Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,357 Year: 3,614/9,624 Month: 485/974 Week: 98/276 Day: 26/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century
nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 166 of 313 (378693)
01-21-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:53 PM


Re: right and wrong.
quote:
So, it doesn't matter if we think that child moesting is a valid lifestyle?
No.
It matters if it is a crime or not.
And you do know that the overwhelming majority of child molestors are straight males, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:53 PM Rob has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 413 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 167 of 313 (378694)
01-21-2007 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:53 PM


Re: right and wrong.
More shell games.
Don't you EVER get tired of trying to misdiret the audience?
Rob blathers:
So, it doesn't matter if we think that child moesting is a valid lifestyle?
It's none of my business or yours?
Consistency jar...
You've lost your mind.
What is the topic Rob?
You are typical of the Christian Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, typical of the Televangelist and other Snake Oil Salesmen and Conmen.
The topic is "Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century" not child molestation.
Homosexuality is a consensual activity between two adults. It is not an adult taking advantage of a child. For you to equate the two is simply more of the dishonesty so common today in Christianity.
The issue is whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to donate blood. The only possible negative consequence of homosexuals contributing blood MIGHT be the possibility of HIV infection. There are simple low cost procedures that would minimize that risk.
  • simply hold the blood long enough to test for HIV anti-bodies.
  • understand that the risk is HIV positive folk contributing blood, not homosexual people contributing blood.
  • understand that given the choice of bleeding to death RIGHT NOW and the minimal possibility of contracting HIV (which increasingly is becoming controllable) the choice should be made by the individual.
Again, other peoples sins are none of your business.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:53 PM Rob has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM jar has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 431 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 168 of 313 (378695)
01-21-2007 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Rob
01-21-2007 2:50 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob writes:
I think the whole world shoul do everything in it's power to cater to the prefered lifestyle of (what? 2- 6% of the poplulation).
Yes, I agree that we should do everything in our power to accomodate minorities.
No matter the cost.
You just said that "Aids has nothing to do with homosexuality," so what "cost" are you talking about?
No matter the inconvenience....
If it's "inconvenient" to do what's right, boo hoo. Do it anyway.
... or danger.
@#$% the danger.
quote:
Counting on help from above
Trusting the power of love
We must be fearless
- the Neville Brothers
If blood supplies have to cost a fortune to process then that is the cost we must pay....
Agreed.
We will change the world just for you...
Thanks. I appreciate it.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 2:50 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM ringo has replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5519 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 169 of 313 (378701)
01-21-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by nator
01-21-2007 1:55 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
No, most bacteria replicate through assexual cell division.
Oh, but they conjugate, too, which probably feels a lot better.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by nator, posted 01-21-2007 1:55 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 174 by nator, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 170 of 313 (378702)
01-21-2007 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by nator
01-21-2007 3:03 PM


Re: right and wrong.
However, I do not have the right to prevent anyone else from living as a Fundamentalist Christian if they so choose, as long as that lifestyle does not impose upon the rights of others.
All of our lifestyles do impose upon each other. That is the nature of community and sharing one planet. and that is why we have this conflict.
No man is an island.
What each of thinks matters because those thoughts then manifest themselves into actions that affect all of us.
To say it is none of our business is utterly illogical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by nator, posted 01-21-2007 3:03 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by nator, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM Rob has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 171 of 313 (378705)
01-21-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:23 PM


Re: right and wrong.
quote:
All of our lifestyles do impose upon each other.
Our lifestyles cannot legaly impose upon the rights of others.
Not in the US, anyway.
So, it doesn't matter if you and others in your church want to force prayer into the public schools; it is illegal to do so because it uses the government to impose your religious beliefs upon others.
Similarly, you want to use the government to impose your religious beliefs upon others by defining marriage the way your religion does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:23 PM Rob has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5868 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 172 of 313 (378706)
01-21-2007 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
01-21-2007 3:11 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Yes, I agree that we should do everything in our power to accomodate minorities.
Well then be consistent. Homosexuals are not the only minority . You do understand that do you not?
What good for the goose is good for the gander my fiend. We do not live in a vaccume.
Are you willing to provide that same courtiousy to those who wish to court their pets?
After all, it's someone elses sin and is none of your business according to jar?
What about theiving politicians? It's none of your business.
I really can't believe how utterly selfish all of you are... it is disturbing.
Ringo:
@#$% the danger.
You might as well say,
I could give a damn about logic and reason. I want it my way and I intend to have it. I could care less what anyone else thinks!
That is the heart of the beast. It's fatal wound is miraculously healed by the harlots and sourceries of madness!
Oh mighty Babylon!
I despise you and your end will be what you deserve. You've gone down to the pit.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 01-21-2007 3:11 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 3:35 PM Rob has replied
 Message 177 by nator, posted 01-21-2007 3:37 PM Rob has replied
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 01-21-2007 4:09 PM Rob has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 313 (378707)
01-21-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:22 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
Oh, but they conjugate, too
Both ways, typically; if you think that's exactly like a normal heterosexual relationship in humans, then I suggest you need to stop picking up "women" in bars with names like "The Manhole."
Also, much like your little adventures, bacterial conjugation is not a form of sexual reproduction because gametes are not fused to form a zygote. Rather, bacterial conjugation simply represents an exchange of donor mobile plasmids between individuals. No new individuals are created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:22 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 174 of 313 (378708)
01-21-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:22 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
quote:
Oh, but they conjugate, too, which probably feels a lot better.
Bacteria don't feel anything, since they lack a nervous system.
Some advice? Stop trying to be funny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:22 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5519 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 175 of 313 (378709)
01-21-2007 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
01-21-2007 3:07 PM


Re: right and wrong.
jar writes:
Homosexuality is a consensual activity between two adults. It is not an adult taking advantage of a child. For you to equate the two is simply more of the dishonesty so common today in Christianity.
Hold on. Do I have to be accused of being a Christian to disagree with this idea that homosexuality is restricted to adults? At what age does gay-ness set in? 18? 21? I thought gays were born that way, no choice at all.
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 01-21-2007 3:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 3:38 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 183 by jar, posted 01-21-2007 3:57 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 176 of 313 (378711)
01-21-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:31 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
Rob, could you substantiate your assertion that preventing same-sex marriage will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse of children?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:48 PM crashfrog has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 177 of 313 (378713)
01-21-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
01-21-2007 3:31 PM


Re: More off topic nonsense and attempt to palm the pea.
quote:
Are you willing to provide that same courtiousy to those who wish to court their pets?
No, because pets cannot give legal consent.
Why is it, Rob, that in your and so many homophobes' minds, adult gay human beings are equivalent to dogs or other non-human animals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:31 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Rob, posted 01-21-2007 3:58 PM nator has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 178 of 313 (378714)
01-21-2007 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:33 PM


Re: right and wrong.
I thought gays were born that way, no choice at all.
People are born with their sexual orientation (in all likelyhood in most cases), but people are not born with the wherewithall to consent to sexual activity.
But, of course, I suspect you already knew that when you attempted to sandbag the debate by equivocating homosexuality with peodphilia. I don't know if you have to be Christian to be dishonest, but in my experience it certainly makes it easier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5519 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 179 of 313 (378716)
01-21-2007 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by crashfrog
01-21-2007 3:33 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
Also, much like your little adventures, bacterial conjugation is not a form of sexual reproduction because gametes are not fused to form a zygote. Rather, bacterial conjugation simply represents an exchange of donor mobile plasmids between individuals. No new individuals are created.
You're entirely right. But would you mind showing me where I said it was "a form sexual reproduction."
”Hoot Mon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 3:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 3:45 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1486 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 180 of 313 (378718)
01-21-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Fosdick
01-21-2007 3:41 PM


Re: The modernity of gay "marriage"
But would you mind showing me where I said it was "a form sexual reproduction."
Message 147, your words:
quote:
And they have sex with their opposites, too. Try Googling "bacterial sex" and see for yourself. There are many good photographs of male E.coli scoring on females. A score is when he shoots out his papilla and it hits her in the sweet spot.
When Shraf disagreed that this was how bacteria reproduced, you contradicted her in message 169:
quote:
Oh, but they conjugate, too, which probably feels a lot better.
Where you clearly make the assertion that bacterial conjugation was an additional form of bacterial reproduction, which it is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Fosdick, posted 01-21-2007 3:41 PM Fosdick 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