Y'know, Dave, you say all this as if you are an impartial observer, but your opinion is as subjective as you claim that mine is.

Within the context of the Bible, my statements are objectively correct. What I've said, and quoted at length, is LITERALLY what the Bible says.
It is only through omission and re-interpretation that the Bible verses (quoted extensively above) can be made to endorse homosexuality.
And since you don't seem to have any faith whatsoever in the Bible's credibility as a source of law and authority, there goes your objectivity right there.


quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

Examples of corruption #1,2 and 4 are each plagued by logical fallacies, which I will make clear.
Again, in your opinion. I respect that you have a different view than mine, but I don't think you've proven my statements non-factual and false. You've only STATED that my views are false, without detailing how this is untrue. For me, your OWN statements are a non-sequitor.
And I say that as respectfully as I can. It just doesn't add up for me.


quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

Dealing with each of those in turn:

1. again, I think you're being ethnocentric. "Morality" isn't limited to just North America and the European peninsula: I assume morality and the effects of morality are global because Christianity is a universal religion.
I'm not entirely clear what your point is. As you know, I live in Florida, and I meet people here who have come from all over the world, from every continent. I almost daily come into contact with people from Europe, China, Japan, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Morrocco, Iran, Vietnam, the Phillipines, and places closer to home for you, Australia and New Zealand. I've regularly spoken to people who are Jews, Muslims, Hindu, and Buddhist. Among all these cultures, I've never heard any raise a favorable opinion of homosexuality.
I see that the standard of one man/one woman is the global standard for marriage, and I've never seen ANY evidence, or any personal opinion of foreigners I know personally, to indicate otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


Yet you say:

a. AIDS is predominately spread by gays
b. yet only in the West, and not in the rest of the world
c. therefore AIDS is a gay disease and is a form of "corruption".
Dave, you are a highly intelligent and literate person. Could you truly not see my point in what I just previously posted to you?

I acknowledged AIDS/HIV is not an exclusively gay disease. That in most of the world heterosexual transmission [again, 1)through prostitution, and 2) through heterosexual anal sex, either for pleasure or to avoid pregnancy through vaginal sex] is the major way of contracting the disease, GLOBALLY.

But in the U.S., homosexual males, I.V. drug users, and I.V. drug user/homosexual men, account for over 75% of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
And that many of the 17% or so of heterosexually transmitted cases originate from a secretly bisexual gay man, who then gives it through heterosexual intercourse to a woman. But despite the source, it is sattistically labelled as "heterosexual transmission". I spoke to the CDC directly about this statistical breakdown when I wrote an article about AIDS/HIV in 1993.

But THE POINT is, heterosexual OR homosexual methods of transmitting AIDS are both through illicit sex or IV drug use. Close to 100% of AIDS/HIV cases are transmitted through (by Biblical standards) immoral behavior.
As I said in my last post, homosexuality is not EXCLUSIVELY transmitting AIDS/HIV, but it is certainly a major slice of the AIDS/HIV pie, particularly in the U.S.
And while I don't single out the gay lifestyle exclusively, I have logically explained my position on homosexuality as a corruptive culture, from a Biblical perspective (detailing gay attempts to alter the obvious literal meaning of Bible scripture on homosexuality),
permissiveness/promiscuity argument (which I think the media attempts to hide from the public, and only display monogamous gay couples, projecting a politically correct notion that gays are "just like us", whereas I've seen numerous reports, mostly on Christian news, that gays are far more promiscuous and risky in their behavior than heterosexuals generally are),
and
cultural acceptance of homosexuality opening the floodgates for a variety of perversions and abberant sexual practices. Which as has been noted, other excesses follow on the coat-tails of gay rights.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


This lacks logic - its ignarato elenchi. Its also probably a circular argument or a non sequitur- AIDS is an indicator of corruption, AIDS is spread by gays, homosexuality is an indicator of corruption, therefore AIDS is an indicator of corruption, therefore homosexuality is corrupt.
"lacks logic" is your opinion of my opinion. I can as easily say that your own opinion lacks logic and doesn't add up for me. I don't see any clear and logical argument that my opinion lacks logic. I think I've made the connections clear.

"circular logic" is a bit insulting. I see this term as more of a label than a clear criticism. A dismissive label.

My train of logic as you describe it is not accurate. My train is more of: The Bible condemns sexual immorality, homosexuality is (Biblically) a clear form of sexual immorality, like other forms of sexual immorality (heterosexual forms of illicit sex), homosexual immorality likewise spreads AIDS/HIV also. And not surprisingly, gays have a high ratio of HIV/AIDS infection.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:



2. Gay rights will lead to the downfall of civilisation - you let open the barn door, and all the cows will get out. This is a logical fallacy, too - the slippery slope.
You again label this as a logical fallacy (in your own subjective opinion) and yet do not clearly demonstrate any fallacy beyond the dismissive label.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:


3. Interpretation of the Bible is an industry in itself.
FALSE interpretation is, but logic dictates that if you're going to be a Christian, you want a clear, factual, verifiable base for your beliefs and teachings. That logical base is the Bible. As I detailed in a previous post, there is considerable historic/archaological evidence to verify the Bible has been accurately preserved for 2,000 years, more verifiable than any other ancient document. And while there is symbolic interpretation of certain passages, there is overwhelming consensus on the major themes of the Bible, including overwhelming consensus on the Biblical stance on homosexuality.

It is therefore dismissive and illogical to dismiss the Bible as a verifiable foundation for Judao-Christan teaching and ideology.
Or to put it another way, to NOT go by what the Bible says, to reject any part of it, is to defy what is clearly the "God breathed" Word of God. And logically, anyone who professes to be a Christian and IGNORES those teachings (or in the case of gays, circumvents and manipulates those teachings) clearly and simply IS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Rejecting or ignoring scripture is buffet religion, and ignorant of the clear teachings of Christianity. And logically, NOT truly representative of Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

You oppose a liberal interpretation, which is just as valid as liberally interpreting the Bible so that it can co-exist with evolutionary theory. You exclude all other interpretations of the Bible save your own. This is a radical fundamentalist view.
Liberal interpretation is not equally valid. It is disingenuously manipulative toward ulterior motives, and ignores the clear direct meaning.
For instance, my example in earlier posts, of the literal as well as symbolic meaning for "the Bride" in scripture, and the value of purity. Gay sex violates that proscribed purity, just as HETEROsexual immorality does.
As I've said repeatedly. I feel you're attempting to falsely imply that I hold a different standard for homosexuality, when in point of fact I've clearly and repeatedly said that both (hetero and homo) forms of extramarital sex are prohibited Biblically, and punishable by death.
Homosexuality (when prevalent) has the Biblical distinction of marking a society that has reached its ultimate slump into decadence, and marks that society's near destruction.
And as quoted in Biblical scripture (particularly ROMAN 1, quoted above) that meaning is unmistakeable, except to a mind that chooses to ignore the clear meaning )
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

4. the fourth example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality suffers from the logical fallacy of the hasty generalisation. What about all of the gays who are devoted to their partners? Or the gays which are not bisexual? Or the open bisexuals who practice no deceit? You take one segment of the gay community and apply their practices against all segments.
"hasty generalization" is another emotional label that is wrapped in a fancy coat of allegedly impartial pseudo-science.

But ultimately, it is again your interpretation and your opinion, based on your own liberal preconceptions, and utter rejection of the Bible as a reasonable source of law and moral standard.