Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nowhere357 · 04-15-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy

(Concerning "it takes a villiage".)
I would say not that it should, but that it will - because as the institution of the family is corrupted, children of questionable unions will tend to become wards of the state more so than those from traditional families.

Homosexual marriage is a "new" concept, while state wards have been overflowing for a long time, so I think this claim is not supportable.

yguy · 04-15-2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
Homosexual marriage is a "new" concept, while state wards have been overflowing for a long time, so I think this claim is not supportable.

Yes, but the corruption of marriage started quite some time ago. In my lifetime, the concept of no-fault divorce weakened the institution, and before that the covert adultery that went on in the 50's did the same.

Kimpatsu · 04-15-2003, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
That would be absurd, of course. I am speaking in general terms here. While there is certainly nothing wrong with a couple being childless, the inescapable reality is that it is childbearing couples who make a society viable.

No, liberal intellectuals with no axe to grind make society viable.
Homosexual couples can have children using artifical insemination.

Dr Rick · 04-15-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
What I was getting at, of course, is that your assertion tends to cast anal sex in a light of relative benignity compared to vaginal sex. The only way to get an accurate read on it would be to compare AIDS transmissions per incidence of anal sex with transmissions per incidence of vaginal sex. AFAIK, the closest we can get to that is to compare the AIDS rate within the homosexual community to the rest of the population, in which race they unfortunatley come out on top - which appears to support the idea that the disease is more easily spread by anal sex.

Or am I missing something?

Anal intercourse is a high-risk activity for the transmission of STDs, including HIV.

Both heterosexual and homosexual anal intercourse carry a higher risk of HIV acquisiton than either heterosexual vaginal or oral sex, and lesbian sexual activity is less likely than either heterosexual vaginal and anal sex, or male homosexual anal sex to transmit HIV. The relative risk of male homosexual oral sex relative to these other groups is indeterminate.

An incident of Male-Male sex is statistically riskier than Male-Female sex which is riskier than Female-Female sex.

The AIDs rate in male homosexuals is higher than the rate in male and female heterosexuals which is higher than the rate in female homosexuals.

Rick

Marz Blak · 04-15-2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

...
The AIDs rate in male homosexuals is higher than the rate in male and female heterosexuals which is higher than the rate in female homosexuals.

...

Rick

Given this fact, I've often wondered why those who argue that male homosexuality should be discouraged on epidemiological grounds don't extend the argument to its logical conclusion, and advocate lesbian pair-bonding.

Tangentially, does this mean that Howard Stern isn't really the prurient boor he's perceived to be, but is actually a social visionary?

Ab_Normal · 04-16-2003, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Yes, but the corruption of marriage started quite some time ago. In my lifetime, the concept of no-fault divorce weakened the institution, and before that the covert adultery that went on in the 50's did the same.

I'm curious; what would your ideal solution be for this problem?

yguy · 04-16-2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
I'm curious; what would your ideal solution be for this problem?

The only solution is for people to realize how dumb it is to be self-indulgent. Were we to impose the Christian equivalent of sharia law on this country, adultery would effectively become legal only for those in power, and the culture would continue to rot from within despite outward appearances. It has to be an inside job, not rules and regulations imposed from without.

Ab_Normal · 04-16-2003, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
The only solution is for people to realize how dumb it is to be self-indulgent. Were we to impose the Christian equivalent of sharia law on this country, adultery would effectively become legal only for those in power, and the culture would continue to rot from within despite outward appearances. It has to be an inside job, not rules and regulations imposed from without.

Thank you for your response. It's food for thought...

Philosoft · 04-16-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
Actually, I think "axiomatic" fails to adequately convey the sense of certainty I feel about this.

Actually, I don't think you adequately understand what an axiom is.

Quote:

Perhaps you could be considerate enough to save such remonstrations for someone who has at least referred to scripture as a basis for some part of his argument. Ya think?

My apologies. I wasn't aware there was a fully secular concept of marriage. Are you sure you haven't just usurped the scriptural concept?

Quote:

If you are implying that poverty is a causative factor in the demoralization of inner city blacks, how do you know that it is not rather an effect of some other cause?

Irrelevant. My points were that 1) the problem is not unique to the black community; 2) there are other factors involved, whatever the underlying cause.

Quote:

I think not. Moms are great at nurturing. Kids need that in the first few years, and guys are lousy at it.

Even granting you point, why must the nurturer be the mother?

Quote:

OTOH, a woman who tries to take on the role of discipliarian is like me trying to be President. It doesn't work.

I eagerly await the studies that support this conclusion.

Quote:

It HASN'T worked. That's what got us the Rapist-in-Chief.

That's it, huh? Clinton was raised by a single mom, therefore he tends to treat women as sex-objects. You've really got behaviorism nailed, yguy.

Quote:

I wrote that with all the seriousness warranted by the fact that such a thing will never happen in my lifetime. That said, I do consider it a hideous crime.

Are you also going to deny a scriptural basis for this opinion?

Kimpatsu · 04-16-2003, 03:22 PM

Self-indulgent? With polygamy and polyandry, there's no more jealousy, so at least one negative human trait has been erased...

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

04-16-2003, 03:22 PM	#230
Kimpatsu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tokyo Posts: 1,126	Self-indulgent? With polygamy and polyandry, there's no more jealousy, so at least one negative human trait has been erased...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.