The future of marriage

Hoot Mon pulls the classic conman trick of trying to misdirect the audience's attention while he palms the pea. Not only are you trying the good old Gish Gallop but it is just yet another stupid comment.The answer is of course, "Hell yes I would accept such a transfusion."Only an idiot would not.BUT...that has NOTHING to do with the topic of the thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Here's a case where opinionation can kill you. I'd vastly prefer to be a live idiot than a self-righteous and sickly fool withering away with AIDS. But go ahead, be foolish, ignore the statistics about blood transfusions.”Hoot

I mentioned it one time in the my opening argument. So it couldn't be all that funny. Its been explained very poorly with a weak defense. Homosexuality is an action and a state of mind. Being born a certain color is in no way controllable. And if this comparison is allowed to stand, then you are going to have to come up with a reason why pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy, sibling or parental marriage, or necrophilia aren't granted the same status as you seek for homosexuals.

quote:

---

Then don't introduce racial equality by the SAME premise.

---

I believe you can make that argument and encourage you to really think of a worthy defense. But if we're all about equality on EvC and society in general, then I should be allowed to make analogies as well. I could be aroused by a woman other than my wife and have my baser appetites aroused. It wouldn't make it right for me to pursue those feelings just because I derived some sort of pleasure out of it. I think there is a general fixation among the populace that if it feels good, then what's wrong with it? But we all know that people hooked on crank certainly derive much pleasure out of it, but it doesn't make the thing good.I mean, there are people out there who get aroused from watching someone defecate on another person. Oh, I know... Mmmmmmm, sexy. I can hardly say it without getting all kinds of randy over it. So here's the thing: Would you be inclined to believe that some people are born with penchants for defecating on other people to sexually arouse them, or is that type of behavior borne out of months or years of being desensitized to what any average person would say is normal sexuality?Do you think people are born with predilections for all sorts of bondage fetishes or is that type of behavior learned and emulated? I don't believe its a conscious choice. I don't think somebody wakes up one day and decides to be gay. And to add, I believe the sincerity of most homosexuals that they believe there is no way to change their immutable disposition. I believe there is no singular factor for how and why someone becomes gay. I think, like any other thing, its a matter of what you devote your thoughts to. Some people are convinced that they must be gay after hearing testimonials from avowed homosexuals or have taken a liking to some aspects portrayed by homosexuals. And over time there grows this sense of identity until their entire identity is consumed within their sexual orientation-- an orientation they could control.I've spoken about this identity crisis before. I don't think there is a prouder movement on the planet than the gay movement. I also don't think there is a movement so hyperfocused on sexuality that it literally becomes who they are. No longer are they the basketball player-- they're now the gay basketball player. They are no longer the lawyer-- they're now the gay lawyer. From a psychiatric standpoint that kind of attention obviates an identity issue. Not you tugging heart strings, per say. I'm saying the movement itself. He didn't point out why it was illegal. He stated that dead people have no rights. So women not being allowed in to the men's room is men saying, "Haha, you aren't cool enough to come in here because you don't a have a penis."? Or at the voting polls, "Sorry kid, you aren't good enough to vote. We're segregating you." Marriage is not what homosexual activists are seeking. They are demanding that society elevate homosexuality to the moral level of marriage. When they bring the law into it, they are no longer just minding their own business but imposing it on every single citizen. Once that happens, people, including children in school, will have to be taught that homosexuality is the equivalent of marital love which nullifies their religion (something that has been protected since the beginning of this nation, but is now eroding) because their beliefs are no longer valid.I mean, the whole "consent" argument is ridiculous when a societies number one function is to protect that society. Prostitutes and their John's are consenting adults, yet the moral and sociological implications is why it is not legal. In one instance we could say, "Man, what the hell is your problem. She wants a little money and he wants a little fun. What's the big deal?" But there are social consequences that have been illustrated throughout history that make it a bad idea. The same could be said about drugs. The specific purpose of the law is to restrain and prohibit harmful behavior, because the proper role of good government is to protect society and individuals. It can either prohibit harmful conduct, tolerate the conduct, or promote good conduct. If you were bored you wouldn't reply. You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last. Maybe you should actually address what I'm saying and I won't have to repeat myself.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Hmmmmm...? Methinks I detect a tone of sarcasm.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Like I said, only an idiot would turn down such a transfusion.First, transfusions are given when the choice is die NOW unless you get blood.While there might be a faint possibility of getting HIV from such a transfusion, the other option is not getting the transfusion and dying for sure right then.In addition, HIV is treatable and far more folk not only live with HIV but increasingly have a good quality of life.Finally, HIV is NOT limited to homosexuals. There is as high a possibility of HIV infection among promiscuous heterosexuals or drug users of ANY sexual orientation.Your example was simply stupid. Sorry, no other way to describe it.Once again, as usual, you were simply trying to misdirect the audience attention so they didn't see you palm the pea, change the subject.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I disagree with you, jar. All along this thread, you and others have claimed over and over again that EQUALITY is the main issue here, concerning gays and the future of marriage. You say gays should be treated equally and be allowed to get married in America, just like the straights. But when I point out to you that gay men are not entirely equal to straight men, regarding the relevant and scientific category of blood analysis, you say I'm off topic.Do you deny the FACT that gay men, on average, have a much higher probability of carrying HIV in their bloodstreams than straights? How is THIS equal?I'm showing you here one credible differentiation between gay men and straight men. Gays clearly are NOT equal to straights to those scientists who keep statistics on blood-borne diseases.”Hoot

How much higher? Gay men, you mean. What about gay women? Less, much less of a risk for blood-borne illness.Does that mean that no one should ever get a transfusion from a straight man, either?Moreover - only in the US is this true, and it's rapidly shifting the other way. HIV is growing far more quickly among straights than among gays in the US, and in every other country in the world, HIV is largely a straight disease.But Jar is quite correct - Your question doesn't make any sense. Blood transfusions are typically done out of medical immediacy - so between being HIV positive and dying, I'll take the former every time. Moreover - transfusions are almost always anonymous, so you'd have no idea who the blood came from. Moreover - HIV blood screening is ridiculously cheap and easy, so an HIV-positive man wouldn't even be considered for donation.So on what planet do you live where blood from a gay man has a greater chance of being HIV positive than blood from a straight man? And why don't you insist on blood from lesbians?Because this isn't about HIV - this is about the fact that the idea of having "OMG teh HOMOZ!" right there in your blood gives you the heebee-jeebees.Because you're a bigot. This whole argument is a fucking ridiculous waste of time.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

You continue to try to misdirect folks attention while you palm the pea. Fortunately many of us are not taken in by snake oil salesmen like you.The issue is really very simple. By denying homosexuals the right to marry you deny them equal protection under the law. You deny them inheritance rights, access to health care, protection under spousal abuse laws, power of attorney rights and the right to speak for a spouse.It has nothing to do with blood, with HIV or anything else.I did not say anything about blood analysis, I simply said only an idiot would turn down a blood transfusion regardless of the source when the other option was a sure and immediate death.You can continue to try to change the subject, but I will be here to remind you and all the readers of just what you are doing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Did you go to school?Were you out smoking behind the gym the day they talked about equality?Equality has nothing to do with how tall they are or what their favourite movie is or what diseases they might be susceptible to. Equality is about equal protection under the law.The whole principle of equality is meaningless if you make people "unequal" because they are different.You have been told and told and told what equality means and yet you keep on spouting the same garbage. Please don't use the word "equality" again until you get a @#$%ing clue what it means.

---

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

You're right, we shouldn't discriminate againsts gay men on the the basis of their blood-borne diseases. That's wrong, and it is no good reason to prevent them from marrying each other if they want to. I'm afraid however you missed the point: Perhaps if gay men were NOT more likely to carry HIV than straight men there would be greater acceptability in the U.S. for expanding the meaning of marriage to include gays, or for even granting them their civil-union rights and benefits. It's not ALL a matter of bigotry, you know; the gays hold some of the blame, too, for their own perceived repression.btw: I was in biology class the day the teacher talked about epidemics and the need to for clean lifestyles. She didn't say exactly what that was, but I gathered that sanitary bathroom habits had a lot to do with it.”Hoot

Hoot agreed upthread here (or another thread) with replacing the word "marriage" with "civil union" e v e r y w h e r e and extending CU to homosexual unions. He has agreed to give equality to all on this issue.He has agreed to allow anyone to define marriage in anyway they want.I think that is reasonably open minded. It means that:1) Same sex unions are treated under law identically to all unions.2) Same sex couples can get married and call their union marriage just as much as anyone else.Of course, most of the anti-same-sex marriage crowd will NOT agree with this. They would go ballistic since it also utterly removes any over all meaning to the term "marriage". Pretty much any 7 person organization could decide to define "marriage" as they see fit and issue certificates of marriage. These certificates of marriage would have exactly the same meaning and strength as all certificates of marriage issued by any current church; large and small; that is not much.

"Blaming" gays for something is more bigotry.How does having a disease make them worthy of repression?

---

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

I was afraid of that. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely curious. But I can understand how you might think I was being sarcastic especially with some of my previous posts. No worries.

Even if that were true, what the hell does it have to do with marriage?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think NoseyNed has framed the best propsoal yet. So why do you suppose the gay-marriage supporters are not lining up behind NosyNed in doves? Is it because they would rather flap their arms around and cry bigotry again and again?”Hoot