tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.comments2023-12-04T13:01:14.698-08:00Conversations about the obvioustrinkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comBlogger405125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-71797781118634903342023-12-04T13:01:14.698-08:002023-12-04T13:01:14.698-08:00I got it 3 years ago. I don't remember.
I su...I got it 3 years ago. I don't remember.<br /><br />I suggest you search on the name that appears on the upper right hand side of the graph.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-48070683573428919742023-12-03T22:02:03.148-08:002023-12-03T22:02:03.148-08:00What is the source of the data for the graph here?...What is the source of the data for the graph here? <br />How can I get it? It's fascinating.<br />creonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778203108447653314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-71225191911415776252020-11-07T07:18:00.884-08:002020-11-07T07:18:00.884-08:00I'm leaving this comment up because it shows j...I'm leaving this comment up because it shows just how depraved leftists are.<br /><br />This guy is defending child porn.<br /><br />That says it all.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-71327390646130228462020-10-26T13:54:46.251-07:002020-10-26T13:54:46.251-07:00"One 23-year-old user told me that the only p..."One 23-year-old user told me that the only places he can find gay men are clubs and Grindr, and both are hypersexualized. The cultures of both intimidate him. According to Pachankis, gay culture is often “status-focused, competitive, hierarchical, and exclusionary.” He explains that these traits are common among men generally, but in the gay community, they become amplified in a group that “both socializes and sexualizes together.”<br /><br />The 23-year-old is afraid of rejection, and Grindr shields him from the pain of in-person turndowns. “My framework now is sex first. I don’t know how to date people in person.”<br /><br />His relationships, he says, start with casual sex on Grindr. They first meet at 2 am for a hookup. He’ll try to schedule the next sex date a little earlier, maybe 11 pm. Then the next step may be drinks.<br /><br />But this sex-first approach hasn’t led to lasting relationships for the men I interviewed and is affecting their self-worth and identity. “My self-esteem now is all about my sexual ability,” the 23-year-old said. “I don’t feel confident about myself as a partner in any other way.”<br /><br />Another user told me he downloaded the app hoping to find a husband. Now he says that when he and a boyfriend (he’s gone through several) fight, his natural response is to open Grindr to “find an alternative” instead of working through problems. He can’t maintain a monogamous relationship because he is constantly cheating." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/4/4/17177058/grindr-gay-men-mental-health-psychiatrist<br /><br />Also if gay men are so monogamous why are the 32 times more likely to get AIDS?<br /><br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-47697924602422690212020-10-26T13:50:19.411-07:002020-10-26T13:50:19.411-07:00So a 1 month long monogamous relationship followed...So a 1 month long monogamous relationship followed by another isn't promiscuous? Talk about redefining terms.<br /><br />Please explain why you are sure that human behavior patterns change over a span of 20 years? And of course the studies do provide that as the Psychology Today article stated. When AIDS hit SF one of the major news magazines said that straights had 5 partners over their lifetimes. The average gay had 50 or more and the average gay with AIDS had hundreds.<br /><br />Ok so if you throw out all data based on non-random sampling then at least one of your sources goes out too.<br /><br />While lesbians tend to be less promiscous they have much more "spousal" violence than heterosexuals do<br /><br />Sorry but phobia means phobia and homophobia means an irrational fear. You don't get to redefine words because you don't like what they mean.<br /><br />And once again you demonstrate that you don't follow things. I didn't ask for the Popes quote in my first response as the context makes clear. Duh.<br /><br />The reason "modern" studies don't sometimes show the extent of gay promiscuity is that their authors are often gay or they're afraid of causing gays to be stigmatized.<br /><br />"Psychologist J. Michael Bailey has stated that social conservatives have taken such surveys as evidence of a "decadent" nature of gay men, but says "I think they’re wrong. Gay men who are promiscuous are expressing an essentially masculine trait. They are doing what most heterosexual men would do if they could. They are in this way just like heterosexual men, except that they don’t have women to constrain them."[35] Bailey, J. (2003-03-10). The Man Who Would Be Queen. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-309-08418-5.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-24165536681178218122020-10-26T13:39:45.922-07:002020-10-26T13:39:45.922-07:00You apparently don't know what equal means. I...You apparently don't know what equal means. If I can't try to incorporate my morality into the law because it's based on religion but you can try to incorporate your moral beliefs into the law because they're based on your personal opinion then we're not equal.<br /><br />You seem to be missing the point. The point is that if Jesus is just a man then what He says is moral has the same authority as which ever human authority, including yourself, that you invoke.<br /><br />Why can't I cite the Bible if Jesus is human for moral teachings if you can cite books written by people?<br /><br />The only OT laws that still bind are the natural law, essentially the Ten Commandments. So you're saying that the command to not murder has almost no justification?<br /><br />Why must laws be based on secular philosophy? I know that's what you'd like but if you're claiming that secular people don't disagree about what the law should be then you're clearly wrong. Remember Nazism and Communism are both secular philosophies.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-8649847098450439072020-10-26T13:35:07.717-07:002020-10-26T13:35:07.717-07:00Trump asked if nucking hurricanes would help. I g...Trump asked if nucking hurricanes would help. I guess you're against questions. You do know that the idea was considered by real scientists at one point.<br /><br />And when did Trump link vaccines to autism. I know Edwards made a fortune suing over that.<br /><br />And wind farms are bad for people's health. as I recall studies have shown that the sound can be a problem<br /><br />Also Biden didn't misread a teleprompter; he honestly didn't remember what office he was running for.<br /><br />Oh and I'd prefer an non-racist President not one who, like Joe Biden has, says that Blacks who don't vote for him aren't really Blacktrinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-65369069961600129582020-10-26T12:23:51.129-07:002020-10-26T12:23:51.129-07:00remember when trump asked if we could nuke the hur...remember when trump asked if we could nuke the hurricanes? or when he said wind farms are bad for people's health? or when he said vaccines are linked to autism? or when he called Fauci and other immunologists "idiots"?<br /><br />I'd prefer a president that misreads a teleprompter over a president who is totally ignorant and idiotic.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-44612074514504025232020-10-25T17:17:07.914-07:002020-10-25T17:17:07.914-07:00> You seem to be saying that people of faith a...> You seem to be saying that people of faith are second class citizens.<br /><br />No, you have exactly the same rights anyone else does. <br /><br />> If I'm wrong and Jesus is just a man then his views are just as valuable as Nietzsche's<br /><br />Only if his arguments remain valid without the authority of him being god. Then yes you are correct. Unfortunately jesus didn't often really provide arguments for his teachings. I mean why bother when you are also claiming to be god? Much more problematic are the inherited laws of the old testament which provide almost no justifications. <br /><br />So you cannot cite the bible (for example) to defend one-man one-woman marriage. You cannot use the description in the bible of the end times to influence foreign policy. Just the same way Muslims cannot use Muhammad's words to ban the collection of interest on loans. <br /><br />Laws must be based on secular philosophy argued from first principles or else we will just end up with warring religious philosophies.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-20032650358065881272020-10-25T17:00:56.112-07:002020-10-25T17:00:56.112-07:00> Here are some more sources about gay promiscu...<br />> Here are some more sources about gay promiscuity:<br /><br />I see we are moving the goal posts now. The issue at hand is monogamy and now you provide evidence about promiscuity. You can have lots of short-lived monogamous relationships and appear "promiscuous" by these metrics but always be monogamous. Remember this all started with my asking for a source for your claim that gays are "rarely monogamous".<br /><br />And again you provide sources from 20-40 years ago. Even if scientific methods/practices hadn't improved certainly behavioral patterns will have. I'm gonna need something more recent.<br /><br />But many of the studies are useless because they provide no comparable straight baseline. If gays are "promiscuous" that must be in comparison to the straight population (and again promiscuity isn't even the question at hand). <br /><br />Only your final claim tries to do the comparison properly but cites two different books published a decade apart and a you provide a dead link. Well I got the books from a library (don't say I don't put in the effort) and yeah the claim is BS. <br /><br />The book " The male couple : how relationships develop " explicitly states in its introduction that the people they interviewed were not randomly selected and this "prevents the findings from being applicable and generalizable to the entire gay male community". You'll have to take my word because I assume you are too lazy to get a copy of the book. So right away this claim collapses.<br /><br />The other book " The Social organization of sexuality : sexual practices in the United States " shows huge variation in infidelity between different cohorts of men (ranging from 7% to 37%) and obviously since the book is so much older it doesn't include a comparable cohort for the men in the other book. A terrible comparison but what should we expect from the FRC. Not like they have an incentive to be fair.<br /><br />Also, obviously all this data was collected via self-reporting the very method you said was unreliable. Maybe they even overestimate their number of sexual encounters in surveys (a known phenomenon in straight males).<br /><br />> The third odd thing about homosexuality is the quantity of homosexual men’s preferences, as compared to those of homosexual women<br /><br />Oh so you admit that half of gays (namely lesbians) aren't "rarely monogamous". Fun.<br /><br />> A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of gays. The use of the term homophobic is an attempt to intimidate people from speaking truth to power.<br /><br />You don't get to tell me what words mean and you cannot just infer a words current meaning from its latin roots. Society defines what words mean in context. But if you have a problem with that you can just accept that when I say homophobia I usually mean "an irrational hatred of gays". I could also switch to "bigoted" if that would help.<br /><br />> I didn't ask for the Pope's quote since...<br /><br />you literally did ask.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-35439673821496115512020-10-25T17:00:39.379-07:002020-10-25T17:00:39.379-07:00> I was doing something significant in critiqui...> I was doing something significant in critiquing the Pope for being wrong on a matter of prudential judgement.<br /><br />Uhm, one would hope the pope would be a wise and good person outside the area where they are magically infallible. But if you're ok thinking god chose an idiot who can't communicate for the position then fine. Just doesn't seem like something a catholic ought to be saying but what do I know.<br /><br />> Further the Bishops weren't defining official Church doctrine so they're not "higher" authorities than me but it's good to know the you admit to invoking the argument from authority<br /><br />Uhm, religion (especially catholicism) isn't like science. The bishops are ordained and do have special powers and say. Their authority is real. But even if it weren't one would believe they have a better understanding of the religion and interpreting the pope's words than mere laity like yourself. I'll ask you again: can you find a Bishop who explicitly agrees with your interpretation of what the pope said? That would be convincing. <br /><br />> I provided multiple sources that say that gays aren't in fact mostly monogamous. All 3 of your studies use self reporting where gays would tend to lie since they don't want people to stigmatize them for their massively promiscuous lifestyles.<br /><br />Uhm, what? What other means do you suggest we use to determine their monogamy other than asking? Did the studies you cite use some kind of "monogamy detector"? You only reject the evidence I provide because it interferes with your preconceived notions. <br />Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-64651102244483488602020-10-25T13:43:20.437-07:002020-10-25T13:43:20.437-07:00You seem to be saying that people of faith are sec...You seem to be saying that people of faith are second class citizens.<br /><br />Your morality comes from you and you say that therefore you can express it in the public setting but since my morality comes form my religion I have to shut up.<br /><br />My logic is as follows vis a vis Jesus.<br /><br />I believe He is God.<br />But if I'm wrong he's still a man just like say Nietzsche<br />According to you for someone to use moral beliefs based on Nietzsche in the public square<br />If I'm right and Jesus is God then clearly His views on morality are infinitely better than those of any person<br />If I'm wrong and Jesus is just a man then his views are just as valuable as Nietzsche's<br />In both cases I should have the right to express my views if you have the right to express yours<br /><br />Now I do agree that the law shouldn't be used to impose religious disciplines, like having to go the Mass on Sunday, but you're going against the Constitution that people of faith can't use their faith based morals to try and structure the law.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-50584272478309646782020-10-25T13:38:06.148-07:002020-10-25T13:38:06.148-07:00A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid o...A phobia is an irrational fear. No one is afraid of gays. The use of the term homophobic is an attempt to intimidate people from speaking truth to power.<br /><br />The fact is gays are massively promiscuous and that makes sense. Heterosexual men tend to be promiscuous, that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective since the cost of a man getting a woman pregnant is low, but women "domesticate" them because women, from an evolutionary perspective, benefit from stable relationships where the man takes care of her and their children since women invest so much more into producing a baby.<br /><br />I showed that Trump's separation policy allowed parents to decide to not be separated from their children so it can't be bad. I didn't ask for the Pope's quote since I assumed it was taken out of context like his alleged comment that Trump wasn't a Christian.<br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-40605651313113518152020-10-25T13:37:38.944-07:002020-10-25T13:37:38.944-07:00Here are some more sources about gay promiscuity:
...Here are some more sources about gay promiscuity:<br /><br />28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)<br />79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)<br />Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)<br />1978 study, 78% of gay men had more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)<br />There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females, 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)<br /><br />Or how about this:<br /><br />The third odd thing about homosexuality is the quantity of homosexual men’s preferences, as compared to those of homosexual women. Homosexual men are famously promiscuous, a fact that became well-known with onset of AIDs, when studies of gay men who were HIV positive revealed average numbers of partners in the hundreds (and even though gay men who were HIV negative had much lower numbers, the average for them was still dramatically higher than the average numbers for heterosexual men). https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-murder-and-the-meaning-life/201006/homosexuality-queer-problemtrinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-66805451359428557682020-10-25T13:36:55.114-07:002020-10-25T13:36:55.114-07:00but if you knew that the Pope wasn't speaking ...but if you knew that the Pope wasn't speaking infallibly you've shot down your own point that somehow I was doing something significant in critiquing the Pope for being wrong on a matter of prudential judgement.<br /><br />And of course you continue to ignore the evidence and quotes from the Pope and citing Bishops without actually saying what they said. What I've seen shows that they agree with me that the prudential call for legalizing civil unions is wrong despite their potentially being useful for the gays who would live together chastely.<br /><br />Further the Bishops weren't defining official Church doctrine so they're not "higher" authorities than me but it's good to know the you admit to invoking the argument from authority<br /><br />I provided multiple sources that say that gays aren't in fact mostly monogamous. All 3 of your studies use self reporting where gays would tend to lie since they don't want people to stigmatize them for their massively promiscuous lifestyles.<br /><br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-20009274842635595152020-10-24T21:49:23.279-07:002020-10-24T21:49:23.279-07:00> So what you're saying is that if I oppose...> So what you're saying is that if I oppose abortion because of my faith I should shut up<br /><br />If your support of some law is entirely backed by your faith then yes you should shut up about it. The law does not exist to enforce your religious beliefs.<br /><br />> I note you ignored my point that if Jesus is a man then everything Christians believe is by definition secular.<br /><br />What? One thing Christians believe is that he is not just a man. Are you claiming the belief that Jesus is god (or whatever the phrasing) is a secular belief? This is nonsensical.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-43476798093216313342020-10-24T15:39:16.630-07:002020-10-24T15:39:16.630-07:00> If you knew anything about the Catholic Churc...> <i>If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you'd know that the Pope is only infallible when he declares he is speaking infallibly about matters of faith and morals</i><br /><br />yeah ... I never mentioned infallibility. I'm well aware papal infallibility is designed to not be falsifiable.<br /><br />> <i>It's not my interpretation it's what the Pope's words that I quoted say</i><br /><br />of course it is. all quotes have to be interpreted. nowhere did he ever say precisely the things you are claiming. You yourself suggested he may be a bad communicator and said that he often makes unclarified sweeping statements that need to be properly interpreted. <br /><br />> <i>So you're not going to address my reasoning or what the Pope has actually said but declare that the American Bishops are infallible?</i><br /><br />See I was finding a higher Catholic authority than you and pointing out they disagreed with your interpretation of the pope's words. I never said the American bishops are infallible. I can find no Bishops who share your "chaste-gays" interpretation and many who apparently disagree (and do think it's heretical).<br /><br />> <i>So wait your first source ...no where states that gays aren't in fact highly promiscuous but only that their nonmonogomy is consensual</i><br /><br />Ok so if you read father down the article you will see that it shows a majority of gay people in the study are monogamous. The claim we are discussing is whether they are "rarely monogamous". This study challenges that notion.<br /><br />> <i>Your second source is also about consensual nonmonogomy</i><br /><br />True but who cares? It provides data on rates of monogamy among the gay population. And again shows monogamy to be more common than both consensual non-monogamy and non-consensual non-monogamy. Again evidence against your position.<br /><br />> <i>Your third source is also about consensual non-monogamy and doesn't show that gays aren't highly non-monogamous</i><br /><br />Did you read the articles? The data table shows way more monogamous gay people than non-monogamous (77 to 9 people).<br /><br />> <i>how is it a fear of gays to point out that they're highly promiscuous?</i><br /><br />homophobia is defined as "dislike of or prejudice against gay people". you think promiscuity is bad so attaching it to gays counter to the scientific evidence is homophobic. <br /><br />> <i> What comments by the Pope are you referring to by the way? </i><br /><br />Wow amazing. You wrote paragraphs defending the Trump family separation policy in response to my citing the pope and you didn't even know what comment I was talking about? Maybe google it? I know Breitbart doesn't report negative stories on Trump so you'd only come across this if you accidentally hit your old drudge report bookmark.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-15512573207492862262020-10-24T09:25:25.575-07:002020-10-24T09:25:25.575-07:00If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you...If you knew anything about the Catholic Church you'd know that the Pope is only infallible when he declares he is speaking infallibly about matters of faith and morals. The question of how to deal with chaste gay couples is a prudential matter where Catholics acknowledge the pope can be wrong.<br /><br />It's not my interpretation it's what the Pope's words that I quoted say. He isn't suggesting civil unions for sexually active gays. That implementing such a law would be impossible isn't the Pope's concern since he in fact isn't in charge of making laws but as the Pope he does have the right to discuss what the moral basis of the laws should be.<br /><br />So you're not going to address my reasoning or what the Pope has actually said but declare that the American Bishops are infallible? If you actually read most of their statements they complain that by not being more precise he creates confusion not that he's heretical. Also the information I cited didn't come out at first and some Bishops responded without knowing how the Pope's comments were taken out of context.<br /><br />He supported civil unions in Argentina as a lesser of two evils situation. He never said that civil unions, except for chaste couples, were morally acceptable.<br /><br />So wait your first source says "Sexual and behavioral health interventions grounded in assumptions of monogamy, or that are designed to promote monogamy as an ideal moral and behavioral standard, may be inapplicable and even harmful." <br /><br />Further it no where states that gays aren't in fact highly promiscuous but only that their nonmonogomy is consensual.<br /><br />Your second source is also about consensual nonmonogomy and it says "Males, gay/lesbian individuals, bisexual individuals, and those who identified as “Other, Non-Hispanic” were more likely to report open relationships."<br /><br />Your third source is also about consensual non-monogamy and doesn't show that gays aren't highly non-monogamous<br /><br />I take it you didn't actually think I'd read the links.<br /><br />how is it a fear of gays to point out that they're highly promiscuous? check out https://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity<br /><br />Yes I do blame the illegal immigrants since they can ensure it doesn't happen simply by agreeing to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing. What comments by the Pope are you referring to by the way?<br /><br />The Obama administration did nothing to stop it and that doesn't seem to bother you. But of course Trump has taken steps to end it; he's said that if the illegal immigrants wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing rather than breaking the law by trying to enter illegally their families won't be separated.<br /><br />If you decide to rob a store you'll be separated from your family. If you're a single mother and you rob a store you'll be separated from your children. Why should people who break our immigration laws be treated better than we treat citizens?<br /><br />Biden is a bad Catholic since he supports the mass murder of the unborn including the killing of viable babies who would survive if just delivered and the killing of unborn girls because the mother wants a boy.<br /><br />In addition Biden has said he'll use the power of government to force Catholic nuns to provide contraception and abortion inducing chemicals. That's like an Orthodox Jew saying he's going to force Jewish deli's to provide pork products.<br /><br />The fact that every word out of the Pope's mouth isn't infallible doesn't mean he's bad but that he's human. Only when declaring doctrine to be infallible is it really God not the Pope speaking. Paul pointed out to Peter that Peter was wrong and no Catholic thinks there's a problem with that.<br /><br />Perhaps before you attack the Church and the Pope you might learn a little bit about both.<br /><br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-78608635271993659692020-10-23T21:29:37.984-07:002020-10-23T21:29:37.984-07:00oh, ok. So you disagree with the pope (guess he is...oh, ok. So you disagree with the pope (guess he isn't all that wise). And under your interpretation the pope is suggesting a law that would require the government to somehow verify people are not engaging in certain sexual acts. Sounds like a great law. Won't cause any problems. Or maybe you are choosing to interpret his words in a way that conforms to your preexisting beliefs. <br /><br />And the reason the pope's comments are getting backlash from American Bishops (saying the pope "clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions") is that the Bishop is not as smart as you and cannot correctly parse the pope's words to find the "true" message. I mean the alternative is that your argument is nonsense. Which can't be so.<br /><br />I mean the pope did endorse civil unions for gays in Argentina as an alternative to gay marriage when he was merely a cardinal. But you're probably right. He probably wanted Argentina to only allow chaste gays to enter into civil unions. He just never said that because it's obviously implied.<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br />I like how you referenced a 40 year old book that only looked at non-random selection of male gay couples. How about some more recent/rigorous studies? Maybe https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5958351/ or https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7 or https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=psychology_articles none of which support the claim that gays are "rarely monogamous". I mean there's nothing wrong with polyamory but from you this looks like some blatant homophobia with a thin smokescreen of science. It's ok I know you won't click those links. Wouldn't want any conflicting information entering your echo chamber.<br /><br />And your response to the claim that the child separation policy was inhumane... Is to blame the migrants? Do you not agree with the pope's assessment? Is the treatment of the migrants justified in your eyes? <br /><br />You say this was a judge's doing but provide no source. Even so the administration could've taken actions to stop it. The huge increase in detain rates of migrants was Trump's doing (by e.g. making it harder to seek asylum by slowing down the process). The most confusing part of your position is that Trump signed an executive order ending the practice (see https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive-order.html). If he could do that at any time then he does hold responsibility.<br /><br />I mean man you say Biden is a bad Catholic but you are really making the pope look bad here.Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-1583575122500158062020-10-23T15:28:55.392-07:002020-10-23T15:28:55.392-07:00If you read the post it should be clear that I don...If you read the post it should be clear that I don't agree with the idea of civil unions and the pope does so only for those who are living without sex<br /><br />According to Kinsey less than 5% of gay couples are monogamous <br /><br />David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison conducted a non-random study of 156 stable committed male homosexual couples. They found that none of the over 100 couples that had been together for more than 5 years had been sexually monogamous or exclusive. The authors, themselves a gay couple, argued that for male couples, sexual monogamy is a passing stage of homophobia and that many homosexuals separate emotional fidelity and sexual exclusivity. What matters for male couples is emotional not physical faithfulness. Reference - D McWhirter and A Mattison, "The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop", (Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall).<br /><br />Of course the Trump plan is in fact a court order and was followed by Obama too.<br /><br />After a certain period of time asylum applicants are put in jail and since most people don't want kids in jail the family is separated just like the families of any American accused of a crime and jailed awaiting a hearing is separated.<br /><br />In any case any family separation, other than in cases where there is reason to believe that the children aren't in fact the children of the adults claiming to be their parents--which happens quite a lot these days since families with kids are more likely to be released on the US waiting for their asylum hearing--, are purely voluntary.<br /><br />Anyone caught trying to sneak into the country who doesn't want his family separate only has to wait in Mexico for their asylum hearing.<br /><br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-82597713154186128072020-10-23T11:07:50.004-07:002020-10-23T11:07:50.004-07:00So you/the pope support legalizing civil unions? O...So you/the pope support legalizing civil unions? Or would the government need to ask and make sure they aren't having sex first before allowing them to enter a civil union?<br /><br />Do you have a source for your claim that sexually active gay couples are "rarely monogamous"?<br /><br />Also, do you plan to comment on the pope's condemnation of Trump's family separation policy?<br /><br />Thanks!Grollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07401181794124962119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-13113070965030612792020-10-20T15:22:50.640-07:002020-10-20T15:22:50.640-07:00So what you're saying is that if I oppose abor...So what you're saying is that if I oppose abortion because of my faith I should shut up but because you support abortion due to your belief it's ok to kill some innocent human beings you can speak out?<br /><br />I note you ignored my point that if Jesus is a man then everything Christians believe is by definition secular.<br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-24411042700083249522020-10-18T14:04:55.122-07:002020-10-18T14:04:55.122-07:00> I'm sorry but being a secular country doe...> I'm sorry but being a secular country doesn't mean that people have to leave their religious beliefs at home.<br /><br />It means religion should be disconnected from the governance of the country. The right is always complaining about "sharia" law but when christian principles are employed apparently there is no issue.<br /><br />> To you it's wrong for people of faith to push their beliefs but it's fine for atheists to push theirs.<br /><br />Anyone may push their secular beliefs.<br /><br />> Have you ever considered that if atheists are right and Jesus is just a man then he's no less of a man than say any man whose ideology leftists like yourself push?<br /><br />Did jesus say anything about abortion? And if he is just a man then much of the new testament is wrong so basing things off it is surely unwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-55240430921051007382020-10-17T12:42:44.873-07:002020-10-17T12:42:44.873-07:00No but you're stupid if you think that Trump l...No but you're stupid if you think that Trump looked directly at the sun during the eclipse when it was dangerous and didn't suffer eye damage. Or are you saying he's superman? :)<br /><br />You don't follow science. You deny that human life begins at conception and you think a man can become a woman without changing his DNA.<br /><br />The science about the efficacy of masks is far less established than those two points are.trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1672080138025809322.post-46688334488674516852020-10-17T12:40:48.616-07:002020-10-17T12:40:48.616-07:00I'm sorry but being a secular country doesn...I'm sorry but being a secular country doesn't mean that people have to leave their religious beliefs at home.<br /><br />The Constitution, you should read it some time, says that we have the right to exercise, that is live, our religious beliefs.<br /><br />Once again you prove my point. To you it's wrong for people of faith to push their beliefs but it's fine for atheists to push theirs.<br /><br />Have you ever considered that if atheists are right and Jesus is just a man then he's no less of a man than say any man whose ideology leftists like yourself push?<br />trinkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10012873382116569331noreply@blogger.com