MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
Does it have to be an addict?
http://www.twincities.com/walters/ci_23975676/man-sentenced-infecting-women-hiv-virus
Again, how is this troll thread not locked?
Mods?
Does it have to be an addict?
http://www.twincities.com/walters/ci_23975676/man-sentenced-infecting-women-hiv-virus
Again, how is this troll thread not locked?
Mods?
there are indeed laws against intentionally transmitting HIV/AIDS to another person including lying about your status to a partner.
if there haven't been many prosecutions regarding people catching the disease through needle sharing, I assume it's because of the illegal nature of the act itself that one drug addict may not have the means or desire to press charges against another drug addict.
if there haven't been many prosecutions regarding people catching the disease through needle sharing, I assume it's because of the illegal nature of the act itself that one drug addict may not have the means or desire to press charges against another drug addict.
Feeling the need to vomit when seeing two guys hold hands != not liking PDA. I'm not a huge PDA guy either, but do you think TH feels the need to vomit when he sees a guy and a girl holding hands? This is not a "PDA" issue, it's a homosexual issue, and that's why he's homophobic.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
davmat787
Diamond Member
- Nov 30, 2010
- 5,512
- 24
- 76
What do you expect the CDC to do (and please don't say "find a cure!!)? The risk factors, vectors, and high risk demographics and activities have been identified, and methods to mitigate these risks are well known to these groups.
For example, (IIRC) gay males that shoot drugs intravenously are the most at risk group of contracting the AIDS virus. Do you really think they don't know the risks of their lifestyle? What would you like the CDC to do for this specific group?
flexy
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
Let me simply rephrase the OP's question:
Assume OP or someone else would happen to be gay, and the government or the state would not "ALLOW" homosexual marriage, would you then feel restricted in any way?
The word "ALLOW" alone should give you a grip and I can hardly see that a free society, which the US (as far as I remember) still thinks it is, would require "authorities"/law makers someone to tell what is "allowed" in terms of what someone does in their bedroom or what kind of relationships someone is "ALLOWED" to have or not.
It is a significant violation of human rights & freedom and would (IMO) go against everything the US normally stands for. There cannot be double-standards, freedom and rights are either unconditional (race, sexual preference etc., gender)..or it IS no real freedom but a fake pseudo-freedom with a bias. People in a society are either free or they are limited, there is no compromise in between.
The comparison with pedophiles really bugs the **** out of me since pedophilia, last time I checked was a criminal act. It implies sex with minors and in many cases without their consent...respective in an exploitative way...eg. when I assume that a 10 year old OBVIOUSLY doesn't even know what sex is which ALSO implies that the child CAN NOT have given consent since it is something it doesn't even know yet. (Basically, it's not any different than rape)
What an absurd comparison to homosexuality...
Your question about "if sexual attraction is a right, can it be restricted"...sorry is pretty dumb.
What is RESTRICTED is not "sexual attraction"...why on Earth would there even be a reason to restrict sexual attraction? It's not the states/gvts duty to make pointless rules of "proper sexual behavior".
HOWEVER, WHAT the state's/gvt duty is is to impose laws to prevent and punish CRIMES.
A rapist is not convicted because he is sexually attracted...or because the act of sex PER SE would be "illegal", this is not the crime - the crime is that he forcefully/violently had sex with someone against their consent. THIS is the crime.
Let me simply rephrase the OP's question:
Assume OP or someone else would happen to be gay, and the government or the state would not "ALLOW" homosexual marriage, would you then feel restricted in any way?
The word "ALLOW" alone should give you a grip and I can hardly see that a free society, which the US (as far as I remember) still thinks it is, would require "authorities"/law makers someone to tell what is "allowed" in terms of what someone does in their bedroom or what kind of relationships someone is "ALLOWED" to have or not.
It is a significant violation of human rights & freedom and would (IMO) go against everything the US normally stands for. There cannot be double-standards, freedom and rights are either unconditional (race, sexual preference etc., gender)..or it IS no real freedom but a fake pseudo-freedom with a bias. People in a society are either free or they are limited, there is no compromise in between.
The comparison with pedophiles really bugs the **** out of me since pedophilia, last time I checked was a criminal act. It implies sex with minors and in many cases without their consent...respective in an exploitative way...eg. when I assume that a 10 year old OBVIOUSLY doesn't even know what sex is which ALSO implies that the child CAN NOT have given consent since it is something it doesn't even know yet. (Basically, it's not any different than rape)
What an absurd comparison to homosexuality...
Your question about "if sexual attraction is a right, can it be restricted"...sorry is pretty dumb.
What is RESTRICTED is not "sexual attraction"...why on Earth would there even be a reason to restrict sexual attraction? It's not the states/gvts duty to make pointless rules of "proper sexual behavior".
HOWEVER, WHAT the state's/gvt duty is is to impose laws to prevent and punish CRIMES.
A rapist is not convicted because he is sexually attracted...or because the act of sex PER SE would be "illegal", this is not the crime - the crime is that he forcefully/violently had sex with someone against their consent. THIS is the crime.
*
>>
The idea of "what goes on in the privacy of your home", and as long "as it does not harm anyone else" does not hold water. There are a lot of things you can not do in the privacy of your home that are illegal.
>>
If they are illegal there is NORMALLY a reason for that. In the example of making whiskey you won't "hurt" someone but you commit a crime since alcohol is regulated by the state/gvt and normally taxed. If you steal from your cable provider you're also breaking the law, you're basically stealing even if you don't physically "harm somebody". If you have hours of ****sechs behind your closed doors and would enjoy endless homosexual orgies, you're obviously not breaking any laws or commit any "crime"...if it were so it would be laws based on irrationality and/or religious views, NOT based on that in actuality someone would come to physical/financial harm as a result.
And laws/rules BETTER NOT are being made on subjective/religious "moral" view...but whether an action is indeed causing harm or causing any sort of negative effect on someone. THIS is the reason why we have laws.
Assume OP or someone else would happen to be gay, and the government or the state would not "ALLOW" homosexual marriage, would you then feel restricted in any way?
The word "ALLOW" alone should give you a grip and I can hardly see that a free society, which the US (as far as I remember) still thinks it is, would require "authorities"/law makers someone to tell what is "allowed" in terms of what someone does in their bedroom or what kind of relationships someone is "ALLOWED" to have or not.
It is a significant violation of human rights & freedom and would (IMO) go against everything the US normally stands for. There cannot be double-standards, freedom and rights are either unconditional (race, sexual preference etc., gender)..or it IS no real freedom but a fake pseudo-freedom with a bias. People in a society are either free or they are limited, there is no compromise in between.
The comparison with pedophiles really bugs the **** out of me since pedophilia, last time I checked was a criminal act. It implies sex with minors and in many cases without their consent...respective in an exploitative way...eg. when I assume that a 10 year old OBVIOUSLY doesn't even know what sex is which ALSO implies that the child CAN NOT have given consent since it is something it doesn't even know yet. (Basically, it's not any different than rape)
What an absurd comparison to homosexuality...
Your question about "if sexual attraction is a right, can it be restricted"...sorry is pretty dumb.
What is RESTRICTED is not "sexual attraction"...why on Earth would there even be a reason to restrict sexual attraction? It's not the states/gvts duty to make pointless rules of "proper sexual behavior".
HOWEVER, WHAT the state's/gvt duty is is to impose laws to prevent and punish CRIMES.
A rapist is not convicted because he is sexually attracted...or because the act of sex PER SE would be "illegal", this is not the crime - the crime is that he forcefully/violently had sex with someone against their consent. THIS is the crime.
Let me simply rephrase the OP's question:
Assume OP or someone else would happen to be gay, and the government or the state would not "ALLOW" homosexual marriage, would you then feel restricted in any way?
The word "ALLOW" alone should give you a grip and I can hardly see that a free society, which the US (as far as I remember) still thinks it is, would require "authorities"/law makers someone to tell what is "allowed" in terms of what someone does in their bedroom or what kind of relationships someone is "ALLOWED" to have or not.
It is a significant violation of human rights & freedom and would (IMO) go against everything the US normally stands for. There cannot be double-standards, freedom and rights are either unconditional (race, sexual preference etc., gender)..or it IS no real freedom but a fake pseudo-freedom with a bias. People in a society are either free or they are limited, there is no compromise in between.
The comparison with pedophiles really bugs the **** out of me since pedophilia, last time I checked was a criminal act. It implies sex with minors and in many cases without their consent...respective in an exploitative way...eg. when I assume that a 10 year old OBVIOUSLY doesn't even know what sex is which ALSO implies that the child CAN NOT have given consent since it is something it doesn't even know yet. (Basically, it's not any different than rape)
What an absurd comparison to homosexuality...
Your question about "if sexual attraction is a right, can it be restricted"...sorry is pretty dumb.
What is RESTRICTED is not "sexual attraction"...why on Earth would there even be a reason to restrict sexual attraction? It's not the states/gvts duty to make pointless rules of "proper sexual behavior".
HOWEVER, WHAT the state's/gvt duty is is to impose laws to prevent and punish CRIMES.
A rapist is not convicted because he is sexually attracted...or because the act of sex PER SE would be "illegal", this is not the crime - the crime is that he forcefully/violently had sex with someone against their consent. THIS is the crime.
*
>>
The idea of "what goes on in the privacy of your home", and as long "as it does not harm anyone else" does not hold water. There are a lot of things you can not do in the privacy of your home that are illegal.
>>
If they are illegal there is NORMALLY a reason for that. In the example of making whiskey you won't "hurt" someone but you commit a crime since alcohol is regulated by the state/gvt and normally taxed. If you steal from your cable provider you're also breaking the law, you're basically stealing even if you don't physically "harm somebody". If you have hours of ****sechs behind your closed doors and would enjoy endless homosexual orgies, you're obviously not breaking any laws or commit any "crime"...if it were so it would be laws based on irrationality and/or religious views, NOT based on that in actuality someone would come to physical/financial harm as a result.
And laws/rules BETTER NOT are being made on subjective/religious "moral" view...but whether an action is indeed causing harm or causing any sort of negative effect on someone. THIS is the reason why we have laws.
Last edited:
bradly1101
Diamond Member
Legislating morals never works since there are about seven billion versions on the planet. We can all agree not to harm, but rarely agree on much else, so when you find that special guy (er I mean girl) you connect with, hold on for dear life!
The source of most peoples' revulsion towards homosexuality has always been it's abnormality; even before the Christian expansion..
Human beings are physiologically heterosexual, but homosexuality runs contrary to that.
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 20,579
- 15,447
- 136
Citations needed for that one! Different sources of sociological or anthropological discourse, in general agreement on this topic, dating back to a pre-Christian era.
Last edited:
The "myth" that widespread opposition to homosexuality came about due to Christianity is just that, a myth. It's been perpetuated by the homosexual community mostly..
The truth is that there were varying degrees of tolerance in the pre-Christian era in Europe, but there was never outright acceptance from what I've read. For instance, many people falsely believe that Ancient Greece and Rome had a great acceptance of homosexuality (to the point where gay marriage was legal), but historical records show that homosexual acts were tolerated only up to a certain point.
In Ancient Greece, pederasty was the preferred form of homosexuality, and it came with a lot of caveats and was not universally accepted. Relationships between adult men were outright frowned upon and stigmatized.
Rome was similar in that regard, with a stigmatism focused towards males who willingly allowed themselves to be penetrated by another male, and depending on the time, pederasty could be viewed as somewhat acceptable or a "degenerate Greek practice," worthy of the death penalty..
There are instances of recorded gay marriages, but those were apparently arbitrary and not part of the legal code.
Source
Source
Source
Source
mikeymikec
Lifer
- May 19, 2011
- 20,579
- 15,447
- 136
Who said there was outright/unanimous acceptance? That's as stupid an assumption as "white/black/gay/straight people think x".
However, what you said was "most peoples' revulsion towards homosexuality was for reason x", which would require you to cite sources regarding common reasons for negative attitudes towards homosexuality in a pre-Christian era", which your sources do not include. My point is, the sort of level required to achieve an impartial view of what attitudes were prevalent in a pre-Christian era either had not been achieved or the documentation of which did not survive, ergo, your point has no basis.
To bluntly point out the fallacy of the point you're making (in a purely geographical / culture sense), it would be like me surveying the views of Londoners with regard to homosexuality and concluding that their views are adequately representative of the views of the rest of humanity.
Aaaand some more citations needed to back up your impossibly complicated and therefore extremely difficult to prove point.
IMHO, in a hypothetical world where no organised religions exist, homosexuality would have a complete variety of degrees of acceptance in the multitude of communities, and largely due to chance (for example, caused by people in positions of power / standing in society / or sufficiently charismatic, and on the flipside of that coin, say actual crimes committed by people who happened to be homosexual creating a negative stigma) would cause a far more informal set of opinions on the topic, however what many organised religions have done is to formalise their opinions on the topic of homosexuality and teach those as 'fact'. When something is perceived to be fact, there will always be more opposition to that fact being revised in the light of new evidence.
However, what you said was "most peoples' revulsion towards homosexuality was for reason x", which would require you to cite sources regarding common reasons for negative attitudes towards homosexuality in a pre-Christian era", which your sources do not include. My point is, the sort of level required to achieve an impartial view of what attitudes were prevalent in a pre-Christian era either had not been achieved or the documentation of which did not survive, ergo, your point has no basis.
To bluntly point out the fallacy of the point you're making (in a purely geographical / culture sense), it would be like me surveying the views of Londoners with regard to homosexuality and concluding that their views are adequately representative of the views of the rest of humanity.
Aaaand some more citations needed to back up your impossibly complicated and therefore extremely difficult to prove point.
IMHO, in a hypothetical world where no organised religions exist, homosexuality would have a complete variety of degrees of acceptance in the multitude of communities, and largely due to chance (for example, caused by people in positions of power / standing in society / or sufficiently charismatic, and on the flipside of that coin, say actual crimes committed by people who happened to be homosexual creating a negative stigma) would cause a far more informal set of opinions on the topic, however what many organised religions have done is to formalise their opinions on the topic of homosexuality and teach those as 'fact'. When something is perceived to be fact, there will always be more opposition to that fact being revised in the light of new evidence.
Last edited:
I reread your question, and my answer, and it appears you're right. I've been up for too long I swear..
Anyway, I suppose I have to recant my original statement that, "the source of most peoples' revulsion towards homosexuality has always been it's abnormality; even before the Christian expansion."
That's obviously incorrect.
A more accurate answer would be that there was a deep shame associated with losing or compromising your masculinity by engaging in homosexual acts in pre-Christian times in many European cultures, especially if you're the one who was getting penetrated.
The portrayal of homosexuality as unnatural or an abomination can definitely be associated with Christianity and other Abrahamic religions.
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
Because this could be a good thread if the trolls would stop derailing and stop with the personal attacks.
Good post.
But what makes you think you live in a free society?
The state "allows" you to keep your land as long as you pay taxes on it. Do not pay taxes and everything you have can and will be taken away.
The sate allows you to have a drivers license as long as you follow certain guidelines. Driving is not a right though.
The state allows you to keep certain property, and do certain things until you break the law, or do something they do not approve of, then your rights can and will be taken away.
If I do not pay child support I will go to jail. Am I free? No, I am a money slave. I have to provide my ex-wife with a pay check or I go to jail. How free is that?
The state can go in under eminent domain and take your property away.
FDR had Japanese-Americans rounded up and sent to internment camps.
Various states forced children to go through sterilization surgeries during a great part of the 20th century.
And for some reason you think you are free? Your rights are totally subjective to the will of the state.
Last edited:
z1ggy
Lifer
- May 17, 2008
- 10,010
- 66
- 91
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
If citizens do not conduct themselves to a certain code of conduct, certain privileges and rights can and will be taken away.
Who defines what that code of conduct is?
z1ggy
Lifer
- May 17, 2008
- 10,010
- 66
- 91
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About?
You are literally just grasping at thin air. How does your mind go from "is being gay a universal right" to "ermhagerd 17x more likely to get anal cancer!!!!!" to "codes of conduct".
You provide me with many laughs, please, continue.
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
The trolls have derailed this thread to the point where there is little use in continuing.
But if you wish to continue I will oblige.
bradly1101
Diamond Member
You are comparing apples to Volkswagens.
Compare straight rights to gay ones, or limits on straight, consensual sex to gay consensual sex. If you see one as less acceptable and needing of reigning in, well so did the Nazis, KKK, and present day Russia. I don't think that's a road we want to go down.
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
You know the nazis modeled their eugenics program after California,,, right?
And our eugenics program was even upheld by the supreme court.
We have already been down that road, several times.
z1ggy
Lifer
- May 17, 2008
- 10,010
- 66
- 91
Then stop posting and move on with your life.
I just find it entertaining as I don't have any work to again. I'm not trolling, I just continuously point out flaws and contradictions in your statements, and you deflect or make up some ridiculous comparison to try and compare the subject matter to your opinions.
I still want to know: You said that gay males put the entire community at risk. You agree that they don't put people like yourself at any greater risk, so by community you must have meant "the people who decide to have unprotected sex".
So I ask again- how is that any different than people who agree to participate in a sport, eat unhealthy food, or take part in any other activity that increases your chance of death??
So I ask again- how is that any different than people who agree to participate in a sport, eat unhealthy food, or take part in any other activity that increases your chance of death??
jackstar7
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2009
- 11,679
- 1,944
- 126
You, as much as anyone, defines it.
The government is still of and by the people, even if it is not often for them.
MrPickins
Diamond Member
- May 24, 2003
- 9,125
- 792
- 126
No. This is a thread where you can espouse your dislike for gay people under a very thin pretense of actual discussion.
Also, you've done more derailing in this thread than anyone.
- Dec 18, 2010
- 18,811
- 198
- 106
I am moving on with my life. My wife and I are building a rabbit cage this weekend, then we are building a small barn.
I do not remember saying I do not like gay people.
I said when I see two gay men holding hands and/or kissing I feel like throwing up.
I may have said I was indifferent, not sure if that was posted in this thread or another.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter