• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
We are talking about STDs... not other sicknesses.. which I am well aware of. In the OT, there wasn't AIDS, HIV. But still, they should have listened as well.

Oh well, like I said earlier, you are free to choose what you will listen to.

I guess fighting off AIDS, and other STD's is what you want you future generation to do as well.

You're more than welcome to that. I'd rather not even catch those STD's.

Good day!
There wasn't AIDS or HIV in the OT; are you sure about that? They may not have called it AIDS or HIV but it's certainly possible/probable that they had it. They should have listened? To what? Oh yeah, a shepherd who claimed he saw a burning bush and heard it talk to him.

Fighting off AIDS, yeah we're doing that. STD's if caught early can be cured. There'll be plenty of diseases for which to find cures for future generations. That's the great thing about evolution; just when you think you've cured a virus, it goes and mutates into something else that's resistant to the cure. And I'd rather not lock future generations into having a belief system. Philosophy and ethical behavior, definitely. Religion, don't think so.

Neither would I, that's why I've always practiced safe sex.

G'day, mate.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Those passages I posted now are useful. But now we're too far into our stupidity and hardheadedness.
Speak for yourself.

No -- all the more reason to listen to the Bible. It's not even about abstinence, Al.

If we would have "fled from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18) we would not have had people unmarried having sex with someone who had sex with someone else and so on. Hence, martial unfaithfulness or sex outside of marriage led to the spread of STDs as well. Sex should only have been limited to marriage.. not "teens" or unmarried persons. If sex was ONLY practiced in the marriage arrangement, no STD would be spread.

God warned against homosexuality (Lev 18:22) where it says men "should not lay with men" as with a woman. We did it, and guess what? The disease is spreading.

If we took this seriously from the jump, then there would probably be no need for STD prevention.

Are you saying that fighting off deadly diseases was a better alternative than abstinence?? People thought abstinence was "strict". Can you see why? It saves people from needless sickness.
So? Breathing spreads germs too. Diseases are spread a lot of ways, and even STDs are spread a lot of ways that don't involve sexual contact.

Also, in Leviticus, also among the things warned about are rabbits, shellfish, snails, tortoises, mixed fabrics, crop rotation, shaving, hair cuts and wizards. Are you equally bent out of shape about these things, all of which are more socially accepted than homosexuality?

AIDS is spread through blood as well (Act 15:29), and that says "abstain from blood". We didn't listen. People got infected through blood transfusions and sharing of needles (drugs, too) and through other blood-related contact.
And when the number of people who have died from bad transfusions equals or exceeds the number of people who have had their lives saved by blood and plasma transfusions, you might have a point. In the mean time, it is yet more evidence that the Bible is a horrible source for medical advice.

The Bible isn't fictional or "outdated".
No, those are exactly what it is. Much of what the Bible describes is impossible, known to be historically inaccurate, or just plain wrongheaded. It is not possible for a planet to stop rotating and start rotating again without consequences, or for a flood that requires 3 times the amount of water on Earth to happen on Earth, or a zombie invasion of Jerusalem and have only one guy say something.

When you use a literal interpretation of a storybook as your compass, bad things come of it, predictably so.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
No -- all the more reason to listen to the Bible. It's not even about abstinence, Al.

If we would have "fled from fornication" (1 Cor 6:18) we would not have had people unmarried having sex with someone who had sex with someone else and so on. Hence, martial unfaithfulness or sex outside of marriage led to the spread of STDs as well. Sex should only have been limited to marriage.. not "teens" or unmarried persons. If sex was ONLY practiced in the marriage arrangement, no STD would be spread.

AIDS is spread through blood as well (Act 15:29), and that says "abstain from blood". We didn't listen. People got infected through blood transfusions and sharing of needles (drugs, too) and through other blood-related contact.

God warned against homosexuality (Lev 18:22) where it says men "should not lay with men" as with a woman. We did it, and guess what? The disease is spreading.

If we took this seriously from the jump, then there would probably be no need for STD prevention. The Bible isn't fictional or "outdated". Those passages I posted now are useful. But now we're too far into our stupidity and hardheadedness.

Are you saying that fighting off deadly diseases was a better alternative than abstinence?? People thought abstinence was "strict". Can you see why? It saves people from needless sickness.
It's typical of people like you who can't see beyond their Bible to think of diseases only as something inherently and exclusively bad for humanity.

Without the Bubonic plague, sanitation in urban areas would have remained as horrible as it was. Surely if it wasn't the Bubonic plague something else would've arisen from such putrid conditions.

There were people who had a natural immunity or resistance to the plague. That is also true of HIV/AIDS; certain people from certain ethnic backgrounds have a natural immunity or resistance to the virus (CCR5).

Biological and genetic diversity is how a species survives. Fighting off diseases is what improves us as one human race. Once HIV/AIDS is cured, something else will come along in the future, and it is by no means a guarantee that this future disease will be something for which you and your ilk can blame homosexual sex.

What's important is how these diseases improve our understanding of ourselves, our world, and our place in it. Each new disease we face makes us smarter and stronger overall for overcoming it. It's a part of our evolution.

And in spite of efforts by people like you to turn humanity into the metaphorical "bubble boy", the rest of us know that it is better for little boys and girls to get dirty when they play, skin their knees, be around other kids, and get exposed to the world of germs (sometimes referred to as "the school of hard knocks"). So, too, is it better for humanity to not avoid everything that, while difficult to deal with at times, makes us tougher and more resilient in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
And in spite of efforts by people like you to turn humanity into the metaphorical "bubble boy", the rest of us know that it is better for little boys and girls to get dirty when they play, skin their knees, be around other kids, and get exposed to the world of germs (sometimes referred to as "the school of hard knocks"). So, too, is it better for humanity to not avoid everything that, while difficult to deal with at times, makes us tougher and more resilient in the long run.
So... it's better for us to say, knowingly have unprotected sex and get some sort of STD in order to... learn to protect ourselves? Kids "skinning their knees", isn't the same or nearly as serious as diseases, especially the really bad ones like AIDS.

So, you have to stick your had in fire to learn that it burns. O.... kay..

That's really makes a person stupid.

We're told to prevent disease and spreading of them through hand washing, proper sanitation, SAVE SEX.. above all. But, you say "So, too, is it better for humanity to not avoid everything".

I guess American Citizens weren't better off in the 1980s before AIDS was spread in the USA. So, instead of possibly stamping it out (possibly), it was further spread by stupid people sleeping around and, more so today, by gay men sleeping with gay and straight people

We're better off now in America?
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
So... it's better for us to say, knowingly have unprotected sex and get some sort of STD in order to... learn to protect ourselves? Kids "skinning their knees", isn't the same or nearly as serious as diseases, especially the really bad ones like AIDS.

So, you have to stick your had in fire to learn that it burns. O.... kay..
You clearly missed or are unable to see the forest for the trees. No, we shouldn't be having unprotected sex... but we shouldn't abstain from sex either simply because of the risk of disease. Kids skinning their knees is an analogy for not living a sheltered and isolated life; the bubble boy who, upon being exposed to the real world, gets incredibly sick from ordinary germs that everyone else is used to.

That's really makes a person stupid.
Your idiocy in your reply makes you stupid.

We're told to prevent disease and spreading of them through hand washing, proper sanitation, SAVE SEX.. above all. But, you say "So, too, is it better for humanity to not avoid everything".
I think we've gone too far in the other direction, especially here in America. Where once basic hand washing with regular soap was sufficient, now we have sanitizing wipes and gels and sprays for everything... which is way overkill and attempts to do what our bodies should be doing on their own: fighting, killing, and adapting to germs. I rarely get sick; I work around children all day and regularly touch all kinds of surfaces they get their grubby little hands on. Hmm.. I wonder why that is? Maybe because my parents didn't spray me with sterilizers and sanitizers every time I got my hands dirty as a kid. I also have no allergies, probably because I was raised in a rural area and was exposed to things like pollen and dander from a very early age.

More people are allergic to everyday things nowadays than they were in the not-too-distant past. There's a pill for far too many things that didn't require a pill before. These are not good trends.

I guess American Citizens weren't better off in the 1980s before AIDS was spread in the USA. So, instead of possibly stamping it out (possibly), it was further spread by stupid people sleeping around and, more so today, by gay men sleeping with gay and straight people

We're better off now in America?
Without HIV/AIDS we wouldn't have known as much about the immune system and how it interacts with the rest of the body. All of the research that is going into curing HIV/AIDS is useful both now and in the future when the next big disease comes along. That is the point that your idiotic going-off-the-deep-end misses completely.
 
Last edited:

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Fighting off AIDS, yeah we're doing that. STD's if caught early can be cured. There'll be plenty of diseases for which to find cures for future generations.
I agree, some things aren't avoidable. However, why not avoid the ones that are avoidable? You don't want AIDS, do you? Of course you don't.. you don't have gay sex or unprotected sex.

We learn from the mistakes of others. I was taught that one of the best ways to learn, is to not repeat the same mistakes others did.

I learned a long time ago that having multiple sex partners, unprotected sex, and gay sex opens you up to a greater chance of getting an STD... outside of breathing.. something I have to do.

It's all about reducing your chances of getting sick. No, it's not totally avoidable, but why do things that can increase your risk?
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
.
I think we've gone too far in the other direction, especially here in America. Where once basic hand washing with regular soap was sufficient, now we have sanitizing wipes and gels and sprays for everything... which is way overkill and attempts to do what our bodies should be doing on their own: fighting, killing, and adapting to germs.
I see where you're going, but it's better to be a little safer, than really sorry. Our bodies don't always fight diseases properly. You should know that.



Without HIV/AIDS we wouldn't have known as much about the immune system and how it interacts with the rest of the body. All of the research that is going into curing HIV/AIDS is useful both now and in the future when the next big disease comes along. That is the point that your idiotic going-off-the-deep-end misses completely
.

Ok, I will give you that. But since we now know how bad it can get, why keep doing things that spread it? (Not only gay men, but straight people too who have unsafe sex practices.)
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
I see where you're going, but it's better to be a little safer, than really sorry. Our bodies don't always fight diseases properly. You should know that.
Yes, but these things are everyday germs. They're not inherently harmful if your body gets used to them, which things like sanitizing wipes, gels, sprays, etc. are doing for us, so our bodies come to rely on these items. That is not good, no matter how you slice it.. and these products are also draining our wallets.

Ok, I will give you that. But since we now know how bad it can get, why keep doing things that spread it? (Not only gay men, but straight people too who have unsafe sex practices.)
Who is talking about "keep doing things that spread it"? No one is advocating unprotected sex.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not only that, but the survivors become immune to such things, making it harder to kill them when needed.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Not only that, but the survivors become immune to such things, making it harder to kill them when needed.
Germs become immune to sanitizers, you mean? Yes, very true. Which means companies have to come up with new kinds of sanitizers.. and sell them to you.

Our bodies should be doing the adaptation; they're better at it than any chemical company.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes, but these things are everyday germs. They're not inherently harmful if your body gets used to them, which things like sanitizing wipes, gels, sprays, etc. are doing for us, so our bodies come to rely on these items. That is not good, no matter how you slice it.. and these products are also draining our wallets.



Who is talking about "keep doing things that spread it"? No one is advocating unprotected sex.
Ok - I will be direct. Since more than 60 percent of new HIV cases are found among gay men, mostly through "experimenting" which you do seem to advocate, why keep contributing to the spread in that manner? No doubt, hetero couples spread it to, but gay men is what we are talking about. All that "experimenting" does is spread it outside the gay community when they decide that they don't want to have gay sex anymore.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,560
2
0
Ok - I will be direct. Since more than 60 percent of new HIV cases are found among gay men, mostly through "experimenting" which you do seem to advocate, why keep contributing to the spread in that manner? No doubt, hetero couples spread it to, but gay men is what we are talking about. All that "experimenting" does is spread it outside the gay community when they decide that they don't want to have gay sex anymore.
I neither condone nor condemn experimenting, I merely state that it occurs.. which was something you denied or weren't aware of.

Safe sex isn't contributing to the spread of HIV.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Germs become immune to sanitizers, you mean? Yes, very true. Which means companies have to come up with new kinds of sanitizers.. and sell them to you.

Our bodies should be doing the adaptation; they're better at it than any chemical company.
Yep, sorry if I was not clear about it.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
I agree, some things aren't avoidable. However, why not avoid the ones that are avoidable? You don't want AIDS, do you? Of course you don't.. you don't have gay sex or unprotected sex.

We learn from the mistakes of others. I was taught that one of the best ways to learn, is to not repeat the same mistakes others did.

I learned a long time ago that having multiple sex partners, unprotected sex, and gay sex opens you up to a greater chance of getting an STD... outside of breathing.. something I have to do.

It's all about reducing your chances of getting sick. No, it's not totally avoidable, but why do things that can increase your risk?
Yes we do learn from others mistakes. But that usually comes after the teen and even young adult years. If asked, many parents will tell you that a certain amount of mistake-making and failure is important for a child to learn on their own. We don't stick their hands in an open flame, well most of us don't, thank goodness. But we do allow them to learn from their own mistakes and failures because through those they can learn from others mistakes.

We don't want our children to get STD's or HIV/AIDS; we just have different ways of reaching that destination. I say age-appropriate education is the best way to achieve that with the greater majority of youth. You seem to say that Bible teaching is the best way. That may work, with some. It's anecdotal but: when I was with my girlfriend at the time, kissing, loving, squeezing and clothes being tossed to the side; I wasn't thinking about Lot's daughter's or the Song of Solomon, I was thinking about what I had learned in health class. As excited as I was I couldn't get the coach's words out of my mind.

Not wanting to take this thread further afield than it already is, but on a somewhat related note: allowing same sex couples to receive marriage licenses and to enjoy the constitutional rights and protections that everyone else does will go a long way towards decreasing the number of gays with multiple partners and somewhat reduce unprotected sex. (I think you've said in the past you're not necessarily against SSM so that wasn't directed at you.)
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes we do learn from others mistakes. But that usually comes after the teen and even young adult years. If asked, many parents will tell you that a certain amount of mistake-making and failure is important for a child to learn on their own. We don't stick their hands in an open flame, well most of us don't, thank goodness. But we do allow them to learn from their own mistakes and failures because through those they can learn from others mistakes.
True. We do need to learn on our own. But some mistakes don't need repeating. All I am saying is that we, as a human race, should have learned from what brought these unnecessary diseases into out lives. Granted, I agree that we have some that were mistakenly transferred through various means such as but not limited to, food, bad water etc. But some of those were properly treated (such as cholera - transferred through contaminated food/water) and people no longer left improper sanitation procedures in place. They may have boiled water, made sure food was cooked, etc.

However, with STDs such as HIV/AIDS primarily spreading through improper/unsafe sexual contact, we seemed to have not learned much. True, people are more educated and practice safe sex, but many still don't practice safe sex. In fact, adolescence and young adults account for three thousand new infections between the ages 15-24 every day and people in this age group account for more than a third of all new HIV infections. This accounts for it being transferred via sex/intercourse. Primarily, heterosexual. I know there are other ways to get the disease.

I don't think abstinence (till married) is a bad idea along with good education. It will without a doubt lower these numbers. Unfortunately, our generation isn't listening. The above numbers are disturbing.

A Wikipedia article that caught my attention when it stated that more and more people UNDER 30, have either very little religious interest, and/or have doubts in the existence of God. While so-called "Christians" have a great deal to do with this, this just shows why I think morality is low and getting lower, IMO.

At the very least, baby boomers had higher morals and better family structures due to their religious faith among other things, IMO. With this declining, we now (again, IMO) have more single parent families, people not believing in God, and more tolerance to things like premarital sex and the acceptance to homosexuality. I'm not claiming this is fact, just something I am observing.



We don't want our children to get STD's or HIV/AIDS; we just have different ways of reaching that destination. I say age-appropriate education is the best way to achieve that with the greater majority of youth. You seem to say that Bible teaching is the best way....

I was thinking about what I had learned in health class. As excited as I was I couldn't get the coach's words out of my mind.
Your first paragraph, I agree 100%. Education based on age is great and I endorse that. Combined with proper Bible education, both can really help.

allowing same sex couples to receive marriage licenses and to enjoy the constitutional rights and protections that everyone else does will go a long way towards decreasing the number of gays with multiple partners and somewhat reduce unprotected sex. (I think you've said in the past you're not necessarily against SSM so that wasn't directed at you.)
Well, I would not fight for nor against the rights of SSM couples. I am not political and won't take any part of it. If law-makers go for/against it, it won't make me a difference.

I firmly believe that gays/lesbians are people and should be treated fairly.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,860
2
0
True. We do need to learn on our own. But some mistakes don't need repeating. All I am saying is that we, as a human race, should have learned from what brought these unnecessary diseases into out lives. Granted, I agree that we have some that were mistakenly transferred through various means such as but not limited to, food, bad water etc. But some of those were properly treated (such as cholera - transferred through contaminated food/water) and people no longer left improper sanitation procedures in place. They may have boiled water, made sure food was cooked, etc.

However, with STDs such as HIV/AIDS primarily spreading through improper/unsafe sexual contact, we seemed to have not learned much. True, people are more educated and practice safe sex, but many still don't practice safe sex. In fact, adolescence and young adults account for three thousand new infections between the ages 15-24 every day and people in this age group account for more than a third of all new HIV infections. This accounts for it being transferred via sex/intercourse. Primarily, heterosexual. I know there are other ways to get the disease.

I don't think abstinence (till married) is a bad idea along with good education. It will without a doubt lower these numbers. Unfortunately, our generation isn't listening. The above numbers are disturbing.

A Wikipedia article that caught my attention when it stated that more and more people UNDER 30, have either very little religious interest, and/or have doubts in the existence of God. While so-called "Christians" have a great deal to do with this, this just shows why I think morality is low and getting lower, IMO.

At the very least, baby boomers had higher morals and better family structures due to their religious faith among other things, IMO. With this declining, we now (again, IMO) have more single parent families, people not believing in God, and more tolerance to things like premarital sex and the acceptance to homosexuality. I'm not claiming this is fact, just something I am observing.





Your first paragraph, I agree 100%. Education based on age is great and I endorse that. Combined with proper Bible education, both can really help.



Well, I would not fight for nor against the rights of SSM couples. I am not political and won't take any part of it. If law-makers go for/against it, it won't make me a difference.

I firmly believe that gays/lesbians are people and should be treated fairly.
There's been a certain amount of "drifting away from the church" going on for decades; I would say mostly as a backlash against the Victorian era of the late 1800's - early 1900's. Personally I think that ethics and spirituality are more important than religion since neither one require faith or belief in a G-d or G-ds.

You keep wanting to push religion at children. I understand that it's natural and comfortable for you because of your belief. I think you and others would be better served by raising children in a neutral environment; then, when the young adults have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand, present them with your faith or other faiths and let them choose if it's right for them. You'll most likely end up with someone who is stronger in and more committed to their faith.

If you haven't seen it; look for and rent the movie "The Trouble With Angels" w/Rosalind Russell and Hayley Mills. The story illustrates my paragraph above much better than I can.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
There's been a certain amount of "drifting away from the church" going on for decades; I would say mostly as a backlash against the Victorian era of the late 1800's - early 1900's. Personally I think that ethics and spirituality are more important than religion since neither one require faith or belief in a G-d or G-ds.
I hear that, but I'm talking about "our generation".. focusing on the 30 and under crowd. Our parents were much more religious than our generation is. I recall reading where you even admit to that.

I understand that it's natural and comfortable for you because of your belief. I think you and others would be better served by raising children in a neutral environment; then, when the young adults have the emotional and intellectual capacity to understand, present them with your faith or other faiths and let them choose if it's right for them. You'll most likely end up with someone who is stronger in and more committed to their faith.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Historically, family structure and morality where higher during our parents' prime. My mother mentions that all the time, and so do many that I know that are at least 60 years old. I wasn't there, so I can say for certain. But I am more inclined to take the words of those who lived during that time as more factual. It isn't pushing it on them. Its teaching them from a very young age, and then allowing them to choose if they will stick with it or not. I didn't have the Bible forced on me... personally, I took to it very well as a youngster. Everyone isn't like that, though.


If you haven't seen it; look for and rent the movie "The Trouble With Angels" w/Rosalind Russell and Hayley Mills. The story illustrates my paragraph above much better than I can.
Seems interesting. Looked it up on Wikipedia....
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Historically, family structure and morality where higher during our parents' prime. My mother mentions that all the time, and so do many that I know that are at least 60 years old. I wasn't there, so I can say for certain. But I am more inclined to take the words of those who lived during that time as more factual. It isn't pushing it on them. Its teaching them from a very young age, and then allowing them to choose if they will stick with it or not. I didn't have the Bible forced on me... personally, I took to it very well as a youngster. Everyone isn't like that, though.
.
Yes, the good old days when women weren't allowed to work and blacks had their own water fountains, the pinnacle of morality. :rolleyes:
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes, the good old days when women weren't allowed to work and blacks had their own water fountains, the pinnacle of morality. :rolleyes:
Dude, just to let you know, I haven't been reading any of your posts. I see you "quoting" me, but I just scroll right pass em'.... and probably for a very, very good reason.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Dude, just to let you know, I haven't been reading any of your posts. I see you "quoting" me, but I just scroll right pass em'.... and probably for a very, very good reason.
Yes, the reason being you are terrified to have your shallow world view threatened by facts. Better to remain ignorant than risk thinking.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,522
4,198
126
Dude, just to let you know, I haven't been reading any of your posts. I see you "quoting" me, but I just scroll right pass em'.... and probably for a very, very good reason.
Not really. There's no chance you would understand anything important at all. You are a blind bigot.
 

Retro Rob

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2012
8,150
108
106
Yes, the reason being you are terrified to have your shallow world view threatened by facts. Better to remain ignorant than risk thinking.
You're probably right. :rolleyes:

**Putting you back on ignore list**

Please put me on your ignore list.

Thanks
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY