Freethought & Rationalism Archive

keyser_soze · 06-05-2003, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
I told you before I'm not a Christian. And I don't give a damn about punishing anybody. My concern is that people who see wrong for what it is are allowed to say so in no uncertain terms.

Already spoke to that

And just who gets to pass judgment on said proof's veracity? We gonna do a poll on whether yguy's a homophobe?

Sure why not? I think I already know the outcome, what you cannot see, we see in abundance.

Kindly direct requests for proof of any statement towards the person who has made it. In this case, that would not be me.

Already spoke to that. Please, direct statements to the correct person yourself. You will notice that all of my points spoke to DK's points from the "I can't believe they printed this" thread. Pay closer attention.

I don't have any more problem with lesbians than I do with male homosexuals. I think both activities are wrong.

While were talking about it, why do you find both selections wrong? Based on what?

Haven't we been over this before? Have I not made it abundantly, even tediously clear by now that I'm not a Bible literalist?

No, cherry picker is the label I would place...What's your point?

Again, you are confusing me with someone else.

No, DK knows who I am speaking too, as do I.

Maybe you have a rational reason why we should look to the animal kingdom for justification of our behaviors? Maybe you have a reason why we should not? Do you feel yourself to not be an animal? Perhaps you have some organs, or physical design that is not shared within the animal kingdom?

yguy · 06-05-2003, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
The first one was to DK, the second was to you. You really should learn to pay attention.

That was not patent in the least. I'd posted several times after dk's last post, you didn't bother to grace the post with the two keystrokes necessary to put his name on it, and his arguments predictably parallel mine to some extent.

yguy · 06-05-2003, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by keyser_soze
While were talking about it, why do you find both selections wrong? Based on what?

See my discussion with Snedden.

Quote:

Maybe you have a rational reason why we should look to the animal kingdom for justification of our behaviors? Maybe you have a reason why we should not? Do you feel yourself to not be an animal? Perhaps you have some organs, or physical design that is not shared within the animal kingdom?

As convenient as it is for you to limit the parameters of the question to physical attributes, the answer obviously lies outside that realm. When a polar bear eats his own offspring, the polar bear community doesn't convene a trial, because for polar bears, that's business as usual; and if that's the sort of world we're after, indeed we should emulate them and give ourselves leave to satisfy our baser instincts at every opportunity.

dk · 06-05-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

dk: Gen 25:17 �As the boys grew up, Esau became a skillful hunter, a man who lived in the open; whereas Jacob was a simple man, who kept to his tents. 28 Isaac preferred Esau, but Rebekah preferred Jacob.� Gen 27:11 �But my brother Esau is a hairy man,� said Jacob to his mother Rebekah, �and I am smooth skinned!. 12 Suppose my father feels me? He will think I am making sport of him, and I will bring upon myself a curse instead of my blessing.�
(Fr Andrew): I await some evidence that Jacob was "effeminate", dk. Smooth arms are no indication--unless you're suggesting that, for instance, Mike Tyson, is "effeminate"?

Effeminate means femine appearance untypical of a man. I wouldn't classify Tyson as effeminate on the basis of his appearance. I can only present the evidence, and if you find it unpersuasive then there's nothing more to say.

dk · 06-05-2003, 08:33 PM

Quote:

dk: I don't follow you... On what basis have you determined anal sex to be safe?
keyser_soze: Where have you deduced that it isn't? Considering humans have been doing it for several millenia...well, anecdotal evidence, since there is no real study on the subject(I'm assuming) will just have to do. But you could of course supply us with something from some right wing fundy anti-gay site.

dk: On the incidence of exposure published by the CDC. Gay men making up between 1%-4% of the population represent over 50% of hiv/aids incidence. It appears gay mentors given access to public school tutor their prot�g�s in the same risky behaviors that decimated the gay community in the 1980s. Here�s what I find particularly disturbing�

Young Gay Men at Risk
Young gay men in the United States currently become infected with HIV at a rate of 4 percent a year. At that rate, half of all gay men who are now 18 years old will be HIV positive by the time they are 30. - Harvard AIDS Institute

Its almost as if gay youth support groups transported the HIV/AIDS into public schools like a cultural badge of honor. Perhaps you can explain this to me. Obviously the only way to beat an incurable deadly contagious disease is to stop its transmission to the next generation. If there�s a war on hiv/aids, we�ve lost the battle for a whole new generation. In the year 2000 the median age of hiv/aids was between around 35-40 years old. This is not good news.

Code:

Statistics        AIDS Information in the U.S.
Approx. 900,000  Number of people living with HIV/AIDS
Approx. 300,000  Number of people who may not know they are HIV pos.
Approx.  40,000  Number of new HIV infections per year

70%        new male HIV infections 
30%        new HIV female infections 
753,907    Cumulative AIDS cases (as of June 2000)

76%        male, Percent of AIDS cases (as of June 2000) 
24%        female, Percent of AIDS cases (as of June 2000) 
43,517     Number of new AIDS cases (7/99-6/00)

438,795    Cumulative number who have died from AIDS
85%        Percent of AIDS deaths who are male
15%        Percent of AIDS deaths who are female

In the US the evidence is overwhelming that Incidence of Males who have Sex with Males puts exposes men to the virus, or MSM is a risky behavior.

everlastingtongue · 06-05-2003, 10:15 PM

dk,

I followed your link. Here is what I find odd. You site a Harvard report from 1998 and then use statistics from 2000 without a source. Furthermore, you conveniently use only U.S. statistics.

How about some 2002 numbers worldwide:

People newly infected with AIDS, 2002 = 5,000,000

Men = 2,200,000
Women = 2,000,000
Children (<15 years) = 800,000

Number of people living with HIV/AIDS = 42,000,000

Men = 19,600,000
Women = 19,200,000
Children (<15) = 3,200,000

AIDS deaths in 2002 = 3,100,000

Men = 1,290,000
Women = 1,200,000
Children (<15) = 610,000

Here is the source: http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm

HIV is a virus. It doesn�t care how it is transmitted. Anal sex is more likely to promote transmission then some other activities, I�ll agree � but transmission is not exclusive to this activity. Besides, many heterosexual couples engage in this activity as well.

Also, I think it�s arrogant for you to assume that all MSM involves anal sex.

What about lesbians? They are gay too and, barring the inclusion of an additional male companion, they cannot have any sex in the �traditional� way. If being gay is morally wrong, then where are your lesbian statistics?

Fr.Andrew · 06-06-2003, 03:51 AM

(dk): I wouldn't classify Tyson as effeminate on the basis of his appearance.
(Fr Andrew): I don't understand. You pronounced that Jacob was "effeminate" on the basis of his appearance--i.e., smooth arms...why wouldn't you "classify" Mike Tyson as "effeminate" using the same criteria?
Doesn't make sense.

keyser_soze · 06-06-2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
See my discussion with Snedden.

As convenient as it is for you to limit the parameters of the question to physical attributes, the answer obviously lies outside that realm. When a polar bear eats his own offspring, the polar bear community doesn't convene a trial, because for polar bears, that's business as usual; and if that's the sort of world we're after, indeed we should emulate them and give ourselves leave to satisfy our baser instincts at every opportunity.

So then you have somehow judged homosexuality to be IMMORAL based on justice? I really am at a loss as to where you are going. Please clarify further. BTW, you select polar bears...What about primates? Are they not group units, who use tools, use group organized activities, love and mourn, play and fight, and exhibit the behaviour you seem to only want to attribute to humans worth merit? Aren't they animals? You want to separate yourself from animals so badly, I wonder if that is the purpose of your following the bible, after all, it gives you that divine "I'm special" belief you are craving. I know NONE of the behaviour of humans strikes me as animalistic in nature...maybe you want to only own up to that courtroom justice type of time we spend? Personally, I don't surround human interactions with the gold halo of "otherness", maybe you could show me how that raises us out of the animal kingdom, instead of just adding attributes to another species of animal living on the planet? After all, we must be different, we came from GAWD, and that makes us just ever so special.

keyser_soze · 06-06-2003, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
Effeminate means femine appearance untypical of a man. I wouldn't classify Tyson as effeminate on the basis of his appearance. I can only present the evidence, and if you find it unpersuasive then there's nothing more to say.

But was his father not blind? So all we have is hairy arms vs. unhairy arms....and somehow you managed to translate that as he was a homosexual. How odd? I would have interpreted it to mean a momma's boy, hence the happiness with the gruff hunters son. But now we know...HE WAS GAY! Please go share your conclusion with the church, I'm sure no one told them. But it is really nice how you pulled that off. Real....rational. Yeah, that's it.

keyser_soze · 06-06-2003, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by everlastingtongue
[B]dk,

I followed your link. Here is what I find odd. You site a Harvard report from 1998 and then use statistics from 2000 without a source. Furthermore, you conveniently use only U.S. statistics.

You forget, he doesn't care about the rest of the world. Male-anal-sex-having-men only are out to destroy american values and the family.

I mean, doesn't it so OBVIOUSLY follow? I mean it's as clear as 2+2=19 to me!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 10:15 PM	#236
everlastingtongue Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Location Posts: 398	dk, I followed your link. Here is what I find odd. You site a Harvard report from 1998 and then use statistics from 2000 without a source. Furthermore, you conveniently use only U.S. statistics. How about some 2002 numbers worldwide: People newly infected with AIDS, 2002 = 5,000,000 Men = 2,200,000 Women = 2,000,000 Children (<15 years) = 800,000 Number of people living with HIV/AIDS = 42,000,000 Men = 19,600,000 Women = 19,200,000 Children (<15) = 3,200,000 AIDS deaths in 2002 = 3,100,000 Men = 1,290,000 Women = 1,200,000 Children (<15) = 610,000 Here is the source: http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm HIV is a virus. It doesn�t care how it is transmitted. Anal sex is more likely to promote transmission then some other activities, I�ll agree � but transmission is not exclusive to this activity. Besides, many heterosexual couples engage in this activity as well. Also, I think it�s arrogant for you to assume that all MSM involves anal sex. What about lesbians? They are gay too and, barring the inclusion of an additional male companion, they cannot have any sex in the �traditional� way. If being gay is morally wrong, then where are your lesbian statistics?

06-06-2003, 03:51 AM	#237
Fr.Andrew Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Betsy's Bluff, Maine Posts: 540	(dk): I wouldn't classify Tyson as effeminate on the basis of his appearance. (Fr Andrew): I don't understand. You pronounced that Jacob was "effeminate" on the basis of his appearance--i.e., smooth arms...why wouldn't you "classify" Mike Tyson as "effeminate" using the same criteria? Doesn't make sense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.