Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false.
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
Given that the poster supported his claim with evidence - if you think he is wrong then some counter-evidence would help.
Quote:
And yet it’s still wrong, no matter the context.
OK - and it's wrong because.....?
Quote:
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
OK - but then how do we reconcile treason and free speech under the constitution, which was the example under discussion. It appears that you are arguing that passing secrets to the enemy cannot be illegal, since it would break the right of free speech. Did you mean that? If so, isn't that a bit of a problem?
I think that multi-quoting is fine, as long as context is maintained, and I agree that it helps. I think that the main concern rather is that you don't really appear to be addressing most of the arguments being presented, and simple naysaying is not furthering the conversation.
To be more specific from the exchange above, since you asked for examples:
Given that the poster supported his claim with evidence - if you think he is wrong then some counter-evidence would help.
OK - and it's wrong because.....?
OK - but then how do we reconcile treason and free speech under the constitution, which was the example under discussion. It appears that you are arguing that passing secrets to the enemy cannot be illegal, since it would break the right of free speech. Did you mean that? If so, isn't that a bit of a problem?
An assertion, but definitely not an argument of any kind. Could you elaborate on why the statement that you were commenting on is a delusion?
He certainly doesn't quote me in context and that was what i was referring to, selected part of a sentences leaving off salient parts. I frankly cannot read most of his long multi quote threads to to others as i fall asleep so I am, not sure if he does or does not quote in context.
Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false.
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
You said your lies for the purpose of damage, so that’s pretty much it.
And yet it’s still wrong, no matter the context.
Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech...
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
The biggest delusion yet.
Why do you believe that lies and logical fallacies are an actual argument?
"Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false."
The very first sentence is: "Win or lose in this instance - it really doesn't matter." I don't see how it is false. Since you refuse to elaborate, I have nothing to add.
"You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs."
Cyrus the Great is not a useful example of identity along the political conservative-progressive spectrum, and therefore that would be a pretty hollow laughter. As to where conservative thought stood historically, we have the record. Certainly as pertains to the U.S., as with the specific examples I gave - my position remains unmoved for the very simple reason that you gave no arguments that would provide grounds for such movement.
"The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals."
An assertion with no supporting arguments.
And so on with the rest of your responses - as here, in response to my observation that there seems to be a lack of provable harm from gay sexual activity between consenting adults:
"The biggest delusion yet."
Snippy responses that don't rise above "nah-ah", with zero supporting argument, as if you'd really like for the other guy to do all the work, while you contribute nothing but "nah-ah". The thing is though, that people have done the work - as in all the cases I cited where teams of lawyers attempted to show such harm, and all were found pitifully wanting, with not a single sustainable point... and the courts ruled accordingly. In face of that, merely saying "nah-ah" is really adding absolutely nothing to the case for finding "harm".
As a debating technique, you may find that your responses demand zero effort on your part, but correspondingly the value to readers is also zero.
And since you don't have the courtesy nor gumption to actually engage in good-faith argumentation, I think you might find it instructive to find that you get out exactly what you put in. In other words, if I bother responding to you at all - insofar as there is a response at all - I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
Well, there's an example of where religion - a belief system that's not based on science - has led you astray: you seem to think that "being gay is a choice". Had you paid attention to science instead, you'd know that homosexual behavior is very widespread in the animal kingdom, and f.ex. penguins don't one day decide to "be gay". Same for humans - including you. You didn't one day make a choice to "be straight" (assuming you are straight), and the gay person didn't one day wake up and decide to be gay (especially those gay people who never even heard of "gay", but experienced those feelings completely puzzling to them). It's not a choice.
You are also wrong that ""Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with" - your religious rights are civil rights. See f.ex.:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference."
So you are wrong on what "civil rights" are. Religion is not an "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - yet it most definitely is a civil right.
If anything, if we were to go with your definition of civil rights - "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - gay would be a civil right and religion would not. How do you like 'em apples?
"However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear."
I would like to draw your attention to the U.S. constitution. We have separation of church and state and just because you believe something or other about God, is not grounds for making a law that applies to gay people, or atheists, or any U.S. citizen for that matter. If you have to start an argument based on "bible" or "god" or anything, please understand that such a justification is irrelevant legally.
"To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God."
Quite apart from the fact that "god" is a mythological creation, and has no bearing on U.S. law, you are quite mistaken as to marriage being "defined" once and for all (by "god" no less) and it not being possible for man to "redefine" it. Marriage has been continuously redefined through history. Constantly. Including when we redefined to allow black and white people to enter marriage (Loving vs Virginia). Please go back and read all those religious arguments by the opponents of black/white marriages - they too claimed "bible" on their side. More of the same nonsense. Now we allow men to marry men and women to marry women. No biggie - just another change in a constantly changing institution. It has never stopped changing and this is just more of it.
Anybody can read the bible any way they want, and because the bible - and religion - is not based on objective science - there is no way to say this interpretation is wrong and that one is right. The bible is also inherently contradictory. Which again means you can't objectively even prove any given interpretation. There are those who believe the bible advocates homosexuality - because Jesus had only bros as apostles and never had sexual relations with women, and by a careful interpretation, they derive the homosexula commandmant - go forth and be gay. As good an interpretation as its opposite. Which is why no sensible government tries to rule based on the bible. Use it for kindling, but not for lawmaking.
Atheism is just as much a belief system as any other religion. There are things that can't be proven or tested that they believe. I love science. And in fact, I am a computer scientist. It is all about your starting points you bring to the table. You see, we can apply the same scientific method with the same results, but come out with wildly different interpretations. Observable, repeatable tests are what produce our technology, medicine, machinery, new materials, etc. I am by no means opposed to that science, or rather known as observable science.
While Ill agree our government was never "Christian," the founding fathers saw the Bible as a good set of principles to base it on. So in that sense, it was a Christianized government (were those men not sensible?).
The Bible is not contradictory. One just needs to delve into the context of each verse in order to ascertain its true meaning. Answers in Genesis, actually has many articles dealing with most common "apparent" contradictions you speak of. There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions.
Many secular scientists have falsified data in order to facilitate their agenda, case in point would be climate change debacle a few years ago.
Personal preference is a choice. And a preference is changeable. The mind is malleable thing whereas you can't change your chromosomes. The argument for homosexuality as being unchangeable is a weak argument. My sister, has in fact, changed her sexual preference 2 times, for a total of 3 preferences. First men, then women, then transexual. This experience just illustrates that it is changeable, and therefor a choice.
Atheism is just as much a belief system as any other religion. There are things that can't be proven or tested that they believe. I love science. And in fact, I am a computer scientist. It is all about your starting points you bring to the table. You see, we can apply the same scientific method with the same results, but come out with wildly different interpretations. Observable, repeatable tests are what produce our technology, medicine, machinery, new materials, etc. I am by no means opposed to that science, or rather known as observable science.
While Ill agree our government was never "Christian," the founding fathers saw the Bible as a good set of principles to base it on. So in that sense, it was a Christianized government (were those men not sensible?).
The Bible is not contradictory. One just needs to delve into the context of each verse in order to ascertain its true meaning. Answers in Genesis, actually has many articles dealing with most common "apparent" contradictions you speak of. There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions.
Many secular scientists have falsified data in order to facilitate their agenda, case in point would be climate change debacle a few years ago.
Personal preference is a choice. And a preference is changeable. The mind is malleable thing whereas you can't change your chromosomes. The argument for homosexuality as being unchangeable is a weak argument. My sister, has in fact, changed her sexual preference 2 times, for a total of 3 preferences. First men, then women, then transexual. This experience just illustrates that it is changeable, and therefor a choice.
I am only responding to the opening statement here. If atheism is a belief system, is not believing in the tooth fairy one too?
Atheism is just as much a belief system as any other religion. There are things that can't be proven or tested that they believe. I love science. And in fact, I am a computer scientist. It is all about your starting points you bring to the table. You see, we can apply the same scientific method with the same results, but come out with wildly different interpretations. Observable, repeatable tests are what produce our technology, medicine, machinery, new materials, etc. I am by no means opposed to that science, or rather known as observable science.
If Atheism is a belief system, how would you describe those beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
While Ill agree our government was never "Christian," the founding fathers saw the Bible as a good set of principles to base it on. So in that sense, it was a Christianized government (were those men not sensible?).
And yet they saw it as important explicitly to separate church from state. Yes - they were sensible. No - it was not "Christianized".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
The Bible is not contradictory. One just needs to delve into the context of each verse in order to ascertain its true meaning. Answers in Genesis, actually has many articles dealing with most common "apparent" contradictions you speak of. There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions.
Why is it that answers to those kinds of criticism of the Bible always seem to avoid addressing the actual criticisms. Which answers deal with the "apparent" obvious contradictions?
"There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions". You may be right, but it may be the only book in that category, so the bar is not very high.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Many secular scientists have falsified data in order to facilitate their agenda, case in point would be climate change debacle a few years ago.
Firstly - how did you determine that they were secular scientists? Secondly - assuming that you are referring to the East Anglia allegations - I'm sure that you are aware that those allegations were exhaustively investigated and determined to be unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Personal preference is a choice. And a preference is changeable. The mind is malleable thing whereas you can't change your chromosomes. The argument for homosexuality as being unchangeable is a weak argument. My sister, has in fact, changed her sexual preference 2 times, for a total of 3 preferences. First men, then women, then transexual. This experience just illustrates that it is changeable, and therefor a choice.
Really? One anecdotal story about your confused sister leads you to extrapolate to a universal conclusion on the mechanism of sexual attraction? And you claim to be a scientist? Clueless.
Yet it was irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that killing people is a Christian doctrine.
I accurately quoted two different Christian translations of the Bible.
Here’s another quote: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)
The Old Testament traditions are ended (for Christians). There is a new covenant, and there are new laws. If you want to know more, there’s plenty on this topic.
EDIT: Whoop, forgot it at first. Sorry.
Under this article are a cesspool of comments with right-wing commenters celebrating his company's troubles as proof that liberalism, socialism, etc. are doomed to failure:
Fair enough. Without going into the validity of their arguments themselves, I’ll simply rhetort that don’t leftists do the same? Thanks for the cite.
It doesn't.It's only when it's a for-profit business that labor is required.
Wonderful. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who think that all work of any kind done anywhere in any context deserves payment. Therefore, does a for-profit business not have the right to restrict the work of its employees to that which would create profit? Banning–or firing for–other work?
Because society should not be subsidizing your business by helping to bear the cost of supporting your underpaid workers.
Agreeable, but if the work was not that which was conducive to the company–or work whose market forces deemed not to be worth increasing in value, as seems to be the case here–to do so means firings. Unless the company’s revenue came in under what it could have been based on what consumers would pay. But there you’re just indirectly subsidizing them by raising prices.
Should we start restoring the purchasing power of the dollar by requiring that McDonald’s go back to this pricing menu? Should we force gas stations to revert to these prices for gasoline and car washes?
We should enact changes to our system such that inflation is not a requirement for it to not collapse.
This isn't a problem with wages -- it's a problem with greed.
Hear hear. 100% agreed. And while you didn’t explicitly say so, I believe the surface problem lies with crony capitalism. But it’s neither the end nor the source. Banning crony capitalist practices wouldn’t fix the problem.
So inflation is growth now? I wonder if the cat thinks that the only means of growth is inflation. Then again, it’s a cat. Not sapient, after all.
If I missed something, tell me; Huddler screwed up the formatting and didn’t quote everything. I went back and grabbed everything, I think.
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Great post, but TS will quote snippets of what you type and answer them as if the partial quote is what you said.
Still waiting. Where I’m wrong, prove it. If I missed something you want to discuss, post it.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Given that the poster supported his claim with evidence - if you think he is wrong then some counter-evidence would help.
Sure. This hinges on the definition of conservatism, of course, but Cyrus the Great’s exploits were considered to be landmark in the case of human rights. How long does something have to exist before it’s a “conservative” value? To what scope does it have to be understood or practiced to no longer be “radical”?
If so, isn't that a bit of a problem?
Of course, if you want to keep those secrets. But as was pointed out, there is a specific clause in the Constitution that prohibits the behavior. My use of those two examples was in mockery of the fallacy he used in supporting his desires.
Again, this... really ought to be evident by the context in which my reply was found. Not to say you yourself had trouble with it, of course.
Originally Posted by FineWine
An assertion with no supporting arguments.
Then I’ll leave this point with a quote that sums it up nicely.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
What harm has been shown to be caused by two consenting adults engaging in homosexual activity in the privacy of their home?
Originally Posted by muppetry
Could you elaborate on why the statement that you were commenting on is a delusion?
Originally Posted by FineWine
I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
In direct reply to only the latter quote, I will only say, “Yuh-huh.”
Quickly, on the topic of another similar point which is not quoted here–that of choice–I will add:
If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.
ERROR.
Errors occur in nature all the time, and homosexuality is a perfect example of error. Somewhere in the brain of every homosexual a critical error has occurred. In what other situation is an error encouraged or rewarded as it is in homosexuality in today’s media? You may ask yourself how this error affects you. The answer is simple. Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?
Let us dissect the delusional phrase, “homosexuality is not a choice.”
First, we must establish some axioms and definitions.
– One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
– Biologically necessary activities or desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
– Desires are either biological or psychological in character; they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
– Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol’s sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban’s sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else. Therefore, habitual desires are the result of certain activities. Innate desires, however, are not.
– Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
– The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
– One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1) engages in homosexual activity, 2) has homosexual desires, or 3) has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity.
With these laid down, what follows is all possible propositions.
If (1): One engages in homosexual activity either A) voluntarily or involuntarily,
(1.A): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i) psychologically or ii) physically, by another, and homosexuality is not a choice.
(1.B.i):One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (2): One desires homosexuality either A) innately or habitually,
(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagement in homosexual activity, one is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill. Otherwise homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A): One is either i) able to refrain from satisfying these innate homosexual desires or ii) unable to refrain.
(2.A.i): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A.ii):One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (3): One either chooses to be homosexual or homosexuality is a mental illness.
Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities. However, that is not the end of the discussion. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is inherently self-destructive and causes self-harm. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is statistically one of the most self-harmful. Willful pursuit or practice of a behavior–or group of behaviors–that is inherently self-harmful is mental illness. Thus, all homosexuals are, definitionally, mentally ill.
In reply to the question at hand, hoo-doggy, here we go.
Throughout history, all civilizations had all major religions have condemned homosexuality. [1] In the American colonies, homosexual acts were a capital offense. Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality “should be punished: if a man, by castration; if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter as least.” [2] Until 1961, homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.
Gays claim that the “prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in the US and many other countries is revulsion and hostility… for acts and desires not harmful to anyone.” [3] The American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association assured the US Supreme Court in 1986 that “no significant data show that engaging in… oral and anal sex, results in mental or physical dysfunction.” [4]
The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two things stand out: 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as Harvard Medical Professor Dr. William Haseltine [33] noted in 1993, the “changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient. For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either reopened or were never closed.”
ORAL “SEX”: Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places, such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis . Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners [17][27]), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1,105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.
RECTAL “SEX”: Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, [3] gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse, the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient’s own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present [7]), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with “fisting,” where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum–bottles, carrots, even gerbils [8]). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such “sport” is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey’s time that he didn’t think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.
FECAL “SEX”: About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners, and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study, [5] 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity–half regularly over 6 months. Result? The “annual incidence of hepatitis A in… homosexual men was 22%, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A.” In 1992, [26] it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever, [9] herpes, and cancer. [27] About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in] feces. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80% are homosexual men… An average of 10% of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported… because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5% of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed. [10] In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco. [10] The US Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays. [11] A 1982 study “suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred.” [12]
URINE “SEX”: About 10% of Kinsey’s gays reported having engaged in “golden showers” [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted, [13] 23% admitted to urine sex. In the largest random survey of gays, 29% reported urine sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays [14] only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced “fisting,” 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.
OTHER PRACTICES: As the table indicates, a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. 25% of white gays [17] admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study, [30] 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engaged in homosexuality). Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14% [16] to 41% [13] to 66% [6] to 9% [16] to 60% [13] and 67% [5] reported sex in gay baths; 64% [16] and 90% [18] said that they used illegal drugs. Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin [15] reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex rate from 70 partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick [14] reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain, [32] the average was 42/yr. in 1989.
Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% to 78% [13] of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25% [18] to 39% [19] to 59%. [20] As of 1992, 83% of US AIDS in whites had occurred in gays. [21] The Seattle sexual diary study [3] reported that gays had, on a yearly average:
1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
2. exchanged saliva with 96;
3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
4. ingested fecal material from 19.
No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.
Smokers and drug addicts don’t live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.
Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 US homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. [23] The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity; the median age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men, the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.
The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.
2.8% of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident–a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened lifespan.
Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers, [21] but also from TB and new strains of other diseases. [24] Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk. [24] Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that “AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics… if AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them.” [28] At least 8, and perhaps as many as 30 [29] patients had been infected with HIV by healthcare workers as of 1992.
The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story. Imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces, and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places (bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so frequently, in other parts of the world.
Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country. [20] Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia, and fresh pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly visit the US and participate in this biological swapmeet.
Unfortunately, the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world. [27] Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals, and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior. [23] The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals. [10]
Society is legitimately concerned with health risks–they impact our taxes and everyone’s chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.
Homosexuals are mentally troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle.
References
1. Karlen A. Sexuality & Homosexuality, NY Norton, 1971
2. Pines B. Back to Basics, NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211
3. Weinberg G. Society & the Healthy Homosexual, NY St. Martin’s, 1972, preface
4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
5. Corey L. & Holmes, KK, Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men, New England Journal of Medicine, 1980302435- 38
6. Cameron P et. al., Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease, Nebraska Medical Journal, 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order "Psychological Reports," 1989, 64, 1167-79
7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984251 237-38
8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," The Reader (Chicago, 3/28186) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the S and Canada]
9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. New England Journal of Medicine, 19772961359-60
10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. New England Journal of Medicine, 19803024634
11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men -United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64
12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1982115599-607
13. Jay, K. & Young, A. The Gay Report. NY Summit, 1979
14. McKusick, L. et al _AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, "American Journal of Public Health," 1985 75493- 96
15. USA Today 11/21/84
16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A, The Kinsey Data, NY Saunders, 1979
17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. Homosexualities, NY Simon & Schuster 1978
18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kapos?s sarcoma. "Annals Of Internal Medicine," 198399145-51
19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1983309576-82
20. Biggar R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. "Journal Of The American Medical Association," 19842511441-46; "Wall Street Journal," 7/18/91, Bl
21. CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance, February 1993
22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. "American Journal Of Public Health," 199282220-24
23. Cameron, P., Playfair W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastem Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993
24. Dooley, W.W. et al. No socomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HRLinvected patients. "Journal of the _American Medical Association," 19922672632-35
25. Schechter M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. "Lancet," 198411293
26. Word, J. et al. Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive thinning. "Lancet," 1992339938
27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kap o s?s sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. "Lancet," 1992339632-35
28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92
29. Cie sielsld, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. "Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92
30. Rubin, S. "Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students." 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988. 31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. "Psychology Reports," 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for _AIDS and the general population in Denmark. "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1992135593-602
32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, "Geniourin Medicina," 1990 66;423-427
33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, CI.
In reply (though it is only relevant in the context of the OP alone), to the question of marriage equality, here’s a secular viewpoint since so many seem to discredit religion.
Marriage (civil union) as a government institution is designed to incentivize childbirth and attempt to ensure that children (future citizens) are raised in the most stable environment possible–that being a two parent, mother and father, household. This is because all studies of marriage and familial relationship through thousands of years of recorded human history prove said environment is the most nurturing and stable. As a government institution, gays have no claim to being recognized–nor is it unfairly discriminatory–since it seeks to create an outcome which gays simply cannot provide.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the parameters of that religion. Christian doctrine, for example, says gays cannot marry. Thus, they cannot, when considering marriage as a religious institution. This applies to any religion that does or does not allow gay marriage.
Marriage as a social institution merely proclaims mutual love between two people. This is unregulated and unaffected by legal institution. Anyone can say they’re married to anyone as long as the other party is consenting.
Essentially, gay marriage seeks to turn the institution into a purely social union, since government subsidized gay marriage is a tax drain. This will have cultural and societal implications once marriage is devalued.
Regarding marriage itself, the institution is not a human right. Nor is it definitionally an all-inclusive bastion of equality. See above for its definitions. Equality of race, an equally incorrect concept, does not imply that a caucasoid could claim to be an Australian aborigine to reap the benefits of assistance programs for aboriginal groups. Nor is marriage discrimination. The creation of a definition for a word in no way intends persecution of things to which the word does not apply.
The slippery slope fallacy is often brought up, by gays, as a means by which to discredit the belief that “normalizing” homosexual relationships will lead to the “normalization” of other universally incorrect behaviors. Those who oppose gay marriage are often called ‘bigots’ (without regard for the definition of the word), but those who oppose polygamy, incest, and pedophilia (even ephebophilia) are well within their rights to do so. Those who support these things are ‘crazy’ and even ‘mentally ill’, just as gays were until a vote in 1970 ignored the science of their affliction and removed them from the DSM. But if we are allowing gay marriage to be seen as “normal”, what right do gays have to restrict polygamists, incestuals, and pedophiles from receiving the same “equality”?
Homosexuals also use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that gays cannot see their ‘partners’ in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of these examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word ‘women’ to mean ‘men’ so that they could enter. Nor is it the job of the government to change the hospital’s policy. In a free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.
Homosexuals denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly deviating from its original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversion of that meaning? ‘Marriage’ has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?
Homosexuals claim that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays cannot reproduce. This, again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose–breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, and they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn’t.
Homosexuals will argue that they “deserve” the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or nonsexual relationships “deserve” said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits?
Finally, homosexuals will argue that their ability to marry will “not affect” heterosexual marriage or family values. However, this, again, does not prove anything about a necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion–fallacious, in this case, or otherwise–that the majority won’t be affected.
Now. Any questions? Either as to what I believe, what is correct, and why people hold such viewpoints?
If something’s wrong, I want it corrected. If something’s illogical, I want it pointed out. Literally all I care about is Truth. This isn’t my first day talking about this topic–or many others. I have more, too. This is just probably enough.
I’m always curt with such replies to these topics because this is an APPLE WEBSITE. I don’t care that Apple is related to the content of the OP; the fact that the content isn’t directly related to Apple means it should be posted in Political Outsider, if at all. There are plenty of better places to discuss such matters, though hey, I’m near enough to a complete wreck these days to not care anymore, I guess. So there you go.
EDIT: Hooray! First on the page! Right where I didn’t want this.
Then I’ll leave this point with a quote that sums it up nicely.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
– Thomas Sowell
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
Geez, that’s what happens when the quotes get so big; sorry. That was in reply to the conflagration of conservative and liberal values. He was claiming that modern conservatives are half one thing and half another, historically.
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
Geez, that’s what happens when the quotes get so big; sorry. That was in reply to the conflagration of conservative and liberal values. He was claiming that modern conservatives are half one thing and half another, historically.
OK thanks. And the thinking behind your "biggest delusion yet" comment, presumably, is summarized by your re-publication of Paul Cameron's Family Research Institute document? Do you regard him as a reliable source of information? Quite apart from his obviously non-objective approach to the subject, he appears to be almost entirely self-published, which is a huge red flag in research. On reflection those two observations are probably directly connected.
In reply to the insane drivel from Talest Skil: these are all talking points and references from completely discredited wingnuts, Family Research Council, Peter LaBarbera, and other religious wackos. It would be laughable if their "they eat the poopoo" rants wasn't actually used to push "kill the gays" laws in some African countries. Tallest Skil, you're a disgusting excuse for a human being.
Anything other than a genetic fallacy? Care to refute the sources or the logic of the statements themselves? I was hoping you’d be better than that. I neither know nor care who he is or what the organization is. I care about the content.
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin
Tallest Skil, you're a disgusting excuse for a human being.
Thanks. When you have any evidence that I believe in mass murder, feel free to post it. Until then, that’s just an ad-hom.
In direct reply to only the latter quote, I will only say, “Yuh-huh.”
You should really reconsider lifting so much via cut and paste from another person's article without crediting them. You only credited the author's sources. Beyond that the entire piece is terrible. It looks to tradition for reference and tries to apply an axiomatic approach to genetics. That is good for mathematics, because they help develop a formal framework and allow for consistent structures. It is not sensible here, and it really has nothing to do with the article.
Yet it was irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that killing people is a Christian doctrine.
I never wrote anything about Christianity when I posed that example. This is exactly what I wrote: "Your deeply held religious beliefs may direct you to stone to death the little old lady running the fortune telling business down the street ("A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27"), but that doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional right to do so protected by the First Amendment."
I didn't purport to know your actual religious beliefs at the time I wrote that nor did I allege, or believe, that passage to be part of your beliefs. It was a hypothetical.
The point that I was making was that the First Amendment is not absolute and without limits. I thought that was clear, but I apologize if it was not.
Quote:
The question is irrelevant to the point that you were discussing and the point that anyone else was making.
Let me explain the relevance. I created they hypothetical example above to illustrate that there are limits on the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion. You replied "That’s Jews (who don’t even believe their own book), by the way. Not Christians." So, naturally, I asked if you thought that the First Amendment did not offer the same protections to Jews as it does to Christians.
Again, the point isn't who believes what, it's that the First Amendment cannot be played as a religious trump card, giving carte blanche to do whatever one holds to be dictated by their religious beliefs.
Quote:
Fair enough. Without going into the validity of their arguments themselves, I’ll simply rhetort that don’t leftists do the same? Thanks for the cite.
Thank you for graciously acknowledging the point and the citation. I have trouble coming up with a true parallel, but I cannot imagine liberals being happy about a CEO facing hard times for any decision he made with a genuine intent on elevating the standard of living of his workers.
Quote:
Therefore, does a for-profit business not have the right to restrict the work of its employees to that which would create profit? Banning–or firing for–other work?
I do not believe that a company has a right to prohibit employees from doing volunteer work. That's a general principal, not a rule, as one could envision scenarios where the volunteer work was directly harmful to the company.
Quote:
Unless the company’s revenue came in under what it could have been based on what consumers would pay. But there you’re just indirectly subsidizing them by raising prices.
It's not a subsidy to pay the actual costs for American workers to manufacture goods and provide services. My concern is indirectly subsidizing businesses through taxes spent on social programs to benefit their underpaid workers.
Quote:
We should enact changes to our system such that inflation is not a requirement for it to not collapse.
I would be interested to know what specific changes you believe would accomplish that. Could you elaborate?
Most economists believe that low inflation rates (2%-5%) are not a problem so long as wages keep step. If the cost of living goes up by 4% per year and median wages also go up by 4%, there's not a problem. Low inflation is a sign of a healthy, growing economy. We've had low rates of inflation for about 30 years now:
What's more interesting is when we had negative inflation -- where the purchasing power of the dollar went up. That big red area of deflation starting around 1930 corresponds to the Great Depression.
"Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened."
– Thomas Sowell
This is so dumb, I must make sure I even understand what it is that you claim by this quotation in response to my assertion that it is "broadly conservatives who are in opposition to civil rights in any given era." As best as I can glean from this non-sequitur is that somehow it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who "destroyed slavery around the world". So, just a random example, was Lincoln - or John Brown - or any number of primary leaders in the abolitionist movement in f.ex. the U.S. "a businessman, a devout religious leader, or Western imperialist"? Oops.
But let us accept - purely for the sake of argument - that it was mostly those categories of people who "destroyed slavery" (absurd though it may be). Regardless, it surely is true that many "businessmen, devout religious leaders, and Western imperialists" were valiant abolitionists. Now, I guess the next step in this argument is that these categories of people were "conservatives, and therefore see - it was conservatives who destroyed slavery!". I think this is the argument - so idiotic, I can't be sure, but stranger things have happened.
Hmm. I don't know how to put it more politely, but - ehm, why, pray tell, are we saying that businessmen, devout religious leaders and "Western imperialists" (whoever those are) - are, you know, conservative just by dint of their business occupations or religion? Come again? I mean, I apologize if this sounds stupid, but I'm afraid this is the argument, n'est-ce pas?
So for example a business leader or businessman such as oh, you know, Tim Cook, or Steve Jobs, or Zuckerberg, or Benioff, or Soros, or any number of other businessmen - all conservatives?? Maybe that's true on some other planet, but on this one, businessmen can be liberals, or conservatives, or anything in between - whether today or 100 years ago. So some businessmen were abolitionists, were liberal, or held a liberal opinion about slavery.
Devout religious leaders - you are aware that there are and always have been are very liberal denominations out there, some of which undoubtedly were abolitionist, and that there are of course some that are quite conservative and have fought to preserve slavery. For example the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. was firmly in favor of slavery:
But on the other hand, Quakers and Methodists were certainly no less devout and they opposed slavery.
In other words - spoiler alert! - "devout religious leader" does not make you a conservative - you could be a liberal, or hold a liberal position such as anti-slavery.
Western Imperialists - even some of those have had liberal views on some matters. For example, many high officials who served in Imperial administrations were liberals - George Orwell (who was a leftist) served in the British imperial administration of India, and it was a liberal British administrator of India who pushed through the prohibition on widow-burning in India. Certainly people like them, although they've served in occupying imperial forces were liberals, and not conservatives. It takes all kinds. When a businessman etc. expresses a liberal opinion, well, that makes them - surprise, surprise - a liberal!
So that argument is completely idiotic and ahistorical. Of course it comes from Thomas Sowell, so no surprise. When I saw that name, a great sadness came over me - because I realized that Tallest Skil, is "one of those". It's like someone who makes all sorts of claims about astronomy and then to bolster their claims they cite the leader of the Flat Earth Society. It kind of takes the joy out of talking to such a person. Be that as it may, I dutifully addressed myself to the argument, such as it was, rather than the sad figure of non-authority that is Thomas Sowell.
Anything other than a genetic fallacy? Care to refute the sources or the logic of the statements themselves? I was hoping you’d be better than that. I neither know nor care who he is or what the organization is. I care about the content.
Understood, but not my subject. In such cases my starting point is to assess the credibility of the author in his or her field. Cameron appears to have none, has actively campaigned, politically, in the areas that he purports to research, casting serious doubts on his impartiality, has been investigated for ethics violations, and seems unable to publish. The document that you copied was not a structured argument - just a series of comments on other researchers' data, clearly selected to support his position for which he appears to have little or no professional support.
I do not believe that a company has a right to prohibit employees from doing volunteer work. That's a general principal, not a rule, as one could envision scenarios where the volunteer work was directly harmful to the company.
Oh, I’m talking about work on company time. And a lack of productivity is harm, even if the work that IS done is relevant.
It's not a subsidy to pay the actual costs for American workers to manufacture goods and provide services.
What if the prices are artificially inflated beyond what the market dictates?
My concern is indirectly subsidizing businesses through taxes spent on social programs to benefit their underpaid workers.
I keep seeing (not just here) the discussion devolve to either raising wages (which raises prices, which forces wages to be raised) or firing people and keeping the same costs. It’s late and I probably just don’t have enough about the topic collected to know a conclusion, so I’ll just agree again that any solution must not involve state welfare.
I would be interested to know what specific changes you believe would accomplish that. Could you elaborate?
I was thinking the end of fiat currency, but there’s already so much crap this thread covers that I didn’t want to add yet another point.
Most economists believe that low inflation rates (2%-5%) are not a problem so long as wages keep step.
But then you have an infinite cycle of ever-increasing prices. Yes, if you “keep step” the ratio of CoL isn’t changed, but is the Zimbabwe (Hungary 1946, Germany 1927, etc.) model really the best solution? Just add more zeroes to the bills?
What's more interesting is when we had negative inflation -- where the purchasing power of the dollar went up. That big red area of deflation...
My overarching conclusion is that the supply of currency has to be limited, preferably by physical or uncompromising legal means.
So, just a random example, was Lincoln - or John Brown - or any number of primary leaders in the abolitionist movement in f.ex. the U.S. "a businessman, a devout religious leader, or Western imperialist"? Oops.
Yep. Oops!
I don't know how to put it more politely
Then put it bluntly. The only thing that matters is the truth.
I mean, I apologize if this sounds stupid, but I'm afraid this is the argument, n'est-ce pas?
It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs.
Chattel slavery is not a “conservative” concept, in the first place. Debt slavery would be the conservative concept. Though not owning a person through any means is the beginning of the chain, which hearkens back to needing a definition of the word ‘conservative’.
...you are aware that there are and always have been are very liberal denominations out there...
Some so much so that they cease to be denominations!
Originally Posted by muppetry
...has actively campaigned, politically, in the areas that he purports to research...
Yes, I tend to look down on that, myself. There are plenty of cases where this action is done to suppress truth, but there are also some where it’s done to spread it, either the research or public knowledge thereof.
The act of putting political or economic support behind an idea neither validates nor invalidates the idea, nor the statements of the person/corporation doing so, after all.
...just a series of comments on other researchers’ data...
And thus my only concern is the factuality thereof. I don’t care who wrote it as long as it’s true.
Some (and since offense will be taken; not necessarily here, not necessarily in this thread, etc.) would disregard everything espoused by religion (“You know, ‘religion’, the whole thing.”) because of who believes it, not because of what it says. Some do this with economic schools of thought. Some with branches of sociology. Heck, I’d rather read crap to learn why it’s crap than to ignore it entirely because of what I once (or still) thought (think) about it.
Comments
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
Given that the poster supported his claim with evidence - if you think he is wrong then some counter-evidence would help.
OK - and it's wrong because.....?
OK - but then how do we reconcile treason and free speech under the constitution, which was the example under discussion. It appears that you are arguing that passing secrets to the enemy cannot be illegal, since it would break the right of free speech. Did you mean that? If so, isn't that a bit of a problem?
He certainly doesn't quote me in context and that was what i was referring to, selected part of a sentences leaving off salient parts. I frankly cannot read most of his long multi quote threads to to others as i fall asleep so I am, not sure if he does or does not quote in context.
Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false.
You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs.
The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals.
You said your lies for the purpose of damage, so that’s pretty much it.
And yet it’s still wrong, no matter the context.
Congress shall make no law... ...abridging the freedom of speech...
It can’t break the law. No law can exist that does this.
The biggest delusion yet.
Why do you believe that lies and logical fallacies are an actual argument?
"Yeah, the first sentence there–literally the first thing out of the gate–that was false."
The very first sentence is: "Win or lose in this instance - it really doesn't matter." I don't see how it is false. Since you refuse to elaborate, I have nothing to add.
"You have deluded yourself into believing that civil rights is not a conservative thought. Cyrus the Great laughs."
Cyrus the Great is not a useful example of identity along the political conservative-progressive spectrum, and therefore that would be a pretty hollow laughter. As to where conservative thought stood historically, we have the record. Certainly as pertains to the U.S., as with the specific examples I gave - my position remains unmoved for the very simple reason that you gave no arguments that would provide grounds for such movement.
"The rest of your diatribe is an amusing conflagration of the beliefs of modern conservatives and the beliefs of historic liberals."
An assertion with no supporting arguments.
And so on with the rest of your responses - as here, in response to my observation that there seems to be a lack of provable harm from gay sexual activity between consenting adults:
"The biggest delusion yet."
Snippy responses that don't rise above "nah-ah", with zero supporting argument, as if you'd really like for the other guy to do all the work, while you contribute nothing but "nah-ah". The thing is though, that people have done the work - as in all the cases I cited where teams of lawyers attempted to show such harm, and all were found pitifully wanting, with not a single sustainable point... and the courts ruled accordingly. In face of that, merely saying "nah-ah" is really adding absolutely nothing to the case for finding "harm".
As a debating technique, you may find that your responses demand zero effort on your part, but correspondingly the value to readers is also zero.
And since you don't have the courtesy nor gumption to actually engage in good-faith argumentation, I think you might find it instructive to find that you get out exactly what you put in. In other words, if I bother responding to you at all - insofar as there is a response at all - I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
Well, there's an example of where religion - a belief system that's not based on science - has led you astray: you seem to think that "being gay is a choice". Had you paid attention to science instead, you'd know that homosexual behavior is very widespread in the animal kingdom, and f.ex. penguins don't one day decide to "be gay". Same for humans - including you. You didn't one day make a choice to "be straight" (assuming you are straight), and the gay person didn't one day wake up and decide to be gay (especially those gay people who never even heard of "gay", but experienced those feelings completely puzzling to them). It's not a choice.
You are also wrong that ""Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with" - your religious rights are civil rights. See f.ex.:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-religion.cfm?
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference."
So you are wrong on what "civil rights" are. Religion is not an "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - yet it most definitely is a civil right.
If anything, if we were to go with your definition of civil rights - "unchangeable characteristics that a person is born with" - gay would be a civil right and religion would not. How do you like 'em apples?
"However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear."
I would like to draw your attention to the U.S. constitution. We have separation of church and state and just because you believe something or other about God, is not grounds for making a law that applies to gay people, or atheists, or any U.S. citizen for that matter. If you have to start an argument based on "bible" or "god" or anything, please understand that such a justification is irrelevant legally.
"To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God."
Quite apart from the fact that "god" is a mythological creation, and has no bearing on U.S. law, you are quite mistaken as to marriage being "defined" once and for all (by "god" no less) and it not being possible for man to "redefine" it. Marriage has been continuously redefined through history. Constantly. Including when we redefined to allow black and white people to enter marriage (Loving vs Virginia). Please go back and read all those religious arguments by the opponents of black/white marriages - they too claimed "bible" on their side. More of the same nonsense. Now we allow men to marry men and women to marry women. No biggie - just another change in a constantly changing institution. It has never stopped changing and this is just more of it.
Anybody can read the bible any way they want, and because the bible - and religion - is not based on objective science - there is no way to say this interpretation is wrong and that one is right. The bible is also inherently contradictory. Which again means you can't objectively even prove any given interpretation. There are those who believe the bible advocates homosexuality - because Jesus had only bros as apostles and never had sexual relations with women, and by a careful interpretation, they derive the homosexula commandmant - go forth and be gay. As good an interpretation as its opposite. Which is why no sensible government tries to rule based on the bible. Use it for kindling, but not for lawmaking.
Atheism is just as much a belief system as any other religion. There are things that can't be proven or tested that they believe. I love science. And in fact, I am a computer scientist. It is all about your starting points you bring to the table. You see, we can apply the same scientific method with the same results, but come out with wildly different interpretations. Observable, repeatable tests are what produce our technology, medicine, machinery, new materials, etc. I am by no means opposed to that science, or rather known as observable science.
While Ill agree our government was never "Christian," the founding fathers saw the Bible as a good set of principles to base it on. So in that sense, it was a Christianized government (were those men not sensible?).
The Bible is not contradictory. One just needs to delve into the context of each verse in order to ascertain its true meaning. Answers in Genesis, actually has many articles dealing with most common "apparent" contradictions you speak of. There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions.
Many secular scientists have falsified data in order to facilitate their agenda, case in point would be climate change debacle a few years ago.
Personal preference is a choice. And a preference is changeable. The mind is malleable thing whereas you can't change your chromosomes. The argument for homosexuality as being unchangeable is a weak argument. My sister, has in fact, changed her sexual preference 2 times, for a total of 3 preferences. First men, then women, then transexual. This experience just illustrates that it is changeable, and therefor a choice.
I am only responding to the opening statement here. If atheism is a belief system, is not believing in the tooth fairy one too?
If Atheism is a belief system, how would you describe those beliefs?
While Ill agree our government was never "Christian," the founding fathers saw the Bible as a good set of principles to base it on. So in that sense, it was a Christianized government (were those men not sensible?).
And yet they saw it as important explicitly to separate church from state. Yes - they were sensible. No - it was not "Christianized".
Why is it that answers to those kinds of criticism of the Bible always seem to avoid addressing the actual criticisms. Which answers deal with the "apparent" obvious contradictions?
"There has not been written a more cohesive book, written by 40 authors, spanning multiple regions, many different times, and in different regions". You may be right, but it may be the only book in that category, so the bar is not very high.
Many secular scientists have falsified data in order to facilitate their agenda, case in point would be climate change debacle a few years ago.
Firstly - how did you determine that they were secular scientists? Secondly - assuming that you are referring to the East Anglia allegations - I'm sure that you are aware that those allegations were exhaustively investigated and determined to be unfounded.
Personal preference is a choice. And a preference is changeable. The mind is malleable thing whereas you can't change your chromosomes. The argument for homosexuality as being unchangeable is a weak argument. My sister, has in fact, changed her sexual preference 2 times, for a total of 3 preferences. First men, then women, then transexual. This experience just illustrates that it is changeable, and therefor a choice.
Really? One anecdotal story about your confused sister leads you to extrapolate to a universal conclusion on the mechanism of sexual attraction? And you claim to be a scientist? Clueless.
I am only responding to the opening statement here. If atheism is a belief system, is not believing in the tooth fairy one too?
Atheism is a belief system in the same sense that bald is a hairstyle.
My argument was accurate.
Yet it was irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that killing people is a Christian doctrine.
I accurately quoted two different Christian translations of the Bible.
Here’s another quote: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. (Matthew 5:17)
The Old Testament traditions are ended (for Christians). There is a new covenant, and there are new laws. If you want to know more, there’s plenty on this topic.
EDIT: Whoop, forgot it at first. Sorry.
Fair enough. Without going into the validity of their arguments themselves, I’ll simply rhetort that don’t leftists do the same? Thanks for the cite.
Wonderful. You wouldn’t believe the number of people who think that all work of any kind done anywhere in any context deserves payment. Therefore, does a for-profit business not have the right to restrict the work of its employees to that which would create profit? Banning–or firing for–other work?
Agreeable, but if the work was not that which was conducive to the company–or work whose market forces deemed not to be worth increasing in value, as seems to be the case here–to do so means firings. Unless the company’s revenue came in under what it could have been based on what consumers would pay. But there you’re just indirectly subsidizing them by raising prices.
We should enact changes to our system such that inflation is not a requirement for it to not collapse.
Hear hear. 100% agreed. And while you didn’t explicitly say so, I believe the surface problem lies with crony capitalism. But it’s neither the end nor the source. Banning crony capitalist practices wouldn’t fix the problem.
So inflation is growth now? I wonder if the cat thinks that the only means of growth is inflation. Then again, it’s a cat. Not sapient, after all.
If I missed something, tell me; Huddler screwed up the formatting and didn’t quote everything. I went back and grabbed everything, I think.
Still waiting. Where I’m wrong, prove it. If I missed something you want to discuss, post it.
Given that the poster supported his claim with evidence - if you think he is wrong then some counter-evidence would help.
Sure. This hinges on the definition of conservatism, of course, but Cyrus the Great’s exploits were considered to be landmark in the case of human rights. How long does something have to exist before it’s a “conservative” value? To what scope does it have to be understood or practiced to no longer be “radical”?
Of course, if you want to keep those secrets. But as was pointed out, there is a specific clause in the Constitution that prohibits the behavior. My use of those two examples was in mockery of the fallacy he used in supporting his desires.
Again, this... really ought to be evident by the context in which my reply was found. Not to say you yourself had trouble with it, of course.
An assertion with no supporting arguments.
Then I’ll leave this point with a quote that sums it up nicely.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
– Thomas Sowell
Could you elaborate on why the statement that you were commenting on is a delusion?
I'll give you the same treatment back: "nah-ah". Two can play this game.
In direct reply to only the latter quote, I will only say, “Yuh-huh.”
Quickly, on the topic of another similar point which is not quoted here–that of choice–I will add:
If homosexuality is comparable to infertility, then it is a disability.
If homosexuality is comparable to straight people engaging in oral sex, then it is a fetish.
If homosexuality is comparable to friendships with the same gender, why do they have sex?
If homosexuality is safe, why do homosexuals spread the most STDs and literally tear apart each others’ sphincters?
If homosexuality is a valid means of romantic bonding, why does nature disallow them reproduction?
If homosexual “love” is as pure as natural love, why are gays so much more promiscuous?
If there is nothing inherently wrong with being a homosexual, why would an entirely homosexual society cease to exist beyond a single generation?
Degenerates and liberals will take you on a wild chase through fallacious logic and appeals to emotion, but at the end of the day, the truth has always been our very first thought as children when we saw gays.
ERROR.
Errors occur in nature all the time, and homosexuality is a perfect example of error. Somewhere in the brain of every homosexual a critical error has occurred. In what other situation is an error encouraged or rewarded as it is in homosexuality in today’s media? You may ask yourself how this error affects you. The answer is simple. Homosexuality, despite what you are told to believe, can be indoctrinated. Why do you think the rate of children who “turn out” gay skyrockets in the presence of gay “parents”?
Let us dissect the delusional phrase, “homosexuality is not a choice.”
First, we must establish some axioms and definitions.
– One is mentally ill if one is psychologically incapable of refraining from a biologically non-necessity activity or desire.
– Biologically necessary activities or desires are those without which a species cannot perpetuate itself through generations: e.g., procurement and consumption of resources, expurgation of waste, survival to sexual maturity, sexual reproduction, and education of the young.
– Desires are either biological or psychological in character; they are distinguished according to whether the desire leads toward a biologically necessary or biologically non-necessary activity.
– Desires are either innate or habitual. Habitual desires are acquired desires. Consider an example: A person who has never had alcohol cannot desire to drink alcohol for alcohol’s sake, but only for some other sake, e.g., acceptance in a peer group. Further, a person who has not acquired a refined taste for scotch through frequent consumption thereof cannot desire to drink Oban for Oban’s sake, but only for the sake of scotch in general, for curiosity, or for something else. Therefore, habitual desires are the result of certain activities. Innate desires, however, are not.
– Homosexual desires are by the former definitions not biological desires.
– The meaning of other terms are taken from their accepted use in ordinary discourse.
– One is a homosexual if and only if one either 1) engages in homosexual activity, 2) has homosexual desires, or 3) has homosexual desires and engages in homosexual activity.
With these laid down, what follows is all possible propositions.
If (1): One engages in homosexual activity either A) voluntarily or
involuntarily,
(1.A): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(1.B): One is compelled to engage either i) psychologically or ii) physically, by another, and homosexuality is not a choice.
(1.B.i): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (2): One desires homosexuality either A) innately or
habitually,
(2.B): One has acquired homosexual desires through homosexual activity. If one acquires these involuntarily through involuntary engagement in homosexual activity, one is either coerced by another or one is mentally ill. Otherwise homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A): One is either i) able to refrain from satisfying these innate homosexual desires or ii) unable to refrain.
(2.A.i): One chooses to be homosexual, and homosexuality is a choice.
(2.A.ii): One is mentally ill, by the definition of mental illness.
If (3): One either chooses to be homosexual or homosexuality is a mental illness.
Therefore, homosexuals are mentally ill if and only if they do not choose to be homosexual and are not physically compelled by another to engage in homosexual activities. However, that is not the end of the discussion. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is inherently self-destructive and causes self-harm. Homosexuality, as a group of behaviors, is statistically one of the most self-harmful. Willful pursuit or practice of a behavior–or group of behaviors–that is inherently self-harmful is mental illness. Thus, all homosexuals are, definitionally, mentally ill.
In reply to the question at hand, hoo-doggy, here we go.
Throughout history, all civilizations had all major religions have condemned homosexuality. [1] In the American colonies, homosexual acts were a capital offense. Thomas Jefferson said that homosexuality “should be punished: if a man, by castration; if a woman, by cutting through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one-half inch in diameter as least.” [2] Until 1961, homosexual acts were illegal throughout America.
Gays claim that the “prevailing attitude toward homosexuals in the US and many other countries is revulsion and hostility… for acts and desires not harmful to anyone.” [3] The American Psychological Association and the American Public Health Association assured the US Supreme Court in 1986 that “no significant data show that engaging in… oral and anal sex, results in mental or physical dysfunction.” [4]
The major surveys on homosexual behavior are summarized below. Two things stand out: 1) homosexuals behave similarly world-over, and 2) as Harvard Medical Professor Dr. William Haseltine [33] noted in 1993, the “changes in sexual behavior that have been reported to have occurred in some groups have proved, for the most part, to be transient. For example, bath houses and sex clubs in many cities have either reopened or were never closed.”
ORAL “SEX”: Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts (and ingest semen from about half of these). Semen contains many of the germs carried in the blood. Because of this, gays who practice oral sex verge on consuming raw human blood, with all its medical risks. Since the penis often has tiny lesions (and often will have been in unsanitary places, such as a rectum), individuals so involved may become infected with hepatitis A or gonorrhea (and even HIV and hepatitis
. Since many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners [17][27]), and gays average somewhere between 106 and 1,105 different partners/year, the potential for infection is considerable.
RECTAL “SEX”: Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, [3] gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous. During rectal intercourse, the rectum becomes a mixing bowl for 1) saliva and its germs and/or an artificial lubricant, 2) the recipient’s own feces, 3) whatever germs, infections or substances the penis has on it, and 4) the seminal fluid of the inserter. Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present [7]), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with “fisting,” where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum–bottles, carrots, even gerbils [8]). The risk of contamination and/or having to wear a colostomy bag from such “sport” is very real. Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey’s time that he didn’t think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it. The rectum was not designed to accommodate the fist, and those who do so can find themselves consigned to diapers for life.
FECAL “SEX”: About 80% of gays (see Table) admit to licking and/or inserting their tongues into the anus of partners, and thus ingesting medically significant amounts of feces. Those who eat or wallow in it are probably at even greater risk. In the diary study, [5] 70% of the gays had engaged in this activity–half regularly over 6 months. Result? The “annual incidence of hepatitis A in… homosexual men was 22%, whereas no heterosexual men acquired hepatitis A.” In 1992, [26] it was noted that the proportion of London gays engaging in oral/anal sex had not declined since 1984.
While the body has defenses against fecal germs, exposure to the fecal discharge of dozens of strangers each year is extremely unhealthy. Ingestion of human waste is the major route of contracting hepatitis A and the enteric parasites collectively known as the Gay Bowel Syndrome. Consumption of feces has also been implicated in the transmission of typhoid fever, [9] herpes, and cancer. [27] About 10% of gays have eaten or played with [e.g., enemas, wallowing in] feces. The San Francisco Department of Public Health saw 75,000 patients per year, of whom 70 to 80% are homosexual men… An average of 10% of all patients and asymptomatic contacts reported… because of positive fecal samples or cultures for amoeba, giardia, and shigella infections were employed as food handlers in public establishments; almost 5% of those with hepatitis A were similarly employed. [10] In 1976, a rare airborne scarlet fever broke out among gays and just missed sweeping through San Francisco. [10] The US Centers for Disease Control reported that 29% of the hepatitis A cases in Denver, 66% in New York, 50% in San Francisco, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal and 26% in Melbourne in the first six months of 1991 were among gays. [11] A 1982 study “suggested that some transmission from the homosexual group to the general population may have occurred.” [12]
URINE “SEX”: About 10% of Kinsey’s gays reported having engaged in “golden showers” [drinking or being splashed with urine]. In the largest survey of gays ever conducted, [13] 23% admitted to urine sex. In the largest random survey of gays, 29% reported urine sex. In a San Francisco study of 655 gays [14] only 24% claimed to have been monogamous in the past year. Of these monogamous gays, 5% drank urine, 7% practiced “fisting,” 33% ingested feces via anal/oral contact, 53% swallowed semen, and 59% received semen in their rectum during the previous month.
OTHER PRACTICES: As the table indicates, a large minority of gays engage in torture for sexual fun. 25% of white gays [17] admitted to sex with boys 16 or younger as adults. In a 9-state study, [30] 33% of the 181 male, and 22% of the 18 female teachers caught molesting students did so homosexually (though less than 3% of men and 2% of women engaged in homosexuality). Depending on the study, the percent of gays reporting sex in public restrooms ranged from 14% [16] to 41% [13] to 66% [6] to 9% [16] to 60% [13] and 67% [5] reported sex in gay baths; 64% [16] and 90% [18] said that they used illegal drugs. Fear of AIDS may have reduced the volume of gay sex partners, but the numbers are prodigious by any standard. Morin [15] reported that 824 gays had lowered their sex rate from 70 partners/yr. in 1982 to 50/yr. by 1984. McKusick [14] reported declines from 76/yr. to 47/yr. in 1985. In Spain, [32] the average was 42/yr. in 1989.
Death and disease accompany promiscuous and unsanitary sexual activity. 70% to 78% [13] of gays reported having had a sexually transmitted disease. The proportion with intestinal parasites (worms, flukes, amoeba) ranged from 25% [18] to 39% [19] to 59%. [20] As of 1992, 83% of US AIDS in whites had occurred in gays. [21] The Seattle sexual diary study [3] reported that gays had, on a yearly average:
1. fellated 108 men and swallowed semen from 48;
2. exchanged saliva with 96;
3. experienced 68 penile penetrations of the anus; and
4. ingested fecal material from 19.
No wonder 10% came down with hepatitis B and 7% contracted hepatitis A during the 6-month study.
Smokers and drug addicts don’t live as long as non-smokers or non-addicts, so we consider smoking and narcotics abuse harmful. The typical lifespan of homosexuals suggests that their activities are more destructive than smoking and as dangerous as drugs.
Obituaries numbering 6,516 from 16 US homosexual journals over the past 12 years were compared to a large sample of obituaries from regular newspapers. [23] The obituaries from the regular newspapers were similar to US averages for longevity; the median age of death of married men was 75, and 80% of them died old (age 65 or older). For unmarried or divorced men, the median age of death was 57, and 32% of them died old. Married women averaged age 79 at death; 85% died old. Unmarried and divorced women averaged age 71, and 60% of them died old.
The median age of death for homosexuals, however, was virtually the same nationwide–and, overall, less than 2% survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who died of something other than AIDS, the median age of death was 42, and 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age of death of 44, and 20% died old.
2.8% of gays died violently. They were 116 times more apt to be murdered; 24 times more apt to commit suicide; and had a traffic accident death rate 18 times the rate of comparably-aged white males. Heart attacks, cancer and liver failure were exceptionally common. 20% of lesbians died of murder, suicide, or accident–a rate 487 times higher than that of white females aged 25-44. The age distribution of samples of homosexuals in the scientific literature from 1989 to 1992 suggests a similarly shortened lifespan.
Homosexuals rode into the dawn of sexual freedom and returned with a plague that gives every indication of destroying most of them. Those who treat AIDS patients are at great risk, not only from HIV infection, which as of 1992 involved over 100 health care workers, [21] but also from TB and new strains of other diseases. [24] Those who are housed with AIDS patients are also at risk. [24] Dr. Max Essex, chair of the Harvard AIDS Institute, warned congress in 1992 that “AIDS has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics… if AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them.” [28] At least 8, and perhaps as many as 30 [29] patients had been infected with HIV by healthcare workers as of 1992.
The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story. Imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces, and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis. Often these encounters occur while the participants are drunk, high, and/or in an orgy setting. Further, many of them occur in extremely unsanitary places (bathrooms, dirty peep shows), or, because homosexuals travel so frequently, in other parts of the world.
Every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit another country. [20] Fresh American germs get taken to Europe, Africa and Asia, and fresh pathogens from these continents come here. Foreign homosexuals regularly visit the US and participate in this biological swapmeet.
Unfortunately, the danger of these exchanges does not merely affect homosexuals. Travelers carried so many tropical diseases to New York City that it had to institute a tropical disease center, and gays carried HIV from New York City to the rest of the world. [27] Most of the 6,349 Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood as of 1992, received it from homosexuals, and most of the women in California who got AIDS through heterosexual activity got it from men who engaged in homosexual behavior. [23] The rare form of airborne scarlet fever that stalked San Francisco in 1976 also started among homosexuals. [10]
Society is legitimately concerned with health risks–they impact our taxes and everyone’s chances of illness and injury. Because we care about them, smokers are discouraged from smoking by higher insurance premiums, taxes on cigarettes and bans against smoking in public. These social pressures cause many to quit. They likewise encourage non-smokers to stay non-smokers.
Homosexuals are mentally troubled people engaging in dangerous activities. Because we care about them and those tempted to join them, it is important that we neither encourage nor legitimize such a destructive lifestyle.
References
1. Karlen A. Sexuality & Homosexuality, NY Norton, 1971
2. Pines B. Back to Basics, NY Morrow, 1982, p. 211
3. Weinberg G. Society & the Healthy Homosexual, NY St. Martin’s, 1972, preface
4. Amici curiae brief, in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986
5. Corey L. & Holmes, KK, Sexual transmission of Hepatitis A in homosexual men, New England Journal of Medicine, 1980302435- 38
6. Cameron P et. al., Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease, Nebraska Medical Journal, 198570292-99; Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order "Psychological Reports," 1989, 64, 1167-79
7. Manligit, G.W. et al Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloan- tigers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1984251 237-38
8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," The Reader (Chicago, 3/28186) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the S and Canada]
9. Dritz, S. & Braff. Sexually transmitted typhoid fever. New England Journal of Medicine, 19772961359-60
10. Dritz, S. Medical aspects of homosexuality. New England Journal of Medicine, 19803024634
11. CDC Hepatitis A among homosexual men -United States, Canada, and Australia. MMWR 199241155-64
12. Christenson B. et al. An epidemic outbreak of hepatitis A among homosexual men in Stockholm, American Journal of Epidemiology, 1982115599-607
13. Jay, K. & Young, A. The Gay Report. NY Summit, 1979
14. McKusick, L. et al _AIDS and sexual behaviors reported by gay men in San Francisco, "American Journal of Public Health," 1985 75493- 96
15. USA Today 11/21/84
16. Gebhard, P. & Johnson, A, The Kinsey Data, NY Saunders, 1979
17. Bell, A. & Weinberg, M. Homosexualities, NY Simon & Schuster 1978
18. Jaffee, H. et al. National case-control study of Kapos?s sarcoma. "Annals Of Internal Medicine," 198399145-51
19. Quinn, T. C. et al. The polymicrobial origin of intestinal infection in homosexual men. "New England Journal of Medicine," 1983309576-82
20. Biggar R. J. Low T-lymphocyte ratios in homosexual men. "Journal Of The American Medical Association," 19842511441-46; "Wall Street Journal," 7/18/91, Bl
21. CDC HIV/AIDS Surveillance, February 1993
22. Chu, S. et al. AIDS in bisexual men in the U.S. "American Journal Of Public Health," 199282220-24
23. Cameron, P., Playfair W. & Wellum, S. The lifespan of homo- sexuals. Paper presented at Eastem Psychological Association Convention, April 17, 1993
24. Dooley, W.W. et al. No socomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HRLinvected patients. "Journal of the _American Medical Association," 19922672632-35
25. Schechter M.T. et al. Changes in sexual behavior and fear of AIDS. "Lancet," 198411293
26. Word, J. et al. Kaposi's sarcoma and insertive thinning. "Lancet," 1992339938
27. Beral, V. et al. Risk of Kap o s?s sarcoma and sexual practices associated with faecal contact in homosexual or bisexual men with AIDS. "Lancet," 1992339632-35
28. Testimony before House Health & Environment Subcommittee, 2/24/92
29. Cie sielsld, C. et al. Transmission of human immunodeficiency virus in a dental practice. "Annals of Internal Medicine, 1992116 798-80; CDC Announcement Houston Post, 8/7/92
30. Rubin, S. "Sex Education Teachers Who Sexually Abuse Students." 24th International Congress on Psychology, Sydney, Australia, August 1988. 31. Cameron, P. & Cameron, K. Prevalence of homosexuality. "Psychology Reports," 1993, in press; Melbye, M. & Biggar R.J. Interactions between persons at risk for _AIDS and the general population in Denmark. "American Journal of Epidemiology," 1992135593-602
32. Rodriguez-Pichardo, A. et al. Sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual males in Seville, Spain, "Geniourin Medicina," 1990 66;423-427
33. AIDS Prognosis, Washington Times, 2/13/93, CI.
In reply (though it is only relevant in the context of the OP alone), to the question of marriage equality, here’s a secular viewpoint since so many seem to discredit religion.
Marriage (civil union) as a government institution is designed to incentivize childbirth and attempt to ensure that children (future citizens) are raised in the most stable environment possible–that being a two parent, mother and father, household. This is because all studies of marriage and familial relationship through thousands of years of recorded human history prove said environment is the most nurturing and stable. As a government institution, gays have no claim to being recognized–nor is it unfairly discriminatory–since it seeks to create an outcome which gays simply cannot provide.
Marriage as a religious institution is defined by the parameters of that religion. Christian doctrine, for example, says gays cannot marry. Thus, they cannot, when considering marriage as a religious institution. This applies to any religion that does or does not allow gay marriage.
Marriage as a social institution merely proclaims mutual love between two people. This is unregulated and unaffected by legal institution. Anyone can say they’re married to anyone as long as the other party is consenting.
Essentially, gay marriage seeks to turn the institution into a purely social union, since government subsidized gay marriage is a tax drain. This will have cultural and societal implications once marriage is devalued.
Regarding marriage itself, the institution is not a human right. Nor is it definitionally an all-inclusive bastion of equality. See above for its definitions. Equality of race, an equally incorrect concept, does not imply that a caucasoid could claim to be an Australian aborigine to reap the benefits of assistance programs for aboriginal groups. Nor is marriage discrimination. The creation of a definition for a word in no way intends persecution of things to which the word does not apply.
The slippery slope fallacy is often brought up, by gays, as a means by which to discredit the belief that “normalizing” homosexual relationships will lead to the “normalization” of other universally incorrect behaviors. Those who oppose gay marriage are often called ‘bigots’ (without regard for the definition of the word), but those who oppose polygamy, incest, and pedophilia (even ephebophilia) are well within their rights to do so. Those who support these things are ‘crazy’ and even ‘mentally ill’, just as gays were until a vote in 1970 ignored the science of their affliction and removed them from the DSM. But if we are allowing gay marriage to be seen as “normal”, what right do gays have to restrict polygamists, incestuals, and pedophiles from receiving the same “equality”?
Homosexuals also use appeals to emotion in claiming they are to be forcibly made equal. The argument that gays cannot see their ‘partners’ in hospitals as they are not recognized as family is one of these examples. But if a hotel banned female patrons from entering, it would not be the job of the government to redefine the word ‘women’ to mean ‘men’ so that they could enter. Nor is it the job of the government to change the hospital’s policy. In a free market society, it is the job of the collective mind of the patrons of the hospital to agree or disagree with its policies, choosing another facility if the latter.
Homosexuals denounce marriage as a failed institution due to a high rate of divorce and other problems. Leaving the cause of the rise of such problems for another discussion, why would any sane individual, acknowledging and repeating said statistics and probabilities regarding marriage, still demand to be a part of said institution? Additionally, if marriage is increasingly deviating from its original meaning, why would you desire to implement further perversion of that meaning? ‘Marriage’ has been distorted and watered down, therefore we should further distort and water down marriage?
Homosexuals claim that, as many straight couples do not have children, it is irrelevant that gays cannot reproduce. This, again, is fallacious. Marriage not universally resulting in offspring does not nullify its purpose–breeding rights. The right (decision) of a couple to ensure the continuance of their genetics by agreeing to only perpetuate said genes with each other. Age of consent laws are intended to protect children from making immature decisions, but many adults make immature decisions, as well. Age of consent laws do not universally serve their intended purpose, and they have changed many times. Straight couples not reproducing does not prove that marriage laws should be changed any more than it proves they shouldn’t.
Homosexuals will argue that they “deserve” the tax concessions and other social benefits of marriage, but many non-married, cohabiting couples in either sexual or nonsexual relationships “deserve” said advantages, as well. Why, then, does a single man not deserve or receive these benefits?
Finally, homosexuals will argue that their ability to marry will “not affect” heterosexual marriage or family values. However, this, again, does not prove anything about a necessity, requirement, or even an argument for changing the definition of marriage. The definition of a word is not obliged to change based on the assertion–fallacious, in this case, or otherwise–that the majority won’t be affected.
Now. Any questions? Either as to what I believe, what is correct, and why people hold such viewpoints?
If something’s wrong, I want it corrected. If something’s illogical, I want it pointed out. Literally all I care about is Truth. This isn’t my first day talking about this topic–or many others. I have more, too. This is just probably enough.
I’m always curt with such replies to these topics because this is an APPLE WEBSITE. I don’t care that Apple is related to the content of the OP; the fact that the content isn’t directly related to Apple means it should be posted in Political Outsider, if at all. There are plenty of better places to discuss such matters, though hey, I’m near enough to a complete wreck these days to not care anymore, I guess. So there you go.
EDIT: Hooray! First on the page! Right where I didn’t want this.
An assertion with no supporting arguments.
Then I’ll leave this point with a quote that sums it up nicely.
Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened.
– Thomas Sowell
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
Geez, that’s what happens when the quotes get so big; sorry. That was in reply to the conflagration of conservative and liberal values. He was claiming that modern conservatives are half one thing and half another, historically.
You may need to humor me by explaining your line of reasoning here. To recap - your assertion referred to was that the statement that homosexual activity does not harm to others (paraphrased) was "the biggest delusion yet". Your quote appears quite unrelated to that discussion.
Geez, that’s what happens when the quotes get so big; sorry. That was in reply to the conflagration of conservative and liberal values. He was claiming that modern conservatives are half one thing and half another, historically.
OK thanks. And the thinking behind your "biggest delusion yet" comment, presumably, is summarized by your re-publication of Paul Cameron's Family Research Institute document? Do you regard him as a reliable source of information? Quite apart from his obviously non-objective approach to the subject, he appears to be almost entirely self-published, which is a huge red flag in research. On reflection those two observations are probably directly connected.
Tallest Skil, you're a disgusting excuse for a human being.
Anything other than a genetic fallacy? Care to refute the sources or the logic of the statements themselves? I was hoping you’d be better than that. I neither know nor care who he is or what the organization is. I care about the content.
Thanks. When you have any evidence that I believe in mass murder, feel free to post it. Until then, that’s just an ad-hom.
In direct reply to only the latter quote, I will only say, “Yuh-huh.”
You should really reconsider lifting so much via cut and paste from another person's article without crediting them. You only credited the author's sources. Beyond that the entire piece is terrible. It looks to tradition for reference and tries to apply an axiomatic approach to genetics. That is good for mathematics, because they help develop a formal framework and allow for consistent structures. It is not sensible here, and it really has nothing to do with the article.
Yet it was irrelevant to the point you were making, which was that killing people is a Christian doctrine.
I never wrote anything about Christianity when I posed that example. This is exactly what I wrote: "Your deeply held religious beliefs may direct you to stone to death the little old lady running the fortune telling business down the street ("A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27"), but that doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional right to do so protected by the First Amendment."
I didn't purport to know your actual religious beliefs at the time I wrote that nor did I allege, or believe, that passage to be part of your beliefs. It was a hypothetical.
The point that I was making was that the First Amendment is not absolute and without limits. I thought that was clear, but I apologize if it was not.
Let me explain the relevance. I created they hypothetical example above to illustrate that there are limits on the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion. You replied "That’s Jews (who don’t even believe their own book), by the way. Not Christians." So, naturally, I asked if you thought that the First Amendment did not offer the same protections to Jews as it does to Christians.
Again, the point isn't who believes what, it's that the First Amendment cannot be played as a religious trump card, giving carte blanche to do whatever one holds to be dictated by their religious beliefs.
Thank you for graciously acknowledging the point and the citation. I have trouble coming up with a true parallel, but I cannot imagine liberals being happy about a CEO facing hard times for any decision he made with a genuine intent on elevating the standard of living of his workers.
I do not believe that a company has a right to prohibit employees from doing volunteer work. That's a general principal, not a rule, as one could envision scenarios where the volunteer work was directly harmful to the company.
It's not a subsidy to pay the actual costs for American workers to manufacture goods and provide services. My concern is indirectly subsidizing businesses through taxes spent on social programs to benefit their underpaid workers.
I would be interested to know what specific changes you believe would accomplish that. Could you elaborate?
Most economists believe that low inflation rates (2%-5%) are not a problem so long as wages keep step. If the cost of living goes up by 4% per year and median wages also go up by 4%, there's not a problem. Low inflation is a sign of a healthy, growing economy. We've had low rates of inflation for about 30 years now:
What's more interesting is when we had negative inflation -- where the purchasing power of the dollar went up. That big red area of deflation starting around 1930 corresponds to the Great Depression.
"Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened."
– Thomas Sowell
This is so dumb, I must make sure I even understand what it is that you claim by this quotation in response to my assertion that it is "broadly conservatives who are in opposition to civil rights in any given era." As best as I can glean from this non-sequitur is that somehow it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who "destroyed slavery around the world". So, just a random example, was Lincoln - or John Brown - or any number of primary leaders in the abolitionist movement in f.ex. the U.S. "a businessman, a devout religious leader, or Western imperialist"? Oops.
But let us accept - purely for the sake of argument - that it was mostly those categories of people who "destroyed slavery" (absurd though it may be). Regardless, it surely is true that many "businessmen, devout religious leaders, and Western imperialists" were valiant abolitionists. Now, I guess the next step in this argument is that these categories of people were "conservatives, and therefore see - it was conservatives who destroyed slavery!". I think this is the argument - so idiotic, I can't be sure, but stranger things have happened.
Hmm. I don't know how to put it more politely, but - ehm, why, pray tell, are we saying that businessmen, devout religious leaders and "Western imperialists" (whoever those are) - are, you know, conservative just by dint of their business occupations or religion? Come again? I mean, I apologize if this sounds stupid, but I'm afraid this is the argument, n'est-ce pas?
So for example a business leader or businessman such as oh, you know, Tim Cook, or Steve Jobs, or Zuckerberg, or Benioff, or Soros, or any number of other businessmen - all conservatives?? Maybe that's true on some other planet, but on this one, businessmen can be liberals, or conservatives, or anything in between - whether today or 100 years ago. So some businessmen were abolitionists, were liberal, or held a liberal opinion about slavery.
Devout religious leaders - you are aware that there are and always have been are very liberal denominations out there, some of which undoubtedly were abolitionist, and that there are of course some that are quite conservative and have fought to preserve slavery. For example the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. was firmly in favor of slavery:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention?
But on the other hand, Quakers and Methodists were certainly no less devout and they opposed slavery.
In other words - spoiler alert! - "devout religious leader" does not make you a conservative - you could be a liberal, or hold a liberal position such as anti-slavery.
Western Imperialists - even some of those have had liberal views on some matters. For example, many high officials who served in Imperial administrations were liberals - George Orwell (who was a leftist) served in the British imperial administration of India, and it was a liberal British administrator of India who pushed through the prohibition on widow-burning in India. Certainly people like them, although they've served in occupying imperial forces were liberals, and not conservatives. It takes all kinds. When a businessman etc. expresses a liberal opinion, well, that makes them - surprise, surprise - a liberal!
So that argument is completely idiotic and ahistorical. Of course it comes from Thomas Sowell, so no surprise. When I saw that name, a great sadness came over me - because I realized that Tallest Skil, is "one of those". It's like someone who makes all sorts of claims about astronomy and then to bolster their claims they cite the leader of the Flat Earth Society. It kind of takes the joy out of talking to such a person. Be that as it may, I dutifully addressed myself to the argument, such as it was, rather than the sad figure of non-authority that is Thomas Sowell.
Understood, but not my subject. In such cases my starting point is to assess the credibility of the author in his or her field. Cameron appears to have none, has actively campaigned, politically, in the areas that he purports to research, casting serious doubts on his impartiality, has been investigated for ethics violations, and seems unable to publish. The document that you copied was not a structured argument - just a series of comments on other researchers' data, clearly selected to support his position for which he appears to have little or no professional support.
I do not believe that a company has a right to prohibit employees from doing volunteer work. That's a general principal, not a rule, as one could envision scenarios where the volunteer work was directly harmful to the company.
Oh, I’m talking about work on company time. And a lack of productivity is harm, even if the work that IS done is relevant.
What if the prices are artificially inflated beyond what the market dictates?
I keep seeing (not just here) the discussion devolve to either raising wages (which raises prices, which forces wages to be raised) or firing people and keeping the same costs. It’s late and I probably just don’t have enough about the topic collected to know a conclusion, so I’ll just agree again that any solution must not involve state welfare.
I was thinking the end of fiat currency, but there’s already so much crap this thread covers that I didn’t want to add yet another point.
But then you have an infinite cycle of ever-increasing prices. Yes, if you “keep step” the ratio of CoL isn’t changed, but is the Zimbabwe (Hungary 1946, Germany 1927, etc.) model really the best solution? Just add more zeroes to the bills?
My overarching conclusion is that the supply of currency has to be limited, preferably by physical or uncompromising legal means.
Yep. Oops!
Then put it bluntly. The only thing that matters is the truth.
It is the argument, and it’s why I brought it up in the first place, since you didn’t understand it. It was Christians, leaders of business, and imperialists who ended slavery. These are the people so readily associated with conservatism. The “magical sky man-believers”, the “big corporations who think themselves people” and “racist bigots” are, in the eyes of leftists, “conservatives”, and thus is espoused anything against their beliefs, regardless of the beliefs.
Chattel slavery is not a “conservative” concept, in the first place. Debt slavery would be the conservative concept. Though not owning a person through any means is the beginning of the chain, which hearkens back to needing a definition of the word ‘conservative’.
Some so much so that they cease to be denominations!
Yes, I tend to look down on that, myself. There are plenty of cases where this action is done to suppress truth, but there are also some where it’s done to spread it, either the research or public knowledge thereof.
The act of putting political or economic support behind an idea neither validates nor invalidates the idea, nor the statements of the person/corporation doing so, after all.
And thus my only concern is the factuality thereof. I don’t care who wrote it as long as it’s true.
Some (and since offense will be taken; not necessarily here, not necessarily in this thread, etc.) would disregard everything espoused by religion (“You know, ‘religion’, the whole thing.”) because of who believes it, not because of what it says. Some do this with economic schools of thought. Some with branches of sociology. Heck, I’d rather read crap to learn why it’s crap than to ignore it entirely because of what I once (or still) thought (think) about it.