Black rejection of gays lethal


So it's the "rejection" in the black community that's causing AID's to spread.

Here's another take ......... :idea: .........How about it's the one's doing the spreading....................multiple partners, unprotected sex, down low-not telling wife/husband and having unprotected sex with them?

Why do people blame everybody except the ones doing the do.
Sounds like just more "It's not my fault" to me.

answers.......... :uhoh: :uhoh:
 
EB said:
In my and others' opinions, she has not lived. She acts as if her experience in life is limited. There are so many things that she has not recognized or noticed. While I will say that some Black leaders needs to retire, her bashing of them is too simplistic. Her attitude of public HBCUs is quite negative.
Click to expand...

:tup:
 



staggalee83 said:
So it's the "rejection" in the black community that's causing AID's to spread.

Here's another take ......... :idea: .........How about it's the one's doing the spreading....................multiple partners, unprotected sex, down low-not telling wife/husband and having unprotected sex with them?

Why do people blame everybody except the ones doing the do.
Sounds like just more "It's not my fault" to me.

answers.......... :uhoh: :uhoh:
Click to expand...

:tup:
 
staggalee83 said:
So it's the "rejection" in the black community that's causing AID's to spread.

Here's another take ......... :idea: .........How about it's the one's doing the spreading....................multiple partners, unprotected sex, down low-not telling wife/husband and having unprotected sex with them?

Why do people blame everybody except the ones doing the do.
Sounds like just more "It's not my fault" to me.

answers.......... :uhoh: :uhoh:
Click to expand...

That's easy to to say and to a certain extent true. However, you can't IGNORE societal aspects that may 'CONTRIBUTE' to certain groups reacting in different ways. Those factors need to be addressed. It's not about blaming someone else.
 
lil_j said:
Well what do you think "their" perspective is? As the article implies, I think their mentality and perspective has alot to do with the black cultural climate.
Click to expand...


Those dudes thought and emotional process have a female foundation. Also, they perceive their actions toward each other in a relationship as natural. It's not just two men, its two induviduals actually seeking love or physical gratification like men and women. On top of that, they want to impose their unnatural lifestyle on the rest of society. They want everyone to accept their choice as being ok rather than for what it really is. :vomit:
 
northern tiger said:
Those dudes thought and emotional process have a female foundation. Also, they perceive their actions toward each other in a relationship as natural. It's not just two men, its two induviduals actually seeking love or physical gratification like men and women. On top of that, they want to impose their unnatural lifestyle on the rest of society. They want everyone to accept their choice as being ok rather than for what it really is. :vomit:
Click to expand...

Two points

Those dudes thought and emotional process have a female foundation. Also, they perceive their actions toward each other in a relationship as natural. It's not just two men, its two induviduals actually seeking love or physical gratification like men and women.
Click to expand...

1. I disagree, as time goes on there is mounting SCIENTIFIC evidence that homosexuality is NATURAL although RARE compared to the mass population.

On top of that, they want to impose their unnatural lifestyle on the rest of society. They want everyone to accept their choice as being ok rather than for what it really is.
Click to expand...

2. Impose their lifestyle? Are they forcing you to be gay? Wanting to be afforded the same rights and privliges as others is not imposing your lifestyle. Heterosexuals can walk the street hand and hand, talk about his and her spouse at work as they please without ridicule. Whats wrong with homosexuals wanting the same?

I'm sorry but the unnatural arguments isn't going to fly. Religion aside, I'd urge everyone to to take a step back and not look at whats relgious or traditional, but whats fair. In the words of Abe Lincoln:

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." ABRAHAM LINCOLN 1859
 
lil_j said:
2. Impose their lifestyle? Are they forcing you to be gay? Wanting to be afforded the same rights and privliges as others is not imposing your lifestyle. Heterosexuals can walk the street hand and hand, talk about his and her spouse at work as they please without ridicule. Whats wrong with homosexuals wanting the same?

Its one thing to walk around without ridicule. Its another to start gay pride parades...marching bands...and to have corporations make not of gay pride celebrations. Its things like the latter that aid in making it bad for gays to be able to walk around without ridicule. You can practice whatever sexual desires you have at home without telling everyone else and accenting it with buffoonery.

I'm sorry but the unnatural arguments isn't going to fly. Religion aside, I'd urge everyone to to take a step back and not look at whats relgious or traditional, but whats fair. In the words of Abe Lincoln:

I can agree with you here. The government does not have the right to deny these folks their rights. At the same time they should not try to force the government to redefine marriage. The govenrment should drop marriage as the prerequisite to giving rights to couples and find another way to handle that situation.
Click to expand...

:nod:
 
northern tiger said:
Why encourage a relationship that is against the laws of nature.
Click to expand...


What if it saved lives? I don't recall the practice of homosexuality being designated being in violation of the "Natural Laws"
 
Its one thing to walk around without ridicule. Its another to start gay pride parades...marching bands...and to have corporations make not of gay pride celebrations. Its things like the latter that aid in making it bad for gays to be able to walk around without ridicule. You can practice whatever sexual desires you have at home without telling everyone else and accenting it with buffoonery.
Click to expand...

So are you against a oppressed segment of society celebrating their culture an being proud of who they are? I doubt it's about throwing it in someones face, but people being proud of who they are when everyone around them is looks down on them because of who they are. I'm not equating the two, but their are plenty of whites who disagree with blacks celebrating the fact they are black and what blacks went through.
 
J C said:
What if it saved lives? I don't recall the practice of homosexuality being designated being in violation of the "Natural Laws"
Click to expand...
Once again, the reference is a Biblical one.

Rom 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
KJV

Another Natural Law for mammals is sexual reproduction. Homosexuality cannot fulfill such a law.
 
dacontinent said:
Once again, the reference is a Biblical one.

Rom 1:26-27

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
KJV

Another Natural Law for mammals is sexual reproduction. Homosexuality cannot fulfill such a law.
Click to expand...

Can we stay on topic please? Religion and homosexuality is another thread all by itself. I could provide plenty of verses for which society doesn't consider a sin even though the Bibe EXPLICITLY says so.
 
J C said:
DaContinent, A compliment, you are consistent. I realize we come from two separate positions. Your profession is spiritually based and I respect your position. I come from a purely secular position when discussing issues such as the ones in this thread and try to deal in the here and now. Now don't get me wrong, the general teachings of Christ have shaped my views (love, tolerant, respect, fairness). I am not a literalist (Christian conservative orthodoxy). I have seen where biblical scriptures have been used to justify inhumane treatment of other humans and believe it continues today. Not all of Christianity of the 1st millenian applies to the modern world. We will have to agree to disagree on such issues. Never interpret it as being personal. Peace
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment. I never take these personal. It forces me to lose objectivity.

I would really have to start digging all over again to find something in 1st millenial Christianity that does not apply to the modern world. But, that is for another topic.

We have at least 6000 years of human scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is neither natural nor normal. I'm all for discovery. As soon as we find some evidence that women produce sperm and men produce eggs making "natural" homosexuals capable of reproduction, I will be among the first to stand in support of the practioners thereof. Until then, I will stick with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

As for what people have done and can do to twist the Scriptures...those things don't change the proper application of the Scriptures themselves. Read the truth; obey the truth. They take us directly to righteousness that is in Him. :cool:
 
:wavey: I separate natural law from biblical law/scripture. The concept was developed before the Torah and before monotheism. :alicia:

Lil j, your signature is on message.
 



We have at least 6000 years of human scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is neither natural nor normal. I'm all for discovery. As soon as we find some evidence that women produce sperm and men produce eggs making "natural" homosexuals capable of reproduction, I will be among the first to stand in support of the practioners thereof. Until then, I will stick with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between Natural, normal, and rare. So are you saying that anyone who can't reproduce because of genetic conditions are not NATURAL?
 
lil_j said:
There is a difference between Natural, normal, and rare. So are you saying that anyone who can't reproduce because of genetic conditions are not NATURAL?
Click to expand...

No. I am simply saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for homosexuality to reproduce human life. Reproduction is a natural by-product of heterosexuality in humans (and all other animals) under normal conditions. There are no such conditions shown for homosexuality. Hence, heterosexuality is viewed as both natural and normal.
 
lil_j said:
Can we stay on topic please? Religion and homosexuality is another thread all by itself. I could provide plenty of verses for which society doesn't consider a sin even though the Bibe EXPLICITLY says so.
Click to expand...
The post was not intended to divert the topic; merely to provide a frame of reference. Sadly, I agree with the rest of your post.
 
dacontinent said:
No. I am simply saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for homosexuality to reproduce human life. Reproduction is a natural by-product of heterosexuality in humans (and all other animals) under normal conditions. There are no such conditions shown for homosexuality. Hence, heterosexuality is viewed as both natural and normal.
Click to expand...

So you are basing natural on if you can reproduce or not.

Webster Dictionary (Natural): Of or pertaining to ones nature or constitution; inborn. (It really has nothing to do with producing spems and eggs)

Again, if you base law on the "Constitution" We shouldn't be denying these people their rights because of who they are. I know some of you will say it's a choice and not natural, but I can offer ample evidence to the contrary. So Dacontinent, if I prove to you that homosexuals are indeed natural in the true sense of the meaning natural, will you stand by your words?

We have at least 6000 years of human scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is neither natural nor normal. I'm all for discovery. As soon as we find some evidence that women produce sperm and men produce eggs making "natural" homosexuals capable of reproduction, I will be among the first to stand in support of the practioners thereof. Until then, I will stick with the preponderance of evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Again, I will only deal with scientific facts.
 
lil_j said:
So you are basing natural on if you can reproduce or not.

Webster Dictionary (Natural): Of or pertaining to ones nature or constitution; inborn. (It really has nothing to do with producing spems and eggs)...Again, I will only deal with scientific facts.
Click to expand...

Homosexuals are human beings. Unless you know a of synthetic means of reproducing humans. Then they are natural.

The point that I have made is that homosexuality (that is the practice and not the person) is not natural because it CANNOT provide for natural reproduction. The science here is rather straightforward. Yes, I stand by my words. There has been no evidence of two homosexuals reproducing after that kind. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, myself and about 8,000 clergy that I am associated with will champion the cause.

lil_j said:
...Again, if you base law on the "Constitution" We shouldn't be denying these people their rights because of who they are...
Click to expand...
Who you are is no reason for the denial of rights. What you do with who you are is the reason that we have laws. I'm not certain as to what this has to do with the topic, but it makes for interesting exchanges.
 
I think you are creating a false standard for what is natural. You stated that homosexuality (the act) is not natural because you can not reproduce. However, the ability of an individual to reproduce is neither the point of discussion or a sufficient condition to being hetero or homo. Let's take SEX outta of the equation. I'm arguing that ones preference wether hetero or homo is natural. In relationship to the thread, the unnatural argument does not carry any steam because ones gender is not dependent on their capacity to reproduce, but their genetic make up.
 
lil_j said:
I think you are creating a false standard for what is natural. You stated that homosexuality (the act) is not natural because you can not reproduce. However, the ability of an individual to reproduce is neither the point of discussion or a sufficient condition to being hetero or homo. Let's take SEX outta of the equation. I'm arguing that ones preference wether hetero or homo is natural. In relationship to the thread, the unnatural argument does not carry any steam because ones gender is not dependent on their capacity to reproduce, but their genetic make up.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I'm not taking the bait. You cannot take sex out of an issue of sexuality. The scientific method would not hold up.

The natural process of reproduction in mammals is sexual intercourse. No matter what the preferences are, there is no other natural method. Are you arguing that people who are homosexual are not mammals? I don't think that you are.

There are individuals who are heterosexual who are genetically prohibited from natural reproduction. The same is true of homosexuals. However, the species will not survive without sexual reproduction. That is what is natural.

I believe that there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this arguement...about 4 billion specimens.
 
Back to the topic ... rejection is lethal to any relationship. Counselors make phat careers of this one simple area of human interaction.

Homosexuals need to be loved as much as anyone. They do not need to be pampered or pitied. If you want to argue that people are born with such a genetic disposition, I will not fight you on the subject. I will tell you that the BEHAVIOR is wrong and can be permanently and completely altered by surrendering oneself to righteousness. It works and I have plenty of specimens in evidence.
 
If one is born with a degree of sexual genetic ambiguity, you are saying that they shouldn't partake in any type of sexual activity right? That falls back on religion. I can respect that stance even though I strongly disagree with the notion that sex should be limited to those who can reproduce and as a result against nature. There is a degree of 'observed' and 'documented' homosexuality in 450 out 2000 species of the animal kingdom which makes it natural. Three things:

1. Homosexuality is present and widespread in the animal kingdom

2. It has Biological causes

3. It can be accounted for by evolutionary theory

Hence part of the reason biblical law and natural law must be seperated. As a result I still maintain the unnatural argument doesn't hold any water backed up by evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top