quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Homosexuality subtlely does have victims, as a result of its insideous corruptive nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

This sounds very subjective. Lets look at your sole example of "insidiousness" or "corruption":

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Contrary to attempts by the gay-supporting liberal media to say otherwise, homosexuality still accounts for an overwhelming percentage of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
I read an article two weeks ago in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel newspaper (the major Fl Lauderdale area newspaper) that in Florida, about 80% of AIDS cases can be traced back to a gay or I.V. drug using sex partner, or the combination of the two.
Nationally, that goes up to 83%.
It's not that heterosexuals don't get AIDS too, but the numbers are overwhemingly gay men. Women most often get AIDS from a secretly bisexual partner.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

HIV/AIDS is a disease. There is nothing more morally insidious or corruptive about contracting HIV/AIDS than there is than being diagnosed with cancer.
I feel like I've explained this repeatedly, but I'll attempt to clarify.
AIDS is not highly contagious, like SARS or Hantavirus or Ebola or the common cold. AIDS is a very preventable disease.

There ARE innocent victims of AIDS, but almost all cases are through illicit sex, infidelity, prostitution, or I.V. drug use. By this, as I'm sure you already know, it is a disease almost exclusively caused by immoral behavior and selfish disregard for the safety of a person's sex partners. The children born to AIDS infected mothers, and unsuspecting partners of adulterous and bisexual men being the usual exceptions.

And as I said, in the U.S. and much of the industrialized world, it is largely a gay disease.

In places like Asia and Africa and the undeveloped world, it is more related to prostitution and heterosexual anal sex (as a way to prevent pregnancy through unprotected vaginal sex).

And in the example of a gay man who gives HIV/AIDS to another man or a girlfiend, or a wife, or to children through his infected wife, through a secret bisexual life or other lack of consideration for his partner, homosexuality is clearly not a "victimless crime".
Homosexuality is not the only cause of AIDS and sexual indiscretion, but it is certainly a big one.

It's frustrating for me to have to type this explanation, because you're far too informed and intelligent to not have already seen this perspective. Perhaps you just wanted written clarification.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

And as I laid out at length in previous posts here, gay ideology seeks to re-write the Bible to suit its needs, which is inherently a corruption of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

As I've said, aspects of the Bible have been properly overlooked (I'm referring to slavery again, here), so I see no reason why condemnation of homosexuality cannot also be overlooked.
Because it is among the most severely criticized behaviors in the Bible.
As I've said repeatedly, to condone and accept homosexuality is repeatedly depicted as the mark of a decadent civilization on the verge of destruction.

It's not like eating shellfish or pork, it's a major transgression, raised repeatedly throughout the Bible as a milestone on the brink of a civilization's total destruction and collapse (see my post again at the top of page 4 of this topic. Even that is not a complete list of relevant verses.)

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

If I was prevented from dating or marrying someone of African or Oriental descent by law, because they belong to a slave culture and slavery is condoned by the Bible, I'd be fighting for my rights to do so tooth and nail.
I don't agree with the logic of this scenario. I don't know anyone who argues as a Christian who they will date, based on a passage that endorses slavery. The Bible does NOT endorse slavery.

And as I pointed out above, the rationalization of slavery that was alleged to exist in the Bible was NOT considered valid, even by a vast number of Christians in that Civil War time (1865 and prior). Certainly slavery was not endorsed in the North. And the example of John Brown, that I gave above, a Christian who risked his life and died in a personal effort to stop slavery. As did many other Bible-reading Christian abolitionists.

And many well-populated Western U.S. territories were denied statehood for decades, up till after the Civil War, to prevent the further spread of slavery.

I'd say Darwin is to blame for beliefs of racial superiority, NOT the Bible. Beliefs of racial superiority emerged from Darwin's writings.

As I said, what Noah said (in Genesis) to Ham, and Ham's son Canaan, was a judgement where Ham was cursed for his specific individual immoral actions, NOT condemning a race as inferiors.
Canaan and his descendents would be slaves to Shem and his sons, because Ham and his sons would be morally corrupt, and punished by God, having inferior blessings to that of his two brothers. Shem and Japheth, in contrast, would be rewarded. Much like the contrast of Cain and Abel.
quote:
GENESIS 9, verses 24-27:

24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,
25 he said,

"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

26 He also said,

"Blessed be the LORD , the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his slave."
Clearly, Ham by his actions has lost his father Noah's blessing, and Noah has forfeited his inheritance to his two brothers Shem and Japheth. (Canaan is Ham's son).