Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

So your point is gay marriage. Good, great, grand. Go for it.

Can someone arrange a few tutorials on how to use the Search Function for KMC users? Badly!

No, I don't think paedophilia will ever be legal. Not sure about the other case, regardless of gay marriage or not. I don't really comment too much on this topic, but I will say it's fairly obvious that a major reason people want gay marriages legalised is for the tax benefit, in which the US refund will increase by probably 80% in their first year alone! Well, since many people reap this benefit, maybe everyone should.

I don't have a stance from the morality standpoint, just the financial one.

Is all this grand standing necessary in light of this topic having already been extensively covered in the ol' pink wedding thread?

Hmm, I also don't see the necessity of an additional thread discussing that topic or at least a topic closely related to it....

Recently, I've been thinking that the world needs to invent a new moral dilemma for people who frequent internet forums to debate. All the ones going on here have become pretty tired. Like tassels.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
Recently, I've been thinking that the world needs to invent a new moral dilemma for people who frequent internet forums to debate. All the ones going on here have become pretty tired. Like tassels. Yes...like.....on which side to open an egg or so...heard there have been wars about that....

What are you talking about, Bardock?!? As if there's a choice about what side of an egg to open! Everyone knows it must be done on the left! Silly.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
What are you talking about, Bardock?!? As if there's a choice about what side of an egg to open! Everyone knows it must be done on the left! Silly.


RIGHT I SAY....and with this statement I declare war on you...

Stupid right-sided-egg-opening individuals, you're all the same.

Ya Krunk'd Floo>Yes we are...but at least we go to heaven....

Oh yeah? Ha he ha! As if that twelve footed giraffe hasn't already proved the Christian God to be a tree. You should learn to love more discriminated-against white people.

Perhaps a more general approach to the question is in order.

How much emphasis can a society put on individual rights, without equal emphasis on personal responsibilities, before moral decline commences? I mean, if "I have the right...!" to do yada yada, but I do not take responsibility for my choices and the consequences, what does that do for moral development? Since the 1960s, has there been an overemphasis on rights w/o equal weight given to personal responsibility?

My feeling: Yes.

...

I'm kinda lost on the sodomy bit. Care to clarify, Omega?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
...

I'm kinda lost on the sodomy bit. Care to clarify, Omega?

I have an idea. In Germany what we call "sodomy" is defined as sex with animals. So I suppose she meant that....being Danish and all...

Originally posted by Ushgarak
...

I'm kinda lost on the sodomy bit. Care to clarify, Omega?
Sodomy means male/male sex, human/animal sex and heterosexual anal and oral sex if I'm not correct.

So it's safe to assume she's referring to human/animal sex.

morality is defined by the good things which we choose to do and the bad things
we choose not to do. it has nothing to do with what we are forced to do and what
we are forcefully withheld from doing.

I don't think the point of the thread is gay marriage, per se. I think the point is why people like Whob can't seem to separate one sexual act from another. It's kind of like that bullshit argument that kids who smoke pot will end up hooked on heroin. The slippery slope argument. Which is, of course, bullshit.

Granted, people like Whob and Sithsabre are of the opinion that their religion gives them the high ground position to deem what is right and wrong, morally...because in these overly political times, religion and morals are inseparable to so many. These days, there seems to be a popular opinion that morals and values are the brainchild of religion.

And to address the idea of the slippery slope is that these "morals and values" have imparted the hypocritical notion that all acts against their "morals and values" are equal. To this end, raping a child is just as bad as two adults of the same sex having consensual intercourse with each other. But the question, in the mind of these people, is: what's the difference between raping a child and having gay sex? I mean they're both sins of the flesh! And the answer provided by many people is consent, or lack of physical harm, etc. But, it doesn't matter to these people if the 10 year old boy being raped by his priest has consented to it or not. It's all a threat to their worldview. They think that before christianity came along, the world was a pit of disease, filth, bestiality, and child rape, non-enlightened, darkness. And, of course, that's all part of the propaganda of organized christianity.

And what about the people who profess this point of view who aren't religious? Well, rather than a threat to their worldview, it seems to present a threat to their idea of masculinity. The world is black and white, and apparently perpetually trapped in 1950 Nebraska. Men are beer drinking, car-obsessed, woman-disrespecting, female objectifying chauvinists. Women are dim-witted, man-fearing, sex-fearing, homebodies who are really just meant to bear children and please the man. And, maybe in many cases, these people cast society in these strict molds because they fear their own repressed feelings towards others of the same sex. I can't really speak to that. I'm sure some people do redirect, but I think the majority are just acting out of fear for something they can't understand.

Long story short, gay marriage is not threat to the religion of someone that is secure in that religion. And, gay marriage is no threat to the masculinity or femininity of a person who is secure in those aspects of their personality.

Sodomy = Moral.

Originally posted by Mindship
Perhaps a more general approach to the question is in order.

How much emphasis can a society put on individual rights, without equal emphasis on personal responsibilities, before moral decline commences? I mean, if "I have the right...!" to do yada yada, but I do not take responsibility for my choices and the consequences, what does that do for moral development? Since the 1960s, has there been an overemphasis on rights w/o equal weight given to personal responsibility?

My feeling: Yes.

Ah, definetely. The much abused freedom of speech comes to mind...

Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex.

Capt is right. My point was not just to support the rights of homosexuals, but to show the fallacy in UCFs assuming that giving this group of people the same rights as heterosexuals will lead to "moral decline and the end of civilisatioN" because by allowing one we'll slip down a slope to hell.
He also points to what sociologists call dichotomy: the splitting of a whole (here: humanity) into two non-overlapping parts (here: men and women).

By non-overlapping you have the idea, that if MEN are like "this", women must be the "opposite of this". If men like sex, women dislike sex. If women are tender, men are hard etc. etc. etc yadaa yadaa blah.
Or "you are either WITH us or AGAINST us," leaving no room for 60 % agreement but not entirely. Or the whole idea that some traits/feelings are masculine and others are feminine. Show me ONE feeling a man can have that a woman cannot have and vice versa...

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

And to address the idea of the slippery slope is that these "morals and values" have imparted the hypocritical notion that all acts against their "morals and values" are equal. To this end, raping a child is just as bad as two adults of the same sex having consensual intercourse with each other. But the question, in the mind of these people, is: what's the difference between raping a child and having gay sex?

Its not about morals--its the fact that they are both very biologically unsound and reprehensible sexual acts. Just like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and dendrophiliacs.

In fact, the "sexual" in "homosexual" should be changed to "philia", because that's exactly what being gay is--a form of philia.

"Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex"


That's definitely the unclear part then, because that's not what sodomy means in English. Sodomy is generally used to mean anal sex, though some States treat it as any 'unnatural' sex act.

Laws against homosexuals in the US are generally called 'anti sodomy' laws, and are normally separate from their laws against human/animal sex. You can see, therefore, that this makes your post highly confusing.

The term you want is bestiality.

-

And oh gosh, a 'philia'... somewhere in your warped educatiom, DB, did someone tell yu that 'philia' meant 'bad thing'? It means you like something.

Luckily, your first sentence pretty much ruled your comments out of the area of the rational and sane, in any case.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

And oh gosh, a 'philia'... somewhere in your warped educatiom, DB, did someone tell yu that 'philia' meant 'bad thing'? It means you like something.

Luckily, your first sentence pretty much ruled your comments out of the area of the rational and sane, in any case.

You mean my educatioN--with an 'N'? No, nothing was warped.

"Philia" means "like" in Greek--in English its used as preferring some form of abnormal sexual behavior

Originally posted by Bardock42
I have an idea. In Germany what we call "sodomy" is defined as sex with animals. So I suppose she meant that....being Danish and all...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its not about morals--

Then it's about your need to interfere with the behavior of another human being. You're disgusted by homosexuality, thus you're doing exactly what I said people like you do. You lump it in with all the other sex acts that are considered amoral. So, if it's not about morals, then it's about what? Biology? If it's not your biology, it's none of your buisness. And if you support the restriction of rights to a person or persons based on their constituionally protected right to freedom, then you don't really understand the country in which you live. You're basically saying that homosexuality is a mental disorder. So, despite the science that has proven it is not, you want to lump it in with child moelstation and beastiality. And that practice, I've already addressed.

I'm sure everyone here is totally impressed with your manliness. In fact, you're so straight, I'd like to be just like you. You're so tough, I can't imagine how you have time to post your opinion on the internet because of all the p*ssy you must be getting.

"A child has no concept of love the way adults have."

Define "Child", becuase if it's the definition I think it is, you're most defintely wrong on grounds of generalization.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
If it's not your biology, it's none of your buisness.

Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

Ush> Bestiality? Ok, thanks...
(Darn, can't edit my first post...)

NineCoronas> A child as in before adolescence. A child cannot FALL in LOVE the way adults do.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."


Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person or a goat, I couldn't care less. It's none of my buisness.

I'll believe that.

Some very left leaning judges are giving child molesters probation or short sentences because they believe these people suffer from a disease. I don't believe that. Do rapists, murders, drug dealers and abusers suffer from a disease. This country is all about excusing horrible behavior. It's time people started taking responsibility for their actions and get punished. The people that are victims of crime seem to be losing their right to the people committing the crimes. Just so everybody know, I'm a registered independent.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."
No, because dead people or animals cannot give consent. Two homosexual adults on the other hand, can.

I think that hanging the toilet paper underhand is immoral and is causing the destruction of society. That and when people run out and end up wiping with kleenex and flushing it down, then you have to spend fifteen ****ing minutes with the plunger. Thats serious deviant behavior. Not to mention the dickholes who use your bath towels.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Its not about morals--its the fact that they are both very biologically unsound and reprehensible sexual acts. Just like pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and dendrophiliacs.

In fact, the "sexual" in "homosexual" should be changed to "philia", because that's exactly what being gay is--a form of philia.

I could say the same thing about circumcision, but I unlike you I don't believe in shoving my views down the throats of other jews, not to mention muslims and americans no matter how much scientific data there is to backup that claim (and there's enough to fill a warehouse).
Why don't you just live and let live and stop judging other people like a pussy.

DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.

Do you even KNOW what philia means?
I thought not...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Fine then--Let's legalize bestiality and necrophilia, after all it doesn't interfere with your life and "it's none of your business."

Exactly.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega
DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.

Well, I think that the problem really comes when one considers the situation on the flip side of the law. Necrophilia is illegal. So, were the laws to be removed, forget the act being made legal...just not addressed by the law, he's proceeding under the assumption that the number of cases of necrophilia would skyrocket. That's ridiculous. Anyone out there that is sleeping with dead bodies or goats isn't thinking about the law when they do it.

The law is NOT keeping people who partake in these activities from doing them. They are simply the legislative equivilent of condenming them. And beyond that we get into morals.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person or a goat, I couldn't care less. It's none of my buisness.

Cool!--Now, I'm gonna buy some wine, roses, a Barry White CD, and then go straight to the morgue!

Originally posted by Eis
No, because dead people or animals cannot give consent. Two homosexual adults on the other hand, can.

So???? It's "none of your business" and it "doesn't affect your life"!

Originally posted by The Omega
DB> You're making the fallacy of ASSUMING that gay sex is biologically unsound and reprehensible.
You are yet to prove your standpoint or offer any evidence to support your assumption.


Ok then, why is fukking a five-year-old unsound and reprehensible? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Hey, you wanna fu*k a dead person That wouldn't be between 2 consenting adults would it???

Originally posted by debbiejo
That wouldn't be between 2 consenting adults would it???

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Cool!--Now, I'm gonna buy some wine, roses, a Barry White CD, and then go straight to the morgue!

You say that as if someone should then say "Hey, f*ck off, you can't do that."

The idea behind illegalisation of certain sexual acts is because of unwanted harm being the result. Eg: Rape, molestation and such.

On one hand a corpse isn't going to feel bad about you having sex with it, so the unwanted "harm" could be to its next of kin not wanting you to f*ck the dead body of their loved one. The rest is just moral. As long as it doesn't concern someone else's life, it's nobody's business but the person doing it. With necrophilia though, it almost always will be.

That said, it's for the family of the dead person to deal with. I don't care if you want to go having sex with someone's dead grandmother, up to you. I should think they'd care though. The point with necrophilia isn't necessarily to tell someone they can't do it is wrong, but you have to be the right person to do that, and have the right to do that. I don't have the right to tell you not to sleep with a dead body if it has nothing to do with me.

-AC

Ok then--what if I'm boning your dead grandmother?

your sick and need treatment, but you really aren't affecting anyone alive now huh except yourself.

What does that have to do with the rights of 2 living individuals and marriage anyway?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Cool!--Now, I'm gonna buy some wine, roses, a Barry White CD, and then go straight to the morgue!

So, you don't understand that the law is not preventing people from doing it? Do you honestly think that if necrophilia wasn't addressed by the law, there would be people screwing corpses in the street? What, do you think funeral homes are going to become, postmortem brothels by night?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Ok then--what if I'm boning your dead grandmother? If two people are meant to be together, it will happen........

Well there is such thing as a living will........"Do with me what you want until I rot".........lol

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Ok then--what if I'm boning your dead grandmother?

Did you not read my post? Do so, it helps on a discussion forum.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The point with necrophilia isn't necessarily to tell someone they can't do it is wrong, but you have to be the right person to do that, and have the right to do that. I don't have the right to tell you not to sleep with a dead body if it has nothing to do with me.

-AC

Whether I think it's sick or not, if it doesn't affect me, what does it have to do with me? Nothing at all.

If it's my grandmother, I obviously would have a say, being family and close kin. I don't personally believe intervening with someone's wishes to act out necrophilia is wrong, but you have to have a right to intervene. I have no right to intervene if you wish to sleep with some random guy's dead mother, but he does.

-AC

Originally posted by debbiejo
If two people are meant to be together, it will happen........

That was actually funny...what's up with that.

Originally posted by Soleran
What does that have to do with the rights of 2 living individuals and marriage anyway?

Ok, then an adult should be able to marry a kid or a dog--they're both living.

Originally posted by Soleran
your sick and need treatment

^ My point exactly, just like people who fukk childred, animals, trees, and others of the same sex.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Did you not read my post? Do so, it helps on a discussion forum.



Whether I think it's sick or not, if it doesn't affect me, what does it have to do with me? Nothing at all.

If it's my grandmother, I obviously would have a say, being family and close kin. I don't personally believe intervening with someone's wishes to act out necrophilia is wrong, but you have to have a right to intervene. I have no right to intervene if you wish to sleep with some random guy's dead mother, but he does.

-AC

I did read your entire post--I was adressing you personally.

And you wouldn't like it--that's my point.

.........Trees??........You don't need consent from trees???........They're alway Willow to do it.......and Pining away....I've heard there are an apple supply of them......I always see them Pear off anyway when were not looking......

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Ok, then an adult should be able to marry a kid or a dog--they're both living.



Your adding pieces to this puzzle that just don't belong. Two adults of sound mind and desicion making shouldn't be compared to a dog or a kid, its the most absurd comparison for this discussion.

Two adults making a choice to become legal partners or whatever is significantly different then the "moral" choices you are presenting in an attempt to present to create a moral dilema here ie kids, dogs etc etc.
If you want to do a comparison do it apples to apples.

Where's the infamous and legendary "Humans Having Sex With Animals?" thread when you need it?

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Ok, then an adult should be able to marry a kid or a dog--they're both living.



^ My point exactly, just like people who fukk childred, animals, trees, and others of the same sex.
Oh Jesus, do you not understand the fact that for a human to engage in a sexual act with another human, both humans need to want to engage in the particular sexual act?
Animals, children and dead people cannot give consent.

How ****ing hard is this to understand?

Originally posted by botankus
Where's the infamous and legendary "Humans Having Sex With Animals?" thread when you need it?


I thought we just click on your sig and it linked us to it

A cat in heat can most certainly give consent!!

Originally posted by Soleran
I thought we just click on your sig and it linked us to it
Sorry, but the horse in my sig - that's as far as he goes. As for the legendary thread, I believe the second to last page had one of the most f***ed up posts I've ever seen. About some deranged chick who walked in on her boyfriend doing the dog or something like that and he wanted a 3-some...I can't remember all the details.

Originally posted by botankus
A cat in heat can most certainly give consent!! I seen that in real life..........IT'S TRUE.........They don't even care if it's another cat..........I've seen them get turned on by people.......and it's sooo embarrassing...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I did read your entire post--I was adressing you personally.

And you wouldn't like it--that's my point.

You didn't read it or you didn't understand it, that's a fact. It's a fact because if you did you wouldn't have asked the question as it was answered within.

I wouldn't like it happening to MY dead grandmother, but that's MY right to say to you "I don't want you doing that." It's not some random person's right to tell you not to. It's my dead grandmother, not theirs.

I haven't got the right to tell you not to sleep with another person's dead grandmother, I couldn't care less. The person- for want of a relevent term- related to the corpse would have the right, not me. The only person who has the right to react to it is the person involved.

Third time I've said it now, this is precisely why debates go nowhere. Takes about a month for people to grasp a point.

-AC

Maximallists are dumb

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Third time I've said it now, this is precisely why debates go nowhere. Takes about a month for people to grasp a point.

-AC

It isn't the month it takes for them to grasp the point. It's the split second it takes for them to ignore and dismiss it completely.

I'd agree, but I'm starting to think that it's genuinely a lack of ability to understand any point less subtle than a shotgun blast that's spreading through KMC's populace, as opposed to getting it and ignoring it.

-AC

Maybe I give people too much credit.

That and the fact he disagrees with the same sex marriage piece so vehemently he would ignore most reasonable posts anyway and show completely obtuse examples to justify his position.

I honestly thought it was common knowledge that Bullets possesses disturbingly extreme misogynistic, sexist and homophobic views.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I honestly thought it was common knowledge that Bullets possesses disturbingly extreme misogynistic, sexist and homophobic views.

-AC

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And what about the people who profess this point of view who aren't religious? Well, rather than a threat to their worldview, it seems to present a threat to their idea of masculinity. The world is black and white, and apparently perpetually trapped in 1950 Nebraska. Men are beer drinking, car-obsessed, woman-disrespecting, female objectifying chauvinists. Women are dim-witted, man-fearing, sex-fearing, homebodies who are really just meant to bear children and please the man.

Oh, I understand that.

Precisely.

-AC

Didn't AIDS originate from homosexual intercourse?

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Didn't AIDS originate for homosexual intercourse?

for? As in "AIDS cures *******"?

Actually I heard, and now I don't know the facts, that AIDS originated because a guy decided sleeping with a monkey and then going ahead sleeping with everything else that moves would be a good idea.

Corrected post.

Originally posted by Bardock42
for? As in "AIDS cures *******"?

Actually I heard, and now I don't know the facts, that AIDS originated because a guy decided sleeping with a monkey and then going ahead sleeping with everything else that moves would be a good idea.

There's 2 prevailing theories as to the origin of AIDS.

1) It was created by a scientist in a lab for population control.

2) It's borne in the saliva of a certain Baboon species that bit a gay airplane attendant (patient zero) who then spread it to others--who spread it to others, and so on......

Gays and junkees are the most likely carriers of the disease.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Didn't AIDS originate from homosexual intercourse?

No, but it definitely seems like it did.

Originally posted by The Omega
This has nothing to do with humans sleeping with monkeys, but humans either EATING them or being scratched by them.

It was such a nice story though.....

Originally posted by Bardock42
for? As in "AIDS cures *******"?

Actually I heard, and now I don't know the facts, that AIDS originated because a guy decided sleeping with a monkey and then going ahead sleeping with everything else that moves would be a good idea. I've also read the same.........

Though there is a conspiracy theory involving the government.......Ah oh..

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you don't understand that the law is not preventing people from doing it? Do you honestly think that if necrophilia wasn't addressed by the law, there would be people screwing corpses in the street? What, do you think funeral homes are going to become, postmortem brothels by night?

I found this post amusing. I'm stealing it for my profile quotes.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I found this post amusing. I'm stealing it for my profile quotes.

Shawn Bradley is the tallest guy in teh NBA.

That quote is old. Sue me.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
That quote is old. Sue me.

I'll consider it. But it seems the mistake is on my side...it seems Shawn Bradley doesn't play in the NBA anymore.....

I honestly don't keep up with professional sports. If I wanted to see large groups of people overexerting themselves for something as fruitless as getting the goal or the point with even more people watching, I'd come here.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I honestly don't keep up with professional sports. If I wanted to see large groups of people overexerting themselves for something as fruitless as getting the goal or the point with even more people watching, I'd come here.

Ha...good ione.....one for the profile quotes

Yeah, good point. *Stuffs it in profile*

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Actually, the group with the higest number of newly reported cases is black women between 18 and 30.

THat may be, but the arguement was that Homosexuals are the largest group already having the disease....

Originally posted by Bardock42
THat may be, but the arguement was that Homosexuals are the largest group already having the disease....

Considering homosexuals are not a species unto themselves, I would imagine the comparative ratio of gay people to straight people is far less. There for, who has more occurances of the disease? Straight people of any age/race or gay people of any age/race?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Considering homosexuals are not a species unto themselves, I would imagine the comparative ratio of gay people to straight people is far less. There for, who has more occurances of the disease? Straight people of any age/race or gay people of any age/race?

Yes, that was the question....I don't know, I'm not familiar with any of those statistics.

The Omega>I was only referring to this statement...

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Gays and junkees are the most likely carriers of the disease.

...wich Capt quoted, and whioch claims that Homosexuals are the largest group infected with HIV....or maybe that the percentage is the largest....

The Statistics is sadly of no use since it doesn't show a split between Hetero-, Homo, and Bisexual people.

Bardock> Oh, ok. Sorry, didn't see that one.

" 19th March 2003 - New research from Isis Research, an independent healthcare market research agency, finds that far from being a disease that affects homosexuals and drug users, 51% of newly diagnosed HIV patients in Europe are in fact heterosexual against just 36% homosexual. As a result of this shift, the number of females being diagnosed with HIV is fast catching up with the number of males."
http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/education/education%20-%20HIV%20-%20AIDS.htm

I do not know the actual homo/hetero-rate. The thing is, that it has become an epidemic by epidemiological (?) standards, and if society continues to treat this as a "gay disease" we'll be getting no where. If action is not taken, we risk tb and measles because the background-population immune-system is lowered.

Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock> Oh, ok. Sorry, didn't see that one.

" 19th March 2003 - New research from Isis Research, an independent healthcare market research agency, finds that far from being a disease that affects homosexuals and drug users, 51% of newly diagnosed HIV patients in Europe are in fact heterosexual against just 36% homosexual. As a result of this shift, the number of females being diagnosed with HIV is fast catching up with the number of males."
http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/education/education%20-%20HIV%20-%20AIDS.htm

I do not know the actual homo/hetero-rate. The thing is, that it has become an epidemic by epidemiological (?) standards, and if society continues to treat this as a "gay disease" we'll be getting no where. If action is not taken, we risk tb and measles because the background-population immune-system is lowered.

I am wondering what the other 13% are....

The rest I agree....it obviously is not a "gay-disease"....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am wondering what the other 13% are....


Junkees.

I asked the question out of my own self-aware ignorance. That was the only theory I had heard. Excuse me for having not heard of any other possibilty.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Junkees.

Oh yeah..I remember, the three sexualities...hetero, homo and junkie.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh yeah..I remember, the three sexualities...hetero, homo and junkie.

The other 13% are due to drug use--NOT sexual activity.

Originally posted by The Omega
I do not know the actual homo/hetero-rate. The thing is, that it has become an epidemic by epidemiological (?) standards, and if society continues to treat this as a "gay disease" we'll be getting no where. If action is not taken, we risk tb and measles because the background-population immune-system is lowered.

Now maybe I'm just ignorant but anywhere I have lived in the past 15 years hasn't addresses HIV nor AIDS as a gay problem but a world problem. What would be interesting to read is how many of the newly infected individuals practiced safe sex and how many had multiple partners in a short time period Hetero or Homo I don't care it does require everyone think before taking action.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
The other 13% are due to drug use--NOT sexual activity.

But that doesn't make sense...since junkies are also either hetero or homo (or bi) ... so the wording is certainly weird....

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am wondering what the other 13% are....

The rest I agree....it obviously is not a "gay-disease"....

That's a good question, homes. Dirty needles aren't as prevalent as they were in the 80's and 90's. Now a days, tattoo parlors are as sterile as an emergency room, so that's really no longer an issue either.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
No, but it definitely seems like it did.

Anyone having problems grasping the magnitude of this?

So, you know AIDS doesn't come from homosexual intercourse, but...it still seems like it did...?

How do you come up with this? You KNOW that it's false, but you continue to claim otherwise. Why? Because you'd liked it to have come from homosexuals having sex?

If I fall down the stairs and end up battered and bruised, then a cop comes over and asks me if I got beat up, do I say:

"No, I fell down the stairs." or "No, but it seems like I did."?

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anyone having problems grasping the magnitude of this?

So, you know AIDS doesn't come from that, but...it still seems like it did...?

-AC Not really, no.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Anyone having problems grasping the magnitude of this?

So, you know AIDS doesn't come from homosexual intercourse, but...it still seems like it did...?

How do you come up with this? You KNOW that it's false, but you continue to claim otherwise. Why? Because you'd liked it to have come from homosexuals having sex?

If I fall down the stairs and end up battered and bruised, then a cop comes over and asks me if I got beat up, do I say:

"No, I fell down the stairs." or "No, but it seems like I did."?

-AC

-AC

I was referring to the fact that its so commonly associated with homosexuals.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Not really, no.

Was sort of aimed at those with logic, but it's fine to join in.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I was referring to the fact that its so commonly associated with homosexuals.

Yet you are fully aware that it's a misconception...so why reference it? If someone tries to connect the birth of AIDS and homosexual intercourse, you should be willing so say "That's incorrect."

It's no more ok to go by that misconception than any other.

-AC

Since when do I not have logic?

Since you clearly didn't pick up what the problem was with saying:

"No, it didn't come from homosexual intercourse, but...it seems like it does."

Since 'round about that time.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Since you clearly didn't pick up what the problem was with saying:

"No, it didn't come from homosexual intercourse, but...it seems like it does."

Since 'round about that time.

-AC

Actually...

Not really, no.

Was aimed specifically at:

Anyone having problems grasping the magnitude of this?

I was fully aware that the "magnitude" you spoke of was in reference to people misconceptualizing that people believe AIDs came from Homosexuality.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Actually...

Not really, no.

Was aimed specifically at:

Anyone having problems grasping the magnitude of this?

I was fully aware that the "magnitude" you spoke of was in reference to people misconceptualizing that people believe AIDs came from Homosexuality.

I was actually referring to the magnitude of sheer...well...stupidity that it takes to make a comment such as that.

You assumed wrong.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Was aimed specifically at:


I was actually referring to the magnitude of sheer...well...stupidity that it takes to make a comment such as that.

You assumed wrong.

-AC

Oh, well then since I'm clearly in the wrong here, please enlighten me so I may understand how I assumed wrong, what I assumed, and how I may correct myself to avoid being wrong in the future whenever you and I are posting in the same thread.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

I was actually referring to the magnitude of sheer...well...stupidity that it takes to make a comment such as that.

You assumed wrong.

-AC

Oh come on now....

Enlighten you to what? I told you what I meant. You don't get why that comment was extremely stupid?

His point was "It seems like homosexual intercourse spawned AIDS because that's what people thing, it didn't though." How can it seem like it then? Must be looking through really foggy glasses.

-AC

Thank you. I get it now.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Enlighten you to what? I told you what I meant. You don't get why that comment was extremely stupid?

His point was "It seems like homosexual intercourse spawned AIDS because that's what people thing, it didn't though." How can it seem like it then? Must be looking through really foggy glasses.

-AC

The thing is that this was not what you were talking about:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Since you clearly didn't pick up what the problem was with saying:

"No, it didn't come from homosexual intercourse, but...it seems like it does."

Since 'round about that time.

-AC

He actually agreed with you. While you thought he disagreed with you.

No problem, or hard feelings (on my part at least).

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't get why that comment was extremely stupid?

He did, and so did the rest of us.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Thank you. I get it now.

Wait... except that wasn't his point. He was pointing out it was commonly misconceptualized as that.

Are you looking through foggy glasses?

WHAT?

Originally posted by Bardock42
WHAT? WHAT!?

NineCoronas was asking me about my point, I explained my point.

DiamondBullets meant one thing and said another, if he meant something he didn't say or worded it in bad context, I can't do much about that. I'm good, I'm not psychic.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
NineCoronas was asking me about my point, I explained my point.

DiamondBullets meant one thing and said another, if he meant something he didn't say or worded it in bad context, I can't do much about that. I'm good, I'm not psychic.

-AC

Yes I understand that...I was under the impression he did as well...oh well, seems I was wrong....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes I understand that...I was under the impression he did as well...oh well, seems I was wrong.... Lot's of things go over my head.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
I asked the question out of my own self-aware ignorance. That was the only theory I had heard. Excuse me for having not heard of any other possibilty.

no, excuse you for not educating yourself. Educating ourselves is the only path to true understanding of what's going on around us.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I was referring to the fact that its so commonly associated with homosexuals.

no, you were referring to the fact that YOU associate it with homosexuals

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
no, excuse you for not educating yourself. Educating ourselves is the only path to true understanding of what's going on around us. That is why I asked in the first place.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
Didn't AIDS originate from homosexual intercourse?

Note the bold area's of that quote. I asked a Question... to educate myself.

You said "Didn't", not "Did."

"Didn't" implies asking a question for confirmation of something you already thought was true. Eg: "Didn't he murder someone?" as opposed to "Did he murder someone?".

No harm, no foul though.

-AC

Originally posted by The Omega
Ah, definetely. The much abused freedom of speech comes to mind...

Ush> What part of it did I not make clear enough? I meant what Bardock said. In Danish SODOMI means human/animal sex.

Capt is right. My point was not just to support the rights of homosexuals, but to show the fallacy in UCFs assuming that giving this group of people the same rights as heterosexuals will lead to "moral decline and the end of civilisatioN" because by allowing one we'll slip down a slope to hell.
He also points to what sociologists call dichotomy: the splitting of a whole (here: humanity) into two non-overlapping parts (here: men and women).

By non-overlapping you have the idea, that if MEN are like "this", women must be the "opposite of this". If men like sex, women dislike sex. If women are tender, men are hard etc. etc. etc yadaa yadaa blah.
Or "you are either WITH us or AGAINST us," leaving no room for 60 % agreement but not entirely. Or the whole idea that some traits/feelings are masculine and others are feminine. Show me ONE feeling a man can have that a woman cannot have and vice versa...

Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.

I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals, seeing as how their underlying agenda adheres to the logic that an individual's own needs are more important than the needs of the society that they live in.

It actually frightens me greatly to see that many societies are headed in this "relativistic" direction. If you think the past 5 years have been rough in this world, things are only going to get worse from here as this warped philosophical life doctrine becomes the dominant one in the coming years.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.

I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals, seeing as how their underlying agenda adheres to the logic that an individual's own needs are more important than the needs of the society that they live in.

It actually frightens me greatly to see that many societies are headed in this "relativistic" direction. If you think the past 5 years have been rough in this world, things are only going to get worse from here as this warped philosophical life doctrine becomes the dominant one in the coming years.

I agree with 99.9% of what you have posted. However, that outside 0.1% refers to my rejection of your 'philosophical life' phrase. If you changed it to 'religious ideology', then you'd be right on the money, dog.

The needs of society are similarly relative at any given time.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Basically the whole subject to this thread can be brought down to the simple argument of absolute truth vs moral relativity.

No it can't.

There are Absolutists that would support Omega's view.

Also, there is no argument between "absolute truth vs moral relativity", that is mixing your debates. It is perfectly possible to believe in both, in which case you would think that the fact that morals, in particular, are relative would be an absolute truth.

I know you like to mix the two, but that is just another one of your fallacies.

So you refer to the argument between absolute and relative morals, but why you assume that all absolutists would come down against Omega, which is the necessary pre-requisite for your statement about this being the core of the debate being true, is beyond me.

Oh wait! No it isn't, because as Ya has said, you have confused a broad philisophical stance with a rather specific (and unpleasant) religious one.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I find that those who subscribe to moral relativity are the more selfish individuals

That's the pot calling the kettle black! You want the whole world to think like you, act like you. It's ridiculously selfish! Society is made up of individuals. Not the other way around.

I don't think ANY form of marriage should be legally recognized. If someone wants to think of themselves as married, or have their religion recognize them as married then fine but there should be no legal benifits from the social contract of marriage. It discriminates against single people.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
I don't think ANY form of marriage should be legally recognized. If someone wants to think of themselves as married, or have their religion recognize them as married then fine but there should be no legal benifits from the social contract of marriage. It discriminates against single people.

I can agree with that for the most part. However, there are legal rights that go along with a government recognized marriage. But, I agree with your opinion on taxes.

Originally posted by The Omega
I am not arguing relative vs. absolute morals.
Man, I am a little tired of the dichotomy posed by some debaters. This constant EITHER-OR. The world is NOT black or white.


By disagreeing with me you're only further demonstrating the validity of the "dichotomy" which you speak of, seeing as how you are currently taking an "EITHER - OR" stance while presenting your position.

If you truly want to break from the "BLACK OR WHITE", then you will frequently entertain the possibility of views in opposition to your own as being correct. Unfortunately like most Relativists, you will never do this, which demonstrates why the whole philosophy of Relativism is illogical and silly to begin with.

The only other position that I know of presented by Relativist's to break from these dichotomous molds, is the "No one can be certain of anything" argument, which once again, contradicts itself by maintaining the inherent "certainty" involved with one being "uncertain."

It's silly-confusing-twisted logic, which has been proved to be illogical and self refuting multiple times. So again Omega..you're just reiterating the same old tired drivel that's been done countless other times and presented in countless different ways.

I recommend you check out the Prove to me that 2+2 does not equal thread in the philosophy forum. To see another interpretation of this age old argument.

I'm still waiting for a few people in this forum to explain to me how one's ability to "doubt" or be "uncertain" can change an "empirical truth."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
By disagreeing with me you're only further demonstrating the validity of the "dichotomy"

Well, aren't you self serving. Not only are you self serving, but hypocritical.

Whob> Make some sense, will you? Don't use words and phrases you have no understanding of. It makes your points look stupid.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
By disagreeing with me you're only further demonstrating the validity of the "dichotomy" which you speak of, seeing as how you are currently taking an "EITHER - OR" stance while presenting your position.

If you truly want to break from the "BLACK OR WHITE", then you will frequently entertain the possibility of views in opposition to your own as being correct. Unfortunately like most Relativists, you will never do this, which demonstrates why the whole philosophy of Relativism is illogical and silly to begin with.

The only other position that I know of presented by Relativist's to break from these dichotomous molds, is the "No one can be certain of anything" argument, which once again, contradicts itself by maintaining the inherent "certainty" involved with one being "uncertain."

It's silly-confusing-twisted logic, which has been proved to be illogical and self refuting multiple times. So again Omega..you're just reiterating the same old tired drivel that's been done countless other times and presented in countless different ways.



Its ironic and true.

Originally posted by The Omega
Whob> Make some sense, will you? Don't use words and phrases you have no understanding of. It makes your points look stupid.

That means it's time for a "Fin", a smilie or an owned pic.

Oh... eh... okay...

FIN! (Wonders what the Finnish people have to say about this)...

Originally posted by The Omega
Oh... eh... okay...

FIN! (Wonders what the Finnish people have to say about this)...

Don't be ridiculous...you can't use a computer in a sauna.


Also, this Thread Title strikes me as very wrong (now after looking at it for the 50th time) ...I am not willed to think about why...

I think it should have been "and".

Too bad it isn't a poll.

I think it should have been "Do personal liberties cause moral decline? ...no they don't!"

Or that, yes.