But, but but...it's the FAGS that are persecuting Christians

[Crackpot]

So according to the premise that Dave has established, HIV is primarily a genetic, rather than a behavioural, disease. He will no doubt sputter some incoherent nonsense in response to being hoisted on his own petard.

Do you trip little kids on crutches too?

[Scooter]

Fish. Barrels. Shooting. Can't resist.

Like when the cover boy for Mr. Angry-at-the-World Magazine blames his high blood pressure on genetics.

[Sue U]

Do you trip little kids on crutches too?

I thought that (and kicking puppies) was @w's job.

[rubato]

Fish. Barrels. Shooting. Can't resist.

Like when the cover boy for Mr. Angry-at-the-World Magazine blames his high blood pressure on genetics.

He lost track of whether he was justifying (genetics, can't help it!) or condemning (behavior, it's your fault!).

But what is amazing is that he finally admitted that Homosexuality is not a choice, even though he fluffs and calls it a 'tendancy'. I guess he can learn after all.

In any case the risk of heart disease is firmly based in behavior:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/707372

Abstract

Seventh-Day Adventists (SDAs) are a conservative religious denomination who abstain from tobacco and alcohol; approximately one-half follow a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet. In this 6-year prospective study of 24,044 California SDAs age 35 and over, coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality rates for ages 35 to 64 and 65+ are 28% and 50% respectively, of the rates for the same age groups of the total California population. This reduced risk of CHD mortality among SDAs is partially due to abstinence from smoking; however, at least half the low risk among SDAs is likely attributable to other characteristics of the SDA lifestyle. The risk of fatal CHD among nonvegetarian SDA males, ages 35 to 64, is three times greater than vegetarian SDA males of comparable age (P less than 0.01), suggesting that the SDA diet may account for a large share of their low risk. This differential was much smaller for older SDA males and SDA females. Although the differential in risk of fatal CHD for male nonvegetarians versus vegetarians may be partially accounted for by other CHD risk factors, which are more frequent among nonvegetarians, a significant differential persists after adjustment for each of six other CHD risk factors.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479222

Nut consumption, vegetarian diets, ischemic heart disease risk, and all-cause mortality: evidence from epidemiologic studies.
Sabaté J1.
Author information
Abstract

Perhaps one of the most unexpected and novel findings in nutritional epidemiology in the past 5 y has been that nut consumption seems to protect against ischemic heart disease (IHD). Frequency and quantity of nut consumption have been documented to be higher in vegetarian than in nonvegetarian populations. Nuts also constitute an important part of other plant-based diets, such as Mediterranean and Asian diets. In a large, prospective epidemiologic study of Seventh-day Adventists in California, we found that frequency of nut consumption had a substantial and highly significant inverse association with risk of myocardial infarction and death from IHD. The Iowa Women's Health Study also documented an association between nut consumption and decreased risk of IHD. The protective effect of nuts on IHD has been found in men and women and in the elderly. Importantly, nuts have similar associations in both vegetarians and nonvegetarians. The protective effect of nut consumption on IHD is not offset by increased mortality from other causes. Moreover, frequency of nut consumption has been found to be inversely related to all-cause mortality in several population groups such as whites, blacks, and the elderly. Thus, nut consumption may not only offer protection against IHD, but also increase longevity.

For just two examples.

yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sooo... in a thread about homosexuality... you're recommending nuts?

[dgs49]

Genetic traits aside, HIV can be completely and effectively avoided by refraining from buggering one's chums. None of the other diseases mentioned can be completely avoided through behavior modification. Butt of course we all knew that, didn't we?

[rubato]

"... HIV can be completely and effectively avoided by refraining from buggering one's chums.... "

We've been over this topic many times now. Really think hard and see if you can recall the many ways you can get HIV without engaging in anal sex.

I know you're old, mean, and not very scrupulous about the truth, but I know you can do it if you really really try.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Turnabout is fair play:

Activist counters 'Sodomite Supression Act' proposal with 'Intolerant Jackass Act'

SACRAMENTO, March 25 (UPI) -- After a California lawyer filed a proposal calling to legalize the execution of gay people, a California activist proposed her own legislation: the "Intolerant Jackass Act."

Huntington Beach attorney Matt McLaughlin proposed the initiative "Sodomite Suppression Act," received by the Initiative Coordinator of the Office of the Attorney General on Feb. 26, after paying a $200 fee to begin lodging the bill.

McLaughlin would need to gather 366,000 signatures within 180 days for lawmakers to debate his proposal, which could be on the ballot in November. The proposal has angered pro-LGBT activists and the public at large.

Charlotte Laws, an activist, submitted her own initiative on Monday called the "Intolerant Jackass Act."

"Any person, herein known as an 'Intolerant Jackass,' who brings forth a ballot measure that suggests the killing of gays and/or lesbians, whether this measure is called the Sodomite Suppression Act or is known by some other name, shall be required to attend sensitivity training for at least three (3) hours per month for twelve (12) consecutive months," the initiative reads in part. "In addition, the offender or 'Intolerant Jackass' must donate $5,000 to a pro-gay or pro-lesbian organization."

Anyone who pays the fee has the right to begin lodging a bill, regardless of content. Both initiatives are not likely to become laws.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/03/ ... 427289086/

[MajGenl.Meade]

We have pro homosexual organizations now? It was bad enough when it was just amateurs - this could outdraw soccer.

[liberty]

the post about eating pygmies is, unfortunately, not a joke....

the main risk to pygmies is over hunting, not only of their game, but of them

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the ... &FORM=VDRE

[wesw]

thanks liberty. its horrifying.

mr lively is deadly, and not representative of any Christians that i know.

c mon scooter. do you really think that anyone here, a fairly representstive group, would support him?

i don t.

crap, half the people in the country probably had a little summer camp action in adolescence anyway

[Scooter]

In fact there has been at least one poster here that expressed support for the persecution of gays going on in Russia, something supported, if not actually influenced, by the gospel according to Lively.

But in general I think you are correct, not more than a small minority of Americans would seek to use the law to imprison or execute gay people (but given the U.S. population, that minority still probably numbers in the tens of millions).

As I previously said, it is precisely because Lively's message is losing currency among mainstream Americans that he and those of his ilk have chosen more fertile mission fields in places like Russia and some parts of Africa where his gospel in favour of the generalized persecution of gay people sill finds acceptance.

[Gob]

[Crackpot]

I'd give you millions (and shrinking daily) but tens of millions is a little high.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I wouldn't even give millions. I think it's about 27 people actually. (I'm not one of 'em and never have been)

[Scooter]

I'd give you millions (and shrinking daily) but tens of millions is a little high.

6.25% of the population is 20 million. I would bet my house that the proportion of the U.S. population that would like to see homosexuality re-criminalized is more than 6.25%

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think he's wrong but neither of us (perhaps) could prove it. My sense is that people who are not homophiles just want the marriage thing to go away, even those in the evangelical circles that I at least inhabit. Civil recognition, yes. But not "marriage". Maybe it's all semantics

[Lord Jim]

This kind of surprised me:





A lot more data about this here:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

I did not expect that even as recently as last year, that the percentage of Americans who believe that gay relationships between consenting adults should not be legal is still 30%...

I would have expected something at least 10 points lower....

Of course with a question as general as that, the respondents are going to have a wide range of things in mind...

Everything from "Yeah I think it should be on the books as illegal, but I wouldn't go out of my way to enforce it" at one end of the spectrum, all the way to "I think gay people ought to rounded up and exterminated" at the other end ...

And everything in between... (Some people probably answered it thinking that there should fines, not jail, etc.)

I'd like to see some polling with more specific questions asked of those who said they believed homosexuality should be illegal, how strongly they felt about it and what they thought the penalties should be....

I still have to believe that the percentage that think that gays should get the DP would be in the very low single digits; though even 3% would be 10 million people, which would still be pretty appalling...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thanks for the figures. I'm surprised too. As to death, if that number exceeds 0.0001% I'd be shocked

It should be 0.0

[Scooter]

I did not expect that even as recently as last year, that the percentage of Americans who believe that gay relationships between consenting adults should not be legal is still 30%...

I think, in fairness, that with what has been in the headlines in the past months, when people are asked that question they may have same-sex marriage on the brain, and when are asked if same-sex "relations" should be legal, some portion of that 30% are thinking they are being asked about same-sex marriage, rather than more generally about sex between gays and/or lesbians.

Perhaps, rather than using using euphemisms, pollsters should be coming right out and asking if gay and lesbian sex should be criminal (i.e. implying, at the least, imprisonment as a possible penalty). I think the number would be lower, but would still be somewhere in the range of 10-20%.