If I wasn’t a doctor, and there were multiple, actual doctors who had done the research to demonstrate that certain behaviors were specifically linked to outcomes that were unhealthy, I’m not sure I’d be crowing about how healthy those things are.
I also don’t think I’d argue that sexual activity between a male and a female wasn’t heterosexual, but that’s just me. Living in the real world. Where words have definitions and people don’t delete others for disagreeing. But, that’s just me.
54 comments:
Rape is NOT "sexual activity between a male and female..." It is an ATTACK where one forcibly does sexual actions upon another. An ATTACK ON, not "sexual activity between."
Rape. Read about it, learn about it. That's where you can start to work against it.
And yes, certain sexual behaviors DO have health consequences. Those who engage in too much anal sex, for instance, run certain risks. That's gay or straight. It's not, however, an indictment on homosexuality (and certainly not on lesbian sexuality).
If I didn't understand that, I don't know how much I'd be crowing about how unhealthy orientations are, IF that's what you're trying to do in your usual, vague milquetoast, casual assertion way.
I know it's fashionable to suggest that there is no sexual aspect to rape, but that's an incredibly absurd assertion regardless of why it is made. It most certainly is given all the various ways one can attack, dominate and humiliate another person. If it was not a sexual act, I doubt arousal would be possible for the attacker.
More accurate is to say that rape is not acceptable or moral sexual activity. I can concede that it is not "between" a male and female in the manner one would normally claim, but that's a truly fine hair to split just to appear more knowledgeable and "moral" on the subject of rape.
As to homosexual activity, it most certainly has been shown to be detrimental behavior in a variety of ways, or a behavior that is the result of other mental/emotional shortcomings on the part of some who engage in the behavior. If this were not so, homosexuals would not suffer so many negative consequences in such greater percentages than normal people.
And certainly, it is spiritually detrimental given God's clear and unmistakable (to honest people) prohibition on the behavior with no exception so much as hinted at anywhere in the Scripture for which Dan has no true reverence.
A responsible doctor would not pretend homosexual behavior is inherently safe.
Clearly this is premised on ignoring the voluminous amount of doctors and studies documenting the disproportionate rates of various illnesses within the gay community
So when the “Sex Crimes” unit of a police department arrests a rapist, who is then charged with “Sexual Assault”, it clearly has nothing to do with heterosexual sexual activity. Those idiots.
Art, note how Dan seeks to demonstrate that homosexual behavior is healthy, by pointing out that it’s not healthy.
this is premised on ignoring the voluminous amount of doctors and studies documenting the disproportionate rates of various illnesses within the gay community
As a point of reality, almost all of the negative health and emotional damage that results in the lives of gay folk is a result of the historic oppression and demonization of gay folk... of denying them the possibility to marry the person of their choice and live within the support of a healthy community.
Are depression and suicide worse in the lives of many gay folk? Yes, but that's due to historic oppression and societal demonization, not anything innate to homosexuality. According to the research.
Are STDs more prevalent in the gay community than the straight? Yes, largely. But that is due to denying them the support of the freedom of choice to marry and settle down in a faithful committed relationship, not anything innate to homosexuality.
Look at the actual data, Craig. Not the Focus on the Family spin on the data.
I have looked at numerous studies of the actual rates of disease etc. We’re talking about data, you know, actual data. Compiled in actual studies. It’s slmost like objective.
I haven’t looked at any of this days from Focus on the Family. I have looked at the reports by the CDC. Especially the one about disproportionate levels of domestic violence in the gay community. I’m sure that’s someon else’s fault also.
But, keep it up, these excuses are giving me something to laugh about.
Total nonsense, Dan. Those disproportionate rates to whuch Craig referred remain very much the same in countries and cities with the greatest tolerance and acceptance. THAT is what the actual data shows, not what the pro-LGBT activists, who based their agenda on lies, have convinced morally corrupted people like yourself.
Data is only important when I supports Dans predilections.
Gay men 2% of the population, 67% of AIDS cases. That sounds healthy.
And people committing to healthy, committed marriages will decrease those sorts of numbers.
Again, shallow looks at data without thinking through the implications of the data will lead to shallow opinions.
If they wanted to commit as in an actual maariage, they could have done so all along. Instead, they chose promiscuity. No one was stopping them from marriage-like commitments long before marriage was illegally redefined by activist judges based on nothing but their desire to do so. "Shallow" is pretending commitment is impossible without an unwilling populace being forced to accept the demands of the immoral.
I’m sure that the high degree of promiscuity and the continued redefining of monogamy is a result of historic oppression or some such crap. But, excuses are always great ways to counter data.
Again: Shallow thinking leads to shallow conclusions.
And there is no thinking so shallow as yours, Dan. It is proven with every cowardly deletion of comments your thinking provokes and with every charge of "delusion" you level when your shallow thinking fails to muster a serious response.
How is taking the actual data at face value and taking public statements about what monogamy looks like in the gay community “shallow thinking”?
Are you suggesting that those advocating for a non monogamous definition of monogamy are stupid?
This topic arose because there was the suggestion (by you) that I should provide a bible verse that suggests God would approve of homosexual practices. I pointed out that it was obvious that at least some sexuality (gay or straight) is a blessed, beautiful, holy, wonderful thing, bringing health and joy to our lives... YOU responded by citing these stats about some negative results from SOME aspects of homosexual practices.
But I was not saying that ALL sexual behavior (gay or straight) was good, but that SOME sexual behavior is clearly good, healthy and life-fulfilling... for instance, sex within healthy circumstances, which would include a committed, loving relationship, as in a marriage (gay or straight).
Given that context, and given the history of demonizing gay folk and gay sexuality, to say, "Look at these studies that show some negative results from SOME homosexual practices (promiscuity, for instance)." That is a shallow look at the larger point.
If I were to say, "LOOK! Straight young men tend to be more promiscuous, and thus, have more negative results... THEREFORE, all straight sexual behavior is bad..." is an irrational conclusion, based upon an extremely shallow look at the data.
Understand?
"...there was the suggestion (by you) that I should provide a bible verse that suggests God would approve of homosexual practices. I pointed out that it was obvious that at least some sexuality (gay or straight) is a blessed, beautiful, holy, wonderful thing, bringing health and joy to our lives..."
...which clearly does not answer the challenge of providing that verse. Instead, you presented once again your highly subjective and baseless opinion that to YOU it is "obvious" that some homosexual behavior is a blessed thing. Talk about tap-dancing! You have never answered the question and insist on deleting comments on your blog for that which is a more direct answer to any of your questions...even those leading questions designed to force an agreement with your corruption.
As to "the history of demonizing 'gay folk' and 'gay' sexuality", ANY immoral sexual behavior, as well as those who engage in it, have been "demonized" to one degree or another throughout Judeo-Christian history. Indeed, the same is true for all sin. Don't see other sinners suffering the same percentages of negative results.
No, there was not a suggestion by me, it was a request, one I’ve been making for years. One that you and I both know you can’t ever fill. The fact that all you have is unsupported opinions and baseless assertions to try to counter scripture and data is extremely telling.
Some questions that point to the flaw in your reasoning...
I can not point to ONE SINGLE verse in the Bible that defends a 40 hour work week (as opposed, for instance, to being forced to work 70 hours a week). Does that mean that I can't reasonably conclude that a 40 hour work week is a good idea?
Correct answer: No. Of course it's a good idea. (and lest you get all literal and complain about the 40 hours part, the point being that we ought not OVER work ourselves, that the data shows that overwork is bad for our health, that we need downtime and time off from work to be healthy and happy people.)
I can not point to ONE SINGLE Bible verse in support of vacation days (beyond the one Sabbath day a week). Does that mean we can't reasonably conclude that vacation days off of work are a good thing?
Correct answer: No, of course it is a good idea. I don't NEED a Bible verse to be able to say "Yes, vacation days from work are obviously a good thing."
Presumably you two might agree to these examples (although, you tell me).
The point being: WE DO NOT NEED TO FIND A BIBLE VERSE TO SUPPORT THINGS THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY GOOD. Likewise, we don't need a Bible verse to stand against things that are obviously bad/harmful.
Your irrational conclusion that YOU THINK I need a Bible verse to support what is reasonable is an irrational conclusion on your part, not a failure on my part.
Further, IF you agree that time off is a good thing, essential to good physical and mental health, AND if you agree in the notion of a Good God, one who seeks our good, then to conclude "While the Bible never says it, it is extremely reasonable to conclude that a good God would support and approve of time off of work to spend time with your family, to enjoy life and God's good creation a bit... why wouldn't God approve and bless such things? Of course it is reasonable, even without finding a Bible verse to support the notion."
I mean, a Biblical literalist COULD look at the words of the Bible and say, "The ONLY 'time off' the bible allows for literally and specifically is the Sabbath day. So ANY time off work beyond that one day is evil and against God's will..." But then, that would be stupid. Don't you agree?
Just use a bit of common sense, fellas.
The flaw in your examples is that you are conflating things that are “good” on some level with things that God given His imprimatur to.
Those things are good in a relative sense. Is being required to work 40 hours “good” relative to being required to work 70 hours? Sure. But is it “good” relative to working 20 hours?
You’re just continuing to make my point for me.
If you want to merely that some societies have considered certain things to be “good” relative to other things, great. Honestly it’s the perfect argument for you to make. The problem comes when you announce what God “blesses” or what God thinks is good (which would logically mean objectively good, given an all knowing perfect God), without being able to support that notion from scripture that you have problems.
I do love it when you demonstrate your ignorance of how people who interpret the Bible literally actually approach scripture.
? Those things are "good" in the sense that they make our lives better, they make us happier, they make us healthier. They are things that are observably, demonstrably, measurably make our lives better, according to research.
Having vacations and reasonable work weeks make us healthier, happier, better people (or at least gives us that chance) according to the data.
Likewise, according to the data, people who marry successfully (gay or straight) tend to be healthier and happier. Demonstrably Good.
Do you have ANY data that suggests otherwise? That is, do you have ANY data that says for straight people, marriage is a good, wholesome, healthy improvement upon our lives BUT for gay folk, that is not the case?
The reality is that you don't, am I right?
So, they are good NOT in a "relative" sense, but in a measurable and observable sense.
So, you standing OPPOSED to what makes people healthier and happier... and me pointing it out... how does that make your point for you?
It undermines your point. Perhaps you just don't realize it, but that these behaviors are demonstrably, measurably Good undermines your superstitions that they make your god angry.
No, because I’m not and have never, ever made an argument on this topic based on such a subjective and nebulous claim.
I’m not suggesting that those things aren’t good relative to other alternatives, it’s not the issue.
I’m suggesting that Jesus tells us “sexual immorality” is not good, and I’m agreeing with the scholarship that indicates that “sexual immorality” to an observant 1st century Jew would have led straight to Lev 18.
Unfortunately you keep putting opinion polls up as evidence demonstrating what “God blesses”, I’m pretty confident that God doesn’t operate by opinion polls.
Of course you ignoring the statistical evidence that demonstrates disproportionate levels of poor health, mental health issues, and domestic violence doesn’t help your demand that your opinion polls be taken as gospel.
Speaking out of my current personal experience, I can say with 100% confidence that how I feel right now does not reflect the reality of my situation. Trying to measure reality based on whether or not people say they feel good doesn’t seem to be a particularly good way to acquire useful knowledge.
The reality is that scientific surveys and polls are extremely reliable, psychologists and sociologists use these sort of scientific surveys all the time. So, while you may wishfully THINK that, against ALL REASON, those who can be self-determining and choose the person of their choice for who they marry, that they're still unhappy, you do so counter to the best data we have available. And against good common sense.
I personally have seen the life-giving, loving, wonderful, powerful, empowering, righteous joy that comes from folks marrying the person of their choice, living committed lives of love and contentment with their spouse, and living longer (again, you're ignoring the scientific research about how length of life and quality of life and health are impacted... but they're probably lying about how they are living longer, right? Damn, man.) and more wholesomely thanks to it. It's just basic common sense for those who don't have their heads, hearts and minds in the gutter.
Embrace the data. Embrace common sense.
I can't help you understand that any better.
Returning to the "point" (such as it is) of your post to ask one simple pertinent question that undermines much of your mistakes in reasoning...
If I wasn’t a doctor, and there were multiple, actual doctors who had done the research to demonstrate that certain behaviors were specifically linked to outcomes that were unhealthy,
There are ZERO reports, research, data that points to gay folk marrying being unhealthy.
Do you understand that reality?
I repeat: YOU CAN POINT TO NOT ONE SINGLE REPORT or bit of research that links gay folk marrying to negative health impacts.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT REALITY?
On the flip side, there ARE documented data-based positive health results of gay folk being married....
"There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.
Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage."
https://theconversation.com/evidence-is-clear-on-the-benefits-of-legalising-same-sex-marriage-82428
"Reports in the medical and social science literature suggest that legal and social recognition of same-sex marriage has had positive effects on the health status of this at-risk community."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093259/
"studies show there’s another reason to favor gay marriage – it’s good for public health.
A study published in February by the American Journal of Public Health found that gay men in Massachusetts were in better physical and mental health after that state became the first to recognize same-sex marriage in 2003."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/news/la-heb-gay-marriage-health-studies-20120509
"Policies that confer protections to same-sex couples may be effective in reducing health care use and costs among sexual minority men."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3484969/
I could go on all day with the research, but it just supports what should be obvious to anyone that has common sense and no agenda or allegiance to religious prejudices:
* That people SHOULD obviously have the liberty to self-determination
* That Self-Determination would lead to increased standard of living and a LACK of self-determination liberties is oppression and a decrease in happiness/self-fulfillment
* That freedom and support that comes from acceptance of one's orientation leads to an increase in standard of living/happiness... in one's mental health
* that increases in mental health boost one's physical health
* that committed marriage arrangements lead to less of the ill effects associated with promiscuity... significantly.... leading to better health and actual longer lives;
* that acceptance of their marriage arrangements leads to better insurance coverage for gay folk, which leads to better health and longer life
* that it is EVIL to promote policies that lead to DECREASED health and life expectancy.
Are you sure you're not ready to change your position and embrace the healthy, life-giving, moral side of the argument?
Here's a reasonable question, to any and all of you. Craig, Marshall, Stan...
IF you were convinced of what should be obvious...
IF you saw the data that proved to you conclusively that gay folk who marry live longer lives, are happier, more content, more fulfilled, healthier, suffer less emotional distress and generally had better lives - and again, ACTUALLY LIVED LONGER in a HEALTHIER MANNER...
If you saw that data and were convinced they lived longer and more happily and healthily than not only promiscuous gay folk, but also gay folk who opted for denying their sexuality and embracing abstinence...
IF you were convinced of that, would you support gay folk having the right to self determination on marriage and marrying the person of their choice?
Or would you still say, "I'm sorry, but better that you were sicker, less happy and died younger but still got to hear me and mine preach against 'gay mirage' (!) and work to prevent you from marrying and denying you any benefits of marriage?"
Craig has already allowed that, at the least, gay folk marrying and being in monogamous relationships is less awful (in his mind) than promiscuity... but would he/you affirm it as a moral good?
It's a reasonable question.
It’s interesting that you choose to “return to the point of the post”, by asking me about something that the post didn’t actually address, because it’s a non issue in this context.
As long as you continue to ignore the health, mental health, domestic violence statistics that are vastly out of proportion as well as the fact that there is an active, significant, and vocal movement in the gay community away from monogamy, I see no point in trying to converse with you.
The fact that you’re trying to pass off polls that measure how people feel as if that is some sort of objective measure speaks for itself.
I havr to note note that the summary statements you pasted with your links virtually all point out that you are overstating the results.
I’d love to actually see you objectively prove your claims, but I won’t hold my breath.
I JUST GAVE you data that demonstrates what is obvious to any non-prejudiced and rational mind. The data is there. Look at the links I JUST GAVE YOU.
Further, there is not one single solitary scientific study you can cite anywhere at all in the whole world that demonstrates any link between gay folk marrying and BAD health results.
It doesn't exist.
Do you recognize that reality? Do you admit that it's real?
So again, IF you opened your eyes and saw the data that demonstrated what should be obvious to any rational person, that marriage increased health, life and well-being, WOULD you support gay folk marrying then, or would you condemn it still?
And, if it were the latter (as I suspect at least 2/3 of you'd say), do you recognize how evil that makes you appear to rational, moral people?
This is why you've lost the younger generation. They aren't blinded by your religious bigotry/prejudice and they can see what is obvious and what the data supports and they, therefore, recognize how very wrong, how evil it is to oppose people being self determining and marrying the person of their choice.
Good God, men, embrace Good.
I find these "studies" to be especially curious given all the talk pre-Obergefell that
homosexual couples were no different than hetero couples, that homosexual-headed families were no different than hetero-headed families and that the children of homosexual couples were no worse off than those of hetero couples. Now, Dan tells us the data shows some significant difference in the health and happiness of homosexuals simply due to a legally recognized contract between them. One really needs a program to know what to think about the Agenda That Doesn't Exist.
? Marshall, I think you are not understanding "all the talk" that you think you heard.
But here, Marshall, make it clear. Answer the question. It's reasonable...
IF you were convinced that the data is just what I've pointed out (and what is just plain common sense to those without a religious agenda): That gay folk who marry tend to live longer, be happier, more self-fulfilled and live healthier lives with less sadness and sickness... IF that were proven to you, would you THEN say that you do support gay folk marrying and living healthier, happier longer lives?
OR, would you say that you don't care if they're happier, healthier and live longer, you STILL will condemn gay folk trying to marry?
Here, let me make it easier for you:
IF I learned that the data definitively proved that gay folk who married were more sick, more miserable/unhappy and more likely to die young and painful deaths, what would I say then? OF COURSE, I'd counsel, "you know, given the data and that this decision is likely to make you sicker, sadder and die younger, maybe it's not the best idea to pursue this plan of marriage..."
OF COURSE, I'd do that. Who wouldn't counsel against actions that lead to more sickness, pain, misery and an early death?
Oh. I think we know the answer to that.
But you tell me.
It's a reasonable question and will point to where your allegiances lie.
Also: IF you hold that you'd still counsel in favor of more sickness, misery, oppression and earlier deaths, even counter to data that shows that's what you're counseling... do you recognize that people will consider that evil, on your part?
Also, each time you say "studies" in scare quotes... do you recognize that this makes you sound more conspiratorial, more loony, less rational and more likely to support evil to regular people?
Dan,
I’m going to try a new tactic with you in the hopes that it will help you with some basic comprehension and understanding.
Do you understand that I’ve never made a connection between “gay marriage” and health? What I have done is referenced CDC (that’s the government) studies that show disproportionately high rates of various indicators of poor physical and mental health for homosexuals.
This is a very simple, direct point that I need you to confirm that you understand.
Art, what is interesting is that there is days that demonstrates that homosexuals are actually disproportionately less healthy than the other 98% of the population and he chooses to pretend those studies with actual data don’t exist. In this obsessive attempt to turn this into a marriage conversation.
My position on homosexual behavior, like Lev 18:22, precludes any opinion on whether or not two homosexuals should marry. In other words, it doesn't matter what impact a license might have on their sinful union. It's still sinful, harmful and worthy of death and damnation.
What's more, a more compelling comparison with real value is health outcomes between married homo v married hetero couples. If we still find significantly higher percentages of negative outcomes, then what? As comparisons of a more general nature between the two groups show those higher percentages then it is reasonable to expect similar findings in other apples to apples results.
Make that apples to apples comparisons.
I’m with you. It’s not like marriage somehow sanctifies behavior that’s otherwise sinful.
Now, if Dan wanted to make the case that if a gay man who habitually engaged in unsafe, unhealthy, sexual behavior with wantonly with multiple partners would be in a relatively more healthy situation if he married and was monogamous, I’d completely agree. Because it’s clear that wanton, anonymous sex with random dudes in bathhouses or Liberty Memorial park is not a healthy choice. But, because someone chooses a better behavior, doesn’t mean it’s good.
Tell me if I’m wrong.
When someone says “God blesses gay marriage” or “Homosexual sex is healthy” or similar statements, doesn’t the verbiage used indicate that they are including all “gay marriage” etc?
Or does the word choice somehow indicate some subset of “gay marriage” etc?
“God blesses gay marriage” or “Homosexual sex is healthy”"
There's no possible way to support either of those contentions.
I’m assuming you say that because blanket, all encompassing, sweeping generalizations are virtually always false.
But I've already supported both those contentions, Marshall. Literally, right here, and elsewhere. That you don't understand it is NOT evidence that I have not done it, or that others have not done it.
Look: Sexuality is a good, good thing. It's pleasurable, it binds people together, bringing them literally intimately closer. It indeed, connects people, one to another. IT IS GOOD.
Do you disagree with the reality that sexual acts are a good, good blessing to humanity?
(NOTE: AND READ EXTREMELY CLOSELY: That I note that sexual acts are good IS NOT TO SUGGEST that every act committed with one's sexual organs is good, just that SEXUALITY itself is a good thing. Lord God above, the caveats that I have to offer to help you all understand what should be self-evident.)
Now, sexuality ALSO has its explosive parts... it is a source for pain, too. For someone who lies or corrupts to obtain sex with just whoever, that causes harm and, BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM is a bad thing. NOT because there is a line in some ancient text that suggests it, but because it causes harm. NOT because some religious teacher told it to you or wrote it down, but because it causes harm. The religious leader, doctor, wise person wrote it down/told it BECAUSE it causes harm, NOT the other way around.
For those of us who believe in God and think God would warn us about "sins," a good God would warn about sin BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM, it oppresses, it cheats, it lies, it damages... and because a good God would not want anyone to experience that harm, that Good God would warn against it.
A Good God or a good religious/moral leader would not just randomly make up rules just for the hell of it, to tempt us and to teach us to blindly follow rules, but to protect from harm, from oppression.
So, because of the very real potential for harm from bad uses of sexuality, many of us have reached the conclusion that the best, most holy, most beautiful place for the embrace of the very good sexuality that is innate to our lives and psyches is a loving, supportive, committed, one on one relationship, MUTUALLY embraced by two people.
That, above, IS a support offering the very reasonable, obvious support for those contentions. I've offered that suggestion in multiple ways in multiple places. I've done so again, just now, in extreme detail so that you don't miss the point.
You're welcome.
Now, one has to wonder why you all refuse to answer the reasonable question:
IF you knew for a fact that folk marrying (gay, straight or otherwise) in a mutually supported, decided and loving relationship led to longer life, healthier and happier life, and that NOT marrying tended to lead to a shorter, less healthy, less happy life, would you STILL counsel people against it?
And, if so, do you recognize why reasonable would find that monstrous?
“Do you disagree with the reality that sexual acts are a good, good blessing to humanity?”
I don’t have the time to plumb the irony In the fact that Dan spent multiple paragraphs explaining why the above quote doesn’t actually mean what it says. I just want to say thanks for so eloquently making my point, and I will return to this target rich environment when I have a chance.
Or how about, just answer the questions asked, clearly and directly. Continually to vaguely criticizing some vague, milquetoast unknown element of what I've said/the questions I've asked and promising to "target" the "rich environment" of my reasonable questions... sometime, only serves to demonstrate you're not saying anything.
Here's a better idea: Answer the questions. Directly. Clearly. Without vague allusions to some nothing-gas.
Craig, earlier...
I’m going to try a new tactic with you in the hopes that it will help you with some basic comprehension and understanding.
Do you understand that I’ve never made a connection between “gay marriage” and health?
I'm going to help you understand... You DID make a connection between marriage (including with gay folk) and health. In YOUR ORIGINAL POST.
What YOU said in your very first paragraph...
If I wasn’t a doctor, and there were multiple, actual doctors who had done the research to demonstrate that certain behaviors were specifically linked to outcomes that were unhealthy, I’m not sure I’d be crowing about how healthy those things are.
This was in response to comments on MY blog, where I was making the rational and moral case AGAINST condemning "homosexual sin..." in the sense that it would include ALL homosexual behavior INCLUDING AND SPECIFICALLY IN the context of a marriage relationship.
That is, it has been MY case all along that sexual activity is not itself bad, but incredibly great in the right context. For me, that includes the context of a committed, monogamous marriage like arrangement (whatever it might be called).
That is, it has been MY point all along that sex within a marriage (whether that is gay folk marrying or straight folk marrying) is incredibly good.
I have been CLEAR that this is my point all along, there is no reason why anyone should not recognize that this is my point.
Thus, for those who would dare to try to make the claim (counter-factually to observable, known data found in research and just basic common sense observation in the real world) that sex within the context of a marriage relationship - gay or straight - is harmful, well, they're just wrong.
It was in the context of ALL of that which I have talked about, that YOU began this blog by saying what you said...
If I wasn’t a doctor, and there were multiple, actual doctors who had done the research to demonstrate that certain behaviors were specifically linked to outcomes that were unhealthy
I'm talking about healthy, committed, loving marriage arrangements being healthy, YOU responded by saying that^.
Now, is it possible that somehow you have MISSED my point all along and thought I was talking about rape or oppression or some other harmful behavior? Sure. But you'd have to admit that, as I'm not going to tell you that you were missing my point.
So by all means, clarify: Did you make your initial comment because YOU were misunderstanding MY point?
“For those of us who believe in God and think God would warn us about "sins," a good God would warn about sin BECAUSE IT CAUSES HARM, it oppresses, it cheats, it lies, it damages... and because a good God would not want anyone to experience that harm, that Good God would warn against it.“
God warns us about sin because us separating ourselves from Him, placing ourselves in His place of authority, or rebelling against Him isn’t that big of a deal it’s not like there are any real significant consequences.
I love the ignoring of what we’re actually saying in favor of what Dan wants us to say, as well as Dan’s total lack of interest in staying on topic.
Finally, the intentional ignoring of the reality that the type of gay marriage Dan idealizes is not necessarily the norm in the gay community. The fact that monogamy and exclusivity in marriage are actively being undermined in various segments of society, just demonstrates that this isn’t about reality or data, it’s about advancing an agenda.
If it takes demonizing or misrepresentation of those who disagree with you or ignoring the evidence, that’s a small price to pay.
You’ve now done this twice, once with Art and once with me.
The part of my original post you quoted does not ever mention marriage. Marriage is not the topic of this post, it never has been. I’ve indulged your off topic attempts to change the subject, as it’s instructive.
But this is too far. You need to acknowledge the demonstrable reality that my original post is NOT about marriage. I know you want to force marriage into this discussion, but marriage IS NOT the topic of the post and it is absolutely NOT mentioned in the original post. All you have to do is read the post and you should be able to understand that simple, demonstrable, unarguable, indisputable fact.
Again, YOUR post is referencing MY post, which WAS about healthy sexual activity, which includes marriage. Was THIS post, from you, NOT about my post? Was it referencing some other group of people talking about Not Marriage, or was it referencing MY post, which was about/including marriage?
If it was about MY post, which WAS about marriage, then this seems to be on topic.
If you're not talking about my post, then I apologize for misunderstanding.
IF it IS about my post, did you NOT understand my post?
Being that I'm at work and using my phone, my input must be limited. But I do not deny that two homosexuals committing to each other, denying all others as in an actual marriage would most likely result in a healthier life for both of them, as opposed to shacking up with whoever whenever possible. But that doesn't make the situation a healthy one, and certainly not a moral one, especially assuming any sexual/erotic activity rakes place between then. Sinning in a less risky manner doesn't mean the behavior is not sinful, nor does it mean it is not risky. Thus, it is not a "good" at all, but rather a less risky and still sinful "bad".
Just think about it, fellas: WHY is it so hard for you to answer a direct and clear question, directly and clearly:
IF you knew the data said that gay folk who married the person of their choice lived longer and with greater happiness and health than those gay folk who didn't, WOULD YOU counsel them to embrace the shorter and more miserable, sickly life? Or would you say, "Good God, YES, please, marry! Of course you should!, given the data..."?
Why is it so difficult for you to just answer this question directly and clearly? Is it because you recognize how monstrous and evil this makes you out to be? Is it because you fear that the data might actually say just that and you don't want to have to embrace the evil option (i.e., counseling people they should die earlier and be more sickly and sad to accommodate what you think will one day be worth it all, by and by in the sky)?
Why can't you answer this question?
that doesn't make the situation a healthy one...
Ah, but that is JUST what it looks like the data is precisely saying!
...and certainly not a moral one
Well, that IS the question at hand, isn't it?
Dan,
If you want to comment about the topic of this, specific post, please do so. If you want to comment on some other post that you believe might be related to this post, do so there.
I’ve tolerated your obsessive desire to ignore the reality of this post and to simply press your agenda regardless. I’ve tolerated your intentional ignoring the evidence for the point of this post, long enough.
Why is it so hard for to behave the same way you demand others behave?
Also, I’ve pointed out that every link you provided says, in the parts you pasted, that none of these opinion polls are conclusive in demonstrating what you want them to demonstrate. If the people you copied the links from, aren’t making these claims for their own studies, why wouldn’t we believe them.
"IF you knew the data said that gay folk who married the person of their choice lived longer and with greater happiness and health than those gay folk who didn't, WOULD YOU counsel them to embrace the shorter and more miserable, sickly life?"
One needn't answer directly if the person asking had spent years supposedly reading the comments of the persons being asked. The proper answer would be to encourage the homosexual to reject his urges and desires for strange flesh altogether and live a life according to Scripture, which unequivocally teaches that the only moral sexual behavior is that which takes place between a man and a woman who are married to each other. That's how good Christians respond to anyone who indulges in any form of sexual immorality, homosexual behavior or otherwise.
What kind of false Christian encourages the sexually immoral to continue in their immoral behaviors? Don't bother answering, as it's a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious: "progressive" pseudo-Christians like yourself. What could be more monstrous and evil than to pretend you're helping a sinner by guiding him to a different way of indulging the sin on the pretense that he'll suffer less? It's about as heinous a prospect as I can imagine...truly from the pit of hell. But then, you're so corrupt in your support of sexual immorality that I'm not surprised that you regard true concern for the sinner as monstrous and evil.
"Ah, but that is JUST what it looks like the data is precisely saying!"
Ah, but no it doesn't. The best your data can suggest is that homosexuals living in an arrangement that is truly monogamous, as the term has always been understood by real Christians and other honest people, are at less risk. To say it is healthier is a good as it gets, but "healthier" doesn't mean "healthy" when you're comparing one degree of risky behavior to another.
What's more important to point out is how it is a lie to pretend you're doing these people any real good by encouraging them to continue indulging their risky behavior in a less risky manner. The manner in which you're trumpeting this "data" is no better than another Dan Trabue lie used to promote sexual immorality. And yes, it is the question at hand, one you've never answered except to pervert words and verses to build a false case for your position.
Not only does the data not “precisely say” what Dan claims, but the very summary statements he posted make it clear that the people he copied them from don’t believe that the data “precisely says” what Dan wants.
I'm inclined to believe he reads no further than the headline or title that suggests it backs him up.
I distinctly remember one or two instances where he did just that. I pulled quote after quote out of the study that demonstrated how wrong he was, yet he never did acknowledge that reality.
Having said that, I’ve done the same thing a couple of times, so I started reading past the headlines.
Post a Comment