aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 13, 2005 22:03:44 GMT -5
|
|
Stiletto
Dolphinback
violent chauvinistic semi-literate adolescent neanderthal
Posts: 40
|
Post by Stiletto on Jun 13, 2005 23:50:08 GMT -5
I don't know if the first thing that will pop up in anyone else's mind is the Yellow Stars with "Juden" written on them that some relatives of mine had to wear and the "re-education camps" This sort of start to sound like a history book to anyone else? I just had a sudden thought in my mind of Pat Robertson with a little black mustache pumping a hand into the air and shouting "Praise Jesus!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2005 16:50:29 GMT -5
Guys, I'll have to correct you on this. While I think that this guy is stupid for bringing up tobacco warning labels when discussing this, he never actually said that homosexuals should have warning labels put on them, and since I introduced both of you to Tweb, here is a thread there discussing this topic: www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55308
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 15, 2005 1:48:44 GMT -5
Guys, I'll have to correct you on this. While I think that this guy is stupid for bringing up tobacco warning labels when discussing this, he never actually said that homosexuals should have warning labels put on them, and since I introduced both of you to Tweb, here is a thread there discussing this topic: www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55308I read the thing and your point is... what? He still used the freakin cigarette label analogy in conjunction with disparaging remarks about homosexuality. How are we supposed to divorce the two subjects? Did you expect the guy to come out and say "I hate gays" like Jerry Falwell? He didn't have to say it explicitly. Also, what the hell is Teallaura trying to do? Other than an Ad Hominem, of course. She's nitpicking about the shadiness of the reporting as a diversion to the actual substance of that fundie's words. LOOK at it. Who in their right mind thinks that divorcing the cigarette label analogy from gays even though the entire paragraph was about homosexuality makes any sort of sense? The compartmentalization of the cigarette material from the gay material smacks of apologism. - Aric
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2005 13:27:06 GMT -5
I agree with you Aric, I just just pointing out that they didn't come out and say that gays should wear warning labels, though it did seem to be implied in the comparision. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't start saying that someone actually said something directly, when it seems to have only been implied.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 16, 2005 3:34:34 GMT -5
Ah, okay. Sorry about that. BTW, I dropped in on TWeb and saw your avatar there. Didn't like it one bit. You Rebel scum! - Aric
|
|
|
Post by nobledreamhome on Jun 18, 2005 0:39:54 GMT -5
I have to disagree with everyone here. I don't think the minister said anything wrong. Everyone very well knows (or should know) that the minister did not mean it the way some people are saying he did. They're just twisting his words because they want to make him look bad and want someone to be pissed at just to rile things up. Why? Because people like fighting. That's all there is to it. If they don't have something to fight about, then they have to create something out of nothing.
There is no way that a person can state EXACTLY what they want to say in a perfect way that nobody can twist their words, unless you spend a long time deciding what to say and how to say it. Yet, those who do want to twist your words, they will find a way to twist them. Even if everything is planned out.
"We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports,"
What he was saying is that people WORLD WIDE know that smoking is bad for you. It has a warning right on the pack that states as such, so that people who choose to smoke know the dangers. Yet people WORLD WIDE support gay and lesbian marriage and actions, but they don't tell you it's bad for you. They don't tell you the diseases you get. And yet, it's just as dangerous, perhaps more so, than smoking.
That is exactly what the Rev. Bill Banuchi was saying and those people sending him hate mail and angrily accusing him of wanting to label them know that. They just want to pin something on him because he was speaking out against gay/lesbian marriage. It's immature.
Some people, like some teens in a school in my area, are just experimenting with gayness/lesbianism. They have NO IDEA what diseases they can/will get. There should be a 'warning' about what people can contract when they do practice gayness and lesbianism.
What this reverand meant is as obvious as a black object is against a white background.
Now, if he had meant that gays/lesbians should walk around with something that states they're gays/lesbians, then I could see something wrong with that. I think that those who don't want to reveal themselves as gay/lesbian, have the right to not do so. We shouldn't take that away. That would be wrong. Only those who want to reveal themselves should have to do so.
BTW, I did not say this in a condescending/demeaning/hateful/angry/etc. tone. Just in case anyone thinks I'm yelling at them or saying it in a way that makes people feel stupid. I'm stating this because too many people have mistaken my posts before as being hateful, angry, implying others are stupid, etc. When I'm actually as calm as a sail on a windless day and when I really do not mean it the way they say I do. I'm not calling people stupid or anything. So please don't think I was. If you do think that, then you accidentally mistook my writing tone. It's not what I meant to 'sound' like. I'm just stating my opinion as everyone else is.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 18, 2005 2:02:42 GMT -5
I have to disagree with everyone here. I don't think the minister said anything wrong. Everyone very well knows (or should know) that the minister did not mean it the way some people are saying he did. What people should know is subjective. We should judge his words based on its own merits. They're just twisting his words because they want to make him look bad and want someone to be pissed at just to rile things up. Why? Because people like fighting. That's all there is to it. If they don't have something to fight about, then they have to create something out of nothing. It's not that big of a leap to join the metaphor of cigarette labels to homosexual people. Ya know, it was in the same paragraph and all. Not to mention that it was cleary tied in to each other. There is no way that a person can state EXACTLY what they want to say in a perfect way that nobody can twist their words, unless you spend a long time deciding what to say and how to say it. Yet, those who do want to twist your words, they will find a way to twist them. Even if everything is planned out. That's nice. Let's concentrate on what the guy said. What he was saying is that people WORLD WIDE know that smoking is bad for you. It has a warning right on the pack that states as such, so that people who choose to smoke know the dangers. Yet people WORLD WIDE support gay and lesbian marriage and actions, but they don't tell you it's bad for you. They don't tell you the diseases you get. And yet, it's just as dangerous, perhaps more so, than smoking. Homosexuality is bad for you? Look at it this way, are all homosexuals dead or dying of disease? Also, are heterosexuals immune to these things? In order for your assertion that homosexuality is bad for you to be true, you need to answer yes to both questions. What I'm trying to say is that it's not homosexuality that's bad. It's promiscuity combined with lack of protection and general ignorance about sexual functions that leads to STD transmission regardless of whether you're gay or straight. That is exactly what the Rev. Bill Banuchi was saying and those people sending him hate mail and angrily accusing him of wanting to label them know that. They just want to pin something on him because he was speaking out against gay/lesbian marriage. It's immature. Too bad this isn't really about other people. It's about him and what he said. Some people, like some teens in a school in my area, are just experimenting with gayness/lesbianism. They have NO IDEA what diseases they can/will get. There should be a 'warning' about what people can contract when they do practice gayness and lesbianism. Like I said above, do heterosexual teens never get STDs? What this reverand meant is as obvious as a black object is against a white background. Only to those who share his preconceptions. Now, if he had meant that gays/lesbians should walk around with something that states they're gays/lesbians, then I could see something wrong with that. I think that those who don't want to reveal themselves as gay/lesbian, have the right to not do so. We shouldn't take that away. That would be wrong. Only those who want to reveal themselves should have to do so. But the context of his quote wasn't about outing people against their will. It was about public warnings about homosexuality. The cigarette label was just plain dumb, I'll give you that. But frankly, the fact that he's completely unrepentant about saying it in the first place, and that it's still there last time I checked, shows that he's not concerned about people misinterpreting it. BTW, I did not say this in a condescending/demeaning/hateful/angry/etc. tone. Don't worry about it. I kind of blew up on Toki because I mistakenly thought he was defending the guy's position, even though I know Toki's not the sort to do so. Just in case anyone thinks I'm yelling at them or saying it in a way that makes people feel stupid. No problem here. I'm stating this because too many people have mistaken my posts before as being hateful, angry, implying others are stupid, etc. When I'm actually as calm as a sail on a windless day and when I really do not mean it the way they say I do. I'm not calling people stupid or anything. So please don't think I was. If you do think that, then you accidentally mistook my writing tone. It's not what I meant to 'sound' like. I'm just stating my opinion as everyone else is. And I wouldn't stop anyone from voicing their opinions. I just call people on it. - Aric
|
|
|
Post by nobledreamhome on Jun 19, 2005 12:46:10 GMT -5
"There is no way that a person can state EXACTLY what they want to say in a perfect way that nobody can twist their words, unless you spend a long time deciding what to say and how to say it. Yet, those who do want to twist your words, they will find a way to twist them. Even if everything is planned out.
That's nice. Let's concentrate on what the guy said."
I was concentrating on what the guy said. I was pointing out that you can't say things without people twisting no matter how well you plan things out. Because a lot of people I talk to say that people should plan things out before they speak. Well, that doesn't always work either. So I was defending what he said by saying what I did.
"Homosexuality is bad for you? Look at it this way, are all homosexuals dead or dying of disease?"
The majority of them are. And those who aren't, very well could and probably will.
"Also, are heterosexuals immune to these things?"
Of course not. But there are things out there already talking about unsafe sex with heterosexuals. It's about time they start talking about unsafe sex with homosexuals. Is that so bad? No.
"In order for your assertion that homosexuality is bad for you to be true, you need to answer yes to both questions."
No I don't. And I proved that I don't by what I said above.
"What I'm trying to say is that it's not homosexuality that's bad. It's promiscuity combined with lack of protection and general ignorance about sexual functions that leads to STD transmission regardless of whether you're gay or straight."
Yes, I understand the point about not having protection/promiscuity/etc. However, I look at it this way: Sex before marriage is bad for you. Homosexuality is bad for you. And unprotected sex before marriage is worse.
All of them can and eventually will result in something bad for you. However, there ARE people addressing those other subjects and trying to get people to stop having sex before marriage and, if people won't, then AT LEAST try to get them to have protected sex.
But protected sex isn't always safe either.
My point is, there are people already talking out about unprotected sex/sex before marriage and trying to get people to stop. People aren't snapping other people's heads off for talking about that. So WHY does the minister get snapped at for trying to take care of ANOTHER way?
It's because, as I stated before, people want something petty to argue about. That's all.
"Like I said above, do heterosexual teens never get STDs?"
Ditto as for what I said above.
"What this reverand meant is as obvious as a black object is against a white background.
Only to those who share his preconceptions."
That's where you're wrong. I don't 'share' anyone's 'preconceptions'. I have looked at both sides and I have looked deeply in to them. I'm not a Republican and have my beliefs because my parents are Republican and have the same beliefs. I'm a Republican and have my beliefs because I have researched things greatly on BOTH sides. Democratic/Republican, Homosexuals/Heterosexuals, etc. I go by what makes sense. I've even had agreemenst with a few things Democrats have said. But it has nothing to do with 'sharing' their beliefs. I look deeper into things than most people do. I don't say that to sound stuck up, I say it because it's what I've observed when I talk with other people. Most people I've talked to only hear it from friends who heard it from friends who heard it from people they trusted.
However, as I had stated; what that minister meant was very clear. And I still stand by that. And I think other people know what he meant to. I still think they just want to create a problem.
"It's not that big of a leap to join the metaphor of cigarette labels to homosexual people. Ya know, it was in the same paragraph and all."
Um...taking ANY leap is twisting his words. He stated EXACTLY what he meant. And what he said was: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span." There you go. SMOKING takes one to two years off the average life span. And that's just when you smoke ONE full pack. It takes 1-2 years off your life for ever full pack you smoke. He didn't add that part. Se we put warnings on the packs that SAY how dangerous it is for you. THEN he says: "Yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," We CELEBRATE, in other words OPENLY PROMOTE, a lifestyle that spreas EVERY KIND of STD and takes TWENTY YEARS off the average life span. Yet, there are NO warnings to people who become homosexuals. There's nothing that tells them what they can get. There needs to BE a warning for people.
Just like on tv when they warn people to not have premarital sex because of the diseases they can spread. They say: "here's the chances you're taking when you have premarirtal sex". People don't get riled up and pissed off when they see tv commercials promoting safe sex/no sex. They don't get pissed when they hear people talk about practicing safe sex/no sex. So why not a commercial saying: "here's the chances you take when you become homosexual" and show what happens to those who get STD's? Hmm? They do it in safe sex commercials. Why not commercials to reach out to homosexuals about that type of thing?
Because people don't WANT to hear those things about homosexuals. They want homosexuals to continue what they're doing, WITHOUT warnings.
And, um, what does it have to do with ANYTHING about being in the same paragraph? People complain because someone puts two different things into the same sentence. So when people break it up so people can't twist their words and say it's some kind of conspiracy, sp they put it into two different sentences, they're complaining about that now too? So what next? "Oh he put that in the same SPEECH! That's BAD! That MEANS something!" *rolls eyes* It's ridiculous.
Like I have said several times: people are just looking for something to fight about.
"Not to mention that it was cleary tied in to each other."
Yes, it was CLEARLY tied to the fact that he was saying that people should TELL what others are getting into when they want to be homosexuals instead of just saying: Hey, it's your choice, if you want to be homosexual that's fine with me.
If your best friend decides s/he wants to take up smoking becayse s/he thinks it'll make him/her look cool, aren't you going to try and talk him/her out of it first before you let them do something that will give them lung cancer/heart disease/etc.? Or are you just going to say: Oh yeah, smoke, I don't care what you do.
Cause if that's what you're going to do. Then you're not that great of a friend.
And if your friend has just gotten done drinking. Are you going to let them drive home? Or are you going to drive them home or have them call a cab so they can be sure to get home safely?
And if your friend wants to have sex, protected or no, aren't you going to try and talk them out of it because of the dangers?
The minister was saying that's what we need to do: let people know.
"But the context of his quote wasn't about outing people against their will. It was about public warnings about homosexuality."
So, what's wrong with public warnings about homosexuality? There're public warnings about every other thing out there.
"The cigarette label was just plain dumb, I'll give you that."
No, it wasn't dumb. If someone said: "there are warning labels on cigarettes about the dangers. Yet we celebrate unsafe sex." would anyone have anything to complain about? No. Because it's talking about unsafe sex.
But THE moment ANYONE says ANYTHING about homosexuality, people start biting other people's heads off.
"But frankly, the fact that he's completely unrepentant about saying it in the first place,"
Oh, you mean...say he's sorry for trying to prove a point about unsafe sex? Because when it comes down to it, as you pointed out yourself, homosexuals have unsafe sex. So let's look at it that way. Okay, he gets up and says: "I'm sorry for wanting to put up warnings about UNSAFE SEX." That's EXACTLY like saying: "Hey, let's all go out and have sex with whoever we want, whenever we want, whether they be the same sex as us or not."
*rolls eyes* No, I wouldn't apologize either. People should KNOW what chances they're taking when they become homosexuals. Just like a girl knows what chances she's taking when she decides to have sex with a guy, or a guy knows what chances he's taking when he has sex with a girl.
There's no difference. A man should be warned about what chances he's taking when he has 'sex' with another guy and a girl should be warned about what chances she's taking when she has 'sex' with another girl.
"and that it's still there last time I checked, shows that he's not concerned about people misinterpreting it."
Just because a person doesn't SHOW that they're concerned, doesn't mean that they aren't.
The thing is: Democrats are VERY open and voicy about their opinions and the majority of Republicans aren't. The Republicans need to finally take a stand. Which they haven't yet. That's why the Democrats keep winning.
And when it comes down to it, that's all ANY of this is about: Democrats vs. Republicans. The Democrats know that most Republicans are against homosexuality. That's why they promote it, they want to *chocolate* Republicans off. There are Republican homosexuals. The Democrats see this as their chance to get those Republicans to come to the Democrat side. And I know this because of all my Democratic friends and their parents and their friends/etc. ALL, except my recruiter/family and two, of my rl friends are Democrats. I see what they're doing and saying. The Democrats I've talked with don't agree with homosexuality either, but then they get pissed off whenever someone talks against it because they want to promote homosexuality as much as they don't agree with it.
You can't be for something and against it at the same time. That's an impossibility. You can be neutral. But then you can't have a say either way if you are. You can't say: "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm going to say it's okay anyway."
That's like saying: "I don't agree with drinking and driving, but I'm going to say it's okay anyway."
And now, am I going to have people snapping my head off for comparing homosexuality and drunken driving? Or should I have put it in the same paragraph?
I'm not for homosexuality. But I don't hate homosexuals and I'm not going to turn one's friendship away. I care for all people. No matter what choices they make. And if they ask me what I believe, I'm going to tell them. That usually turns homosexuals away from you. But hey, I'm not the one who said we couldn't be friends because of our beliefs. They are the ones who said it.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 20, 2005 0:58:10 GMT -5
I was concentrating on what the guy said. I was pointing out that you can't say things without people twisting no matter how well you plan things out. Because a lot of people I talk to say that people should plan things out before they speak. Well, that doesn't always work either. So I was defending what he said by saying what I did. No, you were shifting the focus of the debate away from that guy’s words to the people criticizing him. The majority of them are. And those who aren't, very well could and probably will. Care to back that up with some evidence? Of course not. But there are things out there already talking about unsafe sex with heterosexuals. It's about time they start talking about unsafe sex with homosexuals. Is that so bad? No. Why target gays specifically? If it is promiscuity and unprotected sex that cause STD transmissions (what I think), then why not make this a universal message for EVERBODY? Why specifically single out gays? No I don't. And I proved that I don't by what I said above. Where did you prove this? Things are not so just because you say it is. I’ve already explained my reasoning that promiscuity and unprotected sex are the real causes of STD transmission. This is common to BOTH heteros and gays. Since heteros and gays BOTH can get STDs, this is the likely cause. You need to show what makes homosexuality so egregious that it deserves special treatment. You have yet to show why gays deserve special attention. Yes, I understand the point about not having protection/promiscuity/etc. However, I look at it this way: Sex before marriage is bad for you. Homosexuality is bad for you. And unprotected sex before marriage is worse. Why is premarital sex bad? Do people who have premarital sex spontaneously get STDs? Again, look to promiscuity and unprotected sex. Also, you have yet to prove that homosexuality in and of itself is bad. All of them can and eventually will result in something bad for you. Hasty generalization on your part. So, a gay couple who have been going steady and don’t cheat on each other are going to spontaneously get STDs? Will an unmarried straight couple who don’t cheat but have sex going to have bad things happen to them? I want a debate, not old wives tales. My point is, there are people already talking out about unprotected sex/sex before marriage and trying to get people to stop. People aren't snapping other people's heads off for talking about that. So WHY does the minister get snapped at for trying to take care of ANOTHER way? You’re assuming homosexuality in and of itself is bad in the first place. Why talk about homosexuality when you can cover EVERYONE and speak out against promiscuity and unprotected sex? Why stigmatize gays? It's because, as I stated before, people want something petty to argue about. That's all. Discrimination is nothing to sneeze at. That's where you're wrong. I don't 'share' anyone's 'preconceptions'. I have looked at both sides and I have looked deeply in to them.Then regale us with the empirical evidence you’ve been able to find during your deep searches that shows homosexuality is bad. However, as I had stated; what that minister meant was very clear. And I still stand by that. And I think other people know what he meant to. I still think they just want to create a problem. That smacks of preaching to the choir. Does it not occur to you that what the minister said just might be the problem? Um...taking ANY leap is twisting his words. He stated EXACTLY what he meant. And what he said was: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span." There you go. SMOKING takes one to two years off the average life span. And that's just when you smoke ONE full pack. It takes 1-2 years off your life for ever full pack you smoke. He didn't add that part. Se we put warnings on the packs that SAY how dangerous it is for you. THEN he says: "Yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," We CELEBRATE, in other words OPENLY PROMOTE, a lifestyle that spreas EVERY KIND of STD and takes TWENTY YEARS off the average life span. Yet, there are NO warnings to people who become homosexuals. There's nothing that tells them what they can get. There needs to BE a warning for people. How are people twisting his words? He says, in a paragraph ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, that cigarettes are bad and have warning labels. He then goes on, in the SAME PARAGRAPH ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, that homosexuality is bad and should come with warnings JUST LIKE CIGARETTES! The metaphor is stunningly obvious. Just like on tv when they warn people to not have premarital sex because of the diseases they can spread. Erm… premarital sex doesn’t spread disease. Promiscuity and unprotected sex does it. See examples I gave above. They say: "here's the chances you're taking when you have premarirtal sex". People don't get riled up and pissed off when they see tv commercials promoting safe sex/no sex. They don't get pissed when they hear people talk about practicing safe sex/no sex. So why not a commercial saying: "here's the chances you take when you become homosexual" and show what happens to those who get STD's? Hmm? They do it in safe sex commercials. Why not commercials to reach out to homosexuals about that type of thing? First, there’s no logical reason to conclude that homosexuality is bad. Secondly, why single out gays for public scrutiny? Again, why not address promiscuity and unprotected sex in general? Why pick on gays? Because people don't WANT to hear those things about homosexuals. You mean discrimination? They want homosexuals to continue what they're doing, WITHOUT warnings. Or perhaps because they don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with homosexuality. And, um, what does it have to do with ANYTHING about being in the same paragraph? People complain because someone puts two different things into the same sentence. So when people break it up so people can't twist their words and say it's some kind of conspiracy, sp they put it into two different sentences, they're complaining about that now too? So what next? "Oh he put that in the same SPEECH! That's BAD! That MEANS something!" *rolls eyes* It's ridiculous. ROTFLMAO!!! YOU YOURSELF made a connection between the two subjects above! Let me refresh your memory: You specifically link the cigarette label analogy with the subject of homosexuality. Now all of a sudden, linking the two is wrong and misguided? Like I have said several times: people are just looking for something to fight about. As opposed to ignoring potential discimination? Yes, it was CLEARLY tied to the fact that he was saying that people should TELL what others are getting into when they want to be homosexuals instead of just saying: Hey, it's your choice, if you want to be homosexual that's fine with me. Considering that he’s wrong about homosexuality and its relationship with STDs, I should think there’s good reason to speak out against stereotyping. If your best friend decides s/he wants to take up smoking becayse s/he thinks it'll make him/her look cool, aren't you going to try and talk him/her out of it first before you let them do something that will give them lung cancer/heart disease/etc.? Or are you just going to say: Oh yeah, smoke, I don't care what you do. Smoking IS NOT homosexuality. Stick to the subject. And if your friend has just gotten done drinking. Are you going to let them drive home? Or are you going to drive them home or have them call a cab so they can be sure to get home safely? Drunk driving IS NOT homosexuality. And if your friend wants to have sex, protected or no, aren't you going to try and talk them out of it because of the dangers? Why should “warning” be the same as “talking them out of”? The minister was saying that's what we need to do: let people know. By specifically picking out homosexuality, he’s stigmatizing them. There’s nothing wrong with homosexuality! It’s promiscuity and unprotected sex that causes STD transmission! So, what's wrong with public warnings about homosexuality? There're public warnings about every other thing out there. Gee, there are public warnings against married couples having sex? LOL! No, it wasn't dumb. If someone said: "there are warning labels on cigarettes about the dangers. Yet we celebrate unsafe sex" would anyone have anything to complain about? No. Because it's talking about unsafe sex. WRONG!!! He’s talking about homosexuality! *I’M* talking about unsafe sex. The two are NOT the same. But THE moment ANYONE says ANYTHING about homosexuality, people start biting other people's heads off. Considering he was talking about homosexuality being bad without anything to back him up, I’d say people have every right to call him on it. Oh, you mean...say he's sorry for trying to prove a point about unsafe sex? Unsafe sex IS NOT EQUAL TO homosexuality. Because when it comes down to it, as you pointed out yourself, homosexuals have unsafe sex. When the HELL did I say gays have unsafe sex? I said ANYONE might engage in unsafe sex! This includes heteros. So let's look at it that way. Okay, he gets up and says: "I'm sorry for wanting to put up warnings about UNSAFE SEX." That's EXACTLY like saying: "Hey, let's all go out and have sex with whoever we want, whenever we want, whether they be the same sex as us or not." That’s bull. He’s talking about HOMOSEXUALITY!!! The connection between homosexuality and unsafe sex IS ASSUMED ON HIS PART!!! *rolls eyes* No, I wouldn't apologize either. People should KNOW what chances they're taking when they become homosexuals. Just like a girl knows what chances she's taking when she decides to have sex with a guy, or a guy knows what chances he's taking when he has sex with a girl. Then why pick on gays? ADDRESS THEM ALL EQUALLY AND AT THE SAME TIME!!! Why do you insist on singling out gay people? There's no difference. A man should be warned about what chances he's taking when he has 'sex' with another guy and a girl should be warned about what chances she's taking when she has 'sex' with another girl. If there’s no difference, then there’s no reason to specifically contend that homosexuality spawns STD transmissions. Just because a person doesn't SHOW that they're concerned, doesn't mean that they aren't. It doesn’t take that much to clarify a site. The fact that he’s not doing so shows he meant everything he said in the way that he said it. The thing is: Democrats are VERY open and voicy about their opinions and the majority of Republicans aren't. The Republicans need to finally take a stand. Which they haven't yet. That's why the Democrats keep winning. WTF!!! *looks at 2004 elections* Uh huh… Since when did this become a tirade against Democrats? And when it comes down to it, that's all ANY of this is about: Democrats vs. Republicans. Nope. This is about that moron and his unsupported claims that homosexuality in and of itself is a cause of STD transmission. As opposed to promiscuity and unprotected sex. The Democrats I've talked with don't agree with homosexuality either, but then they get pissed off whenever someone talks against it because they want to promote homosexuality as much as they don't agree with it. I hope you know that personal anecdotes don’t count. You can't be for something and against it at the same time. That's an impossibility. You can be neutral. But then you can't have a say either way if you are. You can't say: "I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm going to say it's okay anyway." Why not? Why must people automatically want to bend the world to their will? Is it completely impossible for someone to be against something intellectually but not care or even support it in real life? I get the impression you think that opinions which are held personally must be extended beyond the context of that personal life to everyone else. And now, am I going to have people snapping my head off for comparing homosexuality and drunken driving? Or should I have put it in the same paragraph? The assumption there is that homosexuality is bad just like drunk driving. Just like the assumption that homosexuality is like cigarette smoking. Bad. - Aric
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 20, 2005 10:28:17 GMT -5
Well we're not gonna convert anyone to the "accept that homosexuals are naturally occurring members of society entirely capable of living long, healthy, love filled lives camp" but, still...while the reporting is not exactly impartial and integrous, it is true that the claims by the minister are not exactly true: a homosexual lifestyle is not necessarily more open to disease than a heterosexual one. I think that's the point Aric's trying to make -- the minister's claims are patently false. If he's going to discuss STD's, then that's one thing, but that's not what he's doing -- he's demonizing homosexuals by making spurious claims about their lifestyle.
Also, the political claims made -- that Democrats are open about their beliefs and stances and Republicans aren't -- is...well...wrong...unless you're not talking about politicians and public figures. But I think you are, so I'll have to ask you to watch any 24 hour news network and watch Republicans take very strong, hardline stances and unabashedly discuss their beliefs while Dems just kinda...cower...except for Howard Dean...geez the Dems need to get their act together...wow...
|
|
|
Post by nobledreamhome on Jun 20, 2005 19:20:38 GMT -5
At first I had an absolutely HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE post (heh, because of all the things I was quoting from you and then my freakishly long replies). But I decided to ignore the rest and stick with the part where I try to point something out in order to point out what I was trying to say in the first post before it got onto the subject of heterosexuality and all these other topics. So I cut off the top 3/4 of the post I had in here (yes, it was really that long) and just left the part you now see below. "Smoking IS NOT homosexuality. Stick to the subject." Oh puh-leez! You have 'strayed' from the subject several times by bringing in the case of STD's not being spread by only homosexuals, but by heterosexuals as well who don't practice safe sex. I wasn't STRAYING from the topic at all! I was TRYING to prove a point that you aren't going to just stand by and watch your friends become homosexual without saying something to them, right? So I brought in several things to back up what I was saying. I thought you wanted PROOF? Well, I was TRYING to PROVE that people don't just let a LIFESTYLE go on that they don't think is RIGHT without SAYING something against it first because they CARE for the person/people! So don't accuse me of not sticking to the subject about HOMOSEXUALITY when you brought in HETEROSEXUALITY to prove your points as an example. If you really want this to just be about homosexuality by itself, then NEITHER of us should talking about anything other than homosexuality. Not even bringing heterosexuality into the subject! In fact, you even stated before that it wasn't about anybody except what the minister said! I quote: "Too bad this isn't really about other people. It's about him and what he said." So if it's just about what the minister said, how come you keep bringing up other things to back up what you say as well that have nothing to do with what he said, hmm? "Homosexuality is bad for you? Look at it this way, are all homosexuals dead or dying of disease? Also, are heterosexuals immune to these things? In order for your assertion that homosexuality is bad for you to be true, you need to answer yes to both questions." There was nothing about heterosexuality in his comment. Are you saying that only you can use examples pertaining to things other than homosexuality while I have to stick to homosexuality? Hmm...that doesn't seem fair. Because that's what you seem to be implying! You probably don't like me saying you're implying something, do you? Because it's not what you meant. Oh yeah? Prove it to me. Prove that you didn't mean that I can't use other examples while you can. You can say that's not what you meant. But then I can argue the point using various examples from your posts. That's EXACTLY what those people are doing to the minister: "(New York City) The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group appears to suggest that gays should be required to wear warning labels, although he denies that was his intention."That sentence right there was the point I was arguing in the first place. I wasn't trying to argue any other point than saying that the reverand didn't imply anything, if you'll refer back to my first post you'll see. I was trying to defend him saying that people can't say he's implied something because they DON'T KNOW for SURE. He said what he said, but that doesn't mean he was suggesting that gays should wear labels. Then you brought in the thing about heterosexuals and promiscuity and asking me to try and prove that homosexuality is bad for you. That's where this whole thing got confusing. I was only trying to defend the fact that what the minister said did not imply that gays should wear labels. That's ALL I was trying to argue. Look, I'll quote my first post here so you can see and then I'll show you that I was only trying to defend that the minister didn't imply gays should wear labels: That was in reference to this: "(New York City) The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group appears to suggest that gays should be required to wear warning labels,"That was in defence of his statement here: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," I was trying, once again, not to change the subject, but trying to say that when you're telling someone something, you don't have time to plan it out on the spur of the moment just in case anyone came back with the rebute: "well, he should have planned it out before he said it if he didn't want it to be confused for something". In my opinion, what he said didn't suggest anything. Like I said, people were trying to create problems because they want him to have been implying that gays should walk around wearing labels so people know who they are, so that the gays/lesbians will be mad at him for having 'suggested' that. They're making something out of nothing. And that was in defence of what he said again and there's no need for me to go find what I was defending there because I copied and pasted it (yes, searching is getting tiresome for me). And I repeated myself there, which I shouldn't have done (again, I don't do it on purpose, it's like the thing with defending ahead of time the fact that people can't word things perfectly). However, it's just a thing I automatically do because I haven't yet learned how to say what I want to say in one fluid paragraph. I keep going on and on and repeating it and that does annoy a lot of people I know. Stupid brain. *pokes my brain* Ow. Gah, I also just realized that I said that he was speaking out against gay/lesbian marriage. Which he never said anything of the like. So there I did it, putting words into his mouth. >.< So I pinned myself there. I meant to say he was speaking about warning people about the lifestyle. Not against gay marriage. Lum de dum de dum. *whistles innocently* Once again, I was defending this (see, I talked too much and got myself into a deep debate just because I mentioned diseases and so you wanted proof that heterosexuals didn't spread the same diseases, etc. I hate it when I talk too much and repeat myself too much. >.<): "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," I sounded snooty there. But it's not what I meant. *bangs head* Shoot, okay, I meant that it's obvious, but I didn't mean to say it in such an arrogant way. *pokes myself for being arrogant* Ow. Once again, I was defending what he said: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," Do you see, anywhere in there, that he implies anything about how gays should walk around wearing labels that say they're gays? No. But I do see that he says we should put warnings up about the sexually transmitted diseases that can be spread by that lifestyle (and I KNOW it's not just that lifestyle that spreads it, it's also the promiscuous lifestyle and the unprotected sex lifestyle that spreads it. But here, we're just talking about homosexuality okay? Because the topic of how heterosexuality spreading the same diseases could probably go on forever and I don't feel like debating the topic of homosexuality and heterosexuality spreading diseases at the same rate for that long. ) And I don't think I need to quote the 'I was not trying to be condescending' thing again.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 21, 2005 1:19:12 GMT -5
First off, THANK YOU for using the quote function!!!! Well, at least some of it. At first I had an absolutely HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE post (heh, because of all the things I was quoting from you and then my freakishly long replies). Actually, I had another post that replied to yours and it was much longer. Then my browser closed on me and I lost it… <Howard Dean>YEEEEEAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH</Howard Dean> Oh puh-leez! You have 'strayed' from the subject several times by bringing in the case of STD's not being spread by only homosexuals, but by heterosexuals as well who don't practice safe sex. EXCUSE ME?! Those were COUNTER ARGUMENTS to your assertion that homosexuality was bad!!! Gee, thanks for ignoring them. I like how you took my rejection of your incorrect comparisons as being license to ignore my logical walkthrough. So I brought in several things to back up what I was saying. I thought you wanted PROOF? False analogies are not proof. I think it’s interesting that you ignored the parts that were specifically designed to depict your idea that homosexuality was some spectacularly bad behavior as being completely illogical. Well, I was TRYING to PROVE that people don't just let a LIFESTYLE go on that they don't think is RIGHT without SAYING something against it first because they CARE for the person/people! The thing is, though, that as much as you like analogies and metaphors, I just don’t think that they make sufficient arguments. I didn't like the analogies because I didn't think homosexuality was bad in the first place, while your analogies are contingent upon the assumption that it is. I could just as easily compare God with Hitler based on the amount of people they killed. It’s dumb. I could just as easily compare the Christian Coalition with the Taliban. While there might be some broad similarities, the only reason they would work if someone were already inclined to think that way in the first place. This is true with any sort of interpretation of the metaphor that the minister made. So don't accuse me of not sticking to the subject about HOMOSEXUALITY when you brought in HETEROSEXUALITY to prove your points as an example. Again, the heterosexuality part was INTEGRAL to my response to you. Nice to know that you ignored it. I’m guessing that after trying to come up with a response to those parts the first time around, you simply quit after a while using my rejection of your false analogies as an excuse to *chocolate* and moan. This is generally a form of fallacy (probably distractive) that draws the issue away from the substance of the debate to the people who are debating. Look, I’m not trying to be mean to you. I‘m just peeved that you seemed to ignore those arguments that were designed to debunk the idea that homosexuality is bad and contributes to STD transmission, which was the very SUBSTANCE of what that guy was saying. If you really want this to just be about homosexuality by itself, then NEITHER of us should talking about anything other than homosexuality. Not even bringing heterosexuality into the subject! In fact, you even stated before that it wasn't about anybody except what the minister said! I quote: "Too bad this isn't really about other people. It's about him and what he said." So if it's just about what the minister said, how come you keep bringing up other things to back up what you say as well that have nothing to do with what he said, hmm? "Homosexuality is bad for you? Look at it this way, are all homosexuals dead or dying of disease? Also, are heterosexuals immune to these things? In order for your assertion that homosexuality is bad for you to be true, you need to answer yes to both questions." Again, those were brought up to specifically debunk his looney idea that homosexuality in and of itself was bad. I’ll lead you through the arguments again since you ignored them the first time around. In order for anybody to logically think that homosexuality is bad behavior that egregiously contributes to STD transmission more proportionally than heterosexuals, they have to show that it – on its own – contributes to the problem. By bringing up heterosexuals and the fact that heteros are JUST AS LIKELY to get STDs, it was debunking the idea that sexual orientation at all contributes to STD transmission rates. Promiscuity and unprotected sex is what causes the problem. The point of this was to show you to what I thought was the real problem. There was nothing about heterosexuality in his comment. Are you saying that only you can use examples pertaining to things other than homosexuality while I have to stick to homosexuality? Hmm...that doesn't seem fair. Because that's what you seem to be implying! YOU were blithely using bad behaviors like drunk driving and cigarette smoking and automatically comparing them to homosexuality already assuming that it was bad. The POINT about bringing up heterosexuals and premarital sex was to show that since STD transmission doesn’t discriminate against sexual orientation or even premarital sex, then they – and pertinent to the debate, homosexuality specifically – can’t be the cause of STD transmissions in the way that the minister moron said it was. You probably don't like me saying you're implying something, do you? Because it's not what you meant. Oh yeah? Prove it to me. Prove that you didn't mean that I can't use other examples while you can. You can say that's not what you meant. But then I can argue the point using various examples from your posts. This is just a continuation of the ad hominem fallacy started above. That's EXACTLY what those people are doing to the minister: "(New York City) The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group appears to suggest that gays should be required to wear warning labels, although he denies that was his intention."Perhaps you don’t understand that there aren’t any rules as to how far metaphors can be taken. People don’t necessarily have to stop just because others don’t like where it’s going. Besides, this debate has morphed to the point where it’s not just about Nazi-like behavior on the part of the minister. It’s about whether he was justified in saying any of that bile at all. That sentence right there was the point I was arguing in the first place. I wasn't trying to argue any other point than saying that the reverand didn't imply anything, if you'll refer back to my first post you'll see. I was trying to defend him saying that people can't say he's implied something because they DON'T KNOW for SURE. He said what he said, but that doesn't mean he was suggesting that gays should wear labels. No, you were SUPPORTING his arguments because you agreed with him that homosexuality was some sort of public health danger. Do you want me to show you the parts of your posts that did this? YOU opened the Pandoras box by trying to defend the substance of what he said. Then you brought in the thing about heterosexuals and promiscuity and asking me to try and prove that homosexuality is bad for you. Of course! I was offended that you would think such a thing. That part about gays dead or dying was particularly disturbing. Those subjects were DIRECT RESPONSES to your defense of what that minister was saying. That's where this whole thing got confusing. I was only trying to defend the fact that what the minister said did not imply that gays should wear labels. That's ALL I was trying to argue. Yeah, that came up earlier, but the metaphor was still in bad taste. You disagreed that the metaphor was wrong and then it spiraled into the debate about whether homosexuality was bad or not. Look, I'll quote my first post here so you can see and then I'll show you that I was only trying to defend that the minister didn't imply gays should wear labels: And then you went on to defend the SUBSTANCE of his words. Do you want me to show you? I don’t even recall saying whether he was right about homosexuality or not before you brought it up. That was in reference to this: "(New York City) The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group appears to suggest that gays should be required to wear warning labels,"As much as I can sympathize, you did go on to support the substance of what he said. Something that I called you on. I was trying, once again, not to change the subject, but trying to say that when you're telling someone something, you don't have time to plan it out on the spur of the moment just in case anyone came back with the rebute: "well, he should have planned it out before he said it if he didn't want it to be confused for something". IN MY OPINION, WHAT HE SAID DIDN'T SUGGEST ANYTHING. Like I said, people were trying to create problems because they want him to have been implying that gays should walk around wearing labels so people know who they are, so that the gays/lesbians will be mad at him for having 'suggested' that. They're making something out of nothing. Emphasis mine. This is where we part again. Maybe YOU didn’t read anything into it because – as you have shown – you actually agree with him about homosexuality being bad. I vehemently disagreed with him because 1) the metaphor was awful and believe me, the leap to Nazism was easy even if it was a stretch, 2) I don’t think there’s anything wrong with homosexuality, and 3) I just don’t like what the *chocolate* and his organization believes. And that was in defence of what he said again and there's no need for me to go find what I was defending there because I copied and pasted it (yes, searching is getting tiresome for me). You didn’t JUST defend him against slander and misrepresentation. You actively defended the substance of what he said. Your entire second post is proof of that. And I repeated myself there, which I shouldn't have done (again, I don't do it on purpose, it's like the thing with defending ahead of time the fact that people can't word things perfectly). However, it's just a thing I automatically do because I haven't yet learned how to say what I want to say in one fluid paragraph. I keep going on and on and repeating it and that does annoy a lot of people I know. Stupid brain. *pokes my brain* Ow. I know you’re trying to defuse the situation. That’s nice and all, but I feel I have to point something out. The latter stage of this debate didn’t happen because you couldn’t express your ideas in the way that you wanted to. You went out of your way to defend his words against his attackers by defending the essence of what he was trying to say. Look Vira, this has gone beyond what that dork said. Frankly, I don’t care. He can drop dead and burn in Hell and get eternally sodomized by horny demons, for all I care. I’m more concerned about you and me. I feel that what you belief is terribly wrong, at least in this particular case. Gah, I also just realized that I said that he was speaking out against gay/lesbian marriage. Which he never said anything of the like. So there I did it, putting words into his mouth. >.< So I pinned myself there. I meant to say he was speaking about warning people about the lifestyle. Not against gay marriage. Lum de dum de dum. *whistles innocently* I don’t recall you bringing up same sex marriage. I do recall you bringing up premarital sex, though. lol! *Slowly approaches Vira’s skull with crowbar* *mutters* Darn gremlins messing this one up! Once again, I was defending this (see, I talked too much and got myself into a deep debate just because I mentioned diseases and so you wanted proof that heterosexuals didn't spread the same diseases, etc. I hate it when I talk too much and repeat myself too much. >.<): "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," True, you do have a runaway train for a mouth (lol) but really, I was most angry at your arguments justifying the basic message there, and that was about homosexuality spreading disease when – as I tried to argue – it is clearly not. I sounded snooty there. But it's not what I meant. *bangs head* Shoot, okay, I meant that it's obvious, but I didn't mean to say it in such an arrogant way. *pokes myself for being arrogant* Ow. Snoot-O-meter found nothing… Once again, I was defending what he said: "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," And that’s the part that got me really pissed off. It’s wrong. Look, I know that he didn’t mean to say that gays should be labeled the way Jews were labeled in Nazi Germany. Bringing up the big stink was just *chocolate* for tat on my part. I was just slamming him for being such a retard on so many levels. And while I acknowledge he didn’t mean it exactly the way it was construed by that article, the metaphor is still there. It’s free to be interpreted. And if he weren’t such an intolerant asstard in the first place, he probably wouldn’t have been smacked with comparisons with Nazis. Do you see, anywhere in there, that he implies anything about how gays should walk around wearing labels that say they're gays? No. But I do see that he says we should put warnings up about the sexually transmitted diseases that can be spread by that lifestyle (and I KNOW it's not just that lifestyle that spreads it, it's also the promiscuous lifestyle and the unprotected sex lifestyle that spreads it. But here, we're just talking about homosexuality okay? Because the topic of how heterosexuality spreading the same diseases could probably go on forever and I don't feel like debating the topic of homosexuality and heterosexuality spreading diseases at the same rate for that long. ) Well, the thing about heterosexuality wasn’t central. It was mentioned in direct relationship to homosexuality and how neither forms of sexual orientation causes STD transmission. By mentioning the two I was trying to show that STD transmission had to be from something else. I asserted that it was promiscuity and unprotected sex. I noticed that you said you “KNOW it's not just that lifestyle that spreads it”. The emphasis is mine. See, that’s what bugs me. It’s not homosexuality at all. Look, suppose you got gay guy A and gay guy B. A is in a steady long-term relationship with another guy. Neither guy cheats on each other. Do you think either one of them will magically develop STDs out of the blue? Compare this with B who has dozens if not hundreds of sexual partners in a year and has intercourse without protection. He gets AIDS, or whatever. Now, what (beside B getting an STD) is the difference between the two case studies? Is it the homosexuality that led to B getting an STD? Nope, because A didn’t (and if BOTH A and his partner stay faithful, will NEVER) get an STD because of homosexuality. If you’re going to say promiscuity and unprotected sex made the difference and led to B’s downfall, then you would be correct. I made this because 1) it leaves out heterosexuality and premarital sex, and 2) the excerpt that I quoted right above shows that you still think homosexuality contributes in some hazy fashion to the spread of STDs. Homosexuality doesn’t do it AT ALL!
|
|
|
Post by nobledreamhome on Jun 21, 2005 20:07:03 GMT -5
Okay, first I just wanna say that I work on logic as well. I always have, probably always will. But, obviously, different people see different things as logical and illogical. Second, I wanna say, that I'm completely confused. Seriously. I don't see what you're seeing in what he said. So I think I'm just going to leave the post alone now because I am so completely confused. I've been trying to understand what you say as well. I do that because I know that just because I believe something to be a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean it's right, I'm always open to suggestions. I do want to say that, if I sounded like I was trying to defend anything remotely connected to saying that homosexuality is worse at spreading diseases, I'm sorry. Because that's not what I meant either. I know that other things are just as bad, and some worse (like sharing needles for drug use, etc.) And I guess it's not 'bad' for you. It's just that I see it as morally wrong. So I'm just going to leave anything else connected to the minister alone because I'm so completely confused. Well, okay, after I started scrolling through more things you said, I replied to a few of them. My raptor brain: OVERLOAD! OVERLOAD! OVERLOAD!!!! *BOOM* Hehe, sorry. I wasn't sure how to use it at first. Then I started to search. Wait, okay, explain what you mean by 'substance', maybe I can understand what you mean. Or rather, explain more about where/how you're getting the substance from what he said. Cause that's what I was not seeing and the main reason I kept replying so much in the way I did was because I was confused. So I did that instead of asking you to elaborate or something. *pokes myself* (Yes, sometimes I need things given to me slowly. *sigh*).
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 22, 2005 0:16:18 GMT -5
Okay, first I just wanna say that I work on logic as well. I always have, probably always will. But, obviously, different people see different things as logical and illogical. But how is your position logical? The way I view logic, there has to be consistency in the way people see causality and relationships in ideas. You say that homosexual behavior is bad only when promiscuity and unprotected sex are involved. You also say that it, all of a sudden, isn't bad when it's practiced safely. The only difference between the two situations is promiscuity and unprotected sex. In order for the assertion that homosexuality itself contributes to STD transmission among homosexual people AT ALL is for it to happen in both instances. Which, as I tried to prove logically, is impossible. Thus, homosexuality isn't bad in either scenarios. It's promiscuity and unprotected sex that's bad. Second, I wanna say, that I'm completely confused. Seriously. I don't see what you're seeing in what he said. So I think I'm just going to leave the post alone now because I am so completely confused. Well, he just seemed to think homosexuality by itself was bad. I disagree. Obviously. I've been trying to understand what you say as well. I do that because I know that just because I believe something to be a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean it's right, I'm always open to suggestions. I do want to say that, if I sounded like I was trying to defend anything remotely connected to saying that homosexuality is worse at spreading diseases, I'm sorry. Because that's not what I meant either. I know that other things are just as bad, and some worse (like sharing needles for drug use, etc.) And I guess it's not 'bad' for you. It's just that I see it as morally wrong. Okay. See? That’s all you had to say. If you had just stuck to the matter of your personal morality, then I wouldn’t have blown up. It just seemed that you were trying to justify it by pointing to something that you thought you saw in the world around you. I can handle people saying they’re opposed to homosexuality because it offends their moral sensibilities. I just don’t like it when they try to empirically justify it since I think the evidence is against that position. Hehe, sorry. I wasn't sure how to use it at first. Then I started to search. Yeah, I should point out that ANOTHER reason why I was steamed was because it was a chore to read through block posts. >_< Wait, okay, explain what you mean by 'substance', maybe I can understand what you mean. Or rather, explain more about where/how you're getting the substance from what he said. Cause that's what I was not seeing and the main reason I kept replying so much in the way I did was because I was confused. So I did that instead of asking you to elaborate or something. *pokes myself* (Yes, sometimes I need things given to me slowly. *sigh*). Well, when I speak of “substance” I‘m talking about what he’s saying. So, when I say that you were defending the substance of his words, I thought that you were defending his idea that homosexuality was bad and in and of itself caused STD transmissions. Before, you brought up a point about his words being misconstrued into something else. Namely the nazi thing. When I speak of “substance” I was talking about the core message in that minister’s words. !!!!!!!!! *falls over* I hate it when that happens. One time I was typing a post up in reply to a role play and my browser closed on me. Another time I was typing up an e-mail, it was absolutely huge, and I hit send, and it took me to a page that said I'd taken too long to not browse in my e-mail, so it logged me out and when I hit back, in order to copy the text, it said the page could not be found, which it normally doesn't do; it normally let's me go back to the e-mail. I was so frustrated (it took me nearly two hours to write), that I didn't reply again until the next day. In fact, I think it was a reply to Vorchia that I was making and suddenly, cablooey, the e-mail times out. >.< Ya know, that wasn’t the first time it happened to me. The first time it happened to me on the ToP was on the old one where I was blasting Stefan for his remarks on the anniversary of 9-11. I was 1) PISSED OFF, 2) really on a roll since I was hammering my points into the keyboard, and 3) PISSED OFF. So, when the browser closed on me, I just had this cold sinking feeling. Just like I had on the recent one… >_< OOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!! Now I see....(yes, it took me this long, sorry, I have been misreading things you were saying. Sometimes I do that. Not on purpose, mind you. >.< I missread a lot of things because when I read, I see different ways that things could be read and I'm not sure which way they're supposed to be read. For instance, when I was doing some homework for U.S. History, or some subject like that, a few years ago, there was this one question the paper asked that I could answer in SEVERAL different ways depending on what the question was meant to ask, and I wasn't sure which way that was. Instead of ever getting help with that area, my teacher acted like I was stupid for not understanding the question properly, so did the students who I went to. *shrugs*). Interstingly, I hated history in high school. Now, I’m majoring in it in college… Okay, *tries to see how to explain how I view homosexuality* I don't think it's a danger to the general public. Just to those who practice it without safety precautions. Those who do practice with safety precautions shouldn't be in danger unless they're...um...safety gets ruined. I still don't agree with the practice, but I don't hate/despise the people who are gay/les either. But now I see why you thought I was defending that it was a health problem to the general public. And I also see how you got that he was saying that it's a health problem to the general public. (Again, I apologize, a few years ago I might have been able to see more in what he said, but because of what I mentioned above--no I don't have self-pity, just self-anger at myself for this--about the teachers and students, I've tried to stick with the first thing that comes to my mind because I don't like all those other possibilities running around in my head because then it takes a while for me to figure out which it could be, then it takes me even longer to reply and then I feel slow and stupid. I let people change me and that does make me quite angry with myself. And trust me, I don't admit those things lightly because it is highly embarassing for me. I don't say these things to get people to feel sorry for me because I hate that and I don't like people who feel sorry for themselves either. It's disgusting, IMHO. I just wanted to say this so that you can understand why I'm so narrow-minded). So yeah, I admit I was wrong. Sorry. Actually, I think I’m guilty of that as well. Now that I look at my response, I was accidentally mixing up what you were saying with what he was saying. Now that I look again, you were indeed saying that homosexuality might have been bad for people who engage in homosexual behavior and not the public at large… Oops! Sorry… Still, I continue to disagree with you on one point, however. Let me explain without the baggage of the original article. Here’s what you said right above: See, if homosexuality is not a danger to those who practice it safely, then why should it all of a sudden be singled out to be a dangerous behavior when it’s in conjunction with promiscuity and unprotected sex? Why not consider just the promiscuity and unprotected sex part the dangerous bits? Why categorize homosexuality with bad behavior when it’s not in the first instance? Ah, the thing about the same-sex marriage that I was talking about I mentioned here: Cause I was saying there that he was speaking out against gay/lesbian marriage. Which he didn't even mention anything about marriage, so I don't know how I got that he was speaking out against same sex marriage. >.< *pokes myself too* Yeah, I'll blame it on the gremlins, that's it! Ah. I didn’t even notice that! *sticks tongue out at you childishly* j/k j/k lol Nah, I just saw that, so I had to say that. And now you know why I didn't read more in to it because I say why above. But yeah, I was defending that homosexuality is bad. Sorry. Yeah, look. If you think it’s bad because of some sort of religious objection, then that’s fine for me (though not for others) since it really isn’t up for debate in the way that I’ve been going about. But it spreads disease just as much as promiscuity, in my opinion. But only among homosexuals. But how? You said above that if they were responsible, it wouldn’t happen. Take a look at the gay guy A & B example I gave in my post above. Homosexuality isn’t going to make a filial couple break out into disease all of a sudden. It will, however, affect the promiscuous and unprotected one. And in the second instance, it won’t be because he’s gay, but because he’s promiscuous and having unprotected sex. The first couple is gay as well and yet they’re not going to get viruses out of the blue. My problem here is that you consciously link homosexuality with the bad behavior even though it's really a separate thing. However, when it comes to bisexuals who don't protect themselves and sleeping with both genders, I think that is how diseases spread from homosexuals to heterosexuals and those from heterosexuals to homosexuals and those who are heterosexual and promiscuous spread more of the disease around. But I do agree that homosexuals who have diseases, the diseases tend to stick with homosexuals alone since they only sleep with their same gender. Except if they're bisexual... But what makes you think that STDs in general started out amongst homosexuals then migrated to heterosexuals? That’s a preconception unless, of course, you can support that with evidence. I recall HIV/AIDS happening that way, but you seem to be making a blanket statement about all STDs. Okay, now I've just confused myself. Nevermind. Well, I don’t think you’re confused as so much as you got some preconceptions that are being challenged right now. - Aric
|
|