true ……… and you have not proven circular reasoning to be invalid by that argument ………….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Leibniz developed calculus independently at the same time as Newton, and countless people have used calculus since. So that analogy doesn’t really work.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Leibniz was proven wrong by Newton and your little history lesson does not refute what i said ….. nor does it prove your point about circular logic ….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Leibniz aside, the point remains that there is plenty of proof that calculus works besides what Newton wrote himself.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … BUT THAT WAS NOT YOUR POINT ….. your point was a book cannot contain proof of itself ….. and it clearly DOES ……….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I suppose the next question is obvious: Just what is this proof of the Bible being true that is in the Bible itself?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well you would have to first READ the bible …. and my guess is you aint up to it ……… to answer that would be a bible study ….. and i do not do bible studies with unbelievers ………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Nice non-answer.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            God has made historic promises in scripture and they have been kept …. that is external to what scripture says ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            OK, so you do believe there is evidence outside of the Bible. Fair enough, I thought you were trying to say the Bible was the only evidence.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            if YOUR science changes …… then it AINT SCIENCE ….. it is FALSE SCIENCE

            Do you even realize that by that standard, virtually everything would be considered “false science”? Gravity, for one example. Newton formulated the law of universal gravitation. His law still works for most things, but some observations were eventually made where it didn’t, and later Einstein’s general relativity explained that. So, I guess according to what you said, both the law of universal gravitation and relativity are “false science”?

            The thing is, though, you can’t even call Newton’s law “false science” really. For one thing, science never says our understanding of gravity or whatever else it is dealing with is final and complete, just that it’s our best understanding at the time. And that’s not a bad thing, it’s a good thing.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Sorry …. gravity HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO EXIST …… as a physical substance ….. or as energy …… IT IS INVISIBLE ……….. now …. we can observe the EFFECTS of gravity …… but its ACTUAL EXISTENCE has never been proven …… but if you can provide a cup of gravity …. i need some for a recipe i am working on ….. AGAIN …. i am not disputing gravity and its EFFECTS …… but its EXISTENCE has yet to be proven ……….

            FYI ….. if there is a law …. then there is a LAW GIVER …… and that AINT NEWTON ……….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I just…..I can’t even……what?????

            Of course gravity has not been “shown to exist as a physical substance”, because it is not one and I’m not aware of anyone that has ever said it is. Gravity is a force. Forces exist. If you can “observe the effects” of a force, it exists. If you’re “not disputing gravity” how can you say it doesn’t exist? The electromagnetic force isn’t a physical substance either, but it definitely exists. If it didn’t, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, after all, since there’d be no electricity. Now, I do understand there is a hypothesized but as yet undiscovered particle called the graviton that is believed to cause gravity….but those still wouldn’t actually be gravity, if you see what I mean.

            Anyway, the state of gravity’s existence is really beside the point. I could have made the same point about (like I said before) just about anything in science. Our understanding of medicine and medical treatment has changed and improved greatly over history; so I guess by your logic, medicine is “false science”? It seemed like that was what you were implying; if it wasn’t, then how am I misunderstanding you?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … and i do not dispute that … BUT IT HAS NO PHYSICAL EXISTENCE and you cannot prove it exists ….. its EFFECTS can be demonstrated ….. but that is not proof of a physical existence …. no one has found any MONOPOLES as yet …. and they are looking ……

          • Lily Of The Valley

            As I have tried to say, that’s actually all beside my point.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I believe a while ago someone accused you, or you accused someone, or maybe it was both, of throwing out a “red herring” into the conversation. Somehow, that phrase comes to my mind at the moment…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YOU brought up GRAVITY … not me …….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            And then you went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the point I was making.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. YOU brought up gravity ….. but it is a good point ….. for a person who does not believe in God ….. because they say there is no “evidence” …. of a physical or other nature …. but says they believe gravity exists ….. when there is no evidence of a physical or other nature ….. but the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE ….. of the EFFECTS of either exists …. and you deny one and not the other ….. when actually god created gravity ….. your position is VERY WEAK when you decide to bring it up ………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Oh, wait a minute….you were just saying all that nonsense about it not existing not because that’s what you actually thought, but just to make a point about not believing in God????

            Again….that’s not even what I was talking about, or the point I was trying to make AT ALL. I’m talking about how scientific knowledge changes and how that doesn’t make it “false science” like you seem to think.

            But anyway, I don’t even think that’s a good point you’re making. Saying a force exists is a little bit of a simpler proposition than saying a God exists that is described in a very particular way and did this, that, and the other very certain things, isn’t it?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right … but this is a CHRISTIAN forum discussing things of interest to CHRISTIANS …. like Christ and the gospel …. and that IS what we talk about here ….. so thank you for the segue to the GOSPEL …… i like it when people make it easy ……….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Well, science should be as much “of interest to Christians” as it is to anyone else.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. but just because a scientist says something does not make it science …… or just because someone CLAIMS it to be science does not make it science …………. christians have absolutely nothing to fear from science ………. GOD created science … not men ……. men just LIE about what science is … and what the data means ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            but just because a scientist says something does not make it science …… or just because someone CLAIMS it to be science does not make it science

            I never said those things.

            christians have absolutely nothing to fear from science

            Sure, as long as you either just willfully ignore the science the flatly contradicts parts of the Bible, or take those parts to be allegorical.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” as long as you either just willfully ignore the science the flatly contradicts parts of the Bible”

            there is no such thing ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Wed 24 Aug 2016 04.53 EDT
            Syphilis is on the rise when it should be confined to history
            Verity Sullivan
            Infections among men who have sex with men have soared by 232% in five years in London, as sex with multiple partners combines with devastating service cuts

            As the old saying goes, “Laughter is the best medicine. Unless you have syphilis in which case penicillin is the best choice”. The disease, caused by the bacterium Treponema Pallidum and passed on through unprotected oral, vaginal and anal sex, has affected the famous through the ages (Al Capone and, reportedly, , to name just two).

            But syphilis is in no way confined to big names, nor is it a sexually transmitted infection (STI) of the past. The 2016 has shown that infection rates are on the up, with disproportionate rates in London. In 2015, the capital accounted for 56% of all cases in England, with a 22% increase in diagnoses in the year 2014-15. Since 2010 the number of cases of syphilis in Londoners has increased by 163%, with a 22% increase in the year from 2014 to 2015. The borough of Lambeth has the highest rates, closely followed by the City of London and Southwark.

            Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015, with a 232% increase in diagnosis over the last five years, said the report. More than half of the MSM diagnosed with syphilis in 2015 were also infected with HIV, and over half additionally tested positive for a separate STI. Rates in heterosexuals remain stable but are higher than ideal.

            It’s 2016. Safe sex campaigns and targeted prevention efforts are in place. Sexual health care is free and accessible to both high and low risk groups. So what is going on?

            The basic science can’t be sugar coated. More condomless sex leads to higher rates of syphilis, (and gonorrhoea, chlamydia, HIV … the list goes on). Untreated syphilis means the disease continues to be passed on and leads to potentially horrifying long-term medical complications. Action is needed now to address the reasons behind these patterns, particularly in MSM, the group most affected.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            “Most Gay Couples Aren’t Monogamous”? That’s Not Dirty, a Secret, or True.

            By Nathaniel Frank

          • Bob Johnson

            And in heterosexual marriages 60 percent of men and over 45 precent of women cheat. So Secret Two: Most couples aren’t monogamous.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and that changes WHAT EXACTLY …… NOT A THING ……….. but to assert there is some “monogamous” homosexual couple somewhere in the US … or any elseplace …… IRRELEVANT …….. and NOT what was being discussed ………….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            How does that story support either what you’re saying, or even what the headlines say? It’s the story of one couple. So what? There are heterosexual couples who have open marriages too, you know that, right?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            there are THREE articles listed …. learn to parse …………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Yeah, I said “what the headlineS say”, after all. You gave three headlines, and one story that didn’t really support what they said.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I’m afraid I’m not following your logic at all there. I’ve never heard any definition of love that included “not risking health.”

            So….is it not love if a man and a woman, heck, let’s even make it a married couple…engage in sexual practices that could be risky, and/or are “unnatural”? (I guess anything besides the act that produces children – trying to keep it clean here! – could be considered unnatural, right?) How does that disqualify their relationship as love?

          • bowie1

            I’m referring to those between two men or two women or with a beast or a child. It can lead to serious health consequences but the same can be said for heterosexuals who “sleep around” with multiple partners with the risk of getting STD’s. One man, one woman in holy matrimony is the only way to go.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You really didn’t answer my questions at all.

          • Bob Johnson

            Somebody should have told Abraham.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            love does NO HARM …… and what these people do to each other causes harm …. to both of them …..

          • Railpirate

            Amos: False Equivecation Fallacy.

            Equivecating love between two humans, with both Sexual and romantic attractions and further acts performed by some people belonging to the specific groups at hand.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are your side are the ones making the FALSE EQUIVOCATION …… so STOP IT …… you are trying to use a EUPHEMISM for love for ACTS OF DEPRAVITY …… and that is NOT love ….. it is NARCISSISM ………..

          • Railpirate

            Considdering I didn’t use any Euphamisms I don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

            Considdering I didn’t mention the word “Narcissism” in my comment I don’t have a clue hwat you are responding to.

            all I did was point out a demonstratable false equivecation fallacy in the core logic you provided.

            And Lastly, I don’t pick sides, I pick the side which has valid evidence supporting it, my main concern is people falsifying evidence or logic to get their way or win an argument, which I don’t like from either side of the fence. If you noticed: I didn’t really add any subjective opinions in my post in most places, which was rather intentional, as that’s not why I am here.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Would you say that about pedophiles?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            We don’t allow children to be sexually abused whether or not it is an orientation on the part of the pedophile. Children can’t consent though so it’s apples and oranges you are comparing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            But what if pedophiles were “born that way”? Who are you to judge? (Going by your logic, or lack thereof).

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            We don’t care, we protect the innocent at all costs.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’ve just made a moral judgment on the matter. What makes your moral judgment more superior than the moral judgment of the God of all Creation who rules that homosexuality is an abomination?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Because if I saw a child being raped, I would do something to stop it, and your God wouldn’t. That’s the difference between me and your God and your religion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How do you know what God has and hasn’t done?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That fact that a single child rape occurs at all tells me pretty much all I need to know.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Do you always blame God for other people’s actions? Nice way to escape your own responsibility.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, I simply answered your question.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t answer that one.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It was the response the question deserved.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Another non-answer. I get it. You got nothing.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Very deserving of the question.

          • Railpirate

            By random chance. Eventually. Yes. 😛

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Not a very good scenario to set your smite skills to autopilot then…

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            narcissism is not about love ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And none of this is about narcissism.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it most certainly is …. homosexual and transgenderism is only about nacissism ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, homosexuality is about loving another person of the same sex, and transgenderism is about believing yourself to be the opposite gender from what you are.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. another lie …… it is NARCISSISM ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Since narcissism is about self-love and self adoration, please tell me why you think I’m lying, and why you think you know what the word “narcissism” means when you’re using it in completely the wrong way.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            love does no harm to another …… narcissism does harm to self AND to others …… by its very nature ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I still have no idea how you get narcissism out of any of this.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            love does no harm to another …..pure and simple ….. EVERYTHING the homosexual does causes harm …. to THEMSELVES ….. to their “PARTNERS” …… to their FAMILIES ….. and to SOCIETY in general …… so … NOT LOVE as you are trying to use it ….. it is SELF DESTRUCTIVE SELF LOVE …… it is NARCISSISM ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Utterly wrong. It harms nobody.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it DOES ….. from ALL CAUSES ……….

            Obituraries numbering 6516 from 16 US homosexual journals over 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity, the median age of death of married men was 75, 80% of them died old, 65 or older. For unmarried or divorced men the median age of death was 57 and 32% of them died old.

            Married women averaged age 79 at death, 85% died old, and unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.

            However, the median age of death for homosexuals was virtually the same nationwide, and overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39 years old. For the 829 homosexuals who died of something else BESIDES AIDS, the median age was 42 years of age, and 9% died old. Of 163 lesbians, the median age was 44 years of age, and 20% died old. 2.8% of homosexuals died violently and they were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more apt to commit suicide, and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times greater than comparably aged white males. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident, a rate 487 times greater than that of white females aged 25 to 44.

            so YOU are UTTTERLY WRONG …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And what year is this report from? 1988, when AIDS was rampant and no one took precautions?

            Also I don’t know what you think you’re proving by taking a bunch of random statistics. If you poll a bunch of promiscuous homosexuals who don’t use protection, of course you’re going to get some ugly results. But if you poll a bunch of monogamous homosexuals, you’ll get a completely different figure. Not one story you’ve provided makes that distinction.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR does not change based on the YEAR ….. it is ALWAYS HIGH RISK ….. and it ALWAYS causes PREMATURE DEATH ……… and you are proven to be a LIAR again …

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And not everyone engages in high risk behavior. Your name calling changes nothing. You still fail at understanding.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            being and acting as a homosexual IS HIGH RISK ….. there is NO SAFE LEVEL ….. and the fact is it leads to a plethora of OTHER HIGH RISK acts ……….. leading to greater accidental death and other causes ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That is WRONG. Unsafe, unprotected sex is what causes disease. That goes for straight people too. Monogamous couples, gay and straight alike, are safe.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again ….. EVIDENCE ….. not your opinion …… EVIDENCE ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Show me evidence of an STD showing up between any two people you like who do not stray from their relationship. I will wait.

          • Railpirate

            Considdering you listed self-report studies rather then nationally
            available statistics from the US Cencus Bureau and FBI let’s correct
            some things here from both of you, also listing some fallacies:

            – “narcissism is not about love ………” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE: Burden of Proof Fallacy, no proof provided that gay peoples love for eachother is narcissism.

            – “love does no harm to another …… narcissism does harm to self AND to others …… by its very nature ……..” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            False Equivecation Fallacy, Just because Narcissism does harm to self
            and others, doesn’t mean any situation that does harm to self and others
            is narcissism, which would be required to make your argument work. By
            Equating the two that way you are additionally comitting a jumping to
            conclusions fallacy.

            – “all human bodies were at one time STD free ….. and IT SHOWED UP …..
            and it is still here …. and it aint going away ….. and you are a
            LIAR again ” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Jumping to Conclusions Fallacy, Argument would rely on conclusion these
            diseases are CAUSED by sexual intercourse, which isn’t the case. For
            instance HIV came into existence when a simmian flu virus jumped species
            when people ate ape meat.

            – “HIGH RISK behavior leads to it being a major cause of death ….. “And
            where does it say that all gay and bisexual men have those diseases?”
            …… no such claim was made by me ….. RED HERRING ………..” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Ironious Red Herring, as if you never made the claim, you didn’t make
            the claim needed to support your argument to begin with, meaning what
            you did as as much a red herring as the person you claim is making a red
            herring.

            – “Earlier this month, Poz magazine’s Benjamin Ryan drew attention to a
            concerning new study out of Northern California’s health system: … (Continues)” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Contains many issues, starting that the conclusion of the mentioned
            research was ignored, which is that people used less other safety
            precautions due to PREP being used, naturally resulting in sudden spikes
            of transmissions of such diseases, which can only have one cause:
            People did not have enough information on PREP to know, or despite
            access to information did not know or realise. That’s lack of
            information and/or understanding of a concept, not anything that’d
            support your argument. In addition to that you specifically highlight
            anti-biotic resistant strains, which don’t have much to do with gay
            people to begin with, a strain doesn’t magically mutate because it’s in a
            gay person, it mutates when coming in contact with the drugs to cure
            it. – Given the rest of your story relies on flawed reasoning of cause I
            just pointed out, this argument is invalid due to an unsupported
            argument fallacy.

            – “it DOES NOT HAVE TO ……….. if you want to play russian roulette on
            that level ….. the consequences are known ……… and that is what
            HIGH RISK BEHAVIOUR of HOMOSEXUALITY leads you to do ……….” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Can be applied on any risky situation, also as spread of disease is
            part of the argument it’s counter, methods to stop spread also are
            included but ignored in the argument. With proper protections, check-ups
            and medication (if affected or with affected partner), general
            understanding of disease spread and a serious effort to not have a lot
            of sex partners in a short time (All things which apply as much for
            straight people as gay people), Spread of STD’s is pretty much avoidable
            by stealth within 2 or 3 generations. As your argument can’t account
            for the avoidability factor, even if it isn’t currently applicable in
            real life, that basically invalidates that part of the argument, as it
            relies on a static factor of increased (long term-issue) risk.

            – ” “believe two monogamous gay people” MYTH …………..” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Burden of Proof fallacie on proving gay people can’t be monogamous
            and/or that they are less so then straight people. (Sidenote: Dutch
            Bureau of Statistics tested this and compiled statistics and found less
            then 4% difference in the avarage amount of sexual partners and less
            then 5% difference in the amount of people who are or aren’t monogomous
            between gay and straight people, actually with the slant that straight
            people are less monogomous. This data doesn’t HAVE to carry over to the
            US as well, but I did think it was a fun fact to add.)

            – “NOPE ….. PEER REVIEWED …….. GOLD STANDARD” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Won’t change that you used outdated data to make a point which has
            changed overtime, making your evidence invalid to the argument.

            – “Increasing rates of all STDs among “gay” men in San Francisco” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Local rates may fluctuate, but you used San Fransisco data here, while
            national rates are dropping slowly. Using data extremities which exist
            for one reason or another doesn’t help you support your argument.
            (Source: CDC)

            – “it DOES ….. from ALL CAUSES ……….” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Argument doesn’t support itself, Lower Median Age does not confirm that
            all death causes cause higher mortality in gay people. (Causality is
            lacking)

            – “epithet ….. no evidence …. name calling …. NOT A REFUTATION ……..” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            I’ll provide you with evidence, Check the FBI’s statistics on hate
            crime. Rhesus Admittedly used data from a few years ago, but it’s still
            an extreme amount more likely for gay people to be killed for being gay
            then the general homocide rate.

            “being and acting as a homosexual IS HIGH RISK ….. there is NO SAFE
            LEVEL ….. and the fact is it leads to a plethora of OTHER HIGH RISK
            acts ……….. leading to greater accidental death and other causes
            ……….” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE: High risk in this context means
            high risk of transmission if STD is present, It’s also high risk to have
            unprotected oral sex as a straight person. – However, Proper protection
            and testing can eliminate risk. I can also give an analogy for this: If
            theres a 1/4 death rate due to being crushed by elevators due to a lack
            of knowledge on how to avoid being crushed by said elevator, and a lack
            of tools to avoid it, if that knowledge and those tools are present
            taking the elevator wouldn’t carry the high risk at that point anymore.
            You’d
            be required on Burden of Proof to privde argumentation why this
            wouldn’t be the case here. (Which you repeatedly haven’t while making
            similar arguments in other discussions, I’d like to point out.)

            – “That is WRONG. Unsafe, unprotected sex is what causes disease. That
            goes for straight people too. Monogamous couples, gay and straight
            alike, are safe.” (By Rhesus)

            RESPONSE: Unprotected sex causes
            the spread of the disease, it doesn’t cause the disease to exist
            (Misdefinition error). (Further doesn’t hurt argument)

            – “again ….. EVIDENCE ….. not your opinion …… EVIDENCE ………….” (By Amos)

            RESPONSE:
            Making a request to proof the negative fallacy. Your own argument
            doesn’t support safety measures can’t avoid the high risk, yet you are
            requesting evidence against it.

            Amos: You might want to work on your argument quality, repeatedly having failures in Causality between the arguments, requesting to proof negatives and repeated jumping to conclusions don’t help you make a valid argument.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Sorry, I meant to say “Unsafe, unprotected sex is what leads to disease”, not what causes it. I appreciate you breaking things down.

          • Railpirate

            No problem.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I would like to see Amos respond to the things you’ve said, but he likely won’t read this since you replied to me. I hope you get a chance to address these to him directly.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they do STRAY ….. that is why it happens …. and your position is a myth ….. and just because some here and there doge a bullet …… DOES NOT PROVE your assertion …….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And that is just your opinion. You want to think all gay men stray, so you do, and you don’t bother to look for evidence to prove it.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “2.8% of homosexuals died violently and they were 116 times more apt to be murdered, 24 times more apt to commit suicide…”

            Probably because of people like you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            epithet ….. no evidence …. name calling …. NOT A REFUTATION ……..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            It’s not a refutation because I wasn’t trying to refute it, and I didn’t call you any names, either. Do you not think that at least a big part of the reason behind statistics like that are discrimination, hate crimes, and such?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “It’s not a refutation because I wasn’t trying to refute it” …… so a waste of time calling names …………. “and I didn’t call you any names” …. you made lying assertions about anothers acts ….. NAME CALLING ………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I wasn’t trying to refute that homosexuals have higher rates of murder and suicide and such….but for something like that, you have to consider why that is, don’t you?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            DEPRAVITY and a propensity for HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR ….. is why that is …..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Why are you so sure that it isn’t due to the kind of things I was talking about? I mean, whether you think it’s a good thing or not, it’s pretty obvious that that kind of thing has been going on. LGBT people have been one of the most discriminated-against groups of people there are. And there’s been violence directed at LGBT people just for being who are they are. Or are you going to try to tell me something like “they brought it all on themselves,” is that it?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the only thing measured was ….. when they died (at what age) … and if they were homosexual or NOT …… and that shows that for ALL CAUSES …. INCLUDING ACCIDENTAL DEATH …… they die at premature rates …….. “LGBT people have been one of the most discriminated-against groups of people there are” … because they routinely take part in HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR and they do not care about the risks ………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “the only thing measured was ….. when they died (at what age)”

            No, the part I quoted specifically mentioned suicide and murder rates being higher. And your last sentence doesn’t make any sense. LGBT people are discriminated against because their behavior is risky? Suuuuuure. (sarcasm, in case you can’t tell) But anyway…even if that is the case…are you going to tell me that that’s okay?? For them to be discriminated against, have hatred and violence directed at them because of that? That makes it okay?

            Though, now that I think about it, you were also the one who seemed to think bullying in schools was just fine and dandy, so what should I expect….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Not a single one of these articles you present addresses the fact that there are many homosexual men and women who would never dream of cheating on their spouses, and as such are at no risk for disease.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” addresses the fact that there are many homosexual men and women who would never dream of cheating on their spouses”

            So i see no statistics from you to bolster your OPINION ……. that the FACTS stated have nothing to do with whether they do or not …… so that is a STRAWMAN argument ………..

            and your statement says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it NOT BEING a HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR that leads to their premature death ……….. death in the statistic show they DIE AT GREATER PREMATURE RATES ……. from ALL CAUSES ACROSS THE BOARD ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It isn’t my opinion that there are monogamous gay and lesbian couples, Amos. It’s a fact. If you’d like to prove that all of them will cheat, present your evidence.

            Also, you are incorrect about what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent the position of your opponent, which I have not done.

            High risk sexual behaviors lead to death, no one’s arguing that. But, as you’ve been told over and over, and not just by me, when a couple, GAY OR STRAIGHT, practices a committed monogamy, they are not at any health risks at all. Being gay is not in and of itself dangerous, and you keep insisting that it is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Also, you are incorrect about what a strawman argument is. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent the position of your opponent, which I have not done.”

            yes you have ……….

            “High risk sexual behaviors lead to death, no one’s arguing that. ”

            that is my argument ….. so thats a lie ………

            “But, as you’ve been told over and over, and not just by me, ”

            you do not get to dictate the terms of the debate …………

            “Being gay is not in and of itself dangerous, and you keep insisting that it is.”

            then WHY do they DIE at least 10-20 years sooner than their heterosexual counterparts ….. when the ONLY difference is the sex of the person they are doing it too ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            “That is my argument”. In other words I haven’t misrepresented it, so it’s not a strawman.

            “then WHY do they DIE at least 10-20 years sooner than their heterosexual
            counterparts ….. when the ONLY difference is the sex of the person
            they are doing it too ……….”

            Because they don’t die 10-20 years sooner. Maybe the swingers and bed hoppers and ones who don’t take precautions and are not in committed relationships die sooner. NO ONE’S arguing that. What I take issue with is the fact that you continue to pretend that there’s no such thing as a monogamous committed gay or lesbian person, and I happen to know several.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “”That is my argument”. In other words I haven’t misrepresented it, so it’s not a strawman.”

            that was not the strawman argument …….. so YES YOU DID ……

            “Because they don’t die 10-20 years sooner.”

            the 2010 CANADIAN study says THEY DO ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Modelling the impact of HIV disease on mortality in gay and bisexual men.
            R S Hogg S A Strathdee K J Craib M V O’Shaughnessy J S Montaner M T Schechter
            International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 26, Issue 3, 1 June 1997, Pages 657–661,

            OBJECTIVE: To assess how HIV infection and AIDS (HIV/AIDS) impacts on mortality rates for gay and bisexual men. METHODS: Vital statistics data were obtained for a large Canadian urban centre from 1987 to 1992. Three scenarios were utilized with assumed proportions of gay and bisexual men of 3%, 6% and 9% among the male population age 20 years. For each scenario, non-HIV deaths were distributed according to the assumed proportion of the total population (3%, 6% or 9%) but 95% of HIV deaths were distributed to gay and bisexual men as this is the proportion of AIDS cases in gay and bisexual men in this centre. The main outcome measures of interest were age-specific patterns of death, life expectancy and life expectancy lost due to HIV/AIDS at exact age 20 years, and the probability of living from age 20 to 65 years. RESULTS: Estimates of the mid-period gay and bisexual population ranged from 5406 to 16,219 for the three scenarios, and total deaths in these men from 953 to 1703. Age-specific mortality was significantly higher for gay and bisexual men than all men aged 30-44. Life expectancy at age 20 for gay and bisexual men ranged from 34.0 years to 46.3 years for the 3% and 9% scenarios respectively. These were all lower than the 54.3 year life expectancy at age 20 for all men. The probability of living from age 20 to 65 years for gay and bisexual men ranged from 32% for the 3% scenario, to 59% for the 9% scenario. These figures were considerably lower than for all men where the probability of living from 20 to 65 was 78%. CONCLUSION: In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, when you want to start talking about HIV you’re going to have to do better than provide something 21 years old.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE ….. PEER REVIEWED …….. GOLD STANDARD ……. according TO YOU ……….. SCIENCE …. so now you want to say that SCIENCE IS NOT the GOLD STANDARD …… and you continue to FLEE from a standard that YOU PROMOTED …… and you are AGAIN proven to be a LIAR ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Peer reviewed, gold standard and no longer relevant, Amos. Treatments change and outcomes change because science improves. Stop providing ancient data and stop your childish name calling.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Increasing rates of all STDs among “gay” men in San Francisco

            According to the “Sexually Transmitted Disease Annual Summary,” for 2014 published by the San Francisco Department of Public Health: “Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men have the highest prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and early syphilis. Prevalence of STDs among gay and bisexual male patients and transgender patients was higher than prevalences among women and other male patients. Gay and bisexual male patients had a gonorrhea prevalence of 11.2 percent compared with 1.6 percent for women and 3.7 for other men.”

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            taking part in HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR leads to a HIGH RISK OF PREMATURE DEATH ……

            does not get any simpler than that …… EVERYTHING the homosexual does in a relationship is HIGH RISK ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            If two human bodies are STD-free, an STD isn’t magically going to show up, you’ve already been told that. If your partner is risk free and tested, regardless of their orientation, there’s no danger.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “If two human bodies are STD-free, an STD isn’t magically going to show up”

            all human bodies were at one time STD free ….. and IT SHOWED UP ….. and it is still here …. and it aint going away ….. and you are a LIAR again ……

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Wait a minute….do you actually believe two monogamous gay people will have an STD “show up”? Since you just called Rhesus a liar, and that was one of the things he said (correctly) that does not happen….

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “believe two monogamous gay people”

            MYTH …………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            It’s only a myth in your head.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is only a myth because the LGBT ACKNOWLEDGE that it is not real ……. and it is at best MONOGAMISH …… cheating with permission …..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            There is no acknowledgement from the LGBT community that monogamy does not occur among them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            The Advocate is the source for this ………… so YES they do ……….

            For centuries, heterosexual people have defined what marriage is. It started out as a type of possession: “I own you.” Hardly anchored in love, was it? And yet, this is the model that most of the human race has embraced for hundreds of years. Only in the last century or so has marriage begun to be based on love, mutual respect and understanding.

            As two men considering getting married, we no longer have to do it “that” way. This is a cause for rejoicing! This is real freedom! So why aren’t we more excited about this? Because this kind of freedom isn’t easy. It’s quite daunting to invent or re-invent a cultural institution that’s been around longer than anyone alive can remember. It’s so much easier to just follow what straight people have been doing and — maybe — modify it a little bit, tweak it just a tad.

            This is certainly an option. But, given the power of our community to create and invent our own norms and institutions, why would we settle for that?

            Marriage between two men is — in my experience as a psychotherapist — dramatically different than heterosexual marriage. It’s a double testosterone marriage. With all that testosterone, sex is probably going to be handled quite differently for us than for some straight couples or even for some lesbian couples.

            Let’s be clear, I’m not saying that we are helpless victims of our libidos. Instead, we can be intelligent, aware creators of a new kind of marriage that acknowledges that two men together have unique gifts (and challenges) that other kinds of couples don’t. Be prepared to rethink everything you’ve been told about marriage. The bottom line here is: Finally. we get to do it our way.

            Many of our relationships start off monogamous. However, because sex is so important to a lot of us, it is my experience that about half of our relationships — over time — are not 100% monogamous. Whether married or not, many gay relationships begin to “open up” after the first few years. In the book, we’ll follow two couples as they explore how to handle the desire for sex outside their marriages.

            Many gay couples do want monogamy. But these couples often find themselves smack in the center of a community that only pays lip service to it. These couples want to be faithful to each other, but their community encourages them (both overtly and covertly) not to. Readily available sex doesn’t make monogamy very easy.

            I’ve had clients tell me that, shortly after they got married, their friends began to ask them questions like, “So, are you really going to be faithful to (husband’s name)?” and “Everyone starts out monogamous at the beginning, but how do you pull that off when everyone around you wants to have sex with you?”

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            An op-ed piece is proof? Really? And anyway, this article doesn’t say it’s impossible for gay people to be monogamous.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a LGBT SOURCE written by a person in tune with his “group” ……. you can take it up with them …. but at any rate … IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED ………. and i did not say it was “impossible” …. another of your stawman arguments …… i said it is a myth ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, is there a special “Biblical definition” of myth? Because I know many monogamous gay and lesbian couples and none are at risk of disease because they’re not sleeping around. Here you are telling me it’s a myth when my own experience disproves that right off the bat.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Well, is there a special “Biblical definition” of myth?”

            yeah ….. the myth that there is no God ….. is IDOLATRY ……..

            “Here you are telling me it’s a myth when my own experience disproves that right off the bat.”

            your experience is not relevant …. you assume you have been told the truth by whomever ……. no … you were not ……… people tend to try to make themselves look good in the eyes of others ….. all men are liars ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Don’t you know how STDs happen? One person has to have contracted one in the first place, which happens via a third party. They don’t just show up between two committed and faithful people. If you don’t believe me, ask your doctor.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Earlier this month, Poz magazine’s Benjamin Ryan drew attention to a concerning new study out of Northern California’s health system: Using data gathered from July 2012 through June 2015, researchers found that, among a cohort consisting mostly of same-sex–attracted men on the HIV-prevention regimen PrEP, “quarterly rates of rectal gonorrhea and urethral chlamydia increased steadily and about doubled after one year.” In other words, guys on the fantastically effective pill-a-day Truvada program were avoiding HIV infection—there were no new transmissions for regimen-adherent patients over the study period, in fact—but they seemed to be getting other sexually transmitted diseases relatively often. There are a few plausible explanations for the measured increase in this particular community, including the quarterly or at least semi-annual STD battery a PrEP prescription requires (more testing almost certainly means more diagnoses compared with men who infrequently or never get tested), and emerging evidence that many men, emboldened by PrEP, are engaging in more condomless sex. Either way, gay and bi men have reason to be alarmed.

            This news came on the heels of a recent STD Surveillance Report from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention which showed that the total combined cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis reported in the U.S. in 2015 reached record highs. Those most at risk were gay and bisexual men (regardless of their PrEP status), as well as the youth of America: Young adults aged 15 to 24 accounted for half the gonorrhea diagnoses and two-thirds of the chlamydia cases. Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for the majority of new gonorrhea and syphilis cases. And all this while strains of antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea were recently discovered to be on the rise among MSM.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Once again, showing an article that days “majority” or “many” or “most” doesn’t speak for all.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it DOES NOT HAVE TO ……….. if you want to play russian roulette on that level ….. the consequences are known ……… and that is what HIGH RISK BEHAVIOUR of HOMOSEXUALITY leads you to do ……….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That just shows you do not know how to analyze statistics. No one denies there are lots of gay men out there who are engaging in risky behavior. But you judge them all at the same time including those who would never in a million years cheat on their partners. Shame on you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. NOT MY STATISTICS …… all i did was cut and paste a PEER REVIEWED study and some articles …… and you are unable to refute ANY of it ……. and you cant accept the weakness of your own position …… you DESIRE to believe a lie …… and you WANT US TO ACCEPT YOUR LIES because you believe them …. WITHOUT EVIDENCE …… if you have EVIDENCE …… THEN PRESENT IT ………. NOT YOUR OPINION …… EVIDENCE ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You post an article that shows gay men are at greater risk of an STD then want us to believe that it means living a gay lifestyle will put you at risk. That’s wrong, and not what that article said.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            that is what the SCIENCE OF THE RESEARCHERS (plural) that did the study CONCLUDED ………. not my conclusion ….. and you have nothing to show that it has changed in the intervening time ….. and all you are showing here is your decision to IGNORE their findings … and IF …..”The methods and treatments from 1997 are simply not the methods and treatments from today. They changed with time and better knowledge. Both were science.” ….. then you HAVE YET to show EVEN THAT …… and all you have is YOUR ASSERTION …… not any real FACTS on that point ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, they didn’t conclude that there are no monogamous gay couples nor that gay people in a committed monogamous relationship can magically contract an STD. Those are YOUR statements, and you keep presenting articles that don’t make those claims.

            The medications dispensed in the 1980s for HIV are not the same ones we have in 2018. You think that’s my opinion, my assertion? Or is it a simple FACT?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Increasing rates of all STDs among “gay” men in San Francisco

            According to the “Sexually Transmitted Disease Annual Summary,” for 2014 published by the San Francisco Department of Public Health: “Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men have the highest prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and early syphilis. Prevalence of STDs among gay and bisexual male patients and transgender patients was higher than prevalences among women and other male patients. Gay and bisexual male patients had a gonorrhea prevalence of 11.2 percent compared with 1.6 percent for women and 3.7 for other men.”

            sorry …. what were you saying ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And where does it say that all gay and bisexual men have those diseases? Where does it say that no gay couples are safe? It says HIGHEST PREVALENCE. And it’s high because so many gay men are not in monogamous relationships and using protection. What have you prime, Amos? Tell me in your own words what you think you have proven.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            HIGH RISK behavior leads to it being a major cause of death ….. “And where does it say that all gay and bisexual men have those diseases?” …… no such claim was made by me ….. RED HERRING ………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Then why present it? Why present this story?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ummmmm …. because ….. IT SUPPORTS THE TRUTH ………….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You are using that story dishonestly.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            if it is “dishonest” ….. then PROVE IT …… but several recent studies by local departments of health and the CDC …… SHOW that is not so ……… AGAIN …..

            Men who have sex with men (MSM) represented 90% of all syphilis cases in 2015, with a 232% increase in diagnosis over the last five years, said the report. More than half of the MSM diagnosed with syphilis in 2015 were also infected with HIV, and over half additionally tested positive for a separate STI. Rates in heterosexuals remain stable but are higher than ideal.

            It’s 2016. Safe sex campaigns and targeted prevention efforts are in place. Sexual health care is free and accessible to both high and low risk groups. So what is going on?

            The basic science can’t be sugar coated. More condomless sex leads to higher rates of syphilis, (and gonorrhoea, chlamydia, HIV … the list goes on). Untreated syphilis means the disease continues to be passed on and leads to potentially horrifying long-term medical complications. Action is needed now to address the reasons behind these patterns, particularly in MSM, the group most affected.

            NOTE THE facts in BOLD ……

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You keep talking about the men who engage in unsafe sex. Every story you present talks about the men who are NOT the monogamous demographic I am talking about. It’s like I asked you before, what do you think these stories you present mean? Because you’re not addressing the topic at hand. All you’re doing is talking about all the horrible things that happen to men who are promiscuous and not committed to a single partner.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            AGAIN …..

            Increasing rates of all STDs among “gay” men in San Francisco

            According to the “Sexually Transmitted Disease Annual Summary,” for 2014 published by the San Francisco Department of Public Health: “Gay and bisexual men and other men who have sex with men have the highest prevalences of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and early syphilis. Prevalence of STDs among gay and bisexual male patients and transgender patients was higher than prevalences among women and other male patients. Gay and bisexual male patients had a gonorrhea prevalence of 11.2 percent compared with 1.6 percent for women and 3.7 for other men.”

            again …. NOTE THE facts in BOLD …………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            (Yawn) Still absolutely nothing about men in monogamous committed relationships with their partners, you continue to act like all gay men are bed hopping bar hopping swingers. How many more stories are you going to give me that continue to ignore the main issue?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            monogamy is your made up issue …… it does not alter ONE IOTA the FACT that homosexuals DIE AT PREMATURE RATES FOR ALL CAUSES ACROSS THE BOARD ……. and you cannot refute that ……….. and that what you want us to accept is THEIR PREMATURE DEATH ….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Monogamous homosexuals are a demographic you keep trying to pretend don’t exist, but they do. Ever wonder why gay marriage was such an important issue for many of them?

            Homosexuals DON’T die at premature rates for all causes across the board. That is NOT the case for committed monogamous homosexuals. You keep lumping them all in together, and that means you’re lying.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i do not have to pretend ….. homosexuals will freely admit to the number of unique partners over a lifetime ….. and the small number of homosexuals is known …… the math of those numbers disproves your assertions ……….. EVEN IF you could find one person who was monogamous ….. under the currently held scientific idea that if you have had sex with one person …. BY EXTENSION you have had sex with all of their partners ……… CURRENTLY ACCEPTED SCIENCE ……..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, not all homosexuals will “freely” admit to any such thing. Again, you keep working from the standpoint that all gay men are bed hoppers. They’re not. MANY of them will admit to having many partners. But they do not represent ALL homosexual men, and you keep acting like they do.

            You also continue to ignore the fact that promiscuous unprotected sex among straight people ALSO occurs…and opens those people up to all sorts of STDs.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            It seems pretty contradictory to me that people like you who will go on about how homosexuals are less monogamous are also often the same ones who would deny them access to an institution (marriage) that promotes and encourages monogamy.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see …. that is why what they want is not marriage …… it is homomirage ……. marriage does nothing to “promote” monogamy ….. IF they desire monogamy then they could just DO THAT …… and they do not …… and this is key …… because they ARE NOT INTERESTED IN A “TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE” ……. they want to just make their own rules and do what they want and WHO they want ………….. and they also want to DEFILE that which they can in the process ….. and that is destructive NARCISSISM …………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            IF they desire monogamy then they could just DO THAT …… and they do not

            Some do. Maybe it’s less than heterosexual couples, but nevertheless, some do.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and again …. “marriage” is not a requirement …………

          • Lily Of The Valley

            and do what they want and WHO they want

            Who I or anyone else want to “do” is no business of yours, thank you very much.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            when it is brought INTO THE PUBLIC SQUARE …… it has passed from private to PUBLIC …… and it is EVERYBODYS business ………….. THNX for nothing …….. if you want it private …… THEN PUT IT BACK THERE ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Homosexual marriage is the phrase you want. Not “homomirage”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Nope … if they think it is a marriage …. it is not … it is only a MIRAGE …..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Oh, I see, you’ve made up your own derogatory phrase.
            BTW, their marriages are legal in the eyes of the law.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “Oh, I see, you’ve made up your own derogatory phrase.”

            why not ….. they made up their own fake MIRAGE ………..

            “BTW, their marriages are legal in the eyes of the law.”

            it was LEGAL to kill Jews in Germany ……… it was LEGAL to own slaves in this country also ….. sorry … is that your defense …. because “in the eyes of the law.” that its ok ……… REALLY ……….. that is a really stupid and weak argument …… and if they legalize pedophilia ….. will that be both hunky and dory for you …………..

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Killing Jews in Germany is abuse.
            Owning slaves is abuse.
            Pedophilia is abuse.

            Homosexuality and gay marriage are not abuse, they are between informed consenting adults. No mirages.

          • Railpirate

            I’ve read countless books on the subject, I’ve got blood pressure induced migraines, they come about with sudden over-movement, Magnesium Shortage, Allergies, Intolerances and when eating large amounts of salt, sugar or fermented foods. I am currently on Magnesium Tablets and am monitoring the rest quite carefully. I am not migraine free, especially not the chronic symptoms I have outside of attacks, but my last attack was in October 2017, where I had 10-20 attacks per year before that. Here’s hoping I finally found the balance.

            It’s not a cure though, and it’s quite restrictive to my life, I do really hope at some point a cure comes. Oh well, that was totally not completely offtopic >_<

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            🙂 Hope you feel better soon. Have you tried the Dash diet in regards to your blood pressure?

          • Railpirate

            Thanks, Much apreciated. The Dash diet is basically based on foods I am intolerant to for the most part. It’s also not constant high blood pressure (or low), it’s when it starts spiking when the troubles start, which is caused by among other thing intolerances and allergies.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That’s lousy. Have you had your heart checked?

          • Railpirate

            Yes, I have no heart Rythm issue or anything, nor any heart abnormalities.

            Intolerances and Allergies naturally cause blood pressure to spike due to what reaction the body gives to them, that in turn just happens to cause migraines for some people and that sucks.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          K …. how strong of a dose were you able to get ……..

    • IzTheBiz

      You are right! people just keep reverting back to their sinful ways. Like the majority of humanity.
      “but it’s been proven not to work and cause me further mental or physical damage,”, I hate to be crude, but when a male penetrates another males anus, it actually does a lot of damage. Not only disease, but some end up wearing nappies because it has damaged their internals and they can’t poop normally. that is REAL physical damage!!
      Thats NOT the way we were created!

    • James Tarkin

      This is an excellent point. The sinfulness of homosexuality aside, there are no known treatments that I am aware of that change homosexual proclivities, only practiced behaviors. Even former programs that were once touted as the panacea for homosexuality (such as Exodus) all fell apart eventually because they were ineffective. They simply kept up the charade that it was working because the word tells us Jesus is the answer. Well, that’s true. Jesus is the answer, but He often gives answers in ways we do not expect. All people have some cross to bear when they follow Christ. For some it’s sexual in nature. While the Governor’s statements about it being natural might be a point of contention, your statement that the treatment itself is ineffective should not be. After all, we are taught that ‘a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit’. If teens aren’t coming away from these programs understanding the burdens they bear and rejoicing in their suffering for Christ (or whatever would be a positive outcome for such a program) then it’s definitely not working.

      • Railpirate

        I can’t really agree with parts of what you said, I can agree with others, but I did want to note something in here which might explain something about why people don’t realise this isn’t working in general.

        It’s this part of your statement:
        ” If teens aren’t coming away from these programs understanding the
        burdens they bear and rejoicing in their suffering for Christ”

        Which would imply this treatment would be about preserving (And spreading in some cases?) religious views, rather then curing what is seen as an issue.

        That does also give a possible explanation on why there is such an extreme amount of “Remission” within 10 years (85%+) on the already small amount of patients that go out claiming they aren’t gay anymore in testimony (10-35% usually), and also in addition to what you already noted makes this system incredibly exploitable.

        People belief they are sinfull > Go to treatment > Treatment doesn’t help > If they continue they view themself as sinfull due to the people around them and the people giving them treatment > Go to treatment > Treatment doesn’t help… Etc.

        It’s a vicious cycle people get stuck in, and the moment the Therapy is over, you end up with the fourth step permanently: “If they continue they view themself as sinfull due to the people around them and the people giving them treatment”, which would also well explain why this treatment causes so much psychological damage overtime, if people hate themselves or part of themselves and can’t do anything about it, people get depression and often attempt suicide, You can see this with people in cults, People with sickness (Such as Eczema, Obesitas, Gender Dysphoria or Body Dysphoria) or genetic defects. (The rates eerily match)

        What are your thoughts on that?

        (What I wrote is just a theory, I’ve made overtime based on the arguments I’ve heard from both sides, reviewing the evidence over the past 2 years and viewing the rebukes of evidence from both sides, so I’d be intrested to know how you view it.)

        • James Tarkin

          Yes, true, the primary function of the legislative effort has to do with licensed services, but this will not have any bearing on those who continue to do these things on a pastoral counseling level which is of equal concern. My response was given primarily from a Christian perspective which holds that all people sin. So, your statement that people feel sinful, go to treatment, don’t get better, etc is mostly valid, but maybe not for the reasons we think. Christians will always hold opinions from the basis of some truth that they hold as absolute.

          In this case, it’s a combination of A) Jesus can heal people and B) Homosexual behavior is sin. You will see variations which hold that the homosexual feelings themselves are sin, but there is no biblical basis for this. So, the combination of these two absolutes leads the person struggling with this issue to conclude that either Jesus didn’t heal me, isn’t real, doesn’t love me, etc. or that Homosexual feelings aren’t wrong. Those that say Jesus must be fake end up in the Atheist or Agnostic category while the others end up creating a new Christianity that is gay-affirming. Neither supports both of the absolutes held by the majority of Christians.

          Those that get stuck permanently in the fourth step (as you mentioned) are those who continue to hold to both absolutes but continue to fail at it. No one wants to admit that the best efforts of clergy and psychology can’t fix their brokenness. If they didn’t get ‘healed’ then, in theory, they didn’t do something right. So, it’s easier to just claim ‘oh, everything is better now!’ to get parents and clergy to leave you alone.

          Personally, I have experience with some of these types of programs for different reasons. Christian groups tend to focus so deliberately on the sin sin sin with accountability groups, prayer sessions, counseling, etc. that it creates a kind of Streisand effect where it’s all you can talk about when it’s the one thing you want to forget about. In my case, I went through many of these difficult soul-searching endeavors that many teens do only to feel defeated, suicidal, and full of self-loathing. When I would ask Christians ‘Where is this victory I was promised?’ ‘Where is the power over sin Jesus is supposed to provide?’ I would get crickets or an occasional, ‘Only you know the answer to that.’ LOL What?

          In the end, the real answer was that temptation NEVER ends, for anyone, regardless of their predisposition, until they’re dead. But over time, there is healing. Honestly, based on how the church worked with me I’m surprised I’m still a Christian. But that goes back to the point I’m making about true freedom. In the end, being able to be candid with people and even joke about issues out in the open pulled the stigma off of the problems (which is one of the issues with homosexuality in the church). This is what afforded me the opportunity to heal and get out of the vicious cycle you mentioned. As long as an issue stays a secret shame it will fester. Getting your inner struggles out in the open with people who don’t care about them as much as you think everyone does, is very healing on its own.

          Ironically, this is why I don’t see what the Governor has done here as negative given that the outcomes from such programs are so bad. People who want to follow Christ and who are called by Him will find their way out of any darkness. While I genuinely believe that people who find themselves in same-sex attractions can learn to control their behaviors (as all people can), the feelings will always be there. That doesn’t mean you cannot love someone of the same sex, but for the Christian it means that love must fall within certain boundaries. The Christian path is a difficult one. It’s no surprise so many abandon or ridicule it.

  • Lexical Cannibal

    The Democratic governor of Hawaii has signed a bill banning professional counselors from helping struggling youth resist homosexual feelings.

    Perhaps if you guys actually helped, they wouldn’t have to ban it. As it is, though, all the dead children are a bit off-putting.

  • LynnRH

    If those children would only turn to and trust Jesus to “fix” them they would be “fixed” for good! Jesus always has the miracle cure if people would just trust Him. 🙂

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Toxic Patriarchy: This Young Boy Discriminated Against Several Perfectly Good Barbie Dolls In Order To Play With A Train Set
    May 25, 2018

    • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

      Babylon Bee missing the point for the bazillionth time…

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        Babylon Bee NAILED IT DEAD ON …….

        • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

          No, because no one forces a child who wants to play with a train to play with dolls.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right …. the child DISCRIMINATED against dolls all by himself …. and i guess he should be “re-educated” ………. you know …. so his “PRIVILEGED” of whatever source can be “removed” ………

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Why are you complicating things? Let the kid play with what he wants to play with.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            uhhh … it is an IMAGINARY kid …… and the “left” wants them RE-EDUCATED ………..

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “it is an IMAGINARY kid”

            Sounds like the whole thing is very imaginary.

          • Railpirate

            To respond to Amos Moses – He>i in conversational context:

            “right …. the child DISCRIMINATED against dolls all by himself …. and
            i guess he should be “re-educated” ………. you know …. so his
            “PRIVILEGED” of whatever source can be “removed” ………”
            False equivecation fallacy.

            You are using two different definitions of the word discrimination interchangeably by making an argument on this definition:
            – “Discrimination is the ability to recognize and understand the differences between two things.

            against issues relating to discrimination by this definition:
            – “Discrimination is the practice of treating one person or group of people less fairly or less well than other people or groups.

            (Source: Collins Disctionary)

          • Lily Of The Valley

            He’d probably say he’s using “the Biblical definition” of discrimination.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Amos believes that there is a Biblical definition for things in addition to the standard dictionary definition, and that the Biblical definition trumps everything else.

          • John O

            he is right

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I wonder if he’d use the “Biblical definition” of pi.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            actually pi is in scripture …….

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Yeah, where it’s “defined” as exactly 3.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            well 3.14 IS practically 3 ….. SO WHAT ….. simple math of ROUNDING to the nearest integer ….. and it even GOT THAT RIGHT ……….

          • MCrow

            …my brother is an engineer and would like words on what “rounding to three” does when working on a project

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Yeah, like MCrow said, use that “practically 3” value when you’re trying to build something and see how that works. Or if you were in a math class tell that to the teacher.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No one on the left would say the kid was discriminating against dolls by playing with his toy of choice. That’s why Babylon Bee fails.

      • Tonya Elise

        I was happy playing with dolls with my sister. i also played for cars and trucks. i would have been happy playing with Barbie too. Toys are not the problem Parents are.

    • Lily Of The Valley

      Where are you that getting that headline from, Strawman News?

    • Croquet_Player

      This is very funny. I am an entirely straight lady, and although I loved my dolls, and all my stuffed animals, very, very much, they didn’t “do” anything. I found my Tonka truck, and my building toys, my science kit (that was GREAT) and puzzles, and coloring books, and games were much more fun to play with. I was an only child, of very conservative straight parents. I liked toys that you could “DO” something with. (Tip for only children, you can play two-player board games, if you pretend one player is you, and one is your beloved little family dog, and you play both sides and you play honestly and eagerly for each side and never cheat.)

  • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

    Well, I don’t fully agree with the headline, because homosexual youth should be helped, of course. They just shouldn’t be emotionally castrated or shamed or encouraged not to fall in love.

  • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    This is exactly the kind of thing the Founding Fathers did NOT want: lack of control over personal choice.

    • Bob Johnson

      Actually Americans have had many laws against selling harmful product to the public – think of those snake oil salesmen of old.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Like atheists.

        • Croquet_Player

          To offer legitimate medical advice in the United States your religion, or not, doesn’t matter. You have to be a board-certified medical doctor. Isn’t that great?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You seem confused. Nothing is as deceptive and snake oil salesmen-like than atheism.

          • Nick Halflinger

            So now you are denigrating Buddhist.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You probably don’t really understand what atheism is in the first place.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean the courts don’t? Because they ruled it’s a religion.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            You didn’t say anything about it being a religion right there, you just said it was deceptive and snake-oil-salesman-like….is that what you think of religions, then?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            False religions, yes.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            All atheism is is not believing in any gods. You could and I suppose you would say atheists are wrong to not believe in the god you believe in, but I don’t see what’s “deceptive or snake-oil-salesman-like” about not believing in something because you haven’t seen enough evidence to convince you of it, in your mind. Now, you might very well consider certain beliefs that atheists often hold, such as believing in evolution or the big bang theory, to be “deceptive”, but there, your problem would be with those particular things, not atheism. You can argue against things like that, and I’d disagree with you….but then we’d no longer be talking about atheism. After all, there were people who didn’t believe in any gods before anyone even heard of the big bang theory or evolution, but they were still atheists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Believing there is no god is still a belief system. There’s more to religion than just belief, as well. The courts have ruled atheism a religion.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            No, no, no, you ain’t pulling that trick on me. I said the definition of atheism is “not believing in any gods.” That is a different thing from what you said, “believing there is no god.” Some atheists may say they know there is no god, but since atheism is just the lack of belief, there are some atheists, probably a quite a lot, who do not. Or, I’ll put it this way….

            Someone who believes there is absolutely no god: Strong or gnostic atheist.

            Someone who doesn’t claim to know there is no god, but still does not believe in any: Weak or agnostic atheist.

            At any rate, though, even “believing there is no god,” aka strong atheism, isn’t a belief system, since it is only a belief about one particular thing. Sure, it’s a belief, but just not a system of beliefs. Even believing there is a god isn’t a belief system by itself, though of course a person who believes that often does have a religion with its own system of beliefs to go along with it. Though not always.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Lack of belief is still a belief.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Ha! OK, then I guess unemployed is a job title, not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hair color, off is a TV channel, etc., etc.

            Hey, while I’m at it, here’s another one…what do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness and an atheist? Someone who knocks on your door for no reason.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Those examples you copied from atheist sites are illogical, because none of them have anything at all to do with the definition of religion and/or atheism. If atheism believes there is no God, then atheism is still a belief in something.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            none of them have anything at all to do with the definition of religion and/or atheism

            Now, those or sayings like them are commonly used by people trying to say atheism is the lack of, or the opposite of religion. I don’t usually do that myself, because while atheism is not a religion in and of itself, there are some religions that are either atheistic or at least compatible with atheism. I’m using those statements to illustrate to you how absurd your statement about how “a lack of belief is still a belief” sounds to me. If I lack something, I don’t have it. It’s just kinda how that works.

            If atheism believes there is no God

            I already explained it to you, or tried to, at least…atheism is not necessarily that. It’s like the “Russell’s teapot” thing I like to use: Can I say I definitely believe there is not a small teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars? No, I have no way to prove there is not….but I don’t have any reason to believe there is, I have no evidence of such a thing. So, I lack that belief.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have no argument.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Or, how about looking at it this way: What about agnostics? Does an agnostic believe in any god? Is agnosticism a belief system, or even a belief?

          • Charles des Barres

            You’re an atheist too, then. I disbelieve in all gods. You just disbelieve in one less.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That doesn’t even make sense.

          • Charles des Barres

            Make a list of all the gods you don’t believe in. Thor, Allah, etc.
            I will do the same.
            Our lists will only differ by one.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That doesn’t prove your point. It actually proves mine.

          • Charles des Barres

            In your own mind, perhaps.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Facts and logics aren’t opinion.

          • Charles des Barres

            Lily of the Valley broke it down pretty well for you about why your statement fails.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Are you sure about that?

          • Charles des Barres

            Well, did you read it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            This is how you give yourself away every time. 🙂

          • Charles des Barres

            Did you read it?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Did you fail to see my response? Was it too hard for you to understand? I very kindly tried to simplify it as much for you as I could. I hope it didn’t take you/him/her too long to think up that argument, and even less time to type it up, because it failed. 🙂

          • Charles des Barres

            OK, you had your nether regions effectively handed to you, but by all means, walk away crowing about your victory. All those analogies are part of a bigger one commonly used against your tired old argument.

            Or, as another site puts it so well: “The prefix ‘a’ turns the meaning around to the negative, that is, ‘not a belief in a god’, so ‘atheism’ is as far from a faith or religion as it’s possible to get.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They are all illogical, which I proved with a few, concise sentences. Beliefs are not the same as a haircut/baldness, beliefs are not the same as stamps or hobbies. That’s why the arguments are illogical and fail so spectacularly. Atheism is a religion. Even the courts say so.

          • Charles des Barres

            You are still arguing logic. That little “a” is the entire reason you lose. If you are a- ANYTHING, you are the opposite of it. So you aren’t forming a new religion by turning from the others. That’s just logic 101, and no, the courts don’t agree with you.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            The courts ruled atheism a religion. Not believing in something is still ascribing to a belief. That’s why atheism is a religion.

          • Charles des Barres

            Well, if you’re not trolling, then you should have no trouble providing a citation for that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You mean the same ones I keep giving you (there are 2) that you keep saying don’t count? 🙂

          • Charles des Barres

            You have given me squat so far, is that what you’re going to continue to do?

  • TheSayer

    Never believed in psychology myself as i believe its unchristian in its core as it is rooted in humanistic precepts about the nature of humans, but i wonder why they are afraid or ban any sort of advice or counseling pertaining sexual orientation. Most likely it has to do with the fact that homosexuality is a learned practice and they wouldn’t want folks to know the truth.

    • Lily Of The Valley

      Sexual orientation is not “learned.” Sexual behavior….yeah, that could be learned. But orientation and behavior are not the same thing. The reason why they don’t like advice regarding changing one’s sexual orientation is because it is not something that is easily, or willingly, consciously changed. It’s not like people can just decide “hey, I’m gonna stop being gay now!”

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        all are RESPONSIBLE for who they get naked with and then fall into bed ……. IT IS A CHOICE ……….. NARCISSISM is not about love or “sexual behavior” …….. “The reason why they don’t like advice regarding changing one’s sexual orientation is because it is not something that is easily, or willingly, consciously changed.” …. lies for the most part ….. and just because a person does not WANT to change does not make the change wrong or bad or even undesirable ………..

      • TheSayer

        So let me get this straight; are you saying they are absolutely no ex Lesbian and Gay people.

        • Lily Of The Valley

          If you really think I said that, read it again. Though, I seriously doubt many of these people who claim to be “ex-gay” have really succeeded in getting rid of their homosexual desires. There a quite a bit of examples of people who thought they did, but later realized they didn’t. I just read a thing about one of these Christian “pray-away-the-gay” organizations, Exodus International, maybe some people here should look that up if they haven’t heard of it already. Interesting story. Turns out two of the co-founders (both men) realized it wasn’t working, because they had fallen in love with each other, and eventually the whole thing was shut down, and several of the former leaders issued public apologies.

          • TheSayer

            Please be straight with me…*pun unintended* ..since you are using bait and switch …..a lot, but could u please answer me on the question above

          • Bob Johnson

            Let’s parse Lily Of The Valley’s statement. – “The reason they don’t advise” – “because it is NOT something that is EASILY, or WILLINGLY, CONSCIOUSLY CHANGED”

            Sure people change. Gays and lesbians change and sometimes previously heterosexuals become gay or lesbian. Indeed, I know two men in their 70s, who after both their wives died started living together. They have been together for over 10 years.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That’s a good and important distinction. People might change but cannot be MADE to change.

          • Railpirate

            That doesn’t really support your point at all, Many people, especially in the time these people would be there to pick partners, if they gone with their own sexual attractions would’ve resulted in them being murdered, severely discriminated against, disconnected from communities or else.

            Rather then trying to rebuke something based on things also explainable by other reasons, let’s first look at what evidence was ever provided, as if that’s rebukeable there’s a stronger argument. Which IS rebukable, as can be noted in Haldeman, Douglas C. (1991), “Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination” (avoided link, you’ll have to scoute the web to find it, as Christian News Network doesn’t allow links) which goes over the evidence provided by these institutions promoting conversion therapy and rebukes them. You can claim this is old, but new arguments or consistant data hasn’t really appeared since then, With Nicolosi being one of the few who did continue making articles on it, which all rely on testimonies, which have been scrutonised (Like any articles in science relying on solely or nearly completely testimony) to contain (by definition) an anecdotal evidence fallacy.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            It’s not a “bait and switch” because I never said there are no “ex-gay” people. But I am pretty skeptical of it. I really do suspect most of the people who say this kind of “conversion therapy” has worked for them are either just suppressing their desires, or maybe, for those who went on to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, they were really bisexual all along. Sure, people’s orientations can change, but like I said before, I really don’t think it’s something you can willingly change. Sure, you can change who you have sex with….but that’s not orientation.

      • We are ALL created by God to be heterosexual. We are ALL born to be heterosexual.

        All that is LGBT is a lie from Satan and a sin unto God.

        • Lily Of The Valley

          We’re all “born to be heterosexual”….yet somehow homosexual people keep popping up, over and over again, throughout history, in every different culture….

          • yet somehow sinful people keep popping up, over and over again, throughout history, in every different culture….

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And the homosexual animals too, are they sinning?

          • No they are not because they are animals.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The animals aren’t making a choice. Neither are people. If you are only wired one way then you should be allowed to fall in love like everyone else.

          • We are not animals. We are created in the image and likeness of our Creator God and He said this is a sin for us. God does not create sin, cause sin or tempt anyone to sin therefore no one is “born that way”.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            We are animals, and cannot go against our own instincts and attractions. Short of castration, I don’t know what your solution is.

          • No we are not animals……
            ——————–
            Genesis 1:26-28 New King James Version (NKJV)
            26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over [a]all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that [b]moves on the earth.”

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Humans are animals.

          • Since it is God that created us, it is He that has the authoritative last word and He says we are not animals and that same sex sex aka homosexuality is a sin.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, science knows otherwise, but I can see you’re not going to budge on this one because your faith won’t allow you to.

          • So you do not believe in God or His Holy Word?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The God I believe in does not hate.

          • The one and only true God does not hate anyone but He does hate sin and He is also a just and righteous God who wants all to be saved. Sadly though not all will accept Him.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, I know gay people exist. I know they can’t fall in love or be in relationships with anyone other than people of the same gender. I know they didn’t choose that, so logically that means nature made them that way, and God would not put them in the impossible position of expecting them to be what they are not. So I think you are misrepresenting your own God.

          • Railpirate

            Sidenote on DOug Bristow’s story: Your argument about genesis kind of doesn’t work.

            Superiority or not wouldn’t say anything about whether humans are animals or not, it relies on the subjectively degrading term that animals are less then human to work, rather then the objective that defines what an animal is.

          • Can you repeat that in English for hillbillies so I can understand it?

          • Railpirate

            Your argument doesn’t work.

            Genesis 1:26-1:28 simply does not speak of whether or not a human is an animal. The only thing it speaks about is a humans superiority over some animals (With given examples), which wouldn’t support the argument that humans aren’t animals in itself.

            If I have a far superior fork, to the rest of the forks in my cabinet, that doesn’t mean the far superior fork isn’t a fork. There’s no causality there.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Good fork….er, I mean good point.

          • The Bible tells us we are made in the image and likeness of God. Since God is not an animal, we are not animals.

          • Railpirate

            If I shape a puppet in the image and likeness of myself, is that puppet suddenly less of a puppet? No. That is not a valid argument.

          • God is the Creator of us and the universe and He tells us we are not animals and are not to act like animals. At this point I would suggest you take it up with Him.

          • Railpirate

            Just like in the other argument I am having with you, you repeated the message without responding to the rebuke.

            Repeating the message won’t make the issue in your argument go away by any means. – Still awaiting response.

          • I gave you God’s Word and His Word is final.

          • Railpirate

            But you just made claims, based on bible verses Genesis 1:26-1:28, whereas your claims aren’t supported by said bible verses, even if gods word is final (Sidenote: No, that does not give you a free pass from logic, definition and verifyable data but let’s assume it does), doesn’t make your argument work either.

          • All sin is a choice otherwise it would not be sin and as with all sin only Christ Jesus is the answer and the cure.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Your innate attractions are NOT sins.

          • And there is nothing innate about homosexuality which is a choice and a sin.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And that is a statement borne of your faith, and not a statement of scientific fact.

          • It is the truth of God and His Holy Word.

            Did you notice you are on a Christian website blog? Did you not think you might have to endure reading the Truth of God and His Holy Word?

          • Railpirate

            Sidenote here: The bible makes no mention of what causes homosexuality, whether it’s innate and whether or not people can change it, invalidating your argument partially even from a religious standpoint.

            And even on a Christian *News Site*, Are you suddenly exempted from proofable fact because of your religion?

            Let’s use a fake religion for a second to make an analogy:
            Person A is a flumpist. Flumpism contains a passage that says trees fly. Person B establishes trees don’t fly via the scientific method and provides physical evidence trees don’t fly. Trees won’t suddenly start flying because Person A is a flumpist, who by his religion believes trees fly, whereas he beliefs his religion is the truth of the universe.

            I’d still love to respond to you and shoot down all the arguments on specific verses that are commonly used to argue being gay is a sin, but I still can’t due to this websites restrictive rules, which I am not going to break. If you do find a way or place I can actually respond to you on this, please do tell, because I’d really love too.

          • James 1:12-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
            Loving God Under Trials
            12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
            16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

          • Railpirate

            That still gives no answer as to what causes homosexuality, Whether it’s innate (as by the logic notably avoids naturally occuring factors by natural complication or process, which wouldn’t contradict what’s written here but create an unanswerable issue of innate but not changeable sin in accordance with the bible) or whethers it’s changeable (it does say people who endure temptation they receive the crown of life which is promised, which in itself doesn’t account for the actual possibility of resisting “temptation” to begin with.)

            And as noted: “And even on a Christian *News Site*, Are you suddenly exempted from proofable fact because of your religion?”

            You did lovely respond to my argument around the bible, but ignored this, meaning you still don’t have a valid answer for your claim here:
            “And there is nothing innate about homosexuality which is a choice and a sin.” (Except for Sin, which would by your religion be self-defined by said religion, which is circular logic, but I’ll ignore that it is for the sake of not complicating things too far.)

          • Same sex sex aka homosexuality is a sin and that passage from James tells where sin comes from and what causes it.

          • Railpirate

            I just explained the logical issue with that claim based on the scripture you provided. Awaiting response to rebuke. Repeating your message without doing so won’t make your statement work any better.

          • Again, I gave you God’s Word and His Word is final.

          • Railpirate

            Scripture (aka God’s word) gives no answer as pointed out. – Still ignored half of what I said. still awaiting a response.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            “Same sex sex” isn’t homosexuality. It’s homosexual sex. Homosexuality is the attraction.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            A little Christian behavior might be nice to see, you know, some of the love and kindness and tolerance stuff. Not demanding homosexuals be put in an impossible and/or cruel situation.

          • It is Christian to warn others of the consequences of sin and rejecting Christ Jesus as their Savior.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            It isn’t a sin to be homosexual. It is beyond anyone’s control. It’s like blaming someone for being born with male and female genitalia.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Also, you stated that the Bible says that homosexuality is a choice. I’d like to know chapter and verse of that, please. I’ve certainly never heard anyone make such a claim.

          • James 1:12-18 New King James Version (NKJV)
            Loving God Under Trials
            12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
            16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. 17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. 18 Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That does not say anywhere that homosexuality is chosen.

          • From the above passage of scripture….
            ——————–
            13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
            ——————
            In other words sin is a choice.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            And the conversation will continue to go in circles as long as you continue to call things people have no control over “sin”. Is being left-handed a sin?

          • God says what is and is not sin.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Would you agree that sins are actions?

          • Sins can also be thoughts and words.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, homosexuality isn’t a thought, a word, or an action, so how can it be a sin?

          • Your argument is with God, not me. I have given you His Holy Word on this and you obviously choose to reject it.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            You’re not making sense, Doug. Homosexuality isn’t what you do, it’s what you are, so how can it be a sin? What are you expecting from homosexuals, I’ve asked you this before.

          • It is not what you are. I already gave you God’s Word on this. Satan has lied to you and all others that think like you.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            YES, Doug. Look up the word in the dictionary. It is a person who is attracted to the same gender. That’s all. It is a state of being.

            Your issue is with specific sexual practices, that is what the Bible talks about (at least in your interpretation of it).

          • The dictionary is man’s word. The Bible is God’s Holy Word.

            I will take the Word of God over the word of man every time.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            The Bible was written using man’s word so that he could understand. Homosexuality isn’t an action, and you must stop treating it as though it is. A state of being cannot be sinful, logic dictates it.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            You don’t know God but presume that someone who does is misrepresenting him?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Nobody can know God.

          • Not true. God makes Himself known to those who seek Him. I am a born again child of His and I know Him well. I have a personal one on one relationship with Him and you can too.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, that is not my experience.

          • Surrender your life and all that is in it to God through His son Christ Jesus (Acts 2:38 & John 3) and you can be a born again child of His and have the same relationship with Him that I and the rest of His children do.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No thank you. I believe that is the wrong path.

          • Then do not wonder why you do not understand and/or know God.
            ——————–
            John 14:6 New King James Version (NKJV)
            6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
            —————–
            John 1:11-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
            11 He came to His [a]own, and His [b]own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the [c]right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, I simply believe something different from yourself.

          • Care to explain?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Your statements regarding homosexuality, first and foremost. I would not want to follow a faith that believes things which I know to be natural.

          • Romans 3:23 New King James Version (NKJV)
            23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
            ——————-
            John 3:16-17 New King James Version (NKJV)
            16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            That verse says nothing about homosexuality.

          • Leviticus 18:22 New King James Version (NKJV)
            22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
            ————————-
            Romans 1:18-32 New King James Version (NKJV)
            God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
            18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [a]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [b]manifest [c]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [d]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like [e]corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
            24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
            26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their [f]women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the [g]men, leaving the natural use of the [h]woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
            28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, [i]sexual immorality, wickedness, [j]covetousness, [k]maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 [l]undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, [m]unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Well, if you don’t want them lying together, maybe don’t create them where they have no attraction to the opposite sex. (/sarc)
            Of course I am not laying the blame on God for this, I think you’ve simply misunderstood Leviticus 18:22 and all the other verses used to beat up homosexuals.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            Correction: Nobody can know God who rejects him and prefers their sin.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            I stand by my words.

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            Amen!

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            Just because someone loves someone else [two men/woman] does mean it is proper or right. Love also comes from God and has it’s proper place as God meant for it.

          • Railpirate

            I think something I do want to note here, is whether you considder it morally right or not says nothing about whether homosexuality naturally occures or not and whether it’s changeable, which is where this did start out with a rebuke that it’s learned behaviour, meaning you’ve kind of been making a strawman and attacking the strawman, rather then give arguments relating to causality on the subject at hand.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Love is love, no one can call it wrong.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            According to that “logic”, sex should fine between relatives, brother-sister, mom, aunt etc, and with any animal that we desire or whatever combo’s you can imagine, if “love is love”! Ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            No, because sex with animals is an act of abuse since animals cannot consent.
            Sex with children is an act of abuse since children cannot consent.
            As for incest – how many people do you see lined up wanting to do that?

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            ——No, because sex with animals is an act of abuse since animals cannot consent.—–

            I could argue that since the bible says that God gave dominion over the earth to man, that would include animals and sex with animals, therefore, it would not be sin or abuse. how is that for twisting scripture? But the scripture says that sex with animals is sin and with relatives [incest] and homosexuality [man/man-woman/woman]. The argument of consent is a cop-out since consent does not nullify it’s sinfulness.

            —–Sex with children is an act of abuse since children cannot consent.—-

            Very young children wouldn’t know what they were consenting too. It would be taking advantage of the innocent. I have heard of children 11 years and older consenting, but again they don’t have a complete understanding of the consequences of such actions. It would be the adult manipulating them that would be sinning.

            —-As for incest – how many people do you see lined up wanting to do that?—–

            There are some. But you could say the same thing about homosexuals, which is a sliver of a minority. Just because there are some that want to do it, does not make it right or good!

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            If you seriously think there are the same amount of people out there wishing to engage in incest with a member of their family as there are homosexuals, you should have a date with the real world sometime.

            Consent laws are in place for a reason, they aren’t arbitrary. It is considered an act of abuse on a non-consenting party. Either way it cannot be compared to a homosexual relationship between two consenting adults.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Very young children wouldn’t know what they were consenting too. It would be taking advantage of the innocent. I have heard of children 11 years and older consenting, but again they don’t have a complete understanding of the consequences of such actions.

            That’s exactly the point. That’s why we draw the distinction between that and what two consenting adults do. That’s why we use that term “informed consent.” A child could give consent, but not informed consent.

            But you could say the same thing about homosexuals, which is a sliver of a minority. Just because there are some that want to do it, does not make it right or good!

            The thing is, no one is saying that. No one, at least not anyone here, or anyone I’ve ever seen, is saying homosexuality is “right or good” merely because there are “some that want to do it.”

            And the whole “the Bible says it’s a sin” argument….well, being that I’m an atheist, really means nothing at all to me.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            If love comes from God, then how is the love between two men or women not “proper or right”? Or are you saying their love comes from somewhere else?

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            In order to understand sin, you would have to have the capacity of mind and morality to understand what sin is [ right from wrong ]. That is part of the “Image” of God that man was made with. Animals were not made in that image, only man.
            Have you ever asked any animal why he was homosexual or if he/she understands what that is? Would you expect any answer at all?

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Why is it sin when a homosexual falls in love, but not sin when a heterosexual does?
            The reason animals were brought up was to illustrate that it happens in nature and is not chosen.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            Because the created order (the way things were meant to be) demands that a man and woman were meant for this specific union in marriage. Physically, psychologically, emotionally etc a man and woman were made for each other as a perfect compliment. Easily observable. Two men or woman were not.
            And animals should not be the example of behavior for mankind.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            “Physically, psychologically, emotionally etc a man and woman were made
            for each other as a perfect compliment. Easily observable. Two men or
            woman were not.”

            I’ve seen plenty of opposite-sex couples for whom it wasn’t “easily observable” that they were a “perfect complement” and some same-sex couples who DID seem so.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            I said nothing about a “perfect relationship” here. My comment apparently went “over your head”.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            Apparently my comment went over your head, because I didn’t say anything about that either. But, I guess you’re not very interested in any sort of a discussion, so goodbye then.

          • afigmentoftheinternet

            You are correct! I am not interested in a pointless discussion on your deliberate contrariness to reality!

          • John O

            homosexuals are a reflection of our rebellion toward God.Romans 1:18-25 (ESV)
            18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
            19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
            20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
            21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
            22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
            23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
            24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
            25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

          • Lily Of The Valley

            I just hope you don’t think any of that is supposed to work on me or anything. I’m no Christian, I really don’t care what the Bible says about the subject.

        • Tonya Elise

          HATE is Of Satan Love is of God To whom is your master now as you hate LGBT. ‘JUDGE NIT LEST YE BE JUDGED’ ___ TO THOSE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE” DID you *so-called* Christians for get that ?? ALL Christians are SINNERS. Focus on your own sins as commanded by GOD. OH , and Gender or Gender ID is NOT A SIN.

  • TJ

    Jesus weeps…….

  • Lydia Church

    Technically… it’s a SIN.

    • Sexual perversion/immorality is not a technicality. All that is LGBT is a sin and as with all sin only Christ Jesus is the cure.

      • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

        Amen

      • Railpirate

        I’d put questionmarks behind what the bible says here by noting context and translation, but Christian News Network doesn’t allow me to do so in it’s commenting guidelines.

        (Which I have to find somewhat ironic, as theres multiple articles claiming censorship on religion on this website.)

        • There are no issues here with context or translation.

          • Railpirate

            That’s easy to claim without hearing the argument. – Or rather, without being able to hear it.

          • If you have something to say…..say it and quit hiding behind “website policies”.

          • Railpirate

            Not risking it. Any logically fallacious arguments to be made? Hit me up, nothing in the guidelines against rebuking that.

            Questioning the intrepretation of religion on here caused a friend to be banned from this disqus a while ago for breaking the “Those professing to be Christians not holding to Biblical orthodoxy,
            particularly on Jesus Christ being the only way to the Father (1 John
            14:6) and eternal punishment as taught by Christ (Matthew 25:46), who
            attempt to use contrary teaching to influence others will be banned from
            this forum.”

            If you don’t realise, this rule only means the view of christianity as given by the news anchor may be used here, which in my opinion is completely ludicrous as it’s shuts down (plausibly valid) critique of questionable intrepretation.

            Either way: It means I can’t respond to you. It’s not me hiding behind website policies, it’s website policies trying to hide the critique people may have.

          • Disqus is a big tent with many venues. Quit complaining and find another one if you’re not afraid to. I think you are afraid of knowing the truth because that would upset your applecart.

          • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

            Judging by the number of removed comments I see on many stories, I don’t blame him for speaking carefully, I’m doing the same thing myself.

    • Tonya Elise

      FOCUS ON YOUR OWN SIN !!! Judge not lest ye be Judged by God. Hate is a undermine of SIN and of Satan. Love is what GOD is all about. To whom is YOUR master now?? GENDER AND GENDER ID is NOT A SIN!! I am Gender Non-conforming and i am a CHRISTIAN. ALL Christians are SINNERS. you have shows where you alliance lays. ONLY god has the Rights to HATE!!!. No person is without SIN.

  • JoeMyGod

    So-called conversion therapy sometimes results in suicide when it inevitably fails.

    I suspect that some Christians consider this a good outcome.

    • Lexical Cannibal

      I mean, they died, yes, and that’s tragic, but now they are safe in the arms of the lord! Who ever said moral arithmetic was distasteful? This is a net win!

      Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go suck on a bar of soap for saying that.

  • To those seeing a grey filter , Right click the page Once

    Lclick and select inspect element.

    Wait a little.

    Delete the line that gets highlighted and you can resume free speech

  • Croquet_Player

    From all the evidence we can see to date, sexual orientation is on a spectrum. No amount of beating or recriminations, or enthusiastic promotions and benefits will change how individuals feel. Now, we can all come to grips with that fact, or recognize that consenting adults may do as they like. And children and teens may not be abused by anyone trying to change their orientations.

    • All of what you have said here is a lie from Satan.

      • Croquet_Player

        I’m simply talking about evidence of human behavior, as far as we have been able to compile and review at to this point. I said nothing about any religious views on the evidence, which is of course entirely up to any individual, including you. The happy fact of this law is that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else may use bogus purported “medical therapy” to abuse minors. You may tell your children that “homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is a grave sin.” You may no longer send them to torture under the pretence of legitimate “medical treatment” to enforce the message.

        • This is a Christian website blog so you can expect to here the truth of God and His Holy Word which, to His children, is the final authority.

          • Croquet_Player

            Thank you, I do understand that. And I entirely respect your right to hold your own views, and to say exactly what you think. And as the comments on this site are open to the general public, provided they respect the rules laid forth, there seems to me no reason why people of differing views may not hold civil, polite conversations with one another. You might find it odd, but I fully support your right to say in response to anything I may say “All of what you have said here is a lie from Satan.” And in fact, I have no argument against your own personal religious views. What argument could there be? I expect both of us have good reasons to support our own views. I am not asking you to defend yours when I submit mine. We’re both just laying out our views, as we see them, with supporting arguments, or not. I most sincerely wish you and yours excellent health and very long life, to all express all your views, just as you see fit.

      • Rhesus Peanut Buttercup

        It’s a little odd how every time login and reason enter the discussion, you claim that it’s Satan.

  • Gov. Ige shakes his fist in the face of Almighty God –

    • skinnercitycyclist

      Pretty weak god to be so upset by that, eh?

      • Perhaps your god is weak? My God, hardly. He created the heavens and the earth.

        • skinnercitycyclist

          Is that supposed to be an explanation for your god’s pettiness? A justification, perhaps?

          • correction: my god is GOD – The great I AM. Jehovah is concerned with all matters in His creation: He counts the number of the stars; He gives names to all of them. Psalm 147:4 / “But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Matt 10:30 A loving Father cares for all matters in His family.

  • KUDOS to Gov. David Ige and the Hawaii legislature! Homosexual youths are NOT struggling except in the minds of the religiously indoctrinated and science illiterate.

    I ask again, since no one on this network has yet even attempted to answer the question: If your god meant to have all children born clearly either male or female, then why are intersexual children born and how would you manage THEIR love lives?

    It appears that the confused folks are Christians who want to micromanage the love lives of other people.

    • Barefoot Soul

      We broke away from your country in 1776 and have no regrets. What happens in the US is none of your business. You have no authority over us.

      • LOL!!! Wow! Where in the heck are you getting that??? Are you suggesting that Hawaii is not a U.S. State and that it is a Provence of England? And where do you get the notion that I am from England?

        I’m sorry, but I have to say, you need to read some history and geography. And, apparently, at least two other poor folks on this thread are just as ignorant (non-pejorative).

    • B1jetmech

      That’s funny, look who’s trying to micro manage everyone else’s lives through indoctrination.

      What are you up to as far as number of genders…31? Sounds like you’re competing for Baskin-Robbins.

      If your god meant to have all children born clearly either male or
      female, then why are intersexual children born and how would you manage
      THEIR love lives?

      Well “God” created everything perfect in this universe until the fall of man through Adam’s sin. Sin…it’s why we have all the death, disease, murder, and every other vile disgusting acts committed by mankind.

      God did provide a way out of it but apparently many are not believing it because they said NO to God.

      So there’s your answer.

      • First, my friend, please read my post again. I was NOT suggesting a gender. Rather, I was asking how the Christian Right should manage an intersexual’s love life (intersexuality is NOT a gender). Would you deny him/her the right to marry at all? It’s actually a deeper question than you think.

        The scientific view from Intersex Society of America, is:

        First we need to acknowledge that it’s hard to say exactly how frequent intersex is, because the sex spectrum is like the color spectrum; nature provides us with a range where one “type” blends imperceptibly into the next. For our linguistic and social convenience, we break that spectrum into categories. It makes it easier to talk about “that blue car” or “that man over there.”

        But nature doesn’t tell us that there are 7, or 10, or 100, or ten million colors, and nature doesn’t even know that there are two sexes. We humans, with our words and our cultures, decide how many categories to delineate. While the “male” and “female” types are relatively common, nature presents a full range of sex types, and people decide where the line should be drawn between “female” and “intersex” or “intersex” and “male.” That said, we do know that about 1 in 2,000 children is born with genitals that are pretty confusing to all the adults in the room. We know this from the statistics of how many newborn babies are referred to “gender identity teams” in major hospitals.

        But to your answer that Adam is to blame for the existence of intersexuals (as though being born an intersexual is a punishment bestowed on the baby by your just god), don’t you think it to be odd that your “just” god would punish babies for the “sin” of Adam? Would you think it is right and just if you were to be blamed for one of your ancestors crimes and be punished for it and have your life managed by others?

        But, strange, but I thought that most Christians blame Eve for introducing sin into/evil into the world. Why do you suggest Adam?

        And concerning that point, why did your god create evil/sin in the first place?

        • B1jetmech

          I was asking how the Christian Right should manage an intersexual’s
          love life (intersexuality is NOT a gender). Would you deny him/her the
          right to marry at all? It’s actually a deeper question than you think.

          It wold not be managing anyone’s intersexual life, it would be maintaining the one and only standard of “Male” and “Female” nomenclature to Male and Female people.

          Nowadays, when left alone…the elites, either coming from prestige institutions or academic institutions get a little too creative with the design of mankind through playing god.

          Then the media picks up on it…carrying the water to influence public opinion on the matter.

          There are influences into the mental gender shifting phenomenon going on…one of them is the high use of of GMO Soy in foods which produces high estrogen in men. This high estrogen does have influences into the mental health of men. This is an interesting subject to investigate because estrogen does cause overweight in men but I digress…

          The “intersexual” mental condition of people can be diagnosed and taken care of through diet alone but also other outside influences like pop culture targeting young people because their minds manipulated.

          But to your answer that Adam is to blame for the existence of
          intersexuals (as though being born an intersexual is a punishment
          bestowed on the baby by your just god)

          All, but god is not punishing us nor the babies it’s the effects of SIN taking it’s tole through entropy.

          don’t you think it to be odd that your “just” god would punish babies for the “sin” of Adam?

          No, because SIN takes it tole in so many different ways…from the slow decline of Earth and the universe to the health of Mankind and animals. Everything degrades living or not. You have to understand what sin is in order to understand where death, disease and destruction come from.

          Would you think it is right and just if you were to be blamed for one of
          your ancestors crimes and be punished for it and have your life managed
          by others?

          The reason we live in a sinful world because we inherited it from Adam…because we were born from man. Adam was the only perfect human, directly created from God, designed to live forever, cloth in light. When he sinned…all that disappeared.

          But, strange, but I thought that most Christians blame Eve for
          introducing sin into/evil into the world. Why do you suggest Adam?

          Good Question, God bestowed Adam as the patriarch and responsible for everyone (family). God’s design is man is responsible for the family, their spiritual growth, raising children you name it. The mother is responsible as well but ultimately the man has to answer to God for the family.

          The reason it’s structured this way is God created Adam and eve came from Adam for she is not a direct creation of God for she came from man.

          And concerning that point, why did your god create evil/sin in the first place?

          God did not create evil but it came from Lucifer, His greatest created being. But you also have to understand, we were created to have free will. In order to have free will there is good and bad. Adam and Eve had free will with no evil in the world for God put in there the tree of life where they were not to eat of it…

          • The “intersexual” mental condition of people can be diagnosed and taken care of through diet alone but also other outside influences like pop culture targeting young people because their minds manipulated.

            Errr, First, intersexuality is NOT a mental condition nor a disease to be “diagnosed.” It is a physical condition. This is a condition where a person’s genetic, gender predisposition is not physically complimented either as male or female. That predisposition is not really known until the child reaches puberty and his/her gender predisposition manifests as male or female–or both (bisexual). It could be male or female.

            Secondly, you cannot “take care of” intersexuality by diet. It is a physical condition. Do you really think that dieting can remove a reproductive organ? The person has both male and female reproductive organs. Exactly what diet will make an intersexual male or female? Which organ will disappear or fall off?

            Can’t you see how silly this becomes and how tragic for the person if Christians are allowed to dictate who and what the person will be and how they must, or most not act to be happy? Can you not imagine what it would be like to be born into that position and have people endeavor to make you into what THEY want you to be?

            It so happens that there are cases that concern forced gender-selection for a baby. I read one where a couple’s baby was born intersexual. The parents decided that the child was really a male and ordered the surgery to make it so.

            Guess what$ The child’s gender predisposition was actually female, realized at or near puberty.

            So, how would Christians manage this person’s life? Deny her any chance of seeking happiness through marriage to a man (since they would both have the same genitalia? If the family has fallen on hard times and are too poor to afford another surgical sex-change, will some Christian organization pay for it? But then, Christians are opposed to sex-change operations, right?

            Bottom line; a person’s physical appearance does not always compliment their genetic predisposition. It is not a disease, it is no “perverted” and it is not a divine punishment. It is natural and it is genetic.

            So, how should Christians handle intersexuality and homosexuality? Not at all. Leave them the heck alone to enjoy the same freedoms you claim for yourself and equal rights bestowed by the Constitution.

            Oh, and read your bible: Isaiah 45:7 – I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

          • B1jetmech

            This is a condition where a person’s genetic, gender predisposition is not physically complimented either as male or female

            You’re talking about hermaphroditism. Why didn’t you say so? I never heard of it being called “intersexuality”…never, never had. Your comment is the first I heard of that word and was “triggered” to think it’s a mental conditioned because of all conditions being introduced upon our society when it comes to transgenderism, pan-genderism…you name it.

            But I agree! These poor people are born with both sets of reproductive organs and they cannot help it…I agree to their state of condition.

            I feel like I have been punk’d.

            It so happens that there are cases that concern forced
            gender-selection for a baby. I read one where a couple’s baby was born
            intersexual. The parents decided that the child was really a male and
            ordered the surgery to make it so.

            Guess what$ The child’s gender predisposition was actually female, realized at or near puberty.

            Honestly, I can’t answer that because I don’t have enough information let alone the circumstances. I had a special needs kids and it involved responsibilities that I couldn’t dream of.

            So these parents are trying to make the best decisions they can with the what’s presented to them by doctors. So, I cannot and will not make a judgement on it.

            Oh and Isaiah 45:7, I checked the NKJV and NIV and neither of them called it “evil”…only calamity and disaster.

            Gotta go, be back later.

          • You’re talking about hermaphroditism. Why didn’t you say so?

            Yes, that is what it USED to be called. You are will behind the times. I apologize. I was thinking most fundamentalists were up-to-date, at least in medical science.

            Why don’t you google the word and study the results? Whenever I come across a word with which I am not familiar, especially in a debate, I look it up and familiarize myself with it’s meaning. If you feel you were “punk’d,” it was you who punk’d yourself because you made an assumption about the word without thinking about the spelling (note that the “inter” prefix means “interconnected,” as in “interstate” or “interwoven.” But, I appreciate your self-correction.

            Oh and Isaiah 45:7, I checked the NKJV and NIV and neither of them called it “evil”…only calamity and disaster.

            Referencing the original aramaic old Hebrew text from biblemenus dot com, the word comes from רָ֑ע, which literally means, “evil.”

            You see, this is part of the problem with Christianity and religion in general. Each generation of REVISIONS change the text and meaning to suit the sensibilities of the editors and thus the believers.

  • Tonya Elise

    HATE is a GREATER Mental issue. It is really concerning that so many “So-called’ Christians have so much HATE. Hate is of Satan . Love is of God. To whom is your master Now?? IT is a Real Christians leads people to Christ and doesn’t have hate for them. God does not discriminate God loves even the sinners. Christians today show their full of Hate “Judge not lest Ye be judged” “those Without Sin Cast the first Stone”. Christians are sinners too so FOCUS ONE YOUR OWN SINS. .I am Gender Non-conforming and i am a Christian, Oh and by the way Gender or Gender ID is NOT A SIN.

    • Barefoot Soul

      You’re a guy pretending to be a woman. You felt like an inadequate male, so your silly way of coping is to pretend to be a woman.

      Calling mental illness what it is is not “hate.” You have no right to force other people to say you’re a woman when you aren’t. People have a right to call something what it is. This is all about very unhappy and badly adjusted people trying to force the rest of us to call you something you are not. That is just plain wrong, fella. Accept your maleness and enjoy it. God made you that way.

  • skinnercitycyclist

    Yup. You guys will have to find some other way to bully kids.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      do you believe in evolution ……..