Topic: 63% of all the HIV infections in the United States occurs among the Sodomites - page 2. (Read 2552 times)

As I said before, if what you were saying was true, then both the males and females would have displayed bisexual tendencies, but only the females did. Therefore, everything you've said is false and has no bearing whatsoever in fact. Your conclusion has no basis in anything observational and therefore is total bullshit, to say the least.

At least come up with sensible arguments.


I already told you a leading theory is that males were often out fighting wars and not at home with the children and wives, so the wives would bond together to raise the children, and that explains why women are bisexual and men are mostly either straight or gay.

A prime example is ancient sparta, where the males would only see their wives once a month.

EDIT: You're right in the swearing, but I cannot have respect for you according to some intolerant comments you've previously made.

There's really no need to swear while posting to me, which you have been doing more recently. I've just been peacefully answering your questions and posting back to the things you have accused me of with examples to prove what I've said.

You have given the results of the test, but you have not given a reason as to why you or the person who ran the test, believe the results should give the conclusion that women are all bi-sexual.

I never argued the results, I was arguing with the conclusion based on the results.

I've already given my conclusion based upon the results and why I think it. But you don't want to hear that.

But you have not given me a reason (that I haven't debunked) for why women would all be bi-sexual and men wouldn't. If you believe these results mean that conclusion, why? Why should men not be bi-sexual just as much as women?

Look, I don't care about your bullshit, irrational opinions. It's a fact that biological women are bisexual. If you want to test this yourself, go to a sexologist and have any female you know blood flow to their vagina measured(Your sexual arousal) while watching lesbian porn, and see what happens. You'll sure be in for a surprise as this arugment is a waste of time, you're sprouting off illogical statements and frankly you make no sense. Everything has been answered so far. This fact in itself should show the bible is entirely false(Not gonna mention the indefinite amount of inaccuracies and contractions in it as well).

"Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women. "

I already told you that in these studies, the men did not display any significant sexual arousal to both sexes, they preferred one(gay or straight). The women however were aroused by both sexes during sexual acts, but only aroused when viewing pictures of naked women(doing non sexual acts) and not aroused at all when viewing images of naked men(doing non sexual acts). Hence, men are mostly either gay or straight, and women are entirely bisexual on a purely sexual level(With a slight preference for other women sexually).

1) Men fighting in wars with other men, would likely bring them together just as much as women being alone with women. I don't believe that, but your theory doesn't make sense because the same reason you would claim women would bond and grow bi would be the same reason men should, but they don't, so you haven't explained why women do and men don't.

You believe the results come to that conclusion that women are bi, I don't. There's a difference between having results, and having a conclusion. Results can be for many reasons. Does the study even give any reasons why they come to the conclusion they do? You still haven't explained why men don't show up as bi more than women.

You think demons are hogwash, the bible is full of demon verses, and those Christians who do not believe in them, are ones who aren't following the bible.

Your line about me not following the bible, is silly when it's not backed by anything, and people can clearly read all my posts. Everything I've written has bible verse backing.

25 verses about casting out demons

Matthew 10:5 "These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,a drive out demons. "

Mark 16:17 "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues"

For more reading on getting rid of demonic oppression, here are some books:


Christianity with Power


Defeating Dark Angels: Breaking Demonic Oppression in the Believer's Life


Power Encounters: Reclaiming Spiritual Warfare

Though, these are just a couple, they quote others also. Anyone can look up spiritual warfare and deliverance for more viewpoints and examples.

There are plenty of theories as to why men are not as likely to be bisexual with the main one being below.

1) Men often fought wars and were away from home, leaving women alone with the children(Countries like Sparta were a perfect example where the husbands only saw the wives once a month). This means that the women would bond together to raise the children, and of course there would need to be sexual attraction for them to get along.

The fact of the matter is that all the studies done on female sexuality already show that women are by default, bisexual, and man are much more likely to be either straight or gay. Your "theories" about "demons" have absolutely no evidence behind them, and even according to the Church is a bunch of hogwash, as shown by the trivial amount of so called "exorcisms" carried out each year.

You obviously don't follow the bible, as the OT is as relevant as the NT. What you are, is a superficial christian who selectively chooses what to listen to in the bible, nothing more.

I'd believe the bible over the Catholic Church any day. I already gave reasons, but because of your closed-mind you won't listen to it. My theory is a combination of demonic influences and media influences. But since you ignore one, you can't see it a whole theory. That's ok. I never thought you'd believe it. I just wanted to post another alternative to the theory of yours.

I fully know you think you're right 100%. I don't agree, and I bet many people reading don't believe the conclusion for those results. They may believe the results, but the conclusion doesn't fit. If it was true that all women were bi, ignoring demonic influences, then all men should be bi too. Can you even give a logical reason why men wouldn't be bi in your opinion?

I figured I'd give another theory that explains the results, the only reason I posted in this thread.

Not as simple as that. There is a window period for the HIV virus, which can range from 3 months to 6 months. During this window period, the HIV virus will remain invisible in the blood. If a newly infected person donates his blood even before this window period (i.e before 6 months after he got infected), then there is a chance that the recipient will become HIV +ve.

There's a lot of ambiguous stats being thrown around in here, this is how I'm interpreting them:

I do believe that gays are more segregated from mainstream society. This means that when they do get together in clubs etc, then they are more likely to hook up with other gays and have one-night-stands etc. This would have been especially true in the 70s, when this study was performed.

An analogy for a heterosexual would be if it was socially unacceptable to chat girls up in the street, but once a week there's a party which all the hot girls go to specifically to hook up with you - you'd be inclined to indulge, right? I imagine it feels like you're a kid in a candy shop.

Also, gay men probably have similar sex drive to hetero men, so this would make them promiscuous. All of these things, together with the fact that anal sex is more likely to lead to AIDS, and that men don't have vaginas, explains to me why the statistic is so high in the gay demographic.

It seems that some of you are saying that gays are inherently physiologically more likely to catch AIDS. I don't think there's any evidence to support this, feel free to prove me wrong.

Regarding the ban on blood donation, I feel that it is morally justified to stop people from a high-risk demographic giving blood. However, I don't see why they couldn't be tested for HIV first, and then allowed to donate after a negative result.

If they honestly abstain from sex for more than one year, then they can be allowed to donate blood. After all, the window period for HIV is around three to six months. Infections older than that can be easily identified through a simple blood test. But how we will be sure whether these people are lying or not? After all, they had knowingly created the first HIV epidemic (California) in the 1980s, by donating infected blood.

1) The number of demons on Earth is not small.

One third of all angels are fallen angels, from an innumerable amount of angels (too many to count):

Hebrews 12:22 22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels

Daniel 7:10 A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him;

Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53"Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"

legion meaning a unit of 3,000–6,000 men in the ancient Roman army or a vast host, multitude, or number of people or things. And of course by the time Jesus said that the angels who He would have called, their number was 2/3 of all angels (since 1/3 were fallen).

2) The number of demons should never be related to how many exorcisms there are a year in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church over the years has tended to shy away from granting them when asked. They have left people who may have benefited from it, to fend for themselves over and over. It may be out of fear of looking foolish. You changed your tone when I mentioned demons existing as the bible says they do. Lots of people do.

3) However, exorcisms are on the rise. Exorcism Thriving in U.S., Say Experts, How Pope Francis and the Vatican deal with the devil (2014).

Also I never said all people are possessed, which is usually what exorcism brings to mind. Just that there are demonic forces that get a little more power with every sin (oppression versus possession). Asking for forgiveness for those sins takes away their power.

If anyone is interested, Christians are looking into deliverance from other Christians versus an exorcism from the Catholic Church. Deliverance can be peaceful, just asking for forgiveness and prayers, etc.

"Though many people confuse deliverance with exorcism, they are not the same.....Deliverance ministries seek to remove any influences that allow the demon to take control over the individual. The individual must take responsibility and be involved in the process" (Deliverance ministry)

The man who was going to have the sex change operation was prayed for, and had a lessening of impure thoughts of men, and started to get sexually attracted to women and was looking forward to getting married to a wife. It's the only reason I bring it up. Just wanted to counter your theory with another theory. You can call it crackpot all you like, but it would be a bit disingenuous for me to say I believe the bible and ignore Jesus calling out demons and commanding His followers to do the same in the future.

Mark 16:17 "These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues"

FDA plan: Gay men who abstain from sex may be allowed to give blood






Gay men who've abstained from sex for one year would be able to donate blood in 2015, ending a lifetime ban for the gay community, under a proposed FDA policy change unveiled Tuesday.

The current lifetime ban by U.S. Food and Drug Administration states dates back to 1983 and forbids men who have had sex with men from becoming blood donors because the group is "at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion," the FDA has ruled.

But the FDA is now seeking a change in that policy and would allow such blood donations based on an independent expert advisory panel's recommendation, the agency said.

The proposed change would align the one-year deferral period "with that of other men and women at increased risk for HIV infection," the FDA said.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/23/health/fda-blood-donation-proposal-gay-men/


------------------------------------------------------------
FDA: "Please make sure you swear to tell the truth and the whole truth when giving your blood... Thank youuuuuuu"

FDA is saying gays belong to a high risk and should stop being gay for one year before giving blood. That is the way I read it.

I think thats quite a reasonable argument in why gay people generally are banne dfrom blood donation. Their blood is the same as anyone else, but they have  MUCH higher chance of being infected, so theres not really a reason to do it.