Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
J. K.

"Christian" is a useless term

126 posts in this topic

I do not know any gay people to make this comparison. I would say it depends on why they are happy.

A better question is why heterosexuals are so unhappy.

Homosexuals men and women have higher cancer rates than hetero sexuals just as smokers have higher cancer reates than non smokers.

Since you didn't bother to cite any sources or state actual statistics, let me do your homework for you.

There was a Canadian study back in 1997 that showed that homosexual men in Vancouver B.C. had an 8-20 year shorter lifespan. This was right when HIV deaths were peaking. This study is still cited by anti-gay web sites as proof that "fags die young" and is continuously repeated even though subsequent studies have shown this trend is reversing.

Unfortunately male homosexuals still account for 61% of new HIV infections in the U.S. This is certainly the behavior that is keeping the average lifespan of male homosexuals so low, not smoking and drinking.

I've found no study on "cancer reates [sic]" in homosexuals and I doubt you've found any either.

I've also found no study on the lifespans of lesbians, probably because it's not considered a national health issue. There was a Danish study in same-sex marriages (both male and female) which showed increased mortality but male homosexuals were five times more likely to die than lesbians which left the lesbians at about average. This study also had a sampling flaw:

Because the age distribution among persons in same-sex marriages was considerably younger than that of people who had ever been heterosexually married, the average age at death among those who actually died during the observation period was, not surprisingly, considerably younger in the population of same-sex married persons.

So that study wasn't very convincing.

One link may be that homosexuals have a higher rate of both drinking and smoking than heterosexuals and thus an incresed incidence of cancers and other diseaes caused by these lifestyle behaviours.

What crazy study are you pulling this ridiculous information from? Who are these drinking and smoking homosexuals who you've never met? The lesbians I know play sports and run marathons with me. The gay men I know go to the gym three times a week. They make us straight people look like lazy bums.

The reasons WHY homosexuals smoke and drink more is open to debate of course.

Since you've not cited any evidence that is true, it is NOT open for debate.

My experience with heterosexual couples is that they get married and have kids, then they stop taking care of themselves, they get fat and have health problems. I don't have statistics to back this up but you didn't have any either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the bible is against man on man sex, is because every time men have sex they have a chance of starting a new life. Where as a woman haveing sex does not. At least that is what it seems to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better question is why heterosexuals are so unhappy.

Since you didn't bother to cite any sources or state actual statistics, let me do your homework for you.

There was a Canadian study back in 1997 that showed that homosexual men in Vancouver B.C. had an 8-20 year shorter lifespan. This was right when HIV deaths were peaking. This study is still cited by anti-gay web sites as proof that "fags die young" and is continuously repeated even though subsequent studies have shown this trend is reversing.

Unfortunately male homosexuals still account for 61% of new HIV infections in the U.S. This is certainly the behavior that is keeping the average lifespan of male homosexuals so low, not smoking and drinking.

I've found no study on "cancer reates [sic]" in homosexuals and I doubt you've found any either.

I've also found no study on the lifespans of lesbians, probably because it's not considered a national health issue. There was a Danish study in same-sex marriages (both male and female) which showed increased mortality but male homosexuals were five times more likely to die than lesbians which left the lesbians at about average. This study also had a sampling flaw:

So that study wasn't very convincing.

What crazy study are you pulling this ridiculous information from? Who are these drinking and smoking homosexuals who you've never met? The lesbians I know play sports and run marathons with me. The gay men I know go to the gym three times a week. They make us straight people look like lazy bums.

[/size]

Since you've not cited any evidence that is true, it is NOT open for debate.

My experience with heterosexual couples is that they get married and have kids, then they stop taking care of themselves, they get fat and have health problems. I don't have statistics to back this up but you didn't have any either.

I do my homework and I have cited many sources for this information in long and tiresome debates over the years. Most came from GLBT health centres in australia. Denial of these facts doesn't just put homosexuals at greater risk, it prevents society from rationally and logically dealing with health outcomes, rather than prejudices. It also makes it look like gays are trying to hide real medical problems caused by their sexual activities, which increases suspicion against them. (As stated heterosexuals can have the same outcomes but they have a choice in their sexual activities which gays do not.)

The extrapolation rationales of why gays have higher rates of smoking and drinking also come from GLBT health centres as a part of a health message to their clients.

read a few of these sources

http://www.mayoclini...gay-men/my00738

http://www.cdc.gov/m...l-hepatitis.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/m...l-hepatitis.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/m...tance-abuse.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/m...lth/smoking.htm

Gay and bisexual men — referred to in CDC surveillance systems as men who have sex with men (MSM)1 — of all races continue to be the risk group most severely affected by HIV. CDC’s most recent data show that between 2006 and 2009, the number of new infections that occur each year increased among young MSM — driven by an alarming 48 percent increase among young, black MSM 13 to 29 years old. These data clearly show the urgent need to expand access to proven HIV prevention programs for gay and bisexual men, and to develop new approaches to fight HIV in this population.

http://www.cdc.gov/n...SM-0612-508.pdf

Merck & Co.'s Gardasil vaccine, approved in 2006 for the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer in women, also was cleared in December to prevent anal cancer and precancerous lesions. Photographer: JB Reed/Bloomberg

Gay men get cancer almost twice as often as heterosexual men, and lesbian and bisexual women who are cancer survivors reported being less healthy than heterosexual women who had the disease.

The greater prevalence of cancer among gay men may be caused by an excess risk of anal cancer, and may also reflect the higher rate of HIV infection, which is linked to certain cancers, according to the report in the journal Cancer.

The results show the greatest need for intervention is in cancer prevention and detection in gay men, according to the study authors. In addition, lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors should be targeted to improve their health outcomes.

" This information can be used for the development of services for the lesbian, gay, and bisexual population," said the study's lead author, Ulrike Boehmer, an associate professor at Boston University's School for Public Health, in a statement.

May 2011 Last updated at 04:55 GMT

Share this page

Share this page

Gay men 'report higher cancer rate than straight men'

_52545892_000201764-1.jpg Gay men are twice as likely to have had cancer, a study says

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

Homosexual men are more likely to have had cancer than heterosexual men, a US study has suggested.

The study of more than 120,000 people in California has led to calls for more specialist support.

Lesbians and bisexual women also had poorer health after cancer than heterosexuals, according to research published in the journal Cancer.

Cancer Research UK said more research was needed as the reasons for any difference were unclear.

In the 2001, 2003 and 2005 California Health Interview surveys, a total of 3,690 men and 7,252 women said they had been diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives.

Out of the 122,345 people interviewed, 1,493 men and 918 women described themselves as gay, while 1,116 women said they were bisexual.

Gay men were twice as likely to have been diagnosed with cancer as straight men and, on average, it happened a decade earlier.

http://www.natap.org...s/050911_01.htm

And here you are , from the American cancer glbt help site. The link between night clubs bars and increased lung cancer in gays

http://www.glbthealt...nCFBrochure.pdf

Ps and jus tin case you are feeling optimistic about the recent improvement in health and life expectancy for people with HIV aids, read this.

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/AM_Life_Expectancy_1667_23202.shtml

Or this, which suggests that cameron's figures were actually quite accurate for the time, but that modern treatments have improved outcomes for some categories of HIV/aids patients In 2002 peole with aids hiv had an average life expectancy of 56 years which WAS about 20 years less than normal

http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/life_expectancy_1667_24239.shtml

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the bible is against man on man sex, is because every time men have sex they have a chance of starting a new life. Where as a woman haveing sex does not. At least that is what it seems to me.

This is one of the biggest complaints I have about Christianity and Islam as a moral base: it is so totally and demonstrably harmful in its teaching on homosexuals. Further, the defense of this old and superstitious prejudice ends up perverting the basic principle of humanity and compassion and love that Christianity is supposedly about.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can love someone with out having sex with them. I condemn the lifestyle not the person. We have all sinned, except one and they killed him.

I judge no one until they make me do so. I treat everyone with respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can love someone with out having sex with them. I condemn the lifestyle not the person. We have all sinned, except one and they killed him.

I judge no one until they make me do so. I treat everyone with respect.

It is not for you to condemn or judge any lifestyle or any person. By doing so, you become like a pharisee. Christ rebuked those who tried to stone the adulterous woman. Condemn, judge and rebuke yourself first - then, your attitude may change.

Christianity is not about being squeaky clean, respectable and wearing a tie.

Edited by Philangeli
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not for you to condemn or judge any lifestyle or any person. By doing so, you become like a pharisee. Christ rebuked those who tried to stone the adulterous woman. Condemn, judge and rebuke yourself first - then, your attitude may change.

Christianity is not about being squeaky clean, respectable and wearing a tie.

Actually, atheists and christians alike are required, rather than allowed, to judge behaviour. ie lifestyle. We have to to decide that which is constructive and positive for individuals and society and that which is destructive and harmful. What we cannot judge is a person because we cannot know their heart and mind. So' smoking is a destructive habit which we must work to eliminate and reduce the harm from but a smoker is not a bad person. Same sex sex produces physical harm, but rather than prevent it ( because ii is an integral part of some peoples genetic make up and that would require them giving up sex) we must work to minimise the harmful effects.

Christ did not condone adultery, but rather asked if any of her accusers was without sin. He might have been suggesting that death was too harsh a punishment for adultery but he was not saying adultery was acceptable behaviour. Indeed his comments showed he thought it was a sin. A christian will make every attempt in their life to "sin no more"

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a misunderstanding of what it means to "judge". In one sense we judge everything. Before I cross the road I look left and right and judge whether I can safely cross. When buying a watch at the local markets I judge the quality of the watch as well as judging the stall operator to be honest (ie, that he is selling a legitimate product at a fair price). When sitting in the pub with a beer I judge whether someone is likely to get violent after too many beers. All of these judgements leads directly to how I act in a situation.

When Jesus says "judge not" he's not talking of this kind of judgement. It's more correct to think of this as being discerning. Deciding if something is a sin or not is a matter of discernment. Leaping from that to saying "you are a filthy sinner who will burn forever" crosses into condemnation. Condemnation is the judgement to which Jesus refers.

Even then it's not cut and dried, because if I was not informed that I was a sinner, how would I know I needed Jesus? Someone said (in not so blunt a way, of course) "PA, you're a sinner". Was this person judging me? Should he have looked for the plank in his own eye before pointing out the speck in mine (to use a Jesus-ism)? I argue that it comes down to motive. Is someone saying it to spite or condemn you, it's wrong. If said as a loving warning, it's not.

Of course, only God knows the motives of a person's heart. People can and do hide condemnation behind love, and conversely some people misinterpret love as condemnation. Not much we can really do about that one.

Edited by Paranoid Android
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not for you to condemn or judge any lifestyle or any person. By doing so, you become like a pharisee. Christ rebuked those who tried to stone the adulterous woman. Condemn, judge and rebuke yourself first - then, your attitude may change.

Christianity is not about being squeaky clean, respectable and wearing a tie.

No, christ said to love your niebhger, but do not sin. You can hate the sin, and still love the sinner. Christ even went so far as to condemn the thought o doing the sin. He choose adultery as the example for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Christianity has become so dilluted and subjective that the term is useless, there are plenty of groups that only choose selective parts of the bible, some that believe in one part of the bible and not the other...it is a mess. People are welcome to their beliefs and I respect everyone for theirs, but the whole thing has become like Chinese whispers.....i'm sorry to make light of the situation but I think Arnold J Rimmer summed up how the Christian religion works...

Rimmer: I never agreed with my parents’ religion but I wouldn’t dream of knocking it.

Lister: What were they?

Rimmer: Seventh Day Advent Hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service and hop back home again.

Lister: What’s the idea behind that then?

Rimmer: Well, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple, everything. Took it word for word. Unfortunately their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says “faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop.” So that’s what they did every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping around the table serving soup. We all had to wear sou’esters and asbestos underwear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess what I really don't like about Christianity and Islam is its general attitude about sex, the bigotry and harm they do to homosexuals being only one side of it.

Adultery, when it represents infidelity to a partner with accompanying problems of possible disease, confused parentage, and possible damage to the family and harm to the children, can properly be condemned, and most societies see this problem and set up corresponding rules.

Otherwise, sex is a perfectly human thing and rules saying otherwise are the perversion, derived I think from old men's frustration and envy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today as it was then. There is only one sure fire way to prevent any of your concerns. That being both parties have to be virgins. The next closes is a condom, but that is only 98% preventive toward either. All of the others do not protect against stds. So if you want to stay healthy stay a virgin until mrriage and stay to eah other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, christ said to love your niebhger, but do not sin. You can hate the sin, and still love the sinner. Christ even went so far as to condemn the thought o doing the sin. He choose adultery as the example for this.

Yes, he said love your neighbour despite the sin. The adultress, theoretically, went further than the thought of committing the sin. Yet, Christ did not rebuke her. Instead, he rebuked her critics/assailants - the squeaky clean, upholders of the law, the hypocrites. He even forgave her before he told her to go and sin no more. Christ loved sinners, and forgave them on the cross.

Do you think you really know what is in the heart and mind of any apparent sinner or any apparent upholder of the law, for that matter? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never said I did. In fact I usually go out of my way in saying I am against a sin but not the sinner.

I told this story once. I had a gentleman warned off of my property by the police. One night he was there with out my knowedge. He had made someon. else mad at him. The second gentleman wanted me to send him out, so he could gent ones butt. I couldn't do that because it was the wrong thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise, sex is a perfectly human thing and rules saying otherwise are the perversion, derived I think from old men's frustration and envy.

One could counter by arguing that the perversion lies with modern society and the sexualisation of our culture that has demeaned that which should be sacred by making it a throwaway matter that is "normal", even expected as a rite of passage into manhood (or womanhood).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Christianity has become so dilluted and subjective that the term is useless, there are plenty of groups that only choose selective parts of the bible, some that believe in one part of the bible and not the other...it is a mess. People are welcome to their beliefs and I respect everyone for theirs, but the whole thing has become like Chinese whispers.....i'm sorry to make light of the situation but I think Arnold J Rimmer summed up how the Christian religion works...

Rimmer: I never agreed with my parents’ religion but I wouldn’t dream of knocking it.

Lister: What were they?

Rimmer: Seventh Day Advent Hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service and hop back home again.

Lister: What’s the idea behind that then?

Rimmer: Well, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple, everything. Took it word for word. Unfortunately their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says “faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop.” So that’s what they did every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping around the table serving soup. We all had to wear sou’esters and asbestos underwear.

If they were seventh day hoppists, who took their bible that literaly they would spend saturday hopping. It is, after all, the seventh day of the week and hence the biblicla sabbath. Shows how troublesome it is for the ill informed to make an accurate joke about religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could counter by arguing that the perversion lies with modern society and the sexualisation of our culture that has demeaned that which should be sacred by making it a throwaway matter that is "normal", even expected as a rite of passage into manhood (or womanhood).

Who's to say it's a 'modern' phenomenon? What you call the 'sexualisation' of our culture could easily be viewed as a recovery from the sexual repression of previous generations. Which is more harmful is debatable.

And, why should sexual activity be 'sacred'? That implies religious significance and veneration. There's no objectivity in stating that - only opinion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's to say it's a 'modern' phenomenon? What you call the 'sexualisation' of our culture could easily be viewed as a recovery from the sexual repression of previous generations. Which is more harmful is debatable.

I suppose it depends on your world view, which was my point in a sense.

And, why should sexual activity be 'sacred'? That implies religious significance and veneration. There's no objectivity in stating that - only opinion.

Sacredness does not necessarily require religious frames of reference. It could just as easily refer to the institution of marriage, and the idea of sex only within a marriage union. But you are correct, it is an opinion that sex is sacred to marriage. But saying sex is not sacred to marriage is also an opinion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they were seventh day hoppists, who took their bible that literaly they would spend saturday hopping. It is, after all, the seventh day of the week and hence the biblicla sabbath. Shows how troublesome it is for the ill informed to make an accurate joke about religion.

Or it indeed re-enforces my point, that the Christian religion has become so convoluted that this script written by someone else, quite accurately satirizes the mess of confusion inherent within the religion...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One could counter by arguing that the perversion lies with modern society and the sexualisation of our culture that has demeaned that which should be sacred by making it a throwaway matter that is "normal", even expected as a rite of passage into manhood (or womanhood).

No I don't see where one "could argue" that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't see where one "could argue" that.

Obviously you've never watched Saturday morning music videos. Just one example, of course, of this sexualisation of our culture.

It seems you can't see where I'm coming from which most likely means our world views are so different that very little common ground exists. But I do ask - does that make one of our views more correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember walking around Amsterdam and there all of a sudden was a big billboard of a naked couple advertising something (I don't remember what, which may be a comment on the value of such ads).

What does this tell me other than that Amsterdam is a freer city than any in the States.

Every generation is shocked by the excesses of the next; it has nothing to do with religion except to say that religion should moralize where true harms and hurts are involved (and sometimes this involves sexuality) and be careful it not condemn things that do no harm or minimal harm.

I think where we differ is that I try to have a rational basis for my morals whereas you use traditional "received" rules. Also, I might say that I perceive pleasure in and of itself a positive benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in a world where 60% of American marriages fail, and close to 50% of Australian marriages fail, what part of this harms those involved?

Yes, I'm blaming the sexualisation of society for the poor marriage statistics. Perhaps if society had a different view of marriage things would not be so out and out crazy.

If sexualisation is to blame then what counter do they have to the questions of the traditional marriage union - and what blame is laid for single families (where only one parent raises a child).

For our differences, I'd happily accept views that work rather than make up my own rules that are totally doghouse.

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame the divorce rates on the sexualization of society but on liberation; divorce is no longer a social or economic kiss of death, and courts no longer make it almost impossible. Therefore people are able to more easily break harmful and destructive relationships.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last Christian (at least she claimed to be one) I went out with had been divorced four times.

She admitted she got married a lot because, as a Christian, she felt that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.