Rambutt,
your stance is really comforting for those who get threatened with used needles, thank you.

Let me turn this argument in a new direction!

Lets suppose that homosexuality, in the course of this study, is found not to be a choice or a sin. Lets suppose it is discovered that it is a birth defect, and in the process they discover that unlike diabetes, autism, poor eye-sight, etc. it can be cured or at least prevented from occurring during the process of the development of a fetus.

I do not believe it is a choice either, but I also do not think it to be natural. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where the obstacles and hardships are so many? I also do not think it is any more right to pressure or single homosexuals out. I think it to be cruel and inhuman, just as I would to pick on a dwarf or Siamese twins.

My response is merely another possibility, I do not think someone born with diabetes, dwarfism, or autism has chosen their lifestyle either! My question is;

If this study concludes that homosexuality is a birth defect. Will we then search for a cure?
Would the homosexuals want a cure?, and finally;
Would everyone else considering having children wish to know and also be interested in a cure?

Sometimes in the arguments between the Homosexual population and the religious Zealots it seems that neither side considers the birth-defect possibility.

thats exactly why its against Gods laws. so the diseases it causes dont spread.
God said men who sleep with men as a woman should be put to death. we dont listen. we coddle them, accept them as equals... them miss kitty dies. you drew you own amswer on that one.
Look at the "hook ups". What is supposed to fit where? we have an outie women have an innie. PROBABLY FOR A VERY GOOD REASON I WOULD GUESS. This way we dont need to have sex with a sewer pipe, we can propagate, and we dont spread disease.. assuming we do as the book says... leave your parents and cleave unto your wife.
Cant you see that the Bible laws are there for our protection? Why is this so hard?

So to you it's ok that innocent people can catch a disease anywhere, yes? If it was only meant for sinners, how come that everyone can get it so easily?

Rambill,

Your "argument is so full of holes. I noticed you weren't about to touch the story of the 11 year old. As for Amanda Blake--she WASN'T gay, nor did she lead a promiscuous lifestyle. And, like I said, there are lots of instances that ORDINARY, "NORMAL" people have died of AIDS. You don't seem to have an answer to that one--or do you consider them "collateral damage"? If that's your belief, I'm glad you're in a minority there.

BECAUSE WE ALLOW THE SIN, EVEN ENCOURAGE IT. why do you think God was so harsh on them? Right There is ONE very logical reason... (IM SURE THERE ARE ABOUT 25 MORE)and i dont understand why no one can see it. WE DEVIATE FROM GODS LAWS AT OUR PERIL.

He doesn't want to know.
He has never been in the position I have been in, waiting for 5 years after being stabbed with a used needle to get the all clear.
He is ignorant of the highest order possible.

But from his previous post I see, it would have been ok had I died of AIDS, just because I'm liberal.

KNOX, I DONT HAVE TIME TO BABYSIT EVERYONE ON THIS SITE. Somre of us work for a living, so we dont have time to answer every single petty question asked. I can only tell you the facts as i read them in the Book. raw info without being filtered through some church who knows that 10% of the population are Gay and if they dont coddle them they will loose out on money.
does anyone know the average lifespan of a homosexual? i cant remember but i think it is in the fourties. its an unhealthy lifesy=tyle not only to them but to us all and we are supposed to embrace them and ignore the facts? not me.

AIDS IS A CURE. sorryaboutit.

Ignorant hypocrite, that's what you are, Rambill, no more, no less,
plain ignorant, selfish hypocritical.

No Rambill, you only have time to spread your ignorance and vile hatred in a pathetic attempt to wrap it in a veil of "religion". You, sir, are truly a sad individual, and I feel very sorry for you. May God have mercy on your misbegotten soul.

And besides, you've done NO attempt tp refute my point....

...mainly because YOU CAN'T!

Methinks YOU are the one who needs baby-sat. And a good spanking to stop your pathetic whining.

why? because i have morals? because im not politically correct? oh well. mabe eventually, after yiou think about it for a few more years, after someone you love dies of AIDS, YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH. Your shooting the messanger because you dont like the message. Im not alone in my beliefs by the way. We are in fact the silent majority. im just a loudmouth, i dont care what you think of me, i can only tell it the way it is. someone has to spread the good news. if i reach one person i have done a great work for the Lord.

Morals? YOU?

Don't make me laugh.

Rambill:

Lets start over.

All I'm asking is why, if you say AIDS is a "cure", does people die from the disease who are not gay, do not live a promiscuous lifestyle, and are non-drug users. I even gave a couple examples. I asked this originally, because I truly wanted to hear what you think about this. Now, here's your opportunity to give your honest opinion on what I've asked. Seriously.

I respect your opinion. I don't respect ANYONE'S insults.

Balls in your court, my friend.

cant. gotta work. tell your mom hi when you go upstairs.

Voil;

I knew you would come to my rescue. I fully understand what you mean by religious dogma - and have experienced it forst hand, as a believer - being part of Church's claiming to have the truth, but with extreme cultic practices. It is what started me on my journey of studying apologetics.

I too agree with the "faith/fact" differentiation that you put forth. Though I differ in interpretation of semantics in my own dialog - such as, I have faith in God, and through my life experience I may say that I believe that faith to be the truth, whereas in conversing with you I would be more correct to simply say that my doubt has severely lessened. Although I believe "truth" to be absolute - I do not doubt that perception of it is objective. He is the area where most believers, and non-believers tend to get into "arguments, emphatic opinion offering, call it what you will". The truth of the matter is, non of us can be sure, as it is beyond our scope to prove. You and Abra say the bible is Ficticious - Spider and I claim it to be truth. All of us are basing our "facts" on the evidence of experienced, observation, and the differences in logic filters.
We all can't be right - and in fact all of us may be wrong - but that does not negate that there is an absolute in the truth of the matter. As you can see with my "twisted logic" of my earlier post of stating that you have more of a grasp on the truth than Jesus - I obviously left out a few justifyable parameters. But this is what I see happening throughout the religious threads. People make statements of fact based on faulty logic with totally unacceptable parameters, and when someone comments on it - words like Bigotry, ignorant, self-rightious come flying out - rather than providing the acceptable parameters asked for. This is my hope - that the posts that make statements based on logic - provide acceptable parameters with which to judge the logic by. Perhaps if we all follow the guidelines you've asked for, and those I have - we will have more fluid discussions, and not scare people away from the religion threads.

Fanta;

You stated:

"I do not believe it is a choice either, but I also do not think it to be natural. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where the obstacles and hardships are so many?"

This is an unacceptable argument towards claiming Homosexuality is not a choice. Why do people smoke? Why do they become alcoholics, or drug addicts? Surely a drug addict couldn't possibly have made the choice to get sucked into that kind of lifestyle. Does that now mean they were born that way?

I am not using this statement to say that they are not, I'm merely saying that your statement does not prove they are.

Knoxman said:

"Your "argument is so full of holes. I noticed you weren't about to touch the story of the 11 year old. As for Amanda Blake--she WASN'T gay, nor did she lead a promiscuous lifestyle. And, like I said, there are lots of instances that ORDINARY, "NORMAL" people have died of AIDS. You don't seem to have an answer to that one--or do you consider them "collateral damage"? If that's your belief, I'm glad you're in a minority there."

However - your statement has just as many holes. We do not blame the victims of drunk drivers who do not drink as justifications that driving drunk is not wrong. You are trying to build up proof for an argument here using the exception to the rule. A hasty generalization at best. Though I do not claim that Rambill is correct in his assertions - I claim that you are wrong in your attempt to disprove him.