Kimpatsu

You don't like what exactly? You've just spent the last 13 pages arguing against secular values, but here you seem upset by the very fact that the religious right is gaining momentum.
Please clarify.

dk

I haven't mentioned the religious right, nor am I a part of the religious right. In fact I've repeatedly accused gay rights activists of employing nationalized public education, culture and media to social engineer public opinion. Were I to describe myself it would be as a fiscal liberal and social conservative, with a strong prejudice against a centralized government guided by the principle of subsidiarity.

I haven't made a moral case against gay rights, rather that the gay leadership have betrayed their own constituency with their newly won political power.

keyser_soze

It rather seems you have a moral problem with gays, from your posts. You try to justify it in any possible way other than morally, but it seems fairly obvious that you just don't want to be seen as spouting "christian values", when it's evident to everyone that this is exactly what you are doing.

Kimpatsu

There is no moral case against gay rights; only a bigoted case.
Free thinkers know this. Why don't you?

Treacle Worshipper

No. From a leaflet inside a packet of Durex condoms:

"If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many other sexually transmitted diseases...
"No method of contraception can provide 100% protection against pregnancy or the transmission of HIV and sexually transmitted infection."

No-one has ever claimed that safer sex is 100% proof against STIs. Therefore no case
TW

dk

That's what propagandists do, they use vocabulary to mislead people with information, with disinformation. The War Dep. became the Dep. of Defense. The Vietnam War became a police action. Education became a war against illiteracy. Welfare became a war against poverty.
.....
So the question is what does "safe sex" mean, and what has it come to mean under the manipulation of social engineers.

Treacle Worshipper

How is it disinformation? It acknowledges that condoms are not 100% proof against pregnancy & infection. The vast majority of people who use condoms are aware that they break, especially if treated roughly or not worn correctly. And if they haven't read the instruction leaflets, then they're stupid. And no-one is responsible for other people's stupidity.
TW

dk

Whatever problem I have with homosexuals is minutia, my problem with homosexual marriage addresses greater matters that concern civilization. Morality governs human conduct with bonds of mutual self interest, allowing people to understand one another and become friends. As a civilization becomes increasingly immoral people are disconnected precisely because they can't understand one another. In an immoral world no good deed goes unpunished, if you catch my drift.

dk

I'm not going to argue, what "is" means. In SAFE SEX educatoin it means using a condom, nothing more. But I'm happy to hear you admit that SAFE SEX is unsafe.

Treacle Worshipper

Originally posted by dk
I'm not going to argue, what "is" means.

I was actually asking you to clarify why you thought it was disinformation.

In SAFE SEX educatoin it means using a condom, nothing more. But I'm happy to hear you admit that SAFE SEX is unsafe.

That's why it's usually referred to as safER sex on this side of the Atlantic and people are made aware that it is not 100% safe. Obviously sex-ed differs greatly in the US...
TW