Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Harm in Homosexuality?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 256 of 309 (162489)
11-23-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Zachariah
11-22-2004 11:48 PM


Enough of that
Crash and Zac. You can both watch how you're expressing yourselves. A bit more of that and you can learn to talk to each other in Boot camp.
I think in this exchange, Zac, you come off a bit worse but Crash hasn't been doing a very good job either.
Besides, IMHO, you have both gotten to such extreme positions that you are both wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Zachariah, posted 11-22-2004 11:48 PM Zachariah has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2004 1:01 AM AdminNosy has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 257 of 309 (162496)
11-23-2004 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Zachariah
11-22-2004 11:48 PM


Have you heard what is going on in California.
Yes, I have. Gay people are asserting their equal rights, and resisting the agenda of the religious right.
Do you think that you could have addressed my points, maybe, instead of simply repeating your argument? Oh, wait. You called me names. I guess that's new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Zachariah, posted 11-22-2004 11:48 PM Zachariah has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Zachariah, posted 11-23-2004 2:15 AM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 258 of 309 (162497)
11-23-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by AdminNosy
11-23-2004 12:00 AM


I'm sorry, but what about my position did you find "extreme"? What did you object to about the way I "expressed myself"? I'll need examples, please, before I can rectify this behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by AdminNosy, posted 11-23-2004 12:00 AM AdminNosy has not replied

Zachariah
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 309 (162505)
11-23-2004 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by crashfrog
11-23-2004 1:00 AM


asserting there rights
What about the kids rights? Do they get any? Or do you and the gay rights movement get to choose for them? "In Brookline, Mass. a transexxual was invited to a FIRST GRADE CLASS to give details of his sex change operation." "In Ashland Mass, children were assigned to play gays in school skits and were to say "it's natural to be attracted to the same sex" and girls held hands to portray a lesbian couple without prenotifying the parents." "At Silver Lakes High School in Mass. the 9th grade text teaches: "Testing your ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less threatening in early teens with people of your own sex." -http://www.exodusmandate.org/..._word_about_our_children.htm Yeah, froggy that doesn't sound like assertion of rights it sounds like forcing them to watch and read what the gays choose. They are brain washing the youth to go along with their lifestyle of "anything goes". No wonder you are so cool with it. Hell, you don't believe in God so what do you care. I can't believe we are fighting for people like you. -Z
This message has been edited by Zachariah, 11-23-2004 02:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 11-23-2004 1:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by contracycle, posted 11-23-2004 4:32 AM Zachariah has not replied
 Message 271 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2004 5:07 AM Zachariah has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 260 of 309 (162515)
11-23-2004 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Silent H
11-18-2004 9:06 AM


Re: rrhaindom bits...
holmes responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Whether we call the food "Kosher" or "non-Kosher" is irrelevant as the argument is over whether or not we call it "food."
Such a statement shows that the analogy has not been understood.
No, it shows that your analogy is meaningless.
You see, people have a sexual orientation. It doesn't matter what we call it. We are dealing with something much more fundamental.
quote:
In a society that was vast majority jewish
Irrelevant. Whether or not the society is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist, the fundamental issue is "food." Food is universal and applies to all living being regardless of their religious affiliation.
quote:
We are not talking about "food", as long as unions are made available to all.
Incorrect. That is exactly what we're talking about: There is a fundamental urge to pair-bond in humans. Whether we call it "marriage" or something else, we are referring to something basic.
quote:
quote:
It's simple logic: If two things are identical, why are you using different terms to refer to them? The only reason is because there is something different between them, which means they will be treated differently.
They are not identical, and traditionally are not.
What, pray tell, is different about the relationship between people that is dependent upon the sex of the participants?
You're saying that gay people don't love each other the way straight people do.
quote:
The concept of marriage being between any sex coupling is a very very recent phenomonon
Incorrect. I've mentioned Boswell's book before. Same-sex marriage is quite old. The Catholic Church even has a rite for it.
quote:
quote:
You're arguing "separate but equal," holmes, and you know better than that.
No I'm not.
[...]
I am also recognizing that a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights is a possible valid compromise.
Um, please explain to me how your arguing for "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights" as something that is "possible" is not arguing for "separate but equal."
Since we know that there is no way to ever have "a different name on a legal contract giving the exact same rights," how is that ever "possible"?
quote:
In essence the majority should be satisfied.
The only way to do that is to treat them identically...which requires calling them the same thing. Whether that term is "marriage" or "civil union" is immaterial. However, the term needs to be identical or there will be legal discrepancies between the two.
quote:
First of all, it is not clearly a marriage rite.
Right. Have you read the work? Have you read the text of the rite? To call it something other than "marriage" is to fall into the same semantic argument.
quote:
Third, even if it was a marriage between same sex couples, this only reinforces the concept that marriage is not traditionally defined that way.
Excuse me? A ritual of marriage between same-sex couples performed by the most traditional religion in the world is somehow not a "traditionally defined" marriage?
quote:
Fifth, if you wish to use this as a reason that rights should be given, then why are you not fully behind polygamy, incestuous, and pedophilic marriages.
Nice try, but I was not the one saying that finding a religious rite was justification. That was you. You were the one saying that there was no religious recognition of same-sex couples until recently and that that was justification to say that recognizing same-sex couples today is some sort of change to the "traditional" idea.
Therefore, this example of a Catholic ritual recognizing same-sex couples that originated in pre-modern times and lasted for hundreds of years refutes your claim. That this is also justification for other things is irrelevant because I am not saying that your claim of "need to find a religious precedent" is correct. I am simply saying that since you find it to be a justification, then you have no claim to say that same-sex marriage is "modern."
Burden of proof, holmes. You know better than that.
quote:
quote:
It's the only way to find out who truly is committed to equality and who is just a homophobe pretending to be supportive.
This is not the statement you made about polygamists using the exact same method to demonstrate their rights before San Francisco did the exact same thing.
(*chuckle*)
And just what, specifically, did I say about polygamists? Where did I ever say that polygamists shouldn't demonstrate?
You seem to be confusing my statement that the justification for same-sex marriage is not applicable to polygamy since same-sex marriage does not change anything in the administration of marriage whereas polygamy necessarily does. The very first thing is simply to define "what on earth is 'polygamy'"? Do you mean hub-and-spoke or do you mean maximally interconnected?
quote:
Remember you said that them breaking the law to issue themselves licenses was not something that was admirable and going to get people on their side
No, I don't recall saying that at all. Are you sure it was me? I have never said anything about polygamy and breaking the law.
quote:
Do you care to revise your stance?
To paraphrase Inigo: I do not think I said what you think I said. There is no need to revise my stance since I never took any other.
quote:
quote:
Holmes, state-sponsored "civil unions" provide no federal benefits and are not transferable from state to state. They are practically worthless.
Marriages are not necessarily transferrable from state to state.
(*sigh*)
We're back to the insane, incarcerated, or in dire straits argument again. Can we stop trying to portray the outliers as if they were typical?
Suppose there were a man my sister is married to such that no other state would ever dream of claiming that they're not married. Now, replace my sister with me. What possible justification could there possibly be to say that we wouldn't be married? It isn't because of age differences or familial relationships or mental status or anything else. All we've done is switch the sex of the participants.
If we leave this to the states, we will never achieve parity.
quote:
The Federal government would also have to acknowledge those unions as identical to marriages when dealing with federal issues.
Anything less is worthless.
And since that will never happen, state-by-state declarations of "civil unions" are worthless.
quote:
Many states did not originally have laws against gay marriage
Actually, many of them did. That's why the lawsuits that originally happened (Hawaii and Alaska) were filed where they were: There were no laws on the books that prohibited same-sex marriage. Hawaii was chosen not only because the definition of marriage did not state the sex of the participants, but also because the Hawaii Constitution has an Equal Rights clause that says rights cannot be denied on the basis of sex. That's why everyone knew that the HSC was going to rule that same-sex marriage had to be allowed under Hawaii law and why they had to pass a constitutional amendment in order to stop it.
You literally do not know what you're talking about, holmes.
quote:
quote:
Marriage was between people of the same race.
The point is that... if you are going to be honest here... race was never mentioned in law books as a pre-req, certainly not traditionally or historically. Opposite sex was, and for some pretty logical reasons given what marriage was about.
Wait a minute...you just said that opposite sex was not mentioned in the law books. Now you're saying that it was. Which is it?
And let's be honest here, race was mentioned in the law books as a pre-req. That's the entire point behind Loving v. Virginia. It was ILLEGAL to be a mixed-race, married couple in Virginia. They got married in DC, if I recall correctly, and Virginia tried to impose penalties upon them because of it. It wasn't that they simply wouldn't give you a license but rather that it was a crime to do so.
quote:
quote:
Because we're living in the real world, holmes, where it is all or nothing.
So you agree with Bush that the UN is superfluous at this point in time?
Non sequitur.
quote:
quote:
Rights have always had to be fought for and forced upon those who cannot stand the thought of giving those rights to others.
Well, yes and no.
No: Yes and yes. If everybody thinks that something is inherent to everyone, then nobody bothers to make a point of it. Take abortion. You will notice that nobody bothered to deal with it at the founding of this country because at the time, it was legal. So long as it happened before "quickening," there was no question of the criminality of it: There was none. That was part of the argument before the SCOTUS regarding Roe v. Wade. The claim was that since the Constitution doesn't mention anything about abortion, it can't possibly be a right, but that's because nobody thought it was important enough to mention. As the old cliche goes, the Constitution doesn't say, "Congress shall make no law preventing a man from sleeping on his left side." Well, of course you can. It isn't mentioned because it's obvious.
quote:
quote:
I thought you said you were desperate to get your rights. Since separate but equal doesn't get you your rights, why are you fighting for it?
This is a good example. In the example I said I was desperate to get my rights. Calling my legal union a marriage as opposed to a civil union is not a right that is a necessity (indeed it may not even be desirable).
"Separate but equal."
Since it will never be equal so long as it is called something different, why are you arguing for calling it something different.
Please tell me that this argument is not about you saying that there should be only one term but that you don't care if it is "civil union" or "marriage." I agree...whether or not the legal term for a contract between two consenting adults is called "civil union" or "marriage" is irrelevant. The important thing is that the term used for a mixed-sex couple must necessarily be the same term used for a same-sex couple.
Otherwise, it's "separate but equal" which we know from long experience means they are not equal.
quote:
I'd sacrifice semantics in order to get the rule of law on my side.
But if you're calling the mixed-sex contract "marriage" and the same-sex contract "civil union," then they are not the same thing and thus you don't have the rule of law on your side.
The only way to make sure that a same-sex marriage is legally equivalent to a mixed-sex marriage is to call them both the same thing. Whether that same thing is "civil union" or "marriage" or "blunderbuss" is irrelevant. The important thing is that they are called the same thing because the law will treat different names differently.
quote:
quote:
How do you alienate someone who agrees with you? The only way to do that is to find something that you disagree about.
By which I take it you have no issues with the way Bush conducts foreign policy?
Non sequitur.
quote:
You do not believe he alienated our friends even though they agreed with us on the general aim?
You assume they agreed on the general aim.
quote:
There is a thing called diplomacy.
Indeed.
There is also a thing called "Uncle Tom."
When you are faced with an all-or-nothing situation, it is disingenuous to point out that other things are shades of grey.
Things are equal or they are not. There is no inbetween.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 9:06 AM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 261 of 309 (162516)
11-23-2004 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Silent H
11-18-2004 2:13 PM


holmes writes:
quote:
Same race was not set law, and while discrimination like this was "common", it was not wholesale.
Incorrect.
At the time of Loving v. Virginia, 16 states, nearly one-third of the nation, had miscegenation laws on the books.
It was only in November of 2000 that Alabama finally got rid of its miscegenation law. And 40% voted to keep the ban.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-18-2004 2:13 PM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 309 (162518)
11-23-2004 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Silent H
11-19-2004 5:12 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
The possible counterargument is that while it is the same rights it is a different definition. Like there are different licenses between car and motorcycle, or car and large truck, despite giving the same rights.
Well no, you don't have the same rights. That's why they're different. If you don't have a motorcycle driving license, you are not allowed to drive a motorcycle on the streets. Motorcycles have different rules to follow than cars. For example, in California, motorcycles are allowed in the carpool lanes. For a car, you have to have the stated number of people in the car.
There are stretches of freeway in California where if you are an 18-wheeler, you must drive in certain lanes. Too, you have to stop at the weigh stations when they're open.
If the laws were the same for all the vehicles, then the license would be the same. In California, for example, there is a difference between the M1 and M2. M2 only lets you drive a moped or a motorized bicycle. M1 allows you to drive any two-wheeled motorcycle as well as any M2-class vehicle. Even the process of application is different between cars and motorcycles: For a motorcycle, if you are under 21, you must take a CHP training course (and if you pass, you don't need to take the DMV driving test.) If you are over 21, you can either take the CHP course or take the DMV test. For cars, everybody over 18 needs to take the DMV driving test.
There's a reason the legalese says, "Do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those mean different things.
quote:
It is possible for two opinions to be equally sound.
True. But this isn't about "opinion." This is about the legal status of a contract. If they aren't referred to by the same name, then they are legally distinct and therefore not equal. If they were equal, they would be called the same thing.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 5:12 AM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 263 of 309 (162520)
11-23-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Silent H
11-19-2004 5:21 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
That appears to be all you are actually concerned about, if I discuss a hypothetical where all rights are granted and you still can't handle not using the name marriage.
That's because we live in the real world, not this fantasy hypothetical of yours.
If you could guarantee that every legal proceeding everywhere across the entire country into perpetuity would always and forever say "marriage or civil union," then you might have a case.
In the real world, however, such a distinction cannot be made. And in the actual practice of law, even this hypothetical isn't valid. The law is predicated upon words. If you are using different words to describe something, then you necessarily mean that there is a distinction between them. Otherwise, legally, you would call them the same thing. So even if we could guarantee that every time a person wrote a law they said, "marriage or civil union," and even if we could guarantee that every law that currently exists was rewritten to read, "marriage or civil union," legally the two would not be equal precisely because you aren't using the same term to refer to them. Eventually, there would be an actual claim that there is a legal distinction between the two that must be recognized.
quote:
If you are concerned that in the writing of laws on civil unions, that there will be an exclusion, or perhaps a backdoor, such that something can be granted or taken away from one but not the other, then it seems a good thing to have is a clause in the law stating that future legal effects relating to one will automatically apply to the other.
That isn't the way the law works. By using different terms, you are legally saying that there is a distinction and thus there necessarily exists something that applies only to one and not the other.
Otherwise, you would use the same term for both. There's a reason why it's "do not fold, spindle, or mutilate." Those terms do not mean the same thing.
quote:
If such a clause is not in there, then someone is making a mistake. If it is suggested and then shot down, it is not equal rights and there is a reason to fight.
In other words, instead of fighting this battle and resolving it once, we have to fight it every single time a law is written in every single municipality, county, state, and national forum.
So much for equal rights. If you have to keep fighting for them, then they aren't rights.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 5:21 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 264 of 309 (162521)
11-23-2004 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by Morte
11-22-2004 10:33 PM


If I understand what holmes is saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that to many, this is a good reason why.
Yes, it looks like you have the crux. There are a few more complicated elements, for example regarding a worshippers logical inability to know or judge the actions of Gods, but the main point which stands against dread is the one you described. Thank you.
most Christians ignore this law, believing it was not meant to be eternal and God's reasons for it are no longer an issue. The ban on tattoos and sowing a field with mixed seed are similar examples.
I think I've already addressed this point. It is totally appropriate to ask why there is a disparity in the enforcement of Mosaic Laws. It is just that that issue is not the focus of this thread... where we must assume for sake of argument the rule against homosexuality applies.
Of course in a way this is a double edged sword. We may think this argument will make someone more openminded, but it may just make them realize there are more laws that they (and we) need to be following.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Morte, posted 11-22-2004 10:33 PM Morte has not replied

contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 309 (162522)
11-23-2004 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Zachariah
11-23-2004 2:15 AM


quote:
What about the kids rights? Do they get any? Or do you and the gay rights movement get to choose for them? "In Brookline, Mass. a transexxual was invited to a FIRST GRADE CLASS to give details of his sex change operation."
Why do you have a problem with this? Ho is providing understanding and knowledge tantamount to the denial of rights?
quote:
"In Ashland Mass, children were assigned to play gays in school skits and were to say "it's natural to be attracted to the same sex" and girls held hands to portray a lesbian couple without prenotifying the parents."
And what is the problem with this? Is it wrong to tell kids the truth? Why on earth would or should the parents need to be notified, before or after?
quote:
Yeah, froggy that doesn't sound like assertion of rights it sounds like forcing them to watch and read what the gays choose.
It sounds like responsible education teaching people about reality instead of some strange delusional version of what YOU and your fellow fanatics want the world to be.
quote:
I can't believe we are fighting for people like you. -Z
SO GO THE FUCK HOME. Youre fighting for oil, anyway, not any group or policy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Zachariah, posted 11-23-2004 2:15 AM Zachariah has not replied

Tusko
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 615
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 266 of 309 (162523)
11-23-2004 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Rrhain
11-22-2004 10:38 PM


Re: No I am making a seprate argument.
Oh dear. Again apologies. And now I bet I make things worse by attempting to justify myself again... but... I just can't help myself...
Honestly, I really don't think that paedophilia and gayness are connected any more than paedophilia and straightness; at least, that's what I THINK I think. Because its percieved as an aberant sexuality, paedosexuality is more interesting than plain old vanilla/strawberry homo/hetero. It's my fault for not starting up another thread to talk about it. Sorry.
Then why did you bring it up?
1) Can I pass the buck a little? It was Dread_D
2) I think the problem is that I always want to have the last word... so when someone else dusts off a favourite hobbyhorse of mine (i.e. all paedophiles should all be X, where x is usually something horrible involving pliers... which gets me angry even when I only see it implied) its very hard for me not to take the little critter for a spin. And of course, when I think that I've written the post to end all posts, it never is, so it goes on and on.
I doubt that's placated you even slightly, but nonetheless I really do feel genuinely sorry for the slight. x

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Rrhain, posted 11-22-2004 10:38 PM Rrhain has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 267 of 309 (162525)
11-23-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Silent H
11-19-2004 9:35 AM


holmes writes:
quote:
Moreover it shows a huge correlation between homosexual acts and nonconsensual sex, and as a result... since that was the most tied to psychological problems... psychological problems.
Thus it appears that homosexuality ought to be a pretty big concern all around.
(*ahem*)
You do understand the difference between a homosexual act and homosexuality, yes?
By the logic you just provided, most everyone in prison is homosexual.
You do understand that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality and one cannot claim that a pedophile is homosexual simply by looking at the sex of the children who are molested, yes?
Now, I can understand while the child can have psychological problems from same-sex molestation. Given the stigma attached to homosexuality and the feelings of having brought it upon oneself (both internally and externally claimed), I am not surprised that the victim of same-sex molestation may have some issues.
But just because the molestation was carried out by someone of the same sex doesn't mean that the molester was gay. In fact, studies show that of non-family molestation, while girls are more likely to be the victims of "sexual abuse" overall, boys are more likely to be the victims of physical sexual abuse. That is, girls are victims of peepers and flashers while boys are more likely to be touched. This is not surprising given the way we treat boys and girls differently: We think nothing of sending our boys out alone with a non-family member while we hover like hawks over our girls. Boys are more likely to be touched because they are more accessible. And since pedophiles don't really see children as male or female, they don't view themselves as gay even when they are molesting children of the same sex.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Silent H, posted 11-19-2004 9:35 AM Silent H has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 268 of 309 (162526)
11-23-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Lizard Breath
11-19-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Replies
Lizard Breath writes:
quote:
The Bible claims that God hates the sin, but not the sinner.
Logically impossible.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-19-2004 12:41 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 269 of 309 (162528)
11-23-2004 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Lizard Breath
11-19-2004 1:33 PM


Re: READ THE FRICIN POSTS!
Lizard Breath writes:
quote:
According to the Bible, God did intend for us to populate
Where does the Bible state that we are only supposed to procreate and that everyone is supposed to procreate?
After all, if god meant for there to be a lot of people, then he would have created a lot of people. Instead, he created two and let the rest happen on its own. Where do you get off saying that this means that god meant only heterosexuality? Since god was content to let the procreation happen all on its own, why is it impossible for god to let the sexuality happen all on its own, too?
quote:
The naturals of us are that we grow to a certain size and then stop and we have little say about that.
Actually, we have a lot of say about that. Nutrition is key. You may have noticed that college students tend to be taller than the average person. That's because college students tend to have better nutritional histories than those who don't go to college (since good nutrition also boosts learning skills) and better nutrition means you are less likely to experience stunted growth.
Remember: You're the one saying that unnatural = wrong. If you can come up with reasons why things that are unnatural aren't wrong, then you need to explain why homosexuality doesn't also fit this pattern (not to mention that you need to explain why homosexuality is unnatural).

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Lizard Breath, posted 11-19-2004 1:33 PM Lizard Breath has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 270 of 309 (162530)
11-23-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by General Nazort
11-19-2004 7:23 PM


Re: 1978!?! historical perspective needed.
General Nazort writes:
quote:
Again, Africa throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. 30 years ago the US did not know about the dangers of AIDs- true. So lets look at the recent statistics, when the US DOES know the risk - you will still find homosexuals are the greatest group both with AIDS and being diagnosed with new cases of AIDS.
Again, the US throws a loop in everything when you are trying to compare homosexuality and heterosexuality. It's pretty much the last place on earth where HIV is transmitted primarily by homosexual sex. Even Europe flipped over to primarily heterosexual vectors back in 1999.
In other words, Africa is not atypical. It is the norm. It is the US that is the bizarre outlier.
And, the US is following the rest of the world. Heterosexuals make up the only group of HIV infection vectors that are increasing.
The only reason homosexual men make up the largest group of those with HIV in the US is because of the highly unusual state of HIV first coming into the US through the men-who-have-sex-with-men vector.
quote:
Fine - look at US statistics now.
Yes, please do.
Infections among men who have sex with men are down. Infections among heterosexuals are up.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by General Nazort, posted 11-19-2004 7:23 PM General Nazort has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by MangyTiger, posted 11-23-2004 8:21 PM Rrhain has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024