12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry


Pahoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

***** A question occurs to me, Scott: Are there any forms of sexual activity that you consider less morally admirable than others, but that you would nevertheless not want criminalized? ****

Between consenting adults I do not put my values on others. So morality has nothing to do with it. As far as the rest of your essay; it's a pretty good defense of the various Islamic laws regarding the same issue. Why not just stone them to death? Or entrap and torture them like is going on in Egypt. Same with adulters, and any other sexual activity you may not like?

*** Why would my train of thought lead to outlawing mixed-race marriages, or sodomy laws, or restrictions on oral sex? No significant part of the public would want these things.*****

They used too. They do in many parts of the world. It's where the line is drawn.

*** My train of thought is simply that if it is offensive to a secularist to have his government seem to endorse a religion with which he disagrees, it is also offensive that the general public have their government endorse a moral proposition with which it disagrees. The whole concept relates back to the general idea of government by consent that is the foundation of the whole Anglo-American tradition of ordered liberty.*****

Yeah, but there is also the issue of the majority subjucating the minority. It is why we are a Democratic Republic and not a pure Democracy. Heck, if we were a pure Democracy both you as LDS, and me as the skeptic, would be outlawed.

**** In any case, it strikes me that there are three ways a legal regime can address a particular practice: It can (1) forbid it; (2) tolerate it (society may or may not have moral objections to the practice, but does not either prohibit it or encourage it), or (3) give it special recognition and status. In 10-20 years, will there be a special institution giving society's approval to oral sex -- call it "orriage"? "Sodomage"? By your logic, the iron laws of history must not only strike down barriers to sexual practices, but lead to their special recognition by society. ****

Yep. And throughout history laws and practices have indeed recieved special recognitiion by society. From racial issues, to womens rights issues, to even childrens rights issues. Just takes awhile.

*** And I think the "idea" is absolutely lethal to consensual government. ***

It's worked in the past. And our Government didn't implode. Though it did come close during the Civil War. But heck, if our country is so polarized that an issue such as this can tear it apart.... then it's time I guess. But I somehow doubt it.

***** Public servants are responsible to the law. Gavin Newsom is every bit as out of line as that judge in Alabama with his Ten Commandments monument. While I doubt we're going to go the way of Haiti anytime soon, when public servants elevate their personal beliefs over the law -- making their jurisdiction into a government of men, not laws -- that's completely inconsistent with republican government. Those officials need to be impeached every bit as quickly as the Alabama judge was removed. *****

And perhaps he will. But like the Ten Commandments thing it has brought an issue to the forefront. In this case the issue deals with civil rights. Many do not think homosexuals should have them. I happen to think they do. Slowly but surely it seems as though society is coming around though it will take longer to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Logically? LOL...how much more logical can one get...two women have no way to come to gether without the aid of 'extras'...****

Err.... without getting to descriptive; oral, hands, etc

**** and men cannot come together without using the stinky..end which was not created for that purpose... ****

Actually, men and women have been known to do this one too. And lets not forget oral....

**** Now that was graphic...but some are sooooooo in the dark they need a picture painted for them to get the LOGIC!!! *****

The illogical part however is some people think of relationships only in terms of the actual "doing it". Now I don't know about anybody else here, but most relationships I know of, Gay and straight, have a lot more going on than just sex. Including mine; though I do like the sex thingy too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Actually, men and women have been known to do this one too. And lets not forget oral....

No doubt...

In the spiritual discussion of sex...there is a right way and a perverted way. Just because some heteral sexuals do it...doesn't make it right.

The illogical part however is some people think of relationships only in terms of the actual "doing it". Now I don't know about anybody else here, but most relationships I know of, Gay and straight, have a lot more going on than just sex. Including mine; though I do like the sex thingy too.

Yes...but relationships aren't what is causing aids to spread...Nor is it what defines sexual preference for husband and wife...and marriage.

You can have a relationship with whomever you please...doesn't make for a legal marriage.

And I don't know any gays who don't have sex in their 'relationship'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

***** A question occurs to me, Scott: Are there any forms of sexual activity that you consider less morally admirable than others, but that you would nevertheless not want criminalized? ****

Between consenting adults I do not put my values on others. So morality has nothing to do with it. As far as the rest of your essay; it's a pretty good defense of the various Islamic laws regarding the same issue. Why not just stone them to death? Or entrap and torture them like is going on in Egypt. Same with adulters, and any other sexual activity you may not like?

I think you're missing my point, which is that I am capable of taking the position that something is immoral, but should not be illegal, while as I understand it, you draw the line between sexual behavior you have no moral problem with, and behavior that you think should be criminalized (rape, abuse, etc.) Your position, incidentally, is essentially J.S. Mill's, namely that society is not justified in restraining, either by law or moral disapproval, of any conduct that does not directly harm other people. I think Mill was wrong (in particular with respect to the "directly" part), but that's a debate for another day.

As for your comparing my essay to the Sharia laws about stoning and torturing sexual deviants, how is that any more fair than the (often criticized) tactic of comparing gays to pedophiles?

What you're asking is why, if I'm not willing to grant same-sex coupling the recognition of marriage, I don't go "all the way" and decree that gays be crushed under walls, Taliban style. The answer is simple: because that would be grossly disproportionate to the social good I hope to gain. So, in my opinion, would be criminal laws against gay sex. The remedy to what I still believe to be a real problem (the encouragement of sexual libertinism) can't be so destructive of liberty, or so disproportionate, that it causes more harm than it prevents. We shouldn't criminalize less-than-ideal sexual expression for the same reason we don't impose the death penalty for running red lights.

*** Why would my train of thought lead to outlawing mixed-race marriages, or sodomy laws, or restrictions on oral sex? No significant part of the public would want these things.*****

They used too. They do in many parts of the world. It's where the line is drawn.

And it's up to us to use good judgment in drawing that line. Like it or not, both you and I draw lines as to what sexual conduct is acceptable.

*** My train of thought is simply that if it is offensive to a secularist to have his government seem to endorse a religion with which he disagrees, it is also offensive that the general public have their government endorse a moral proposition with which it disagrees. The whole concept relates back to the general idea of government by consent that is the foundation of the whole Anglo-American tradition of ordered liberty.*****

Yeah, but there is also the issue of the majority subjucating the minority. It is why we are a Democratic Republic and not a pure Democracy. Heck, if we were a pure Democracy both you as LDS, and me as the skeptic, would be outlawed.

I doubt that last bit, especially in California. There's simply no popular sentiment for criminalizing skepticism or Mormonism. You might want to give people a little more credit. After all, Britain has no First Amendment, and yet minority religions aren't criminalized. (Although I think that Britain, like most of Europe, "walk to the uplands of tolerance by the easy paths of indifference.")

Just as a majority, in a consensual system of government, should not be allowed to impose on a minority things the minority could never be reasonably expected to consent to, the reverse is also true: the minority should not be able to impose its values on the minority. The trick is to balance these two things, not to empower the minority with an absolute veto. (That was what did in the Polish republic of the 18th century.)

**** In any case, it strikes me that there are three ways a legal regime can address a particular practice: It can (1) forbid it; (2) tolerate it (society may or may not have moral objections to the practice, but does not either prohibit it or encourage it), or (3) give it special recognition and status. In 10-20 years, will there be a special institution giving society's approval to oral sex -- call it "orriage"? "Sodomage"? By your logic, the iron laws of history must not only strike down barriers to sexual practices, but lead to their special recognition by society. ****

Yep. And throughout history laws and practices have indeed recieved special recognitiion by society. From racial issues, to womens rights issues, to even childrens rights issues. Just takes awhile.

So, to follow up -- do you seriously think there will eventually be a special official institution centered around oral sex? Maybe "Monicage" would be a better name ...

*** And I think the "idea" is absolutely lethal to consensual government. ***

It's worked in the past. And our Government didn't implode. Though it did come close during the Civil War. But heck, if our country is so polarized that an issue such as this can tear it apart.... then it's time I guess. But I somehow doubt it.

***** Public servants are responsible to the law. Gavin Newsom is every bit as out of line as that judge in Alabama with his Ten Commandments monument. While I doubt we're going to go the way of Haiti anytime soon, when public servants elevate their personal beliefs over the law -- making their jurisdiction into a government of men, not laws -- that's completely inconsistent with republican government. Those officials need to be impeached every bit as quickly as the Alabama judge was removed. *****

And perhaps he will. But like the Ten Commandments thing it has brought an issue to the forefront. In this case the issue deals with civil rights. Many do not think homosexuals should have them. I happen to think they do. Slowly but surely it seems as though society is coming around though it will take longer to be sure.

Again, it seems to me that it's too easy to appropriate the name "civil rights" and force the other side on the defensive. I think gays DO have civil rights. Forcing me to accept an institution called "gay marriage" is a civil wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** Yes...but relationships aren't what is causing aids to spread...Nor is it what defines sexual preference for husband and wife...and marriage. ****

Worldwide, heterosexual sex is by far the biggest speader of AIDS. It is what sexual preference for husband and husband, or wife and wife, as it were. And of course those marraiges.

*** You can have a relationship with whomever you please...doesn't make for a legal marriage. ****

I don't understand why it wouldn't/

*** And I don't know any gays who don't have sex in their 'relationship'... ****

And your point - with regards to what I said..... is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Worldwide, heterosexual sex is by far the biggest speader of AIDS. It is what sexual preference for husband and husband, or wife and wife, as it were. And of course those marraiges.

Not according to the society for aids prevention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is simple: because that would be grossly disproportionate to the social good I hope to gain.****

And to me your "social good" in this instance is bad and hurtful to many kind people I know. But as is often the case with conservative positions; actual people seem to count less than paradigms. It is why I could never become a conservative. Your policies are mean. Almost purposefully so. The other sides are often no less detrimental, but at least theirs is usually because of stupidity.

*** And it's up to us to use good judgment in drawing that line. Like it or not, both you and I draw lines as to what sexual conduct is acceptable. *****

Which is why we are having this conversation. But as usual the conservative positions are behind the curve, and the liberal positions (like what is going in in SF) are ahead of the curve. I am curious to see how it washes out. Constitutional Amendments however are only rhetoric. It's a hard document to change and cooler heads from both parties tend to understand the implications of such Ammendments. Thank goodness.

*** I doubt that last bit, especially in California. There's simply no popular sentiment for criminalizing skepticism or Mormonism. ****

Now you missied my point.

*** Just as a majority, in a consensual system of government, should not be allowed to impose on a minority things the minority could never be reasonably expected to consent to, the reverse is also true: the minority should not be able to impose its values on the minority. The trick is to balance these two things, not to empower the minority with an absolute veto. (That was what did in the Polish republic of the 18th century.) *****

Except perhaps when it is a case of human rights. But, because you think of the homosexual as deviant because of their sexual activities you also somehow think they are devoid of the rights of the rest of us.

*** So, to follow up -- do you seriously think there will eventually be a special official institution centered around oral sex? Maybe "Monicage" would be a better name ... ****

Sure, why not (I can do cynicism too).

*** Again, it seems to me that it's too easy to appropriate the name "civil rights" and force the other side on the defensive. I think gays DO have civil rights. Forcing me to accept an institution called "gay marriage" is a civil wrong. ****

I don't believe that you do. By not allowing Gays to marry you put them in an almost impossible position to do something you and I take for granted..... make a legal Union as a couple. Oh, you may suggest non-marraige Unions. But the legalities, and contract involved, in making those Unions as marraiges are today, would be a thick document requiring a lot of money to make...... and it would STILL have loopholes. Even if you could somehow make an airtight document you are STILL societly ostracizing them. And why do you do this? Because of the sex? Because of an ancient tradition? Well slavery and the subjucation of women were pretty ancient traditions. The latter is still a way of life in many countries. But in this one it has gone by the wayside. As should this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

And to me your "social good" in this instance is bad and hurtful to many kind people I know. But as is often the case with conservative positions; actual people seem to count less than paradigms. It is why I could never become a conservative. Your policies are mean. Almost purposefully so. The other sides are often no less detrimental, but at least theirs is usually because of stupidity.

I think you give the other side too much credit. The Democratic rank and file may elevate "paradigms over people" without understanding either the paradigm or the harm, but I think the leadership knows exactly what it's doing, and counts cynically on its constituents' stupidity.

Take the school-choice issue. The public education unions want the public education monopoly to stay seamless, so the party they own opposes virtually any efforts to introduce meaningful choice into the mix -- and condemns children who care about school to be dragged down by their peers in failing schools who don't. Real people, sacrificed to a "paradigm."

Or take the issue, currently pending before Congress, of whether a murderer of a pregnant woman may be charged under federal law with a double homicide (as is the case in California). The abortion-rights activists don't want a single crack in the idea that a fetus, up to birth, is nothing more than body tissue, so they fight that; the families of murder victims be damned.

Sometimes, though, people get hurt in the name of the larger good. The Endangered Species Act has destroyed the livelihoods of whole communities in logging country -- real misery, but perhaps worth it. Our legal and tax systems routinely ruin people's finances. Sometimes that's necessary in order to finance the whole society; if we tried to arrange too many compassionate exceptions, we could swallow the whole system.

I don't think the sexual culture of this country is healthy. (I don't necessarily think the sexual culture of the 1950s was perfect, either.) I think that diluting the unique status of marriage any further will do more harm than good, which is why I have reluctantly to take the position I do knowing that decent people may be hurt.

Except perhaps when it is a case of human rights. But, because you think of the homosexual as deviant because of their sexual activities you also somehow think they are devoid of the rights of the rest of us.

What rights are homosexuals "devoid of" that the rest of us have? Only one "right," as you define it -- the right to compel people to deem a union of two people of the same sex a "marriage," just as morally admirable as a real marriage. Right now, I don't have that right, either.

But as usual the conservative positions are behind the curve, and the liberal positions (like what is going in in SF) are ahead of the curve.

Uh huh. Like those liberal positions on Keynesian economics, unconditional welfare, and accommodation with the Soviet Union were so far ahead of the curve.

It's a hard document to change and cooler heads from both parties tend to understand the implications of such Ammendments. Thank goodness.

Much easier to get a "legal realist" judge to change it for you without changing it -- and so we get to the realm of penumbras and emanations, and different meanings of "is", etc.

But the legalities, and contract involved, in making those Unions as marraiges are today, would be a thick document requiring a lot of money to make...... and it would STILL have loopholes.

With no more than a couple of legislative tweaks, I could arrange to cut and paste the relevant language from the California family code into a form contract which would be available for ten bucks.

Well slavery and the subjucation of women were pretty ancient traditions. The latter is still a way of life in many countries. But in this one it has gone by the wayside. As should this one.

For every tradition that has been branded a relic of barbarism and discarded, there are a dozen others that continue to stand the test of time. It's the exception rather than the rule for a truly bad idea to last long. If they aren't discovered for their flaws and rejected by the society in which they arise, they destroy the society and themselves along with it. I don't think society's view of same-sex couplings as less morally preferable to marriage is the equivalent of slavery, and I imagine you'd find quite a few descendants of slaves who'd think so even more vehemently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PD -

Part of the problem with these kinds of discussions is you (the collective version) are always right, and all good, while the other side is always wrong, and all bad. And vice-versa. And you wonder why people like me stay in the middle (save on freedom and rights type issues for me). Well to me both of your poop stinks. Badly. I have been following the process for far too long to buy into such a polarized position as you are selling. I mean no wonder society as a whole is so polarized. It is agenda thing personfied by the "all good all bad" stuff. At least in the past people could posture on the outside and deal on the inside. No more. The sides actually seem to dislike each other. And neither has any problem with spreading that "they suck we don't" paradigm. Your personnal attitude is typical and is why I am - like many people - disgusted with politics and politicians. I mean I can hear your spin on FOX, over and over and over, every single day. And I can hear theirs on a combination of MSNBC and CNN. As far as your positions as to sexual things..... reminds me of the old saw.... "Democrats want in your wallets and Republicans want in your bedrooms". Neither of you are conservative however; you both want control. LOTS of control. The emphasis is different. So on this battle, because it is personnal, I will continue to battle on the side I am on, with the understanding - considering the changes in the past 25 years - things are coming around. That conservatives are against this sort of this isn't suprising. One, they have always had issues with things sexual. Two, it is a way of exerting control they rather enjoy.... much of it religious based. And third, because they really don't mind being mean. And don't mind hurting people who do not fit in their box. I really believe this. I have been around enough, and close enough a follower of politics, to have had it validated again and again.

But then again, you'll disagree. Because your wing of the part is all good.... of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheProudDuck

I tend not to think much of the conceit that one is "in the middle." It's too easy to say "a pox on both your houses" and think yourself above it all. While a thinking person will rarely if ever agree exactly with every official plank of a party platform, the two-party system in this country has traditionally (as in, since the Federalists squared off against the Democratic-Republicans) served to group generally like-minded people together in broad coalitions -- kind of like European parliamentary systems do in practice, with their dozens of parties, except without those systems' risk of giving kingmaker status to extremist parties and thereby increasing their power. I think it would be a rare person who, after giving careful consideration to the ideas generally associated with each side, would find his own ideas equally distributed on both sides. One will always be slightly more one way than the other.

Having determined that my own thinking tends to fall on the Republican side, it is true that I tend to criticize Democratic positions more. I figure that the other side is best situated to criticize Republicans, and don't need my help. (Although there is a certain red, puffy-faced anti-intellectual numbskullery about a certain flavor of Orange County Republican that does try my patience.)

And given what you said -- "But as usual the conservative positions are behind the curve, and the liberal positions (like what is going in in SF) are ahead of the curve" -- I'm not sure I'm convinced that you're as much in the middle as you said. Although you did clarify that you leave the "middle" on "freedom and rights type issues." Your leanings strike me as generally libertarian.

There's a strong libertarian tradition in my extended family, to the extent that several members are planning to perform the singularly useless exercise of voting for the actual Libertarian Party. My own thinking is that social libertarianism, taken to extremes, makes economic libertarian untenable. Societies are kept together and functioning, and restrained in their self-destructive tendencies, both by law and by culture. Where constructive social restraints are relaxed (as has been the case with inner-city family life), families and the larger society literally fall apart. Poverty spreads along with illegitimacy; the rising generation isn't socialized properly, and governments, in turn, feel irresistible pressure to intervene to solve the resulting problems. So bureaucratic control increases (and since it's inegalitarian to focus that control only in problem communities, the control is imposed over everyone). Taxes have to be raised to pay for program after ineffective program. As government's involvement increases, so do opportunities for lawyers to skim their share.

In short, there's an inverse proportion between the effectiveness of society's "little platoons" of private virtue, as Edmund Burke called them, and government control.

Tell me -- do you really believe that mainstream conservatives are as anxious to regulate "bedroom" conduct as "the other side" is anxious to regulate economic matters? Name one conservative figure who, in the past decade, has advocated criminalizing private, consensual sexual conduct. (Criticism of courts for inventing a right to such conduct, when it clearly doesn't appear in the Constitution, isn't the same thing.) There's the abortion issue -- but since when do abortions take place in the bedroom? That's hardly just a "sex" issue; what draws such passion to the debate is that it potentially involves questions of life and death. Frankly, given the Bush administration's essential abandonment of restraint in domestic spending, it seems to me that both parties are a lot more interested in wallets than bedrooms.

"Old saws" often contain more pith than truth.

I mean no wonder society as a whole is so polarized. It is agenda thing personfied by the "all good all bad" stuff. At least in the past people could posture on the outside and deal on the inside. No more. The sides actually seem to dislike each other. And neither has any problem with spreading that "they suck we don't" paradigm.

I don't particularly like this polarization, either. Part of it, I think, has to do with the fact that as demographic mapping techniques have improved, the parties have gotten really good at redistricting their officeholders into safe seats, where they can just appeal to their bases and don't have to worry about building coalitions. Part of the problem, too, is that our governmental system has been so effective at making compromises, that all the easy compromises have been made -- and the only issues left are the ones where compromise is virtually impossible. On cultural issues, the polarization may largely be a function of "your side's" very success -- it's taken so much of the ground, with the assistance of a like-minded judiciary, that the other side may reasonably suspect that the give-and-take is all give for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** Frankly, given the Bush administration's essential abandonment of restraint in domestic spending, it seems to me that both parties are a lot more interested in wallets than bedrooms. ****

This point I'll conceed as a practical matter. Though bedrooms seem to be more of interest in an election year. Must cover ones political base.

I'll admit to being a social libertarian to a point. My values and mores are not yours. And I can provide ample anecdotal information (my family) where your mores, and control preogatives - which assume the doom of society, if such mores are relaxed -, do not work for our situation. I can even extend such information to my peer group as well. I am old enough to be able to look back now. And we could trade statistics, and their interpetations, to each prove our point, to the point a debate could go into the thousands of posts. I could also google up plenty of quotes to show various politicians saying things to prove my point. But do you really want to go there? That kind of stuff is so cheap and out of context as to be useless.

Basically you seem to suggest that homosexual marraige is a doom and gloom senario for society as we know it. I see it as society growing up..... as it has done the past as well. I think your views are partially upbringing based, religion based, and of course political party based. All of which suspect any who do not practice a morality you proscribe too. A conservative morality. Change scares the conservatives. This is probably a good thing as the other side can also get a bit carried away. One slows or balances the other. Otherwise, I see the one side purposefully hurting an entire group of people. And I simetimes wish a homosexual child on those people. I think it may be the only way they could truly gain any perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bizabra

Biz: See how much easier this is to read when paragraphed? No offense intended, I hope none was taken. Enjoy.

Porterockwell said:

Well for starters, you say you are still a member technically? Yet you don't believe in God?

One thing that humbles me quite frequently is a scripture(I won't state it because then it will just get twisted) that speaks of the "dust of the earth". The dust is obedient to the command of God, to his will, his way. Are we like that, we aren't perfect, but are we truly that obedient...do we desire to be? In that respect, we are no better than the dust of the Earth if we don't share the same charity and love for the Plan of Salvation as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Now, you don't believe you would want to be with a God that is like conservative old men in SLC. Fine don't be like them. I am a "conservative"(although I have come to dislike the rhetoric of it all...and don't pay attention anymore) and one the Youth Leaders(Im 20 now so I just talk with him on Sunday) in my ward is a retired professor who is DEM. all the way(minus the pro-choice and feminism and gay issues). But we still have the same common view and aspiration, to be more like our Heavenly Father.

If you let people dictate how you feel about something, and think of all mormons to be the same as the ones that offend you, then you won't end up in a very good place. I know a lot of charismatic people who wouldn't think twice about taking advantage of my want for that quality in a person.

As far as me leaving the missionary work to others. Don't think so. If you actually knew me, the person(instead of the screen name) you'd feel differently about that statement. I am probably one of the most charitable, patient people you will ever meet. Granted I am not perfect, and very fiery, but that is only because I don't want to see ANYONE who I can communicate with, not know the truth, not have the opportunity to get back to their Heavenly Father, not have the opportunity to come to know Christ and ALL the blessings he has in store. Most of all, I don't want to be standing before the Judgement Bar of God and have him ask me, "Why did you say nothing to those who needed to hear?" I don't to be teaching those in Spirit prison, and come across someone I could have said something to, and know that I as a bearer of the truth said nothing, and because of it(however small of a part that played in his or her life) they are still sitting...waiting...hoping...to hear the truth...and be able to accept it.

I don't hate people for sinning, there is nothing anyone could do to make me hate them(when I truly sit down and ask myself that question...again...not perfect). But when someone doesn't find anything wrong with sinning, I cannot sit around and allow that to be spread without some righteous opposition.

I have people come and talk to me all the time about things they have done, that frankly they need to talk to the bishop about or still feel guilty about, and do you know what I say to them "You are not perfect, and the fact that you are trying with Godly intent to correct it, makes all the difference." "Besides, nothing is too bad in the Lords(there are exceptions of course) eyes." I like to think of it like this, it is not what you did, it's if you want to correct it or not.

I'll tell you what, let's Micheal Jackson actually does have a sexual problem with younger boys And let's say that he did want, and have a chance to repent, and cleanse his slate of that sin. Would you forget about, and treat him as such? I know I would. I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would.

What is sad is the world wouldn't. The comics wouldn't, the analysts wouldn't, none o them would. So I guess it puzzles me that you have such a harsh view of the church and it's members. I would hope you would have a change of heart. And when your wife shouts obscenities about our church, do you think that is of light. Or a window for Satan to convince your wife to stay away from from it? Also, depending on an arm of flesh will only make you Satan's footstool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 2 2004, 02:48 PM

**** Yes...but relationships aren't what is causing aids to spread...Nor is it what defines sexual preference for husband and wife...and marriage. ****

Worldwide, heterosexual sex is by far the biggest speader of AIDS. It is what sexual preference for husband and husband, or wife and wife, as it were. And of course those marraiges.

*** You can have a relationship with whomever you please...doesn't make for a legal marriage. ****

I don't understand why it wouldn't/

*** And I don't know any gays who don't have sex in their 'relationship'... ****

And your point - with regards to what I said..... is?

Heterosexual...may now be a larger contributer...but it is only because of bisexuals...and prostitutes and other immoral practices...so maybe what we should blame for aids...is just plain old immorality.....which homosexuality is....it isn't the only form....

BUT if you read the historical accounts of aids...it started with homosexual men.......

plain and simple...

so who ever is being victimized by it today...which is a large percent innocent children through immoral parents....then you can just go whistle your little tune of innocence....somewhere else...

There would be no aids among the people if there weren't immoral homosexual men......to start with....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** BUT if you read the historical accounts of aids...it started with homosexual men.......

plain and simple... *****

References please (second call). Non-bias ones please. Otherwise, I think it's the LDS who started it. Sort of an attempt to speed up the end.

**** so who ever is being victimized by it today...which is a large percent innocent children through immoral parents....then you can just go whistle your little tune of innocence....somewhere else... *****

Pretty much all children in your paradigm would seem to be victims. Yet I work with truly victimized children (and am married to a child victim) all of the time. Perhaps I should stop. It's all useless, right?

Amazing how some people can make a religious belief so positive, hopeful, and happy. And for others; just fear and doom and gloom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logically? LOL...how much more logical can one get...two women have no way to come to gether without the aid of 'extras'...and men cannot come together without using the stinky..end which was not created for that purpose...

Now that was graphic...but some are sooooooo in the dark they need a picture painted for them to get the LOGIC!!!

Logic? If this is simple logic then why is sgallan the only one here who is making an intelligent argument about his POV? I don't agree with much of what he is saying, but he is doing much better in this debate than any of you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bizabra
Originally posted by Peace+Mar 4 2004, 11:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 4 2004, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sgallan@Mar 2 2004, 02:48 PM

**** Yes...but relationships aren't what is causing aids to spread...Nor is it what defines sexual preference for husband and wife...and marriage. ****

Worldwide, heterosexual sex is by far the biggest speader of AIDS. It is what sexual preference for husband and husband, or wife and wife, as it were. And of course those marraiges.

*** You can have a relationship with whomever you please...doesn't make for a legal marriage. ****

I don't understand why it wouldn't/

*** And I don't know any gays who don't have sex in their 'relationship'...  ****

And your point - with regards to what I said..... is?

Heterosexual...may now be a larger contributer...but it is only because of bisexuals...and prostitutes and other immoral practices...so maybe what we should blame for aids...is just plain old immorality.....which homosexuality is....it isn't the only form....

BUT if you read the historical accounts of aids...it started with homosexual men.......

plain and simple...

so who ever is being victimized by it today...which is a large percent innocent children through immoral parents....then you can just go whistle your little tune of innocence....somewhere else...

There would be no aids among the people if there weren't immoral homosexual men......to start with....

Um, check out this site: http://www.manythings.org/voa/00/000629sr_t.htm

Indications are that AIDS began in Africa, after exposure to the simian form due to a monkey bite. Gay men did not "start" this. It is simply easier to transmit via the anus than by normal heterosexual sex.

Although, read this page: http://www.unicef.org/protection/FGM.pdf it does appear that female genital mutilation (or circumcision) practiced in some AFrican and Moslem communities, increases the risk of AIDS infection for women in those countries due to the bloody tearing that occurs in the womans tissues during intercourse, or the use of anal intercourse instead or as a birth control measure.

Heterosexual activity in Africa is what is spreading the disease there. It is due to social customs that the disease has a different "base" in different countries.

Get educated, woman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 4 2004, 12:31 PM

**** BUT if you read the historical accounts of aids...it started with homosexual men.......

plain and simple... *****

References please (second call). Non-bias ones please. Otherwise, I think it's the LDS who started it. Sort of an attempt to speed up the end.

**** so who ever is being victimized by it today...which is a large percent innocent children through immoral parents....then you can just go whistle your little tune of innocence....somewhere else... *****

Pretty much all children in your paradigm would seem to be victims. Yet I work with truly victimized children (and am married to a child victim) all of the time. Perhaps I should stop. It's all useless, right?

Amazing how some people can make a religious belief so positive, hopeful, and happy. And for others; just fear and doom and gloom.

The historical places I looked it up were medical reports of who was dying....when it was first discovered...and it was not biased.

Check out the medical sites on Aids...they all state clearly that the first deaths were all men who lived in a homosexual lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did Google it. Plus I already knew a lot about it. I am funny that way..... when family is going to die of something I tend to research it. The history is all over the board. From homosexual spread in this country to heterosexual elsewhere. Not only that, but the virus itself has orgins centuries old. It just took it awhile to manifest. Perhaps from a monkey in the 1920's passed to humans.

FWIW, there are LOTS of potentially deadly virsus which are dormat in such a way. There was a flu around the turn of the century which killed millions, then left. But it's still out there. Maybe it will come back. Maybe it won't. Some virusus which we think are extinct; tend to have a way of coming back in a slightly different form as well. I could go on and on. The history is pretty fascinating stuff.

You really need to learn something about virusus. The histories. How they are passed. How some come and go. There is a reason we cannot cure the common cold afterall. But of course when you have a boogeyman; it is so much the easier to blame everything on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

I did Google it. Plus I already knew a lot about it. I am funny that way..... when family is going to die of something I tend to research it. The history is all over the board. From homosexual spread in this country to heterosexual elsewhere. Not only that, but the virus itself has orgins centuries old. It just took it awhile to manifest. Perhaps from a monkey in the 1920's passed to humans.

Well this was my point and you agreed. So what the other thing about viruses...is all about...I'm not sure.

After raising 7 kids...I know about viruses...all that I want to... anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share