₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
It's not a problem for the Owner to fix HIV which is only a symptom of the root cause.

OLAADEGBU:

Where are your facts? The fact that you've got issues with God should not cloud your rationality here.

OLAADEGBU:

Emotional outburst without any iota of truth.

OLAADEGBU:
You are getting your facts mixed up here. Traditional religion cannot be misconstrued for practical Christianity. Again, don't allow your emotions to cloud your judgment. I can give you facts and data that shows how Atheism is the main culprit to most of your allegations.

OLAADEGBU:
I know that you hate God that you don't believe exists and you think that attacking His children is the next best thing to do.

OLAADEGBU:
You call Adolf Hitler, Stalin, Obama, Pol Pot and other atheists liberal thinkers?

finofaya:
Or it is a legitimate sexual preference.

finofaya:
We are not on the same page here either.

finofaya:
Page sync!

finofaya:
Loool. You're funny.

finofaya:
Jesus would solve much more than that if he so desired. An end to poverty, immediate and permanent world peace, a cancer vaccine even.

While we wait for him we can, wisely, practice safe sex to reduce the incidence of HIV infections.

finofaya:
The cause of the virus is God.

In any case, if God's action upon coming across male homosexuals was to infect them with HIV rather than fix them, then we can safely bet that he'd sooner infect them with something else than fix them.

Therefore the increasing need for safe sex.

OLAADEGBU:
Statistics prove otherwise.

Homosexuality is biblically, psychologically, naturally, physiologically and morally proven to be the wrong choice.

We are just focussing on the first point (disease) here, there are more indices to come.

This is why political correctness in the Government, press and public schools can be counter-productive.

We can rather wait on the Prince of Peace, repent from our sins, trusting in Him for our salvation and abstain from every evil appearance.

OLAADEGBU:
The world's definition for safe sex that Obama is preaching will only lead to the pit of hell.

Sarassin:
@OP

If I were you, I would tone down the rhetoric, your ultra conservative stance makes a mockery of the fact that you, a middle-aged gentleman of colour living in suburbia are a net beneficiary of liberal thinkers, perhaps you are merely blind to the fact that your monotheistic cult is far more insidious, dangerous and has been more of a menace to society than any person of dubious sexuality.

You practise a religion that preaches spiritual but not earthly equality, and the negroid must be the daftest man on the face of the planet to call himself a Christian, a religion that all but despises the very core of your being.

What is your opinion on church sanctioned slavery, human trafficking, expansionism and colonialism all in the name of the one true jealous God? Let us not forget, Christianity has never repudiated slavery nor racism, these twin evils were brought to an end by liberal minds and bright thinkers, the church itself were slave masters, one of the first slaver ships that set sail from England was named "Jesus", St. Augustine termed slavery "the curse of Ham" and wrote that "slavery leads to social order". John Chrystosom advised "slaves should accept the reality of their condition as against the uncertainties of freedom" (the cheek of the man).

Pope Gregory, no less visited the slave market in Rome to run the rule over choice slaves. In France, slavery was considered harmonious with the laws of God, to speak out against slavery was to speak out against the "Holy Ghost", afterall the Apostle Paul instructed that slaves should accept their status. Monasteries were major slave dealers. The church decreed that slavery was in accordance with catholic theology. Many churches made so much money baptising slaves that when slavery was finally abolished many of them hit financial crisis point.

Without a doubt, your monotheistic cult has been directly responsible for a lot of the ills it claims to stand against, it has been the foremost against any progressive social policies conceived for the progress of man and concerned only with the propagating of its feeble myths and collective self-aggrandizement at any costs.

Were it not for liberal thinkers who gave up limb, liberty and life in pursuit of a greater freedom, you would likely be spouting your ill-digested fundamentalist dogma in the comfort of velvet ankle, wrist and collar chains, consider that the next time you feel like demonising people on the basis of their sexuality, religious belief or social order.

finofaya:
You have the stats for male homos who don't use the backdoor?

finofaya:
Okay bro. Fortunately it does not affect you personally.

finofaya:
You should have started with those.

finofaya:
I thought you were joking. Can I get any citations?

finofaya:
Lol. If you are able to abstain from evil you won't need the Prince of Peace. We are required to sin, and to use protection as we sin.

OLAADEGBU:
The onus is on you to provide that data.

Have you seen the thread on the promiscuity of homosexuals?

I haven't even gone into the second point yet.

I will be posting a topic on that soon.

We have a Saviour and our sin connects us to this Saviour whose name is Jesus. He died to pay the penalty for our sins and rose again the third day so that we can live in the newness of life. He is now seated on the right hand of the Father interceding for us and as we go to the throne of grace we receive help in time of need.

finofaya:
You're the one that appealed to statistics.

finofaya:
I've seen it. I dey come. Are you a homosexual?

finofaya:
I can't imagine anything weaker than this first one.

finofaya:
Insha Allah. It's an interesting claim.

finofaya:
I appreciate your stance.

OLAADEGBU:
Is homosexuality dangerous to society?
by Matt Slick

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? The answer depends on what constitutes a danger. First of all, there is no objective moral standard that secularists have with which to identify wickedness, evil, and moral decay. At best, all that can be offered is the generic claim that what is dangerous is what causes undue harm and suffering among the general population. Such dangers could include economic collapse or upheaval, war, famine, plague, earthquakes, disease, etc. We could add that dangers to society are things that weaken it, make it less viable to care for its population, make it vulnerable to attack from outside and/or within. This could be anything from bad religion to bad government. Also, such things as rampant lying, stealing, and murder would seriously undermine a healthy society and be dangerous to it since they increase the harm and suffering of the society as a whole.

Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let's take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let's start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.

Disease

• 2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

• "A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

• 25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)
Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

OLAADEGBU:
Financial Impact

• $12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)
• $1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society's financial stability.

ValerianSteel:
where do people get all these stuffs from.

ValerianSteel:
Y'all make it seem like only gay people get HIV in the U.S.,last time I checked the HIV prevalence in homosexual males is the same as that of black women anywhere.

People keep getting the notion that gays are the highest carriers of HIV cause the prevalence in gay males is high whereas it's not.

While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009.

OLAADEGBU:
The source of these statistics was supplied.



Read the excerpts below as it answers your objections.

ValerianSteel:
[img]http://cdc.gov/hiv/images/statistics/basics/hiv-infections-graph-700x302.png[/img]

Stop your false props here,the HIV prevalence in MSM is cause they are at higher risks of getting infected.

OLAADEGBU:
So what's your point? Is your graph saying anything different from the OP?

ValerianSteel:
My graph faults your claims,what am relaying is that the HIV prevalence is as a result of risk level which each category of people belong in.You were justifying the HIV prevalence in gays as if it were there handiwork whereas it's as a result of biological misfortune.

OLAADEGBU:
The statistics in the OP is clear enough, it says that 2% of U.S. population is gay and yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection.

OLAADEGBU:
Financial Impact

• $12.1 Billion annual cost in US: "Future treatment for the 40,000 people infected with HIV in the United States every year will cost $12.1 billion annually, a new study showed." (msnbc.msn.com/id/15528984/ns/health-aids/t/new-us-hiv-cases-cost-billion-year/)
• $1.5 Billion Cost for 2001 in Canada: "June 2001, Halifax, Nova Scotia--HIV/AIDS cost Canadians more than $2 billion in 1999 in direct and indirect costs. Health care costs accounted for about $560 million; prevention, research and supports to AIDS victims for about $40 million; and lost economic production due to premature death and disability for nearly $1.5 billion." (gpiatlantic.org/releases/pr_cost_aids.htm)

The financial drain on society due to the medical costs of HIV is huge. The greater the impact, the more damage it does to the society's financial stability.

Sarassin:

If I were you, I would tone down the rhetoric, your ultra conservative stance makes a mockery of the fact that you, a middle-aged gentleman of colour living in suburbia are a net beneficiary of liberal thinkers, perhaps you are merely blind to the fact that your monotheistic cult is far more insidious, dangerous and has been more of a menace to society than any person of dubious sexuality.

You practise a religion that preaches spiritual but not earthly equality, and the negroid must be the daftest man on the face of the planet to call himself a Christian, a religion that all but despises the very core of your being.

What is your opinion on church sanctioned slavery, human trafficking, expansionism and colonialism all in the name of the one true jealous God? Let us not forget, Christianity has never repudiated slavery nor racism, these twin evils were brought to an end by liberal minds and bright thinkers, the church itself were slave masters, one of the first slaver ships that set sail from England was named "Jesus", St. Augustine termed slavery "the curse of Ham" and wrote that "slavery leads to social order". John Chrystosom advised "slaves should accept the reality of their condition as against the uncertainties of freedom" (the cheek of the man).

Pope Gregory, no less visited the slave market in Rome to run the rule over choice slaves. In France, slavery was considered harmonious with the laws of God, to speak out against slavery was to speak out against the "Holy Ghost", afterall the Apostle Paul instructed that slaves should accept their status. Monasteries were major slave dealers. The church decreed that slavery was in accordance with catholic theology. Many churches made so much money baptising slaves that when slavery was finally abolished many of them hit financial crisis point.

Without a doubt, your monotheistic cult has been directly responsible for a lot of the ills it claims to stand against, it has been the foremost against any progressive social policies conceived for the progress of man and concerned only with the propagating of its feeble myths and collective self-aggrandizement at any costs.

Were it not for liberal thinkers who gave up limb, liberty and life in pursuit of a greater freedom, you would likely be spouting your ill-digested fundamentalist dogma in the comfort of velvet ankle, wrist and collar chains, consider that the next time you feel like demonising people on the basis of their sexuality, religious belief or social order.

johnydon22:
The guy has no argument here, he was severely battered and his argument rubbished..

Look up the thread, he couldn't even make one single constructive statement, just spew childish trash and post a meme. . Imagine such childishness, i am ashamed of such nonsense. .

He should go find another Copy and paste thread to open and leave other people to what they do with their joystick

OLAADEGBU:
Mental Health

How is the mental health of homosexuals and lesbians? Does it have the same bell-curve as the rest of society? No, it does not. Take a look at these statistics and note that the mental health issues are not due to social pressure and rejection by the majority of society who considers homosexuality to be aberrant.

• " . . . homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population, reports Health24.com . . . the risk of suicide jumped over 200% if an individual had engaged in a homosexual lifestyle . . . the lifespan of a homosexual is on average 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual . . . While the Health 24 article suggested that homosexuals may be pushed to substance abuse and suicide because of anti-homosexual cultural and family pressures, empirical tests have shown that there is no difference in homosexual health risk depending on the level of tolerance in a particular environment. Homosexuals in the United States and Denmark--the latter of which is acknowledged to be highly tolerant of homosexuality--both die on average in their early 50's, or in their 40's if AIDS is the cause of death. The average age for all residents in either country ranges from the mid-to-upper-70s." (onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=255614)
• 73% of the psychiatrists in the American Psychiatric Association who responded to a survey by Harold I. Lief said that they thought that homosexual men are less happy than others. 70% percent said they believed that the homosexuals' problems were due more to personal conflicts than to social stigmatization. Study by Harold I. Lief, Sexual Survey Number 4: Current Thinking on Homosexuality, Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality 2 (1977), pp.110-111 (Cited in Growing Up Straight by George A. Reker)." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

OLAADEGBU:
Sexual Molestation

• Higher sexual molestation with homosexual parents: "A disproportionate percentage--29--percent--of the adult children of homosexual parents had been specifically subjected to sexual molestation by that homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents having reported sexual relations with their parent. . . . Having a homosexual parent(s) appears to increase the risk of incest with a parent by a factor of about 50." (P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 772" (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php).

Certainly, no one wants children molested by adults. (Unfortunately, pedophilia is now being pushed as another 'sexual orientation' see http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517). Society needs to protect its children--not subject them to sexual pressures and molestation. However, the homosexual lifestyle clearly presents an increased threat to our children.

OLAADEGBU:
Sexual Promiscuity

Sexual promiscuity helps support the spread of disease. What are the promiscuity statistics of the homosexual community? Shockingly bad!

• 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)

• Low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexuals. "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)

Does anyone think that such mind-blowing promiscuity is healthy for any society, especially when the homosexual community is particularly subject to HIV infection? Homosexuals are members of society; and their behaviour, which is a manifestation of their "orientation," is extremely dangerous.

https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

OLAADEGBU:
• Death of a society

If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society.

OLAADEGBU:
Opening the door wide

Homosexuality is a behaviour that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as paedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many, and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that paedophiles are doing just that. See the article "Paedophiles want same rights as homosexuals." Muslims practice polygamy, and they are increasing in America. Mormons have practiced it in the past, and who is to say they won't get another revelation declaring that it is permissible again once the homosexual movement and its redefinition of marriage is ingrained in society? Incest is sure to follow (See the article "Rick Santorum was right about Incest and the Slippery Slope)." The slippery slope is exactly the issue. Once sexual morays are loosed, marriage definitions and fidelity are loosened, too. Nothing happens in a society by itself since their intertwining social strings have collateral effects.

finofaya:
Some male homosexuals don't do a.nal. Some homosexuals are not male. Some heterosexuals do a.nal. STD's are transmitted through all forms of sex. The OP is simplistic and wrong.

sulasa07:
But HIV first came through Homo

OLAADEGBU:
Is homosexuality dangerous to society?
by Matt Slick

Is homosexuality dangerous to society? The answer depends on what constitutes a danger. First of all, there is no objective moral standard that secularists have with which to identify wickedness, evil, and moral decay. At best, all that can be offered is the generic claim that what is dangerous is what causes undue harm and suffering among the general population. Such dangers could include economic collapse or upheaval, war, famine, plague, earthquakes, disease, etc. We could add that dangers to society are things that weaken it, make it less viable to care for its population, make it vulnerable to attack from outside and/or within. This could be anything from bad religion to bad government. Also, such things as rampant lying, stealing, and murder would seriously undermine a healthy society and be dangerous to it since they increase the harm and suffering of the society as a whole.

Okay, so now that we have something to work with, let's take a look at homosexuality and see if it is beneficial or harmful to society. Let's start with disease and see what the statistics teach us.

Disease

• 2% of U.S. population is gay yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection: "Men who have sex with men [MSM] remain the group most heavily affected by new HIV infections. While the CDC estimates that MSM represent only 2 percent of the U.S. population, they accounted for the majority (61 percent; 29,300) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Young MSM (ages 13 to 29) were most severely affected, representing more than one quarter of all new HIV infections nationally (27 percent; 12,900 in 2009)." (Center for Disease Control, cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/HIVIncidencePressRelease.html)

• "A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection." (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm).

• 25% of HIV infected in U.K. unaware of their infection: "Of the estimated 86,500 people living with HIV in the United Kingdom, about 25 percent are not aware they are infected, the Health Protection Agency said recently." (The Body, thebody.com/content/art59714.html)
Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

Clearly, the disease statistics related to a homosexual lifestyle prove that such a lifestyle is harmful not only to themselves but also to others, especially when you note that in both the U.S. and U.K. large percentages of HIV infected people don't know they are infected. This is a danger to society since it supports the spread of disease on a large scale.

https://carm.org/is-homosexuality-dangerous

OLAADEGBU:
There's no doubt about the fact that homosexuals are the main culprit of reckless sexual behaviour. The fact that 2% of U.S. population is gay and yet it accounts for 61% of HIV infection should tell you who the main culprits are.

kimco:
I think u missed a key point...

New Cases


Pls know the difference.

OLAADEGBU:
What are the new cases?