I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[Moonbeam]

"and your sources? I'll take no-sources to mean you can finally agree that we do have an honest difference of opinion, instead of either of us being anti-anything bigots."

Your sources mean absolutly nothing to the real issue so you are still a bigot. Sorry

 

[myusername]

Assuming marriage is the noble, binding and lionized center of stable society, the why - even if all that you paste is true - would you not want to foist, much less let, it upon the homosexual population? If it is out of concern for their personal health, then the best thing to do would be to encourage them to get married, no? After all, how can you judge the risk characteristics of a population that has been forced to live on the edge of society, rather than embraced as a member of the whole?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: myusername
Assuming marriage is the noble, binding and lionized center of stable society, the why - even if all that you paste is true - would you not want to foist, much less let, it upon the homosexual population? If it is out of concern for their personal health, then the best thing to do would be to encourage them to get married, no? After all, how can you judge the risk characteristics of a population that has been forced to live on the edge of society, rather than embraced as a member of the whole?

In addition, why would you worry about denying it to them when the institution has already been desanctified, at least in America?

 

[0roo0roo]

i wonder what site lordmagnus copy and pasted from, its obvious that its all from one site. are your studies peer approved? are are they by special interest clinics or foundations that buy research conclusions? your first offline source about homosexuality being a choice is already questionable, there are no credible studies that support that.

regardless, its irrelevant. a black man is very likely to die from hypertension or violence compared to a white man. black people are more likely to be in prison, have more of their population in poverty, low education, smoke. what does that mean? white people shouldn't intermarry into that? it doesn't mean anything. a womans risk of getting all sorts of cancers rise if she doesn't have children by a certain age. should we mandate child bearing? studies show that oral sex gives women a higher risk for oral cancer, should that be banned? eating mcdonalds probably contributes to diabetes and cancer, yet we do not outlaw these things. its like me saying religious people like you are more likely to be bigoted and lack reasoning skills, and thus should not be allowed to vote. it has nothing to do with freedom, just simple justification of oppression.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i wonder what site lordmagnus copy and pasted from, its obvious that its all from one site. are your studies peer approved? are are they by special interest clinics or foundations that buy research conclusions? your first offline source about homosexuality being a choice is already questionable, there are no credible studies that support that.

regardless, its irrelevant. a black man is very likely to die from hypertension or violence compared to a white man. black people are more likely to be in prison, have more of their population in poverty, low education, smoke. what does that mean? white people shouldn't intermarry into that? it doesn't mean anything. a womans risk of getting all sorts of cancers rise if she doesn't have children by a certain age. should we mandate child bearing? studies show that oral sex gives women a higher risk for oral cancer, should that be banned? eating mcdonalds probably contributes to diabetes and cancer, yet we do not outlaw these things. its like me saying religious people like you are more likely to be bigoted and lack reasoning skills, and thus should not be allowed to vote. it has nothing to do with freedom, just simple justification of oppression.

I'm not sure, but I think you just called Black people Lesbians. Maybe LMK can clarify that for me?

 

[illustri]

he posted the nature link which caught my eye specifically because of its weight in the scientific community -- it is peer reviewed and often THE publication you WANT your papers printed in

he also neglected to mention the article spoke of the increased risk of cancer in HIV cases with no specific mention of the homosexual lifestyle

while we may know certain homosexuals have AIDS, and that certain lifestyles lead to increased risk of AIDS, NO rational person can make the claim that gays alone (as LMK wants you to conclude) have increased risk of these specific types of cancer

furthermore saying ANYTHING to the respect is an INSULT to any straight, gay, or otherwise suffering from such illness, not to mention nature as a journal

 

[BugsBunny1078]

"your first offline source about homosexuality being a choice is already questionable, there are no credible studies that support that."
We do not need to have any studies to prove that homosexual sex is a choice. Any man could decide to engage in it or refrain from it , that is just common sense. If you engage in homosexual sex that is your choice , and making that choice is what determines if you are homosexual or not. So while some men may be born a sissy it is their choice to have sex with other men that makes them a homosexual.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
"your first offline source about homosexuality being a choice is already questionable, there are no credible studies that support that."
We do not need to have any studies to prove that homosexual sex is a choice. Any man could decide to engage in it or refrain from it , that is just common sense. If you engage in homosexual sex that is your choice , and making that choice is what determines if you are homosexual or not. So while some men may be born a sissy it is their choice to have sex with other men that makes them a homosexual.

Well, I think we can all guess as to Bugs' childhood life. I'm sure he was raised in a house full of bigotry.

What a maroon.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

he posted the nature link which caught my eye specifically because of its weight in the scientific community -- it is peer reviewed and often THE publication you WANT your papers printed in

he also neglected to mention the article spoke of the increased risk of cancer in HIV cases with no specific mention of the homosexual lifestyle

This is directly from the article:

HIV patients in general were 11 times more likely to develop cancer, although the risk varied between different groups. The risk among hemophiliacs and heterosexuals was five times higher than the population as a whole, but this jumped to 21 times higher than normal for homosexual and bisexual men.

I'm sure you know that AIDS doesn't kill people, other diseases they get kill them; as such being many times more likely to get cancer being a homosexual does make it harder to fight aids.

NO rational person can make the claim that gays alone (as LMK wants you to conclude) have increased risk of these specific types of cancer

I'd just guess that it's Colo-rectal cancer that the homosexual men are higher chance of getting, as per other sources, but nature sure does show that this flame is wrong.

Maybe LMK can clarify that for me?

0oor said that.

your first offline source about homosexuality being a choice is already questionable, there are no credible studies that support that.

Is this a matter of faith for you? everyone chooses if they have sex or not, so both heterosexual sex and homosexual sex are a choice.

and thus should not be allowed to vote

irrational straw-man arguments, please build yourself some other witch to burn and leave honest discussion to the honest.

i wonder what site lordmagnus copy and pasted from,

Goggle. the internet is a wealth of resources if you are honestly looking for information. I even posted 2 links that disagree with my views.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/aug/02082605.html
http://www.gjne.com/hope robbins/Bob Larimer Testimony.htm
http://www.hhpub.com/journals/crisis/1997/abstv18i1.html

are your studies peer approved?

some, some are questionable, like 'planed parenthood' who i think is lying about how highly effective they say condoms are, in the end i suggest you read what i have, check the sources sources, as i have, and come to an informed conclusion.

eating McDonald's probably contributes to diabetes and cancer, yet we do not outlaw these things.

no, but we also don't give a government stamp-of-approval to it either.

Your sources mean absolutely nothing to the real issue so you are still a bigot. Sorry

everyone is equal bro, it's that you want to call someones life-style a reason they should be a 'protected class' w/ special rights and privileges that

or is that OK because i choose to be Christian right?

Assuming marriage is the noble, binding and lionized center of stable society, the why - even if all that you paste is true - would you not want to foist, much less let, it upon the homosexual population?

that's an argument i made myself, it got little to no support. Generally if it promoted monogamy it would be good, but as the GLAD leaders have made it abundantly clear: the 'archaic' institution of monogamy is the next thing that must go.


In the end if you just want to point fingers instead of use your own minds to think over the situation i can't do a think go help you stop being bias.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ldir
I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

fine with me, give me your basis of ethical standards and I'll be happy to discuss this with you; otherwise your view is completely bankrupt.

Or is your basis of ethics "disagree with the establishment"

No, my basis of ethics is not telling consenting adults how to live their lives.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ldir
I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

fine with me, give me your basis of ethical standards and I'll be happy to discuss this with you; otherwise your view is completely bankrupt.

Or is your basis of ethics "disagree with the establishment"

No, my basis of ethics is not telling consenting adults how to live their lives.

then i suppose you are OK with of-age incestuous marriage, as they are consenting adults?

 

[DZip]

Look how far we have come in this country. Adultery, sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, stealing, and hating are not just acceptable, but almost virtuous qualities.

Many people fear the power of God's love and the morality of our leaders. The latest attacks against "The Passion of The Christ" are an excellent example of the fear people have that maybe the reminder of God's love for us may change someone's life. How can we applaud the movies that promote immoral behavior and curse a movie that shows the love God has for us by giving his son Jesus to man. It was by the suffering and death of our savior, Jesus Christ were can be saved. If you believe, you will be rewarded with eternal life, and if you don't believe you won't - your choice.

The morality of leaders is another area some people fear. I don't know exactly why they are so afraid of someone that has a conviction to morality. This country seams to discredit leaders that are promoting good values and cheer on those that would like to see a return to a pagan Rome society. Working for something is not as virtuous as suing for it. The idea of a person being responsible for their life vs. the government taking care of it is loosing popularity. This upcoming election is looking more and more like a battle between a man that believes the government should provide for the people and a man that believes the people should provide for the government. Remember JFK's (John F. Kennedy) inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". To bad most people today don't believe it.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Ldir
I support discriminating against homophobes and sanctimonious prudes.

fine with me, give me your basis of ethical standards and I'll be happy to discuss this with you; otherwise your view is completely bankrupt.

Or is your basis of ethics "disagree with the establishment"

No, my basis of ethics is not telling consenting adults how to live their lives.

then i suppose you are OK with of-age incestuous marriage, as they are consenting adults?

As long as they do not have children.

 

[YellowRose]

A few musings.

1. It seems strange to me that an American would condone the denial of rightsto another American that they themseleves enjoy.

2. Well my friends those STD's were brought into the world by those straight male shepards who got lonely in the fields.

3. STD's are rampent in the teenage hetrosexual population.

4. So called marriage ( between a man and a woman) in early times was nothing more then an exchange of property. Yes women were considered property just like goats and sheep. If someone wanted your little daughter they would offer you some goats and sheep for her. Of course the girls were early teens.

5. Marriage until recently, say the last 30 years was nothing more then indentured servitude for the woman. She was really no more than a slave for the male partner. She, even in a lot of cases did not even have a voice in who she married.

6. Want a supressed immune system then SMOKE.

7. A look at marriage today and you see greater than 50% divorice rate, single parent homes (mostly lead by the female) and deadbeat parents who fail to support their children, having sex outside their marriage, child abuse, violence and everthing else. And we want to protect this from what I ask. Comeon folks. Tell me what part of this marriage mess need protecting.

8. My ethical basis: respect and manners

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: DZip
Look how far we have come in this country. Adultery, sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, stealing, and hating are not just acceptable, but almost virtuous qualities.

show me ONE quote where an average intelligent person has expressed that these qualities were VIRTUOUS?? So you base your argument on a lie, way to go.

Many people fear the power of God's love and the morality of our leaders. The latest attacks against "The Passion of The Christ" are an excellent example of the fear people have that maybe the reminder of God's love for us may change someone's life. How can we applaud the movies that promote immoral behavior and curse a movie that shows the love God has for us by giving his son Jesus to man. It was by the suffering and death of our savior, Jesus Christ were can be saved. If you believe, you will be rewarded with eternal life, and if you don't believe you won't - your choice.

way to show your fascist qualities. i'm a christian and i have no intention on seeing this film. i'm not as concerned with how christ died as i am with how he LIVED. it wasn't his DEATH that saves us, it's his action in our lives today. the film is just gratuitous violence.

The morality of leaders is another area some people fear. I don't know exactly why they are so afraid of someone that has a conviction to morality. This country seams to discredit leaders that are promoting good values and cheer on those that would like to see a return to a pagan Rome society.

pagan rome?? the greatest evils have all been because religious people have made misguided attempts at shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats. the comment that, oh but those people were actually wrong holds no weight because at the time they felt they were right just as you feel you are right. that's why it is better to keep government and religion separate.

Working for something is not as virtuous as suing for it. The idea of a person being responsible for their life vs. the government taking care of it is loosing popularity. This upcoming election is looking more and more like a battle between a man that believes the government should provide for the people and a man that believes the people should provide for the government. Remember JFK's (John F. Kennedy) inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". To bad most people today don't believe it.

this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever, except to say if ANYTHING this works against your point. this final point is about accountability. if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DZip
Look how far we have come in this country. Adultery, sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, stealing, and hating are not just acceptable, but almost virtuous qualities.

and that's just the Southern Baptists

Many people fear the power of God's love and the morality of our leaders. The latest attacks against "The Passion of The Christ" are an excellent example of the fear people have that maybe the reminder of God's love for us may change someone's life. How can we applaud the movies that promote immoral behavior and curse a movie that shows the love God has for us by giving his son Jesus to man. It was by the suffering and death of our savior, Jesus Christ were can be saved. If you believe, you will be rewarded with eternal life, and if you don't believe you won't - your choice.

Who's slamming the POC? Seems to me it's other Religious leaders, not the man on the street whether they be Christian, Hindu or Atheist

The morality of leaders is another area some people fear. I don't know exactly why they are so afraid of someone that has a conviction to morality. This country seams to discredit leaders that are promoting good values and cheer on those that would like to see a return to a pagan Rome society. Working for something is not as virtuous as suing for it. The idea of a person being responsible for their life vs. the government taking care of it is loosing popularity. This upcoming election is looking more and more like a battle between a man that believes the government should provide for the people and a man that believes the people should provide for the government.

Which is which?

Remember JFK's (John F. Kennedy) inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". To bad most people today don't believe it.

I remember JFK and trust me, neither Bush or Kerry is JFK.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: DZip
Look how far we have come in this country. Adultery, sodomy, pedophilia, bestiality, lying, cheating, stealing, and hating are not just acceptable, but almost virtuous qualities.

show me ONE quote where an average intelligent person has expressed that these qualities were VIRTUOUS?? So you base your argument on a lie, way to go.

Many people fear the power of God's love and the morality of our leaders. The latest attacks against "The Passion of The Christ" are an excellent example of the fear people have that maybe the reminder of God's love for us may change someone's life. How can we applaud the movies that promote immoral behavior and curse a movie that shows the love God has for us by giving his son Jesus to man. It was by the suffering and death of our savior, Jesus Christ were can be saved. If you believe, you will be rewarded with eternal life, and if you don't believe you won't - your choice.

way to show your fascist qualities. i'm a christian and i have no intention on seeing this film. i'm not as concerned with how christ died as i am with how he LIVED. it wasn't his DEATH that saves us, it's his action in our lives today. the film is just gratuitous violence.

The morality of leaders is another area some people fear. I don't know exactly why they are so afraid of someone that has a conviction to morality. This country seams to discredit leaders that are promoting good values and cheer on those that would like to see a return to a pagan Rome society.

pagan rome?? the greatest evils have all been because religious people have made misguided attempts at shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats. the comment that, oh but those people were actually wrong holds no weight because at the time they felt they were right just as you feel you are right. that's why it is better to keep government and religion separate.

Working for something is not as virtuous as suing for it. The idea of a person being responsible for their life vs. the government taking care of it is loosing popularity. This upcoming election is looking more and more like a battle between a man that believes the government should provide for the people and a man that believes the people should provide for the government. Remember JFK's (John F. Kennedy) inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". To bad most people today don't believe it.

this has NOTHING to do with the topic whatsoever, except to say if ANYTHING this works against your point. this final point is about accountability. if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Remember Rome didn't fall until it embraced Christianity. Whether that was the reason it fell though is debatable.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

1. It seems strange to me that an American would condone the denial of rightsto another American that they themseleves enjoy.

marriage in the eyes of the law isn't a right;

those STD's were brought into the world by those straight male shepards who got lonely in the fields

i don't blame homosexuals for STDs, i blame humanity for being morally-bankrupt

STD's are rampent in the teenage hetrosexual population

sounds like more of a reason to discourage disregard for sexual morality; instead of giving it a governmental stamp-of-approval.

Want a supressed immune system then SMOKE

I'm against a government stamp-of-approval on smoking as well.

A look at marriage today and you see greater than 50% divorice rate... having sex outside their marriage

and encouraging disregard for the traditional sexual morality that says that cheating is also not to be condoned will help this situation how?

we want to protect this from what I ask.

Further decay, and hopefully fix existing laws that allow for no-fault divorce.

My ethical basis: respect and manners

it's respectfully to have the government, of by and for the people, say to the people they are mistaken when it comes to what is and isn't good for society? When the law is made by the vast minority it's not called respect, it's called tyranny.

an average intelligent person

your definition 'average intelligent person' impossible to fill. But here are what some progressive views are:

Adultery

monogomy is an out-dated institution, it's better not to be so 'restrictive' twards eachother in marriage- 20-20

sodomy

it's better we not over-populate the earth anyway-GLAD

pedophiliap

man-boy love is no more wrong than man man love-Harry Hay *founding member of ILAG, the group baney frank is a member of*

bestiality

aslong as no animal is harmed it seems that it's good to allow love between man and animal-PETA presedent

lying

It's better to lie about infadelity anyway -many defenders of William Clinton.

cheating

"Cheating is a shortcut and it's a pretty efficient one in a lot of cases"- 50% of collage students

stealing

It's never wrong to increse your happyness by whatever means, as long as you arn't punished-Imanuel Kant

hating

Hating conservative values is a good thing, they are nothing but stone age barbarism- i'll let the reader fill that one in.

Remember Rome didn't fall until it embraced Christianity. Whether that was the reason it fell though is debatable.

i blame it on roman Catholicism; the eastern-Orthodox church kept their people together for another 1000 years after the fall of Rome.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Want a supressed immune system then SMOKE

I'm against a government stamp-of-approval on smoking as well.

thats not whats at stake here tho IS it, the real question is, would you support a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment BANNING smoking even in the privacy of ones OWN home.

 

[Moonbeam]

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Want a supressed immune system then SMOKE

I'm against a government stamp-of-approval on smoking as well.

thats not whats at stake here tho IS it, the real question is, would you support a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment BANNING smoking even in the privacy of ones OWN home.

i don't support a constitutional amendment banning smoking, NOR do i support an amendment baning homosexual sex

I support constitutional amendment that says you don't have to recognize community-property contracts from another state; In my state i don't support giving a government stamp-of-approval to homosexual sex, nor smoking;
I'd support a constitutional amendment to keep my stat from being forced to give a government stamp-of-approval to smoking, if it where needed.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

so in your opinion, the vast majority, which is black btw, imposing on you the belief that they are EQUAL is an imposition on your freedom.

Allowing homosexual marriages is NOT an imposition on your freedom. we define freedom rather narrowly here because we HAVE to.

saying that i can't go out and murder someone could be considered and imposition my freedom, but that's one we generally accept because none of us wants someone ELSE to think it is their right to come out and murder US. our laws are compromises and SHOULD be such. Our laws CANNOT = THE MORALITY OF JUST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE. human sacrifice was a essential part of many "religions" and yet we choose NOT to protect that. the fact that YOU are convinced that YOUR religion is 100% correct and EVERYONE elses is wrong does not mean that we should base our laws on YOUR OPINIONS.

that's why you HAVE to separate politics from religion.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

if you believe it is important for people to be accountable, then you would allow for MORE freedom not less, only someone that believes people CAN'T be held accountable desires to restrict freedom.

Savor this one. It's an example of the kind of deep truth too many people just completely pass over and if appreciated would change the world.

in my opinion, this was the message of Jesus.

however, i'm not sure that most christians understand it. christianity like most religions has gotten so caught up in its traditions, sacraments, holy text etc, that it has forgotten the living message that was jesus christ.

It's an imposition on freedom to force the majority to recognize as a right what the vast minority says to.

so in your opinion, the vast majority, which is black btw, imposing on you the belief that they are EQUAL is an imposition on your freedom.

Allowing homosexual marriages is NOT an imposition on your freedom. we define freedom rather narrowly here because we HAVE to.

saying that i can't go out and murder someone could be considered and imposition my freedom, but that's one we generally accept because none of us wants someone ELSE to think it is their right to come out and murder US. our laws are compromises and SHOULD be such. Our laws CANNOT = THE MORALITY OF JUST ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE. human sacrifice was a essential part of many "religions" and yet we choose NOT to protect that. the fact that YOU are convinced that YOUR religion is 100% correct and EVERYONE elses is wrong does not mean that we should base our laws on YOUR OPINIONS.

that's why you HAVE to separate politics from religion.

what are you ranting about?

how is an amendment making communal-property contracts a matter of states-rights not a compromise that tries not to force my 'religious belief' on others.

I don't even know my religious beliefs would be against such a thing, but i do know that i don't want the government to put it's stamp-of-approval on what is UN-ethical.

i have not, and will not make a religious argument on this, and ware you get that idea is beyond me, because it' didn't come from me.

now, the utilitarian ethics have been laid out; some might disagree on SOME points, others that the utilitarian aspect isn't enough; but overall that's just an honest disagreement that we elect representatives to come to compromises on while defending.

The problem here is the elected body's aren't coming to a compromise, but rather the vast minority is tyrannical ruling over the majority's views.

This is tyranny from the bench, and a constitutional amendment to make it a mater of legislative rights per-state is a very fair 'compromise', don't you think?