@Joeseph heroin is far less harmless than alcohol in terms of its affects and the side affects and social affects.
So if you disagree with all the medical research and findings that alcohol is much more harmful than heroin where is your evidence?
Surely a person of your grate stature and experience will be quick to provide evidence to back up your claim. So are we going to see your reason and or evidence?
@Joeseph ARGUMENT TOPIC : BARNDOOR SHOOTS HIMSELF IN THE FOOT .....AGAIN
So here we go again with the resident lieing nit carrying on and we all know that he will never answer a question hes been done like toast on and made a grate bo boo as usual. So all you really need to do is keep scoffing down all your Guiness sewer water and Jameson gut rot and it will be no surprise that all the village hippies who did heroin will still be alive and laughing there heads off at your funeral.
I'm a bit confused. How do the sexual health issues you raise support your argument that homosexuality is a sin?
As for my statement regarding perversion, it was a play on words, a way to play along and comment on @Bardardot's stance, which I would bluntly call nothing more than a reflection of language fu*cking! And this is regardless of whether he is intentionally mocking people with an aversion to gays or not; his argument is still a dumb one and does nothing productive.
Neither your nor @Bardardot's argument holds up to scrutiny. Both arguments are not based on evidence-based epistemology. They are void of knowledge that has been obtained objectively—that is, knowledge obtained through verifiable facts and empirical evidence.
just_sayin said:Bernie claimed that no one ever offers any reason for their objection for homosexuality. I provided 2 lines of argumentation. I did not say that because something is unhealthy it is automatically a sin. I made 2 arguments.ZeusAres42 said:I'm a bit confused. How do the sexual health issues you raise support your argument that homosexuality is a sin?
As for my statement regarding perversion, it was a play on words, a way to play along and comment on @Bardardot's stance, which I would bluntly call nothing more than a reflection of language fu*cking! And this is regardless of whether he is intentionally mocking people with an aversion to gays or not; his argument is still a dumb one and does nothing productive.
Neither your nor @Bardardot's argument holds up to scrutiny. Both arguments are not based on evidence-based epistemology. They are void of knowledge that has been obtained objectively—that is, knowledge obtained through verifiable facts and empirical evidence.
You said my arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. Please explain. If you don't accept the religious tradition, fine, but it is a long held religious belief based on clear directions in the Bible given in response to sexual activity that deviates from the biblical teaching that sex is between a male and female within marriage. I'm not asking you to agree with the biblical belief, only acknowledge that it is a reason that people give for their objection of same-sex relationships.
The health issues are what they are. Are you denying that LGBTQ+ people have several increased health risks? On the debate main page right now is @Dreamer 's debate on if drinking causes cancer and how it should be sharply curtailed because of it. We have debated mandating behaviors due to COVID. So whether or not you would agree with restricting sexual practices due to health risks, the argument has been made. Again, I'm not demanding you agree with the conclusion, just acknowledge that the argument has been made.
There are many health studies on LGBTQ+ issues. It would be hard to argue that there are no differences in health outcomes - especially regarding HIV, and certain cancers. You don't think such evidence is empirical?
Please don't put words into my mouth. My argument was merely a clarification of what I meant by being perverted, and a critique of your argument, which appeared as a non-sequitur, whereby you are trying to use health issues to confirm your stance that homosexuality is a sin.
If you want to talk more about health issues related to LGBTQ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++..................., then okay, but that is one hell of a huge debate topic.
Now, it's one thing to say that Jesus did exist. However, it's quite another to say that he resurrected. As for existence, the consensus among biblical and historical scholars (including those non-religious) is that Jesus did exist as a historical figure.
Thus, while I think there is a likelihood he did at least exist, I am not convinced that this original post counts as sufficient evidence regarding resurrection. In addition to that, there exists a lot of conflicting information about who Jesus actually was among both the Christian and Judaism religions. According to many Jews, he was nothing more than a political rebel!