Public Health Hazards That Should be Banned: Smoking vs Homosexuality


So the ‘recreational activity’ of smoking is proven to increase the chances of getting lung cancer.

SmokingLungCancer20Years

This fact has liberals ardently wishing and campaigning for the state-enforced banning of all smoking, anywhere and everywhere. (Here I differ from the standard conservative, in that I support the phasing out of all smoking as it contains addictive substances – no fundamental difference from drugs.)

Meanwhile, the ‘recreational activity’ of male-male homosexuality is the cause of HIV infection for 72% of males (27,455 individuals surveyed), contributing to the HIV infection rate being highest among gay men60 times greater than for the general population. It doesn’t help that many of them intentionally try and get/spread infections.

Smoking vs Homosexuality

And much much more:

22 percent—the increase in new infections among gay and bisexual men in the United States from 2008 to 2010.

Homosexual and bisexual men account for 75 percent of syphilis.

78 percent of all new HIV infections are among males, primarily homosexuals.

Over 25 percent of all HIV infections in the United States are among young males ages 13 to 24.

The Journal of Sex Research reports, “Although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.”

Psychological Reports and the International Journal of Epidemiology reported the same findings: Homosexuals have a 20-year-shorter lifespan.

It’s not a mystery why the FDA bans homosexual male blood donations or why so many homosexuals suffer from what is medically known as gay bowel syndrome and herpes lesions in the mouth.

Depending on the source, homosexual men have a mean lifetime number of sexual partners falling anywhere between 250 to 500.

But you’d be hard pressed to find a liberal who advocates restrictions on casual, multi-partner, unprotected sodomy – let alone state-enforced laws! – despite the very real potential for a massive health crisis.

And perfectly fitting, via Moonbattery, from Liberal Logic 101:

PS. Add in 33-50 times more syphilis to the mix. Almost all of the 870% increase over 10 years in syphilis cases in Canada are among homosexual men. 8 times higher than general populace in USA.

(Smoking doesn’t even kill other people, with the debatable caveat of secondhand smoke, but compared to first-hand AIDS…)

PPS. And domestic violence 3000% greater, cheating 19 times higher, 85% of partnerings don’t last past 11 years… With 45% of lesbians receiving violence and 30% sexual assault – by other women. And this is probably way under-reported because of a fear of making the community look bad.

PPPS. children with higher rates of poverty, health problems, crime and… SMOKING!!!

PPPPS. Higher eating orders, suicide, depression, addiction, and 44x HIV contraction rate as other men (according to CDC)

If I were more crude, I’d have snazzed up the title of this post with that double-meaning word that applies to both ciggies and gay men.


78 Responses to “Public Health Hazards That Should be Banned: Smoking vs Homosexuality”

  1. Can_u_believe_him? Says:

    Half of New York Voters Support Medical Marijuana: Poll
    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Fifty-Percent-of-New-York-Voters-Support-Medical-Marijuana-88821812.html?abc=123

  2. Can_u_believe_him? Says:

    The Radical Homosexuals claim you and other pro-family Americans actually now support same-sex marriage, special job preferences for homosexuals and promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools.

    Is it true? What do you say?

    I have prepared an American Morality Survey for you to fill out that I will provide a link to in a moment.

    The Homosexual Lobby played a major role in electing Obama and the majorities he enjoys in both houses of Congress.

    http://www.traditionalvalues.us/moralitysurvey.aspx?pid=he1

  3. pieman Says:

    http://norml.org/

  4. pieman Says:

    The U.S government just passed health-care legislation against the wishes of the U.S public because Barack Obama knows what’s good for you better than you know yourself. Imagine the day the U.S. government — left or right — reaches into your computer to keep you from reading Glenn Beck or Arianna Huffington, and then pats itself on the back as “enlightened” for doing so.

  5. pieman Says:

    A year ago, everyone from Bill Gross to Warren Buffett to Nouriel Roubini predicted the imminent collapse of U.S. Treasuries — “the biggest bubble in history.”

    Yet, compare how the S&P 500 has fared with a leveraged bet against U.S. Treasuries and you see how far off their predictions were — at least so far.

    The uncomfortable truth is that today’s news on U.S Treasuries remains conflicted. Yesterday, the price of U.S. Treasuries barely budged on the news that the U.S government just added another close to $1 trillion to its deficit on Sunday with the passage of ObamaCare. And since it’s highly likely that ObamaCare will cost two to three times as much, the market’s reaction is even more puzzling. On the flipside, financial markets now consider Warren Buffett to be less of a credit risk than the U.S. government.

    The U.S. government is printing money like never before. Yet, as Alan Howard, chief investment officer of London-based Brevan Howard, a $23-billion hedge fund, recently wrote in a Feb. 1 letter to shareholders, “I do not think we have ever had a situation where two diametrically opposed potential outcomes — a deflationary bust and an inflationary spiral — can be credibly argued with equal conviction.”

  6. dems Says:

    ALBANY – Senate Democrats are counting on a pot of gold!

    They want to legalize medical marijuana as a way to generate nearly $15 million in licensing fees to help plug the state’s $9 billion budget gap.

    Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/23/2010-03-23_state_dems_have_a_dope_budget_idea.html#ixzz0j3Iv7a0t

  7. dems Says:

    A ‘big f—ing deal’: Will health plan cover Biden’s foot-in-mouth disease?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/23/2010-03-23_state_dems_have_a_dope_budget_idea.html#ixzz0j3Jivy7i

  8. wipro Says:

    Diary Of A Wimpy Kid

  9. newt Says:

    The fight will continue in the states where 38 of them have filed or are planning to file legislation that rebukes Obamacare’s “individual mandate” that requires you to purchase insurance even if you would rather pay directly for medical care. In addition, Attorneys General from several states plan to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the healthcare bill’s individual mandate.

    And most importantly, the fight will continue at the ballot box for the millions of Americans who refuse to be ignored. In the end, it is only by repudiating those politicians who voted for the health bill in free and fair elections that we can repeal this bill and start over on common sense, market-oriented, patient-centered health reform.

  10. Arvind Raj Says:

    https://www.facebook.com/ssdgh11/media_set?set=a.256400184536851.1073741873.100005006142128&type=3

  11. Arvind Raj Says:

  12. Arvind Raj Says:

  13. Arvind Raj Says:

  14. Arvind Raj Says:

  15. Arvind Raj Says:

  16. Arvind Raj Says:

  17. Arvind Raj Says:

  18. Arvind Raj Says:

  19. Arvind Raj Says:

  20. Arvind Raj Says:

  21. Arvind Raj Says:

  22. Arvind Raj Says:

  23. Arvind Raj Says:

  24. Arvind Raj Says:

  25. Arvind Raj Says:

  26. Arvind Raj Says:

  27. Arvind Raj Says:

  28. Arvind Raj Says:

  29. Arvind Raj Says:

  30. Arvind Raj Says:

  31. Arvind Raj Says:

  32. Arvind Raj Says:

  33. Arvind Raj Says:

  34. Arvind Raj Says:

  35. Arvind Raj Says:

  36. Arvind Raj Says:

  37. Arvind Raj Says:

  38. Arvind Raj Says:

    http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter6.html

  39. Arvind Raj Says:

    http://www.creationism.ws/what_if_flood.htm

  40. Arvind Raj Says:

    http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/index2.html

  41. Arvind Raj Says:

  42. Arvind Raj Says:

  43. Arvind Raj Says:

  44. Arvind Raj Says:

  45. Arvind Raj Says:

  46. Arvind Raj Says:

  47. Arvind Raj Says:

  48. Arvind Raj Says:

  49. Arvind Raj Says:

  50. Arvind Raj Says:

  51. Scott Thong Says:

    Well thanks for the links, but do you have anything of your own to say?

  52. Arvind Raj Says:

  53. Arvind Raj Says:

  54. Arvind Raj Says:

  55. Scott Thong Says:

    Right, I guess not then.

  56. Arvind Raj Says:

    All of this was responses for your posts about atheism and christianity.

  57. Scott Thong Says:

    Well yes, but if you noticed this particular post you are commenting on is about the health hazards of homosexuality. The post about communism and atheism is one post to the right of this one.

    And apart from your immediately above comment, you still don’t have anything of your own to say?

  58. Arvind Raj Says:

    No.

  59. Arvind Raj Says:

    I say that all this links summarizes and represent my position.(If you haven’t guess,I’m lazy…)

  60. Scott Thong Says:

    Hear hear!

    I am lazy to go into the links and especially to sit through the videos too.

  61. Arvind Raj Says:

    Lazy or coward?

  62. Scott Thong Says:

    Lol nice try.

    Lazy, cos I’m not bothering to sit through all those videos – or even one – and wait for the track to play in order to summarize the points made and formulate a thoughtful response.

    I got tired of that game a looooong time ago. You would be able to tell if you browse the comments on many of the posts on my blog – literally hundreds of responses to polemics. Like these insane threads for example:

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/physicists-believe-in-god-or-at-least-a-creator-or-designer-a-collection-of-quotes/

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/communism-atheism-relative-morality/

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/consensual-incest-atheists-please-tell-me-why-it-is-morally-wrong/

    https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/roy-silo-why-gay-penguins-are-not-a-good-example-for-homosexuality/

    Now I don’t bother at all unless the commentor has something original to say, or at least takes the trouble and effort to type it out themself. And also if I feel interested.

    So really, give me a couple of lines of your own thought and I’ll take the time to respond. That’s called a conversation or debate, as opposed to what you’re doing which is called link spamming.

    Or hey, I could just copy-paste random links to apologetics sites and say “THIS IS THE RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENT”. The you’d have to read or sit through my links to determine whether or not they actually address your own links. Tables turned lol!

  63. Arvind Raj Says:

    1)You gave me list of physicist who believe in god.So what?I can give the 90% of the National Academy of Science.I can give you this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology

    but what does that tell you about truth?Nothing.It doesn’t matter if physicists believes in God or biologists believes in God.Truth is not democratic.

    2)Moralities might be subjective but we can base our morals on objective standards like reason,logic,common sense,empathy and fairness.Empathy and fairness is a trait that has evolved in most of the social animals and that’s make them ‘moral’.Not as moral as we are but are somewhat moral.Communist are not de facto atheist.You can be still be a theist and a communist.Communism is a classless, moneyless,and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology and movement that aims at the establishment of this social order.The fact that most communist are atheist does not mean that atheism=communism.Correlation does not imply causation.This was addressed in

    No,homosexuality does not lead to bestiality.No,animal can’t consent.Nor children.Of course atheists cannot have absolute morals! Neither can you. The morals we both (all) use are conditional on the situation plus our culture and our innate (evolved) empathy and sense of fairness.You may think your morals are absolute because they allegedly come from the Bible. However, you do not accept all of the Biblical morals (or you would be jailed for a spectrum of antisocial maladaptive criminal behaviors) but you use your best judgment to select which ones to follow in each case, and just how far.That choice makes your belief in Biblical “absolute” morals completely relative.Killing in the name of a fanatical cause, is not the same, as not believing in a deity.Atheism=lack of believe in God.It does not address any moral issues.It’s you choice if you want to help people or want to kill people.Atheism means that one does not believe in a god. It does not mean that one subscribes to any radical political position.Adolph Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Does anyone here believe that Hitler did the things he did because he was a Roman Catholic? In spite of the fact he was a Catholic, he did evil things in the name of a fanatical political system. His Catholicism arguably had no bearing on his actions as a NAZI. He murdered because he was an evil megalomaniacal Nazi, not because he went to mass. Radical communism found fertile fields in nations which were previously accustomed to group adherence to the supernatural beliefs of Christianity, Buddhism, and animism. Unstable political situations lead to the rise of communism in every nation where it became the dominating power. Former supernatural belief systems made it easier in some nations for communism to be implemented. Kings, priests, shamans, monks, were replaced by state “fathers” and “big brothers”.Communists killed because they wished to impose a totalitarian political / social system on the masses, not because they were atheists.
    Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, all used violence to promote a political agenda, that they may have been atheists (?) was not the casualty of their violent political systems.Atheism is a non-position. In fact the word would be unnecessary in a world of critical thinkers. Atheism is a correct reaction to human thought gone awry in the form of belief in magic and supernatural forces. I am an atheist, but it is not what defines me as a political and social animal. I am a humanist,sceptic and a rationalist. My personal morality and life choices are predicated upon these proactive positions.Human violence is very often the result of greed, sociopathy, ambition for power, and fanaticism.As a humanist who also happens to be an atheist,I advocate being reasonable, just, and compassionate.No one has ever been murdered because people were too reasonable.

    3)Consensual incest is not wrong in my opinion if it is done one or two time,but would I encourage it?No.I think I’m neutral towards incest.

    4)It’s funny why Homosexuality is presented in the animal kingdom in the first place.Oh I know.The Fall,right?The same Fall that an All-Powerful,All-Loving,All-Present,All-Knowing God can’t prevent?The same Fall that made All-Powerful,All-Loving,All-Present,All-Knowing God impregnate a virgin to gave birth to a man who was His son and at the same time Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself to save mankind from the place and laws that He Himself created?Or is it Satan?You know,the same Satan that was created by an All-Knowing God and was failed to destroyed by an All-Powerful,All-Loving God to prevent any souls from entering the the Hell that was created by an All-Loving God?

    Let me ask you on question.Why was Jesus sacrifice necessary?

  64. Arvind Raj Says:

    To clear you misconceptions:

    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1

    PS:I don’t usually agree with Sam Harris,but he cleared most misconception about atheism in a way i can’t put it..

  65. Scott Thong Says:

    To clear you misconceptions:

    http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/10-myths-and-10-truths-about-atheism1

    Here’s my responses (R) to some of his statements (S)…

    S1) Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.

    R1) As my collection helps to demonstrate, perhaps in theory atheists are supposed to be better people due to their freedom from the alleged bigotry inherent in religion. But in actual practise however…

    S2) The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions… There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

    R2) Yes, but the point of the matter is that in rejecting the ‘yoke’ of ‘backwards’ religious rules like ‘Thou shall not murder’ and elevating human decisions as the highest law, atheist belief cleared the way for the excesses of communist despotisms. Also, to equate atheism with reason is a false premise to start with.

    S3) As the programmer Stephen F. Roberts* once said: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    R3) Not really, as there are many reasons to dismiss the alleged deities of other religions that do not similarly/simultaneously dismiss the deity(or -ies) of one’s own religion.

    S4) Although we don’t know precisely how the Earth’s early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection.

    R4) Yes, but how did that life first arise? Allegedly by the combination and reaction of chemicals and energy by pure, random chance.

    S5) Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not.

    R5) This may be an illusory correlation. Many other factors might be at play here apart from scientific aptitude.

    S6) Atheists are arrogant.

    R6) See R1 above.

    S7) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.

    R7) Wow, what a paragraph this guys writes. See S6 above.

    S8.) Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?

    R8.) Ask yourself as a realist, which is more likely to actually happen? See R2 above. It’s not like religious people do it without any compassion in the hearts – or can you name offhand some of your favourite atheists and atheist organizations who have sacrificed much in the name of charity? And I thought religious folk were supposed to be the idealists… Oh wait, nope, see R2 again for how atheists seemed to over-idealistically expect people to act all moral-like.

    S9) We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

    R9) A beautiful demonstration of the relativistic basis for non-religious morality. A slight change in the brain chemistry or DNA here or there, and there goes the other way thousands of years of moral intuition.

  66. Scott Thong Says:

    No,homosexuality does not lead to bestiality.

    It’s a slippery slope argument, but that does not mean that such a slope does not in fact exist:

    Why here it is!

    ——————————

    No,animal can’t consent.Nor children.

    Oops, look, more slippery slope!

    Paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality

    And so what if animals can’t consent? You ever asked them if they agree to be enslaved or murdered?

    ——————————

    Of course atheists cannot have absolute morals! Neither can you. The morals we both (all) use are conditional on the situation plus our culture and our innate (evolved) empathy and sense of fairness.You may think your morals are absolute because they allegedly come from the Bible. However, you do not accept all of the Biblical morals (or you would be jailed for a spectrum of antisocial maladaptive criminal behaviors) but you use your best judgment to select which ones to follow in each case, and just how far.

    Well close enough, I had admitted before to a commentor how his/her argument convinced me that while religions may have an absolute basis for morality (their deity through their holy scriptures), in practise it functions like relativistic morality due to being filtered through the interpretations of humans.

    ——————————

    Atheism=lack of believe in God.It does not address any moral issues.It’s you choice if you want to help people or want to kill people.Atheism means that one does not believe in a god.

    It also means that one does not believe in God’s sole authority to decide on life or death.

    ——————————

    Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Il Sung, all used violence to promote a political agenda, that they may have been atheists (?) was not the casualty of their violent political systems.Atheism is a non-position.

    I know, I know… Correlation does not imply causation. But heck, that’s some straight-running streak there!

    ——————————

    Consensual incest is not wrong in my opinion if it is done one or two time,but would I encourage it?No.I think I’m neutral towards incest.

    And here you were, denying the slippery slope from homosexuality down.

    Since we’re demolishing all barriers, why not consider polygamy too?

    ——————————

    It’s funny why Homosexuality is presented in the animal kingdom in the first place.Oh I know.The Fall,right?

    Why yes, that’s my position exactly.

    —————————–

    Let me ask you on question.Why was Jesus sacrifice necessary?

    Was it necessary? Was any of what you cited in your whole paragraph necessary? Could it have been done another way? Can I address this Problem of Evil better than others in the past 2000+++ years?

    Perhaps Paul already summed it up well:

    Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question? – Romans 9:20+, The Message

    Is there anyone around who can explain God?
    Anyone smart enough to tell him what to do?
    Anyone who has done him such a huge favor
    that God has to ask his advice? – Romans 10:33+, The Message

    Or in other news, Westwood Studios had their own take on it.

    —————————–

    There, see? You can articulate thoughts of your own and have a decent conversation/debate!

    (Unless that was all copy-pasted from somewhere else, in which case, egg on my face.)

  67. Arvind Raj Says:

    1)Hey,did you thought that all the LGBT community is represented by him?Did you thought that most of the LGBT commuity will just stand there while they make bestiality legal?Did you thought that I will just stand there while they make bestiality legal?I’m opposed to bestiality as much as you do.Thus,I don’t care if a member of the LGBT commuity wants to make bestiality legal,as I,and many people would be there to oppose him.

    2)After reading some articles on paedophilia,I think It should classified as more of a mental defiency than a sexual orientation.But as said before,consent.Children lack consent,as their brain has not developed yet.Their are not mature enough to make decisions.You conservatives has hardtime grasping this c-word,aren’t you?

    3)I’m vegan.I don’t eat animal nor I have any pet.

    4)I don’t know why conservatives are so paranoia.Did they think the world will end if everyone become non-religious?.Not only they failed established an objective,testable,verifiable evidencee for God.All there is is sloppy apologetics,assumtions after assumptions,baseless assertions,presuppositions that have no evidence,and argumants that contains logical fallacies.Like I said earlier,we share this world with ^ billion other humans,not to mention countless other animals.Thus,we are responsible for what we do.We can create laws on our own that is discused,debated,that are based on empathy and fairness.I’m not claiming that human laws are flawless but it should progress us as one species.Nobody has a sole authority on anyone.

    5)I’m not against any consentual act,as long as it doensn’t hurt anyone.So,yes polygamy might be moral in my view,but as I said earlier,I’m not going to encourage it nor I’m going to condemn anyone.Incest in bible.You used baseless assumptions again to justify incest in the bible.I’ve yet to see any evidence for your assumptions.I guess next you will justify slavery in the bible.Even polygamy was in the bible and God see no problem with it.Why?Of course,Old testament!Right?just like slavery,incest,genocide,infanticide and rape was in Old testament,polygamy was also presented in OT.Guess,Christians are lucky because Jesus came.

    6)You failed to addresed this issue:

    “The same Fall that an All-Powerful,All-Loving,All-Present,All-Knowing God can’t prevent?The same Fall that made All-Powerful,All-Loving,All-Present,All-Knowing God impregnate a virgin to gave birth to a man who was His son and at the same time Himself to sacrifice Himself to Himself to save mankind from the place and laws that He Himself created?Or is it Satan?You know,the same Satan that was created by an All-Knowing God and was failed to destroyed by an All-Powerful,All-Loving God to prevent any souls from entering the the Hell that was created by an All-Loving God?”

    7)That is a cop out.A very persuasive cop out,but cop out nonetheless.An omnipotent being is an omnipotent being.No excuses.Plus with omniscient,omnibelovelence and omnipresent,this God should know what was coming.Who am I to judge God?Well,according to the bible,I’m his creation,His child.Thus,I have every right to judge God.You can call me arrogant,but I don’t think God is going to be offend if I atleast try to pint out His flaws.If He is indeed flawless,He should correct me and explain to me.He’s All-Loving,right?(Let’s forget about the fact that He created Hell)He should have no proble with me judging Him

  68. Arvind Raj Says:

    1)No own claims atheist should be better because of their freedom.An atheist can be as bad as a fundementalist.

    2)What definition of the words ‘reason,logic,common sense,empathy,fairness’ do you not understand?The lack of reason in your comments demonstrates this.

    3)Reason?

    4)No one knows how life arised and it’s completely irrelavant to the Theory of Evolution,as it only explains the diversity of life on Earth.Evenif we don’t know how life came,it does not automaticly means that ‘Goddidit” nor it posses any problems to the Theory of Evolution.There heve been many hypothesises proposed,one of then is Abiogenesis.I’m starting to think you have skipped your Biology class.

    5)What factors exactly?

    6) See 1).

    7)Irrelevant and doens’t make any sense.lay out your arguments.

    8)There’s an infrastructure in place to give money to charity — including church — people donate.Atheists don’t really have that infrastructure. When we donate money to charity, we usually do it on our own. Foundation Beyond Belief has encouraged atheists to give to secular charities (which, in this case, refers to charities that serve everyone, not just atheists).As of by 2012,they have raised over $338,400.And that doesn’t include crisis fundraisers like in the case of the Colorado wildfires.It’s a small amount compared to how much churches can raise — but again, this is all about infrastructure. If there were “atheist churches” on every block that held weekly meetings, no doubt we’d be giving more money, too.There’s no God commanding us to give 10% of our salaries to a church. We give out of the goodness of our own hearts. And we’d be making the world a better place if we supported good organizations with our donations (if we have the ability to do so) or time. They don’t even have to be groups that promote atheism; just ones that do worthwhile work.

    9)And all of us,or atleast those that have screwed DNA would extinct in after a few generations.But that is unlikely to happen.

  69. Arvind Raj Says:

    1)one8

  70. Arvind Raj Says:

    1)one*

  71. Scott Thong Says:

    1)Hey,did you thought that all the LGBT community is represented by him?Did you thought that most of the LGBT commuity will just stand there while they make bestiality legal?Did you thought that I will just stand there while they make bestiality legal?I’m opposed to bestiality as much as you do.Thus,I don’t care if a member of the LGBT commuity wants to make bestiality legal,as I,and many people would be there to oppose him.

    Then by his standards, you are a backwards bigot. Bestiality doesn’t hurt you or your own relationships, why discriminate against zoophiliacs? You hatemonger. Bestiophobe. You can be sure when Proposition Zoo is passed banning animal marriages, he and his ilk will protest loudly in the streets until supportive judges overturn the law as ‘unconstitutional’ – no matter even if 90% of votes were in favour of the bill!

    This is the same logic applied by LGBT proponents against opponents.

    This is what I mean by relative morality and slippery slope. Yes, you may say bestiality is wrong – but that is by your standards. By his standards it is right, and you have no standing to object because you and he are both humans on equal footing. It’s not like one of you is divine or anything.

    Or is it because the majority says it is wrong, since animals are non sentient and cannot make rational, informed decisions? What if the majority one day says it is right? Does that make it right?

    Or what if it is proven that dolphins or apes are sentient, do they then gain sexual rights on par with humans?

    ——————————

    3)I’m vegan.I don’t eat animal nor I have any pet.

    Yet your entire civilization is built on the bleached bones of animal-sourced products, animal labour and animal testing.

    ——————————

    Thus,we are responsible for what we do.We can create laws on our own that is discused,debated,that are based on empathy and fairness.I’m not claiming that human laws are flawless but it should progress us as one species.Nobody has a sole authority on anyone.

    Then let’s look forward to the legalizing of bestiality one day, after careful discussion, debate, and considering empathy and fairness leading to a majority vote!

    Oh wait… The far more progressive and enlightened Europeans have done it already.

    Three cheers for responsibly enacted laws!

    ——————————

    Incest in bible.You used baseless assumptions again to justify incest in the bible.I’ve yet to see any evidence for your assumptions.I guess next you will justify slavery in the bible.Even polygamy was in the bible and God see no problem with it.Why?Of course,Old testament!Right?just like slavery,incest,genocide,infanticide and rape was in Old testament,polygamy was also presented in OT.Guess,Christians are lucky because Jesus came.

    Incest became forbidden when the Mosaic law was encoded. Rape is forbidden as well.

    Polygamy was not the original intent any more than sin and death (and homosexuality) were.

    Genocide and infanticide are terms that apply only to humans acting on human authority. God as the sole creator, giver and sustainer of life has the sole and full authority to end life as He sees fit. There is no fundamental difference between using the Israelites, a volcano, the invisible Angel of Death, or a metaphorical snap of His fingers to do it.

    Slavery according to Mosaic law is actually more of contract service. The NT book of Philemon gives guidelines on how masters and slaves ought to treat one another. And lest we forget, it was atheists acting out of irreligious conviction who overturned modern (unBiblical) slavery /sarc

    This article summarizes and links to a lot of what I mention above.

    And yes, we are blessed to have Jesus come as we are now fully justified by God’s grace and nothing that we ourselves accomplish.

    ———————————

    6)You failed to addresed this issue:

    I addressed it by saying, why bother trying to second-guess God?

    All-Powerful,All-Loving God to prevent any souls from entering the the Hell that was created by an All-Loving God?”

    One way to interpret hell is that after death and meeting God face to face, some will still actively deny that He is real – or else accept His existence but choose to be apart from Him. (See the CS Lewis quote here.)

    Think about it – an atheist who has spent his whole life objecting to the idea of God and criticizing His attributes now faces the prospect of spending an eternity in His company, worshiping Him. Methinks that is the atheist’s idea of hell!

    ———————————

    7)That is a cop out.A very persuasive cop out,but cop out nonetheless.An omnipotent being is an omnipotent being.No excuses.Plus with omniscient,omnibelovelence and omnipresent,this God should know what was coming.Who am I to judge God?Well,according to the bible,I’m his creation,His child.Thus,I have every right to judge God.You can call me arrogant,but I don’t think God is going to be offend if I atleast try to pint out His flaws.If He is indeed flawless,He should correct me and explain to me.He’s All-Loving,right?(Let’s forget about the fact that He created Hell)He should have no proble with me judging Him

    You contradict yourself. If a being is omnipotent, then it needs no excuses – being all powerful, it can make anything moral or right as it sees fit. What it says, goes.

    According to the Bible, as a creation and child of God, you have no right to judge God! Or did you not understand the passages I cited? Where in the Bible does it extol children who deem it fit to judge their parents or elders?

    I doubt God is ‘offended’ by your pointing out alleged flaws (though some of His followers doubtless will be). Paul in Romans is merely pointing out the futility and ridiculousness of a finite, short-lived created being presuming to be wiser than its infinite, timeless Creator.

  72. Scott Thong Says:

    1)No own claims atheist should be better because of their freedom.An atheist can be as bad as a fundementalist.

    Yeah. Just allegedly more rational and logical.

    ———————————

    2)What definition of the words ‘reason,logic,common sense,empathy,fairness’ do you not understand?The lack of reason in your comments demonstrates this.

    Oh wow. Way to quod erat demonstrandum my point about obnoxious impoliteness.

    I stand by my contention that atheism does not automatically mean reason – it is a false premise. Many religious apologists in fact attack the rationality of atheism – such as the hard atheism of knowing for sure that no deity exists.

    I find it as false and lacking ’empathy and fairness’ as saying that skeptics of global warming or evolution are automatically anti-science (i.e. all science in general).

    ———————————

    3)Reason?

    You mean examples?

    Well for one, take the sole reason many Christians have for rejecting the claims of other belief systems – simply because the Bible says so. A reason such as this does not at all lend to discounting the Christian view of God.

    You may object to the soundness of the above reason, but I have just used it to demonstrate that a rejection of alternate belief systems does not automatically/ultimately lead to a rejection of one’s one belief system.
    The author of that quote is probably only thinking of reasoning along the lines of “Hey there’s no evidence Krishna exists… Oh wait, darn, there’s no evidence YHWH exists either, I just made an atheist of myself!”

    ———————————

    4)No one knows how life arised and it’s completely irrelavant to the Theory of Evolution,as it only explains the diversity of life on Earth.Evenif we don’t know how life came,it does not automaticly means that ‘Goddidit” nor it posses any problems to the Theory of Evolution.There heve been many hypothesises proposed,one of then is Abiogenesis.I’m starting to think you have skipped your Biology class.

    Oh look, more insults. Totally necessary and called for I’m sure. You sure are bent on proving your Point 1 above aren’t you?

    I never intended to link the origin of life with evolution, I merely pointed out that the ‘begatting’ of biology is from random chance. He may focus on evolution as having nonrandom influence, but that merely diverts away from the origin of life which necessarily precedes it.

    Heck, that is exactly what abiogensis says – which I can Wikipedia to find out even though I skipped all my Biology classes as you truthfully attest.

    ———————————

    5)What factors exactly?

    Purely conjecturing, it could be that many scientists who are religious did not join the National Academy of Sciences.

    Or perhaps the Academy itself has a strong and ‘See Point 1 above’ obnoxiously atheistic atmosphere to the point that it self-selects for atheists – similar to how non-liberals are pressured to conform or quit Hollywood.

    Or (without actually looking at the source poll), it could be the phrasing of the poll question. As an example, the much-ballyhooed 98% consensus of ‘scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming’ was derived from a highly leading phrasing of the questions (as in, “Objection! Leading the witness!”).

    ———————————

    7)Irrelevant and doens’t make any sense.lay out your arguments.

    What I mean is that his whole paragraph is sooooo condescending, oh-look-how-much-better-I-am-than-sily-religionists.

    ———————————

    8)There’s an infrastructure in place to give money to charity — including church — people donate.Atheists don’t really have that infrastructure. When we donate money to charity, we usually do it on our own.

    My point was simply that if we want to be pure realists – all idealism and utopianism out of the picture – then we have to accept the fact that humans are naturally jerks. The concept of Original Sin predicts this and Mosaic Laws attempted to rein it in.

    So maybe religion is the opiate of the masses, a mass delusion and con used to control the unthinking sheeple of the world. Even if it’s a total lie (a premise which I do not believe of course), its carrots and sticks sure does a heck of a job of motivating people to act better than they would otherwise.

    To deny that and go all “Oooh the world would be better and more moral if we discarded charity-out-of-religious-delusion!” is itself a delusion, and partly what led to the Communist anti-utopias in the first place.

    So yes, in a perfect world with perfect people, ungenuinely altruistic motivations for doing good would not be needed. But not this world.

    ———————————

    9)And all of us,or atleast those that have screwed DNA would extinct in after a few generations.But that is unlikely to happen.

    Your Darwin says homosexuality will make that happen.

  73. Arvind Raj Says:

    I learnt a lesson from you today.

    You can’t reason with people who hold irrational believes and will defend it even if you showed them that they are wrong.Now i get why so many atheists have give up responding to you.You can’t reason with conservatives christians who always creates propaganda.I realised that no matter what how well I respond to you and show your flaws,you always will give answers,most of them are baseless assumptions,excuses,presuppositions and often you never even research into the subject and try to understand itYou commit a lot of confrmation bias and obviously showed signs of cognitive dissonance.I realised that you not going to be convinced of anything other than things that conform your belief.I’m done.Good luck making propagandas.

  74. Scott Thong Says:

    Fella, I could say the exact same things about you. You have the arrogant assumption that your arguments are incomparable par excellence, so if anyone is not convinced then they must be ignorant deniers who skipped classes in school – and carry that same anti-learning attitude throughout the rest of their lives.

    You accuse me of not being able to admit I’m mistaken, but I feel that you yourself are guilty of this flaw.

    In my defense I have previously been convinced and changed my mind when confronted with sound arguments and evidence by commentors – such as on my insulting demeanor towards a homosexual pastor, the DNA link between dinosaurs and modern birds, and the aforementioned de facto relativistic morality of religious adherents. Prior to that, I was a believer in anthropogenic global warming and the benefits of restricting gun ownership but changed my views after being exposed to sufficient evidence.

    So don’t think so highly of yourself, o great and infallible one who sat through all his classes in school without fail. Since it is possible for my beliefs and opinions to be changed, I have to conclude that you simply have not presented sufficiently convincing arguments. Heck, it’s not like I haven’t heard it all before (especially from very informative, long time Ron – hi there!). You haven’t even gone three days at it.

    I don’t sweat it though. I’ve come to accept that different people will come to different conclusions when presented with the same evidence:

    From all of this, I’ve settled into a position where I present my points, arguments and citations to support my position. I will also rebutt and undermine those raised by my opponents. If I feel that they are not seeing a certain item clearly or that their interpretation is inaccurate, I will point it out to them.

    But at the end of the day, I accept that neither of us will likely change our minds – despite all the ‘proof’ that was flung about. Hence I can let the debate trail off without thinking that my opponent is an utterly biased imbecile. Oh, he or she may very well actually be one, just that I don’t automatically assume so just because we come to different conclusions.

    So just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t automatically mean he is wrong and too stubborn/stupid to admit/realize it That’s arrogance right there.

    Contrast that with your comment. See the difference in assumptions and attitude.

    So then, as with many hi-and-bye commentors, enjoy your in-your-own-head victory.

  75. Arvind Raj Says:

    I want to retract my statements.I shall make a video response for your post.A fellow atheist by the name BionicDance will also make a video response to you.

  76. Scott Thong Says:

    Retraction accepted without objection. Radio in for backup also without objection.

    But be warned in advance that I don’t fancy videos, and in all likelihood will not bother watching them. Sorry.

  77. Scott Thong Says:

    Perhaps long lists of points is not the best way to go as the discussion jumps all over the place.

    I propose one or two points at most, to which each can respond.

  78. Ron Says:

    Speaking of health hazards:

    Reality show snake-handling preacher dies — of snakebite>Reality show snake-handling preacher dies — of snakebite

    And it gets even better — Westboro has announced it plans to picket the funeral.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: