| Author | Message | ||
     01x1buell |
who cares  | ||
| Sifo |
Well RBJ, that was convincing. The problem is that you keep telling me what I think, and that I'm wrong for thinking it. The bigger problem is that I thinks something else. No you will never convince anyone that they are wrong by misrepresenting their position. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
What a great hot button issue to keep us fighting one another. I wish we were arguing over how to best obtain liberty for everyone. This thread is gay. | ||
| Redbuelljunkie |
I don't know any miserable homosexuals. Despite the pressures placed on them by others, all of my gay friends and acquaintances persevere through vibrancy, intelligence, hard work and self-reliance. Other than being treated very poorly by peers throughout their lives, they would not change a thing. One common thread is relieving their social pressures by moving to cities where homosexuality is not stigmatized. Once in an environment where they aren't harshly judged for their orientation, they focus on leading meaningful, successful lives. It would be nice if they could live normally wherever they choose, but unfortunately that choice is made for them. Sifo, I applaud your intelligence. You are quite clever and therefore will fully understand the following: I am not interested in playing your game. I'm sure you are proud of your ability to spin everything as to appear to your advantage, and that makes this discourse no longer appealing. The nice part about threads is all of the information is readily available, right in front of everybody, which makes it easy to follow the claims, suppositions, and rebuttals. I leave it with the readers to draw their own conclusions. | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, I applaud your intelligence. You are quite clever and therefore will fully understand the following: I am not interested in playing your game. I'm sure you are proud of your ability to spin everything as to appear to your advantage, and that makes this discourse no longer appealing. The nice part about threads is all of the information is readily available, right in front of everybody, which makes it easy to follow the claims, suppositions, and rebuttals. I leave it with the readers to draw their own conclusions. Claiming I am spinning implies that my position must be changing. This is far from the truth. The discussion of treatment started with me agreeing 100% with what Hootowl had said...
You have repeatedly tried to turn that into a desire to force them into some sort of treatment. That would be very different from what Hootowl said about it being like any other disease. There are very few, if any cases where we force people to get treatment for an ailment that they may have. It's virtually always voluntary. This is the exact same position that I have ended this discussion with. It is a well thought out position that stands up to scrutiny, and is not based on any sort of bigotry. You however seem very unwilling to accept that, but have only been able to mount an attack on that by modifying the position to be a hateful desire to force people into some sort of treatment with evil motives. You most recently did this (after being corrected multiple times) in a post where you claimed to not be misrepresenting my position on this. I have no idea who you think you are fooling with this childish line of discussion. You are correct that any readers of this thread can readily see for themselves what has taken place and draw their own conclusions. I'll just end by saying that I still agree 100% with Hootowl on the cure thing. | ||
| 99savage |
re: What I'm reading are views that find it humorous to consider a future where the unborn are killed based on homosexual genetic markers, If it makes you feel any better I exist in abject despair. - No humanity remains in humanity I'm sure you can forgive me when the Sultans of Smart, the ones who without having met me much less examined my transcript refer to me as "ignorant", "phobic", "fearful", "hateful" - and - oh yes "fat" (with a fat wife to boot) - when these people who consider themselves my betters fail to consider the place their own programs are going to take them. What I presented is inexorable, I know it & more importantly you know it. - And yes it makes me giggle, you helped bring it on us. - Given the opportunity I would turn it around but my little friends on the Left have a death-grip on the levers of power & I can't do jack. It is actually much more dreary that what I put to type. - My little brothers & sisters on the Left tell me that the sum total of human existence is contained in the Theory of Evolution. - We are raising a generation that not only has never been exposed to ethics, has no vocabulary to discuss them. - We can all, Leftist & conservative alike, agree that the essence of evolution is that every organism seeks, above all, to replicate its DNA. - Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. - If homosexuality can be identified en-utero no parent, except a religious one, will elect to bring a barren being into the world. - Fact, & inexorable. Which brings me to my final giggle; to the extent that homosexuals are "born that way" in the future only religious people will be bringing homosexuals into the world. - I think we can both giggle about that | ||
| Blake |
Facts ought to inform the discussion. To pretend that male homosexual behavior exists in a vacuum is reprehensibly dishonest and irresponsible.  The above from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/inciden ce.htm indicates that in 2009 64% of new HIV infections occurred among men who have "sex" with other men (MSM) where 3% of those MSM were also intravenous drug users. So we have a tiny portion of the population accounting for the vast majority of new HIV infections. The same is true for a number of other STDs. Ever seen that reported in the news media? Could the above be evidence of men committing shameful acts with other men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their perversion? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
The contradiction I have trouble reconciling here is that so many people just can't accept that gays, homosexuals, lgbt, call them what you will, are people with rights too. Lots of you are jumping up & down about the erosion of your rights under the constitution but seem to be quite happy to erode others rights on religious or moral grounds. Many are quite happy to condemn religious fanaticism in others, but lean on their own religion to justify their own position. Could the above be evidence of men committing shameful acts with other men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their perversion? For a man that loves debating Blake, I expected better from you. That's straight from the middle ages. As for your "Facts" they don't get to the news because inconveniently they're not really facts, they're estimates, according to your source. Here's another source for you. CNS News (don't know how credible they are) http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-adults-overesti mate-homosexual-population-much-tenfold Which says current US lgbt population is about 2%. What's to be scared about? 2% Jeez you could knock them all off in a weekend if you got organized. I see a lot of narrow mindedness & wilful ignorance here which, to my mind, is incompatible with people who profess to love freedom above all else. I'm not much of a debater & don't usually get involved in these threads but sometimes the sheer venom posted on this board pushes me to respond. I'm European so I perhaps have a different perspective on these issues. As I have previously said, one thing you ALL know though, especially those with an engineering background, is that NOTHING works without tolerance. You must look within yourselves to verify if you have enough. Love, light & peace to all. I'm done here. (Message edited by Mr_grumpy on September 24, 2012) | ||
| Aesquire |
We are raising a generation that not only has never been exposed to ethics, has no vocabulary to discuss them. The basis if Orwell's "Newspeak" in "1984". The idea is that without a word for it, you would be unable to THINK it. "newspeak" deliberately reduced the vocabulary to the minimum required for clear communication, deleting any words that would allow independent thought. "Bad" for example, was gone, replaced by "un-good", "plus-un-good", Double-plus-un-good" for increasing order of emphasis and severity.... In a PC world, nothing is "Bad" anymore. This all actually has some basis in science, ( though I admit it falls into the "soft science" category I use to separate solid, experimental science like chemistry from statistical human studies like anthropology. ) Whorfianism has little to do with Star Trek the Next Generation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity Blake, the CDC report you link to above has a disturbing stat. The 27% hetero figure. That indicates either a far greater penetration into hetero males and females than I had hoped we had held it to with our decades old education programs, or a far higher incidence of HIV among the rotating prison population. ( could be, probably is, both. Not good news. ) The low drug related numbers are encouraging. ( though that may be evolution in action as that segment kills itself off ) Noteworthy too is the high incidence in Latino's and African Americans. African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos are the racial/ethnic groups most affected by HIV. African Americans represent approximately 14% of the US population, but accounted for 44% (21,200) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Hispanic/Latinos represent approximately 16% of the total US population, but accounted for 20% (9,400) of all new HIV infections in 2009. Overall, in 2009, African American men had the highest rate of new HIV infections (103.9 new infections per 100,000 persons), followed by Hispanic/Latino men (39.9 per 100,000), and African American women (39.7 per 100,000). There are reasons for this. But they are not palatable to the mainstream press. Even though the annual number of new HIV infections was stable overall during those years, there was an estimated 21% increase in HIV incidence for people aged 13-29 years, driven by a 34% increase in young MSM (the only group to experience a significant increase in incidence in this age range). Among MSM aged 13-29, HIV incidence among black/African American MSM increased significantly (48%) from 2006 through 2009 with a statistically significant 12.2% estimated annual percentage increase. The reasons for this increase are not fully known, but may include a high background prevalence of HIV in black MSM and societal factors, including stigma of HIV and homosexuality, limited access to health care, and poverty that may create an enabling environment for HIV infection. Poverty is always blamed in disease reporting. For the simple reason that it is a huge factor. No matter If it's because of poor health care availability, ( the redistributionist argument ) or the mental and attitude conditions among the very poor ( the eugenics/evolution argument. Not the PC version btw ) the results are the same. I would argue that the social/emotional factor is a major cause of the disparity among Blacks. The culture attempts to suppress homosexuality, at the same time as encouraging behavior that is legally risky. Leading to higher proportional incarceration rates. ( you can argue if that is due to Gansta Culture, or oppression by the Man, or the deliberate plantation/dependence treatment of minorities to gain political power. IMHO all three ) At least half the problem with sex related issues on this planet IMO are because of uptight, irrational attitudes, shame, guilt, and cultural idiocy. So black males afraid of rejection fail to seek out treatment or use condoms. Higher death rate. ( there are LOTS more examples of the problem, but that's the one at hand ) The other half is the equally uptight, PC insistence on moral relativism in idiotic, self destructive ways. That's why we EVER have to try a child rapist a second time after he repeats. If you are so messed up you rape children, and experience shows we have no cure for that condition, please get out of the gene pool, and our lives. Now. I'll help. ( one of the few cases Where Glenn Beck and I agree is the Kiddie Molester Incinerator.) ... shameful acts... If you don't like "shameful acts" don't do them. Which naughty bits go where on who is, for the most part, none of our damn business. I submit that the guilt trip mind manipulation of various religions built around sex is part of the problem, not the solution. Not that all rules of conduct are obsolete..... even though some have been pervertedly wrong for thousands of years. I will agree that one may differ on the details, and will defend to their death your right to have your opinion. ( the selfish element in that is I will have mine ) Feel free to laugh at my uptight weirdness. We're going to laugh at yours. | ||
| Rick_a |
Guys are talking like there needs to be a "Final Solution" on gays. That strikes me as a little much, aye? | ||
| Sifo |
Blake, the CDC report you link to above has a disturbing stat. The 27% hetero figure. That indicates either a far greater penetration into hetero males and females than I had hoped we had held it to with our decades old education programs, or a far higher incidence of HIV among the rotating prison population. ( could be, probably is, both. Not good news. ) Aesquire, I think I'm reading this differently than you. There's a possibility I'm wrong, but I'm reading this as the heterosexual community (95% of the population?) is responsible for 27% of the HIV infections. That's a pretty low figure in my book. By contrast the MSM population (2% of the population according to this report) is responsible for 61% of the HIV infections. That's an incredible stat. The contradiction I have trouble reconciling here is that so many people just can't accept that gays, homosexuals, lgbt, call them what you will, are people with rights too. Lots of you are jumping up & down about the erosion of your rights under the constitution but seem to be quite happy to erode others rights on religious or moral grounds. Many are quite happy to condemn religious fanaticism in others, but lean on their own religion to justify their own position. Grumpy, I see this thread quite differently. I see little if any of people calling for peoples rights to be infringed. One exception to this would be the right for gays to seek proper medical treatment should they so choose. For some reason that is taboo to some. Since I've done a fair amount of posts on this thread, I'm curious if you think I fall into this category on this thread. If so why? I'd really like to know. True, I disagree with homosexuality, mostly on a religious basis. At the same time, I do respect the rights of others to not follow my religious beliefs. I have the same expectation from them too. | ||
| Reepicheep |
It would be horrible and illegal. The biggest step I have seen in that direction is strong, centralized, and mandatory government health care authority, which was deliberately and knowingly under-funded and under staffed. Yet one more reason to be against social-democrat's being given too much power and authority. Only governments could ever be that kind of evil on that kind of scale. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Guys are talking like there needs to be a "Final Solution" on gays. That strikes me as a little much, aye?" So are your implications that people who disagree with you are Nazis. So far, the only person I see talking about rounding up gays is you. | ||
| Union_man |
This discussion has missed my entire point! Again, Dan Cathy, the owner and CEO of Chic fil A, took a public stand against gays getting married. He used company funds to try to prevent gay marriage. He made his religious beliefs known to everyone. He stood behind his remarks in interviews, and backed up his point with monetary donations to anti-gay marriage groups. If you agree him, and want to legislate bedroom activities...you should have eaten more chicken!!! One day of showing your support was not enough!!! My point was... Soon after Chic fil A's sandwich sales tanked, Dan Cathy set aside his religious beliefs and his morals, in an attempt to save his profits! What is most important to Dan Cathy is obvious. Money!!! he has sold out his faith for it! "It is easier for a Camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to get into heaven!!! No wonder. (Message edited by union_man on September 24, 2012) | ||
| Sifo |
In what way has he "set aside his religious beliefs and his morals"? Your "point" is so ridiculous and misleading that it really doesn't deserve comment. | ||
| Aesquire |
in defense of the Chicken seller, more than his pocket is involved. Thousands of employees, stock holders ( private, public, no matter, people who invested in a business in order to make money and fund other peoples dreams to the profit and betterment of all ) customer that like their food, all had to be considered. He had to weigh whatever his personal beliefs were, religious and otherwise, against the good of a large number of people, who may not share those views. You may like or dislike his food, beliefs, or actions. You may think his action in publicly stopping his funding a cause for the good of his business is a cop out, a betrayal, a commitment to belief, a wise business decision or a greedy capitalist pig-dog. I dunno. Apply your own lenses. Bit of a mix is my guess. | ||
| Union_man |
My point is that Dan Cathy is a sell out. Do you disagree? | ||
| Union_man |
in defense of the Chicken seller, more than his pocket is involved. Thousands of employees, stock holders ( private, public, no matter, people who invested in a business in order to make money and fund other peoples dreams to the profit and betterment of all ) customer that like their food, all had to be considered. Maybe he should have considered how his employees would be adversely affected before spewing his hate. | ||
| Sifo |
My point is that Dan Cathy is a sell out. Do you disagree? I do. In what way did he sell out on anything? Is he now supporting gay rights causes? Not that I'm aware of. | ||
| Aesquire |
99, The idea of the social results of using genetic technology is nicely explored in the movie Gattaca. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ Reepachicheep's comment is worth notice, Eugenics programs have already been tried here and in Europe. mostly by "leftist" groups. Gays and Gypsies are among the groups that have been targeted for cleansing from the gene pool in the last century. Also African Americans and the poor. It's happened before, and unless "never again, mother f&^%$$" is tattooed on your heart, and you are willing to become a sheepdog in the moments extremis of our society, it will happen again. My prediction of mandatory homosexuality is probably not likely for many decades, if not centuries. Wouldn't surprise me as a movement by fringe enviro-population-panic folk, though. The Subject is, indeed, worthy of discussion. What do we want the ability to read the genes of the species to do? There are ethical issues about even reading the gene code, much less manipulate it. On the one hand, who doesn't want a healthy, happy child? On the other, where, and how is the selection process made? Keeping it to the simplest level, ( and ignoring the potential future ability to pick your childs makeup ) just reading the code... where? reading the code, at the sperm and egg level, just gives you information. reading the code at the embryo level present moral choices if you find the child is damaged, or the wrong sex, or... or... Much more difficult from an ethical view. Waiting until they are born, even more so. ( we are not Sparta ) But best case, just being able to pick existing gametes to choose the makeup of your future child leads to questions. What is ethical to weed out? Heart problems, bad teeth, endomorphic, stature, brown eyes, ........ Is there a gene for religious belief? Gayness? the desire to argue on the internet? Can we, and should we breed a race of people based on popular culture? ( "When everybody's special...nobody is!" Syndrome ) | ||
| Hootowl |
"before spewing his hate." Can someone define that phrase for me please? I thought I knew what hate was, but now I'm not so sure. I didn't know "I support traditional marriage" was hateful. I guess I need to be reeducated and indoctrinated. Or perhaps some folks should refrain from "spewing" left wing propaganda every chance they get. "Spewing hate" seems to be the left's new buzzwords. | ||
| Aesquire |
Union_man, of course, he "sold out" his support for those groups. What his decision making process was, I have no clue. I listed above some of the factors you'd have to consider. How would you choose? A also agree he got himself into this situation, but I haven't seen any spewing of hate from him. If you have a sample, post a link. There has been a lot of other people popping their corks and saying utter bile about this chicken company guy, the people who protest him, and support him.... All I know is what I read he said in an interview with a Baptist news thing, about how he's proud he's still on his first wife and believes in Christian views of marriage. I took that as a slam on the Hollywood style divorce culture more than anything else. I think the whole dealeo is massively overblown. | ||
| Sifo |
"before spewing his hate." | ||
| Aesquire |
Sifo, On HIV. I would expect a higher level of infection with gay men in statistics, based on a combination of medical and behavioral factors. Mostly involving what goes where and if you use a condom. Obviously some activities have a higher chance of infection than others. Don't know all the stats, but I can make a pretty good judgment on the medical side, ( based on layman first aid training.. not a doctor's advice here! ) but the choice side of protected vs. unprotected sex far outweighs the odds differential on what goes where. Simply, put your damn raincoat on until and unless you are in a committed, exclusive relationship with partner(s) also committed and exclusive. And you've all been tested and found free of nasty germs. That doesn't keep you from getting the deadly creeping crud, but gives you an edge. Wear a raincoat. ( interpret that as best known practice and learn it, live it love it. ) | ||
| Sifo |
Sifo, On HIV. I would expect a higher level of infection with gay men in statistics, based on a combination of medical and behavioral factors. Mostly involving what goes where and if you use a condom. So let me get this straight... About 2% of the population accounts for 61% of HIV infections and you think this seems low? I'm just curious what figure you might have been expecting? | ||
| Aesquire |
No, I'm surprised that 27% of new infections are among heterosexuals. I expected more IV drug users, in proportion. The Kids aren't using the condoms. Damnit! Another view would be the cheapest improvement in public health would be to give free condoms out in prisons. You can get more than one interesting conclusion from those statistics. "I would expect a higher level" means that I my guess is that more gays would have HIV than straights. aka not surprised, aka makes sense to me.... (Message edited by aesquire on September 24, 2012) | ||
| Sifo |
Still when you have, what... about 95% of the population accounting for only 27% of infections that's pretty low infection rate per capita. I don't really want to get into some of the reasons that the gay population's stats are so high. It will just get me labeled as a hater. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I don't really want to get into some of the reasons that the gay population's stats are so high. It will just get me labeled as a hater." Which is precisely why they employ that tactic. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I don't really want to get into some of the reasons that the gay population's stats are so high." I will. Men are sluts. Simple as that. | ||
| Kenm123t |
So supporting Traditional marriage is the same as hatings gays and those people are spewing hate. Hmmm Looks like we know who are the haters and self haters are! People blame others with source of thier guilt instead of themselves. Inability to realize physical limitations and the reality of ones own body are perfect examples of psychological problems. All the surgery in the world cant fix that. Attempting to force soceity accept the personal delusions of a minority is another. |
