1) Overpopulation is not the world's number one problem. That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
2) Neither.
3) I didn't fail answering your question. My answer was simple biology.
1) Overpopulation is not the world's number one problem. That is an absolutely ridiculous argument.
2) Neither.
3) I didn't fail answering your question. My answer was simple biology.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Well there are more problems with this than even Eman has pointed out. First of all, what about two gay men who do not have anal sex, the risk of injury during sex would be less than that of vaginal sex between a man and a woman, is their relationship now acceptable? Furthermore, if two people do not have HIV or Hepatitis the risk of contracting it from anal sex between them is the same as the risk between two heterosexual people, or for that matter less than the risk for the general population.Originally Posted by SentimentalSlop
Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit. According to the CDC, the risk of transmission for HIV for insertive anal sex is lower than that for receptive-vaginal sex, and the risk for anal-receptive sex is only 0.5% higher than receptive-vaginal sex. The different risk of transmission are practically irrelevant.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Pish and drivel. Let's ask a Priest - he'll know the answer.
it is a cell and therefore it should not transmit but propel that is the role of a cell.Also, trust me as someone who has a degree in microbiology and immunology, the vagina does not have "layers upon layers of cells" that make sexually transmitted diseases harder to transmit.
blood however transmits that the only cell that does. it is because it is sticky it is has globin in it that is sugar. and sugar sticks and what's sticks flicks.
any transmitting of any disease is through blood. cells on their own do not. it takes blood to sake flock.
transmission is quicker when it is same blood less when it is not.
it biogrades when in contact with same blood it does not flow.
see it under the microscope. it likes and it does not. and it degrades not being able to make up its mind
but when it does it become immuned weak because it looses concentrate of its same type now it has two of the same type. it slows down. it sickles. that is what sickles disease is . two of the same type blood. instead of carrying one type it carries two the same type. that is foreign to blood makeup. abnormal is another word.
blood is not thicker then water. water is. blood does not mix well. water does if flushes as well as lushes.
it makes thin thicker and thicker thin.
Last edited by cacian; 10-27-2013 at 08:56 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
let's not ask the priest. he is too busy telling Jesus made wine from water after that he cannot have on hand on medical science surely not,
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
I recommend you pick up a Biology textbook.
I have I studied biology too. I did not touch on micro though.
why? what is it you do not agree with Volya?
Last edited by cacian; 10-27-2013 at 09:00 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
1) If two people from one gender (no matter who the people are) cannot produce anything while having sex, isn't nature telling us that it's simply not meant to be?
2) And by the way, if you don't believe in God you can do whatever you want. It's all on the table.
And this website says otherwise: http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-transmiss.../page/1446187/
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
... from practical experience.
that is nothing to do with it. man does not fall pregnant either. two men one man it is the same idea. where are you going with this?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
The world population when I entered university was 3.5 billion; forty-five years later, it's 7 billion.
In the northeast United States - according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture report released in August 2013 - the projected cost to raise a child to age 18 or Grade 12 stands at $446,100.00 without the assumption of private education. Add in college costs through age 22, and the price doubles - or quadruples if your child gets into the ivy league. If you're the sort of Parents who want to provide postgrad studies, add one third to one half again. In the lower third of any projection which includes a Bachelor's degree, expect that you'll have to provide about $750k over 22 years per child - in other words, if you have three children, be prepared to sock away about two hundred grand a year. Again, for the Big Leagues, double that. Certainly not an impossible task, but it means getting all your ducks in a row before you decide that it's time to get married and start increasing the population.
Now put down the Bible and go read John Brunner's Stand On Zanzibar. After that, go to New Delhi - not for lunch at the Park Hotel, but to Zaffrabad - and take a long walk through the villages to see what overcrowding and the attendant poverty really look like up close. Then you can come home and think up names for your five not-yet-born children, and come up with a budget that includes saving $19,000.00 a week for the next 25 years to feed, clothe and house them, and to provide them with an education which will allow them to thrive in a world whose population will then be nearly 10 billion souls.
Being aligned with a religion depends entirely upon whether or not one makes the choice to think for herself or himself. Being Roman Catholic didn't make me shrug my shoulders after my D.Phil was conferred - I stayed in school just like any good atheist would have. "Having" religion - and the basis for the choices one makes being grounded in the physical world - are two wholly different character traits. Einstein once remarked that he didn't, "share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth," but he did pretty well anyway.
It's not like we're going to run out of land to live on. We have plenty of that. We're also developing new forms of farming and agriculture, making it possible to grow crops where we never thought possible on smaller pieces of land. If people would just use what they need and not live their lives in excess, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone.
I think those numbers are nonsense. My mom and dad raised 5 children (mostly my mom though) and they never saved 19000 dollars a week, and three of us went to private school. I know lots of parents who raised multiple kids and there is no way in hell they had jobs so extravagant that they could save that kind of money.
And why should I put down my Bible? There's no reason to do that.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
No, "nature" may speak to you, but it doesn't tell me anything. The unnaturalness argument is ridiculous because it relies on whatever arbitrary barrier between the natural and unnatural your personal biases decide to land on. All human behaviour is natural, because humans are part of nature. What do you mean by nature? If you mean part of the material world, then gay people are certainly part of that. If you mean as occurring among animals and humans in an environment removed from the influence of society, then homosexuality is still demonstrably part of nature. If you mean something teleological about purposes of sex as ordained by some creator, well then we're onto arbitrary biases, and any one who has had sex could tell you it's not too hard to think of other reasons for it besides reproduction.
Even if you take there higher incidence rates from those studies, the difference is still negligible given how small the incidence rates are in absolute terms. As the CDC data shows, a infection rate of 10 in 10,000 is 5 times less than a 50 in 10,000 rate, but it's still a rather negligible difference.
The focus on the kind of sex people are having is a failure of HIV/AIDS prevention programs, since HIV infection is most correlated with economic status and race in the Western world than it is with anal sex. The majority of new infections in the US are among African American and Hispanic women and MSM, which suggests that issues of education, stability and access to care are more important than any kind of sex people are having. After all, the HIV epidemic in Africa was hardly caused by anal sex, HIV spreads for a number of reasons but the negligible increased risk of anal sex is not a major contributing factor.
"If the national mental illness of the United States is megalomania, that of Canada is paranoid schizophrenia."
- Margaret Atwood
Of course you do - they're not in the Bible.
The top prep schools in the U.S. are all over $50k per academic year; better colleges and universities higher still. Let's do just eight years times $55k as a mid-range. Use the standard formula for educational projections - 2x current inflation - and we add three percent per annum just as we'd figure the APR on a loan. As you can readily see, we're a few dollars short of a million bucks for those eight years alone. Mark 8:18.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote