Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Christian group to end nine-year boycott of Disney over gay issues; set sights on Clay Aiken   (nbc13.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

13654 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2005 at 7:08 PM (11 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2005-05-25 01:41:20 AM  
Pantropik

Not sure about Hep C, but as for HIV, it's BLACK PEOPLE, last I heard. I'm sure you could look it up if you wanted, since I doubt my word is enough for you.

Oh, you want to get into numbers? I didn't mention gonorreaha, but I'll let you look that up while you look for your black people statistics. Utterly hilarious.

It's not a race that spreads HIV, moran. It's what you do with your nutsack.

YOU are the one blaming a race rather than a lifestyle. Let the record show. That's like MADD blaming drunk driving on Irish people.

After you're done painting me a racist, most unsuccessfully, you can try and figure out why you spent four long paragraphs trying to convince me that you're happy, all the while, bashing MY lifestyle.

You DEFINE my term, "the oh-so-tolerant". Thank you for the example.

pantropik
That's a good one. The only time my "lifestyle" has ever made me unhappy is when I am confronted with people like you. And that, my friend, is a direct result of your unhappy lifestyle. You know, the one that makes you think you have the right to judge me. What a waste of your time -- and for those sad idiots with their holy crusade against all things gay, what a waste of their lives.

Sure. It's a waste of time to point out a few facts that completely make the argument that you will then ignore, and then claim "love and tolerance above all, homophobic piece of farking shiat".

Here they are anyway. Maybe you are happy (whatever), but the majority of your peers are NOT.

78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. (Hey, are blacks that high?)

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8-12 partners in a lifetime. (New England Journal of Medicine)

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75

50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence [gay vs gay] (Newsweek)

Great, healthy, happy lifestyle, my ass.

pantropik
Individually I'm sure they're not all that bad, but as a group they are and always have been nothing but a manifestation of the malignant, ignorant arrogance humanity has yet to outgrow: "Not like us; therefore evil."

You mean gays, right?...

//waiting for Jesse Jackson to kick your ass
 
2005-05-25 01:49:28 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter:

So it's better to make someone feel good than to make the case that homosexuality will shave 20 years off the average homosexuals life?

So can we start condeming smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, people who eat too much, people who engage in risky activities like mountain climbing or extreme sports because it could possibly shorten their life span in the same manner as gays and lesbians?
 
2005-05-25 01:53:14 AM  
cato113
"So can we start condeming smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, people who eat too much, people who engage in risky activities like mountain climbing or extreme sports because it could possibly shorten their life span in the same manner as gays and lesbians?"

You dummy, people don't choose to be mountain climbers!

 
2005-05-25 01:56:44 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter: 78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. (Hey, are blacks that high?)

The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75


Sir, please... your sexual values are between you and your God, but I'm afraid these "facts" you are quoting are from crazy people.
 
2005-05-25 02:02:09 AM  
78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs. (Hey, are blacks that high?)

Citation for this lie?


One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year.

"One study"? What study?
 
2005-05-25 02:04:36 AM  
I found an example of Cameron's statistical methodology in Slate Magazine (link pops):

He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.

Oh, Lordy. I never even finished one class in statistics, but I'm laughing my ass off over here. That's almost as funny as imagining all those sober, earnest fundies listening to him talk about how "gay" sex is so much more fun than marital sex and never, ever wondering how he knows that.
 
2005-05-25 02:08:51 AM  
Dimensio

"One study"? What study?

It's part of one of those "studies" conducted by "Doctor" Cameron I mentioned above. He's the same guy who advocated the prominent facial tattooing of AIDS patients, the forcible closure of all gay bars and the creation of a registry to keep track of all homoseuxal offenders (much like the Sexual Predator Registries now in use around the country).

And who can forget: "At least twice Cameron has advocated the tattooing of AIDS patients on the face, so that people would know when they were meeting with an infected person. The penalty for trying to hide the tattoo would be banishment to the Hawaiian island of Molokai, a former leper colony. In the event that a vaccine were developed to prevent AIDS, Cameron has proposed that homosexuals be castrated to prevent them from 'cheating' on nature." - Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.
 
2005-05-25 02:16:05 AM  
Dimensio

Here's some more info about "Doctor" Cameron.

I'm sure all the professional and legal setbacks he has suffered were the result of some vast, effete liberal intellectualist gay Jewish conspiracy of some kind, though.
 
2005-05-25 02:25:28 AM  
pantropik: You dummy, people don't choose to be mountain climbers!

My bad, I just lumped the two together. How could I confuse gays and mountain climbers, one group gets extreme pleasure from exploring rugged and unmapped areas, digging deep, holding on for dear life, and not letting up until they reach the climax...errr...peak. The other group has same sex relationships.

I apologize completely and without reservation for my error. ;)
 
2005-05-25 02:25:43 AM  
You mean all that, and you rip at one statistic?

Why don't you address the other ones?

Citation for this lie?

(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, p. 53.

Nope, not Dr. Cameron.

"One study"? What study?

Corey, L. and Holmes, K. "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men." New England J. Med., 1980, pp. 435-38.

Okay.. YOUR TURN

Cite some statistics that show that a gay lifestyle adds to the quality of life.

Anyone?
 
2005-05-25 02:41:32 AM  
2005-05-25 02:25:43 AM DoesItReallyMatter

(20) Rueda, E. "The Homosexual Network." Old Greenwich, Conn., The Devin Adair Company, p. 53.

Nope, not Dr. Cameron.


Quite right. Enrique Rueda was a Catholic priest writing in 1982.

Wish I could stay and chat, but bed calls.
 
2005-05-25 02:49:18 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right (and not just because you seem to lack the capacity to accept that you might not be).

So, assuming you're right, here's what we have: I'm in a years-long monogamous relationship with a person I love with all my heart, and I hope he and I are together for a long, long time to come. That is wrong. We are miserable and unhealthy, although we are somehow unaware of it. We are going to continute to be miserable until some not-so-distant time in the future, whereupon we will both die young and horribly thanks to our vile lifestyle.

Given all that, even if it's 100% true, I have just one question for you: How is that, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, any of your damned business? What about what cato asked you? What about smokers, people who eat fatty foods, people who eat drive their cars fast, who go mountain climbing, who skydive, who swallow swords and eat fire and handle deadly animals?

Those people ALL choose to engage in behavior that will most likely cause them harm at some point and will also most likely shorten their lives. Let's just take smoking, eating yucky foods, eating too much in general, and refusing to exercise enough. In this country, smoking and diet-related health problems cost BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars each year, right?

Of course they do. You people are always saying that there's NO WAY 10% of the population is homosexual. 3%, tops, you say. So, let's assume THAT is true. WAY MORE THAN 3% of the population smokes and/or eats badly.

Think about that long and hard, until it sinks into your lil head, okay? Smoking and diet-related illness kills more people in a YEAR (probably much less) than AIDS EVER HAS. Got it?

So if you are motivated to get people out of the "homosexual lifestyle" because it's bad for their health then that's surely a laudable goal! However, why focus on such a tiny group (homosexuals) when a MUCH LARGER group (smokers and people who eat unhealthy stuff) needs your help just as much?

It's simple math, right? There are more smokers, over-eaters, bad-eaters, etc. than gays. Why don't all these "Family" groups pour their efforts into stopping THAT destructive behavior? How many fat people have heart attacks and orphan their (probably equally fat) children? How many smoke themselves to death? How many smoke in confined spaces with their children and do real harm TO THE CHILDREN? Why are Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition and all those other "family" groups so obsessed with mansex when there are a lot more people in a lot WORSE danger whom they choose to ignore?

Why don't they help!?

Why don't YOU? These people are shortening their lives. They are choosing to smoke and eat at McDonald's rather than LIVE ... surely you have to take action, right? You have to tell them ... plead with them ... SOMETHING ... they outnumber gays exponentially ... it's a true pandemic! Yet you and your kind do nothing.

We gays really are flattered at all the attention you give us, and all the help you want to give us, but, really, considering all this, you should all be terribly ashamed of yourselves for choosing to sacrifice the many for the few.

The next time you see some fat lady smoking a cheeseburger in the car with her brood of fat little offspring, ask yourself how you can live with yourself knowing you did nothing to help.
 
2005-05-25 02:57:29 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter:

Cite some statistics that show that a gay lifestyle adds to the quality of life.

Whose life? Your life? I'd like to see that too. It's like asking how my blue shirt increase my quality of life:

Researcher: Describe what your wearing?
Me: A blue t-shirt and black pants
Researcher: and how are you feeling?
Me: I've been better
Researcher: So...blue t-shirts cause depression. OMFG!!! I'm going to win a Noble Prize for this breakthrough

It's not as simple as that, any study that tries to measure the quality of a "gay lifestyle" is going to inherently biased one way or another.


78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs.
What STDs? There are lots of them to choose from, and while you're at it, could you clearify "affected?" Does that mean the person has contracted an STD or has a friend or family member living with an STD? By that same token if my brother got HIV, I would affected by an STD, even if indirectly.

the average heterosexual has 8-12 partners in a lifetime
I know straight people who blow this out of the water, but do have the same condemnation for them? For the potential risk of STDs and pregnancy that they are exposing themselves to?

Great, healthy, happy lifestyle, my ass.
I could say the EXACT same thing about some HETERO COUPLES.

ps- some studies published since the 80's would be cool
 
2005-05-25 03:05:18 AM  
So can we start condeming smokers, drinkers, drug addicts, people who eat too much, people who engage in risky activities like mountain climbing or extreme sports

You aren't really that simple minded. Smokers and drug users are hurting the body. If I said it felt good, would you then believe it was healthy for me to do? That's the argument you make on homosexual sex. It's NOT healthy, and only an idiot would make the case that it is.

Drinking is actually good for you in moderation.

Overexcess of drinking AND excess eating is a sin, obviously. So is idolatry. So is homosexualty. The point being is that if you stop practicing your vice (being drunk, being an idol worshipper, or having gay sex), then you can be forgiven.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

Verse 9: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall NOT inherit the kingdom of God? BE NOT DECEIVED: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Verse 10: " Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."


Those are sins of actions. Notice that the genetic makeup is not present - only the action resulting from someone "predestined" to do something is excluded, and not the person. In other words, it's not a sin to be homosexual. It's a sin, however, to practice homosexuality. So this bunk about the church "hating gays" is total crap. But if you don't like the church, then just don't go. I'm sure the thousands of drunks around the country feel the same way - that churches don't necessarily consider "drunkeness" as a faithful way to live, and they probably don't feel welcome.

But don't expect everyone else to STFU just because they disagree with you.

Look, I'm not going to demand that anal sex be outlawed, or that the police come break up your wedding ceremony. I could care less. I don't care if you screw 1000 guys, knowing you have HIV, or Hep C, or Gonnorreaha. It won't affect me in almost any part of my life. (Maybe medical costs, but Hillary will save us all in 2008). And back to the topic, I don't care if you have your Gay Day. Just keep posting it on the website, and I just won't show up for it. We can part friends on that issue I hope.

My concern is for at least being upfront about the dangers of homosexual sex. I guess it's all okay until you get the death sentence, which two of my friends have. I find it hard to believe that anyone could condone that, considering it KILLS ya. Yet, I've been to two gay pride parades, and not a word about safety, outside of throwing condoms all over the street. Whoop-dee. Your community doesn't care about ITSELF - yet the average joe is supposed to cater to you?

So before you call me a gay hater, better step back and at least consider that I:

a) did not grow up on a farm - inner city, rather.
b) did not grow up in the church
c) have gay friends
d) lost two of them
e) don't participate in gay bashing
f) rallied AGAINST Fred Phelps when he came to my town


The irony is... awww, the hell with this. If you don't get it by now, you never will. I even agreed that Gay Day was something that Disney shouldn't exclude, even though I'd never participate.

But those words are lost because I said something about gay people you disagree with. Let's throw out the whole opinion because part of it is disagreeable.

And call him a bigot.
 
2005-05-25 03:07:41 AM  
Here's a general question to everyone:

Smoking and improper diet/exercise affect way more people than does homosexuality. Deaths and illnesses related to those things has destroyed WAY more families than has homosexuality. People who smoke and eat badly tend to raise their children in such a way that they carry on their parents' unhealthy lifestyle as adults (and then raise their children that way, etc.) It's a vicious cycle. The Bible repeatedly warns against abusing the body ("temple") and gluttony, etc.

Given all that, why do the "family" groups expend WAY more time and resources trying to "help" gays than they do trying to "help" smokers and fat people (and their poor, innocent fat little black-lunged children)?
 
2005-05-25 03:11:40 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter,

By what authority do you believe you have the right to control the lifestyles of other individuals?
 
2005-05-25 03:13:24 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter

Overexcess of drinking AND excess eating is a sin, obviously. So is idolatry. So is homosexualty. The point being is that if you stop practicing your vice (being drunk, being an idol worshipper, or having gay sex), then you can be forgiven.

True, true. All true. There are WAY more people abusing their bodies (drinking, smoking, eating badly, getting divorced, having non-marital sex, etc.) than there are practicing homosexuality. Sin is sin, right?

So why do the various Christian "family" groups spend WAY more time focusing on homosexuality (a VERY tiny fraction of sinners) as opposed to the others (drinking, smoking, eating badly, getting divorced, living in sin, etc.) It's like they are OBSESSED with mansex.

I don't get it. It's as if they are preaching to a chosen few (gays) while leaving the sinful masses (drinkers, smokers, adulterers, people who divorce, have sex outside marriage, etc. etc.) to rot in their sin and burn forever and ever, amen.

Seems cruel to me. Explain it.
 
2005-05-25 03:21:12 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter

Thank you for the eye-opening statistics. Those crazy gays just don't think logically. If only they tried to emulate people like you or myself; they would then be living a truely healthy lifestyle. I personally have tried using mind control on the homosexuals to force them to live a healthy lifestyle. Unfortuantly, hypnosis proved to be unreliable. Perhaps if we verbally or physically abused them on an individual basis, they would be shamed into doing what is obviosly best for them.

Maybe we should give them the Dr. Brodsky treatment?
 
2005-05-25 03:23:25 AM  
Perhaps if we verbally or physically abused them on an individual basis, they would be shamed into doing what is obviosly best for them.

"Doctor" Cameron seems to believe that gay people get off on cruelty, pain, and disgusting physical acts. Your methods might have ... other than the desired effects. Was a good thought, though. Shows real initiative.
 
2005-05-25 03:25:12 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter: Your just a hateful little fark. ISn't there something you can be doing like protesting children reading harry potter or something?
 
2005-05-25 03:44:41 AM  
pantopik: I think Silvio was playing for sarcasm... are you? I'm honestly not sure. Any way, we can all agree: DoesItReallyMatter is a tool on the level of "Hard Riding Heroes"-era Hal Jordan. (Hey I'm just re-reading all this stuff from when I was a kid. Sorry.) Tool of his self-chosen Establishment. Anyway, I'm sorry your getting raked over the coals by this guy - he's not even listening to his own savior. I guess he finds it easier to parrot then to think.

DoesItReallyMatter, Listen, it doesn't matter what your book says in pretty much the whole thing. What does matter: It does say your greatest goal is to love your neighbor - to treat others as you wish to be treated. This wasn't the 6th generation ramblings of a guy who lived two centuries - those are the words of your guy himself. Live by them - your obligated to. Now start doing it, dammit. And I don't think anyone likes being told they're choices are wrong because a bunch of lying doctors wipe facts out of they're asses.

I think your just trying to avoid conisdering you might be wrong. You've dodged and given the easiest to read answers you could - almost a copy-paste, dispite the almost certian facts you've been presented with the fact they're wrong before this thread. Being wrong is okay - no one cares. It's just a condition. Change for the future, and no one will mind.
 
2005-05-25 03:48:43 AM  
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that you're right

Hey, for the sake of comradierie, let's hope that I'm wrong!

So, assuming you're right, here's what we have: I'm in a years-long monogamous relationship with a person I love with all my heart, and I hope he and I are together for a long, long time to come. That is wrong. We are miserable and unhealthy, although we are somehow unaware of it. We are going to continute to be miserable until some not-so-distant time in the future, whereupon we will both die young and horribly thanks to our vile lifestyle.

Congratulations. You're actually a MINORITY in your class. How many homosexuals actually settle down with one partner for over, oh, say 5 years?

Assuming that the same could be said for heterosexuals, however divorcing one woman for another is also biblically wrong, and ALSO ups the chance of catching an STD.

Of course, belonging to any religion makes you a brainwashed prude, which is worse than anything, right?

"Encouraging or condoning a lifestyle that is DETREMENTAL to the person committing it is NOT bigotry. In fact, the opposite would be more truthful in saying those who support a detremental lifestyle CARE LESS about the person who is IN the lifestyle. This rings true as well. Having sex with multiple people is totally dangerous. But single homosexuals have a higher rate of one-night-stands and "get around" more within the community than straights do. Don't BS me.

And funny, I didn't once quote your Cameron buddy. (Sorry to disappoint!)

Given all that, even if it's 100% true, I have just one question for you: How is that, by any conceivable stretch of the imagination, any of your damned business?

How is it NOT my business? Should we just turn a blind eye to a serious health epidemic? Hep C? Just ignore it? Wait until "teh gheys" have an epidemic for which "the Bush Administration" doesn't "supply" enough antedotes for, and watch the shiat fly!

Maybe your community can lie to each other. I won't.

Think about that long and hard, until it sinks into your lil head, okay? Smoking and diet-related illness kills more people in a YEAR (probably much less) than AIDS EVER HAS. Got it?

But we don't go around saying that smoking and eating shiatty food is "healthy" and "should be encouraged". We've outlawed smoking ads. Should we outlaw things that some people think are detrimental, despite that the advertising is geared towards something a small majority enjoys? Think long and hard about this before you answer.

So if you are motivated to get people out of the "homosexual lifestyle" because it's bad for their health then that's surely a laudable goal!

RRRREEEENNNTTTT. WRONG! That most certainly isn't my goal, which makes the rest of your post irrelevant. I don't buy that you can make a homosexual a non-homosexual. But thanks for lumping me in with everything else you obviously look down on.

I'm sure everyone will jump on THAT bandwagon.

But don't walk around saying that homosexuality is normal when you know damn well that there is a higher risk of disease simply for engaging in it. And a much higher risk if you're NOT in a committed healthy relationship. If you think putting your shaft in a butt is the same as putting it in a vagina, you should really educate yourself on the medical issues you could possibly face.

Fast food and anal sex have something in common: Both can give you E. Coli.

I'm not out to "save" you. I was debating an issue. But since you want to make it personal, and generalize what YOU THINK my stand is based on stereotypes, then you're just attacking and not debating.

Good luck. I'm glad your happy.

//It's still unhealthy, even in committed relationships.
 
2005-05-25 04:01:42 AM  
Should we just turn a blind eye to a serious health epidemic?

Absolutely NOT! That's what I was saying all along. OBESITY is rapidly becoming the greatest healthcare threat to this nation since, uh, EVER.

OBESITY affects millions upon millions of people, many of them innocent children. You say that you don't believe you can turn a gay man straight, and I agree, but in almost ALL cases you can turn a fat many skinny if he's willing to work at it and pull himself up out of his sinful lifestyle.

Why are so many of the "family" groups fighting so HARD in a losing battle against "teh gay" when they should be saving the poor little fat children?

Is it because God is so very fond of the extra sizzle poor little fat children make when they are tossed into the Eternal Pit of Fiery Torment forever and ever, amen?

I don't get it. Why are we queers so darned special and worthy of so much more attention than all the myriad other breeds of sinner?

I'm genuinely curious. The Bible says gluttony is a sin, therefore fat people are yucky and make baby Jesus cry. More children are harmed by far by gluttony and its attendent health problems than by homosexuality. These health problems cost many, many billions of dollars each year. It's only getting worse. Yet the various "family" groups focus on keeping gays from adopting or serving as foster parents, but the fat folks can have all the kids they can eat ... what's up with that?
 
2005-05-25 04:08:24 AM  
Guys, I really don't know why you keep on replying to DoesItReallyMatter.

First comes the complaints about raunchy content from Disney's subsidiaries. That can't hold his attention long, though. Unable to pull himself away, he insinuates that AIDS is the earthly repercussion for the sin of homosexuality. Then when people question that, he claims that the fundies are only speaking out because it's obvious that the 'gay lifestyle' is detrimental to their health.

Then he pulls out the bogus statistics about gays dying left, right and center. When people rip at them, he switches tracks: it's time to quote bible passages! And if that isn't enough, he brings up the specter of two friends who tragically died as a result of their woefully misguided ways.

Oh, if only he'd been able to stop them! Why, maybe he could in a way- by warning other about the dangers of their lifestyle on internet forums! By God, that's it!
 
2005-05-25 04:12:14 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter, Listen, it doesn't matter what your book says in pretty much the whole thing. What does matter: It does say your greatest goal is to love your neighbor - to treat others as you wish to be treated. This wasn't the 6th generation ramblings of a guy who lived two centuries - those are the words of your guy himself.

So how did debating the health aspects of gay sex turn into hate?

Or did you just take it that way?

And I don't think anyone likes being told they're choices are wrong because a bunch of lying doctors wipe facts out of they're asses.

I don't see anything refuted. You all laughed at my statistics, claimed I was citing "Cameron" or WTF his name was when I didn't, yet you didn't provide ANY - not ONE statistic proving my points wrong.

Talk about wiping facts out of asses.

I think your just trying to avoid conisdering you might be wrong.

Ahhh, I get it. I'm not bowing down and "admitting" that homosexual sex is unhealthy, even though every study I've proposed says it is.

I have an open mind. Shiat, give me SOMETHING already. Discuss the issue.

OR brand me as a fundie (which I'm not), call me a fag-hater (which I'm not) and belittle my intelligence.

Good strategy!

Perhaps if we verbally or physically abused them on an individual basis, they would be shamed into doing what is obviosly best for them.

Again, see above. Good strategy. It doesn't work for either side.

No sense calling anything Biblical wrong. Especially when you can find a church today that will make a homosexual a pastor, which is against every Christian text available.

Yet it's such a hot button political topic. Ya'll still don't have standing in the Catholic Church, or the Latter Day Saints (well, neither did black people until recently), but you blame conservatives, families and the AFA for peacefully protesting homosexuality and Disney which promoted it, which they genuinely think is wrong.

Pantropik, I'd have to say that both of the groups we belong to have problems - of the priority kind.

I'm not sure who I belong to, actually. The fundies think my language sucks, and the conservatives are too busy praising Almighty Bush.
 
2005-05-25 04:14:26 AM  
Guys, I really don't know why you keep on replying to DoesItReallyMatter.

I'm not talking to him when I respond to his posts, I'm talking to the person who just read what he wrote and doesn't quite realize what a steaming pile of crap it is. It's kinda like community service.

This conversation was kinda interesting to me tonight because I'm reading Saturn by Ben Bova (2004) and it paints a pretty dystopic / frightening picture of a future Earth under the iron rule of the "true believers." Pretty dark for Mr. Bova, but given the state of the world, who can blame him.
 
2005-05-25 04:18:03 AM  
Then he pulls out the bogus statistics about gays dying left, right and center.i>

Alright, asswipe. Refute them yourself, then. No-one else has been able to. I give you your own special invitation.

/...waiting....
 
2005-05-25 04:26:42 AM  
I'm not talking to him when I respond to his posts, I'm talking to the person who just read what he wrote and doesn't quite realize what a steaming pile of crap it is. It's kinda like community service.

Glad I read that before responding to your other posts.

Nice to know that you're just debating to reitterate your facts, instead of actually talking about the issue.

Hey, look foward to the future. Persecuting people who aren't "tolerant" of "whevever everyone else believes is good" is in the future - it has already been written.

/don't let me keep you from your book
 
2005-05-25 04:28:32 AM  
Show me how homosexuality is worse (from a health standpoint) than obesity (which is rampant among Christians, too, you know). Or smoking.

Now, explain why fat people are allowed to adopt children (and make them fat). Why smokers are allowed to adopt children (and give them all manner of health problems). And why healthy, nonsmoking monogamous gays are NOT allowed to adopt children.

Explain why the various "family" groups aren't working to remove children from obese homes? From smokers' homes? Why have there been no calls for constitutional amendments banning cigarettes and Big Macs? For the children!!

Fact: Far more children are harmed by smoking and obesity than by gay people.

Fact: The various "family" groups (and plenty of morbidly fat Christians) don't seem to give a damn.

/...waiting...
 
2005-05-25 04:34:11 AM  
Glad I read that before responding to your other posts.

If you think I'm going to sit and chat politely with you after you tell me that my life (which I happen to like, mind you) is not just fundamentally wrong but generally destructive and unhealthy, you must be unhinged.

You cannot label me an unhealthy, destructive sinner and then expect me to act the saint, now can you? That hardly seems fair.
 
2005-05-25 04:46:55 AM  
Ladies and Gentlemen of FARK, we have found our Bevets for homophobia, and he is DoesItReallyMatter. As I said in the evolution sticker thread, keep on preaching brother. You'll turn more people away from your false god with your bigotry and outmoded dogma than logic and reason alone ever will.
 
2005-05-25 04:54:28 AM  
And why healthy, nonsmoking monogamous gays are NOT allowed to adopt children.

Rosie O'Donnell had her own kids? Hardly!

Fact: Far more children are harmed by smoking and obesity than by gay people.

Fact: The various "family" groups (and plenty of morbidly fat Christians) don't seem to give a damn.


Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said this: Domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse. (S. Holt, Gay and Lesbian Times, Sept. 26, 1996).

(J. Sorenson, Amer. J. Public Health, 1996, 86:35-40) established that, in traditional, heterosexual marriages, the average rate of domestic violence is less than 5% a year. But homosexuals cohabiting with one another reported far higher rates of violence: 20% to 25% per year (D. Ellis, Violence and Victims, 1989, 4:235-255).

That might answer your question. It's safer.

It still remains that while the average man will live to be 70 years old (fatty diet and cigarettes and all), only around 2% of homosexuals will make it to that age.

Pass the cupcakes and the cigarettes!

/pulling more bogas, yet seemingly unrefutable, statistics out of my ass
//waiting to hear "actual" gay life expectancy from ANY source???
 
2005-05-25 05:19:25 AM  
Rosie O'Donnell had her own kids? Hardly!

In the vast majority of states, gay people aren't allowed to adopt. The "family" groups consider preventing adoption of children by gay people to be a high priority, but I've seen no evidence they've attempted to prevent adoption by smokers or fat people. I suspect you knew that already.

As for "safety": no child would be given to people who had a history of domestic violence, no matter their sexuality. So your "statistics" are a moot point unless you think adoption agencies hand babies out to everyone who wants one regardless of criminal history.

Still, you are saying that it's "safer" for a child to live with obese parents (and most likely become obese) or with parents who smoke (kids of parents who smoke are more likely to smoke when they get older, not to mention health problems from second-hand smoke).

You threw out your domestic violence rates as if they mean something, but I didn't ask, "Why are gay people not allowed to adopt while straight people are." For some reason, that's the question you attempted to answer with the domestic violence stuff. Good answer, I suppose, but to the wrong question.

What I actually asked is the more specific "Why are healthy, nonsmoking gay people not allowed to adopt while obese people and people who smoke (or both) are allowed to adopt.

As for life expectancy, I'm pretty healthy. I'm in an already years-long monogamous relationship and if I have anything I say about it, it's going to last forever. What, exactly, am I going to be dying of on my 42nd birthday (not my 39th, since the whole monogamy thing rules out AIDS). But you said 42 is the average, so ... how am I gonna buy it?
 
2005-05-25 05:42:43 AM  
In the vast majority of states, gay people aren't allowed to adopt. The "family" groups consider preventing adoption of children by gay people to be a high priority, but I've seen no evidence they've attempted to prevent adoption by smokers or fat people. I suspect you knew that already.

Yup. I did know that. I don't know why. I'm not aware of a lot of adoption stuff, so I wouldn't know. I didn't realize there were a lot of gay people lining up in the first place.

I think if the choice were foster home or loving gay home, I'd pick for the child to live at a loving gay home.

The same as if it was a foster home versus a smoker's home.

The same as if it was a foster home versus a obese home.

I'm not differentiating the distinction. Every kid needs a home.

I think from the Fundie point of view, the family unit is being challenged. For 6000 years, very few societies in history have considered anything but the structure of a father, mother, and kids. When in the last 100 years, this question of "family" has come up for grabs, and I think it catches a lot of people (not just fundies, but others too) off guard. Some view it as an attack, some are curious, others disgusted.

I'm more of the curious bunch, but in a sardonic* way.

*sardonic - cautiously curious

Why should society change the way families are raised just because a small percentage thing they should be changed after centuries of "that's how it is".

What are you looking to improve on?

What I actually asked is the more specific "Why are healthy, nonsmoking gay people not allowed to adopt while obese people and people who smoke (or both) are allowed to adopt.

Sorry, I ovbiously misunderstood.

The answer? Beats the hell out of me. It might be because of outdated statistics, for all I know.

I'm in an already years-long monogamous relationship and if I have anything I say about it, it's going to last forever. What, exactly, am I going to be dying of on my 42nd birthday (not my 39th, since the whole monogamy thing rules out AIDS). But you said 42 is the average, so ... how am I gonna buy it?

Bite it? I have no idea. Remember, those are average ages. Obvious statistics would dictate that while you live considerably longer, others will live considerably shorter. I hope you and your partner have a long life. The people dying are dying way too young, IMO. I'm honestly glad you're not one of them.

Time for sleep.

/yawns
//Wolf - keep throwing that bigot label around. It looks good on you!
 
2005-05-25 06:23:36 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter: osie O'Donnell had her own kids? Hardly!

She was lucky enough to live in a state where adoption by gay couples is legal.

Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said this: Domestic violence is the third largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails only behind AIDS and substance abuse. (S. Holt, Gay and Lesbian Times, Sept. 26, 1996).

Sadly enough, that's true. In a world that spits on you for showing affection for the person you love, it's hard to get along perfectly. There's little social support and a lot of hate, and that hate gets transferred into all areas of a person's life- including relationships. Things are a lot better now than they used to be, but as long as there are assholes prying into homosexuals' private lives and trying to turn them into modern-day lepers, we're going to continue to see this imbalance.

(J. Sorenson, Amer. J. Public Health, 1996, 86:35-40) established that, in traditional, heterosexual marriages, the average rate of domestic violence is less than 5% a year. But homosexuals cohabiting with one another reported far higher rates of violence: 20% to 25% per year (D. Ellis, Violence and Victims, 1989, 4:235-255).

Problem: They measured marriages versus cohabitation. SERIOUS METHODOLIGICAL ERROR! They did not measure cohabiting homosexuals against cohabiting heterosexuals. Since homosexual marriage is illegal (and since they didn't measure outside the United States), there is no cohort to compare heterosexual marriage to.

FURTHER PROBLEM! That study was carried out in 1989, when homosexual relationships had no legal standing anywhere, and when most homosexuals were still closeted.

Come up with data from the last seven or eight years and I'll take it a bit less skeptically.

It still remains that while the average man will live to be 70 years old (fatty diet and cigarettes and all), only around 2% of homosexuals will make it to that age.

Not true. You quoted statistics from the 1980s, which have a host of measuring problems, including:
1) Even in surveys most homosexuals weren't willing to admit to the behavior
2) Homosexuality was extremely stigmatized, so (to a great extent) the only people willing to self-identify as homosexuals were those who were willing to break a lot of society's other norms- which carried lots of risky behaviors.

Modern studies show different statistics. Even so, it would only be statistics. The government has no right to step into a person's private life. Other people have the right but no justification for stepping into a person's private life. Really, end of discussion. The government should stay out of our bedrooms, pocketbooks, and houses of worship as much as is possible.
 
2005-05-25 06:29:59 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter:

I think from the Fundie point of view, the family unit is being challenged. For 6000 years, very few societies in history have considered anything but the structure of a father, mother, and kids. When in the last 100 years, this question of "family" has come up for grabs, and I think it catches a lot of people (not just fundies, but others too) off guard. Some view it as an attack, some are curious, others disgusted.

The "nuclear family" you describe really isn't representative of society, barring the time since the Industrial Revolution when mobility increased and families started to fracture. Yes, pretty much every family has had a mother, father, and kids. But the number of variations on that theme has been incredible. Homosexual relationships are just another variation- one that I personally would rather see less of but don't believe anyone has the right to try to stop.

Why should society change the way families are raised just because a small percentage thing they should be changed after centuries of "that's how it is".

"Society" isn't changing anything. "Society" has no right to tell anyone how to raise a family so long as it does not cause physical harm or terror to the children. Children will continue to be raised by a male father and female mother until the very end of the human race- nobody's trying to stop people from breeding normally. It's just that some people want to have another option. If that option doesn't work out, oh well. Right now, the human race is in a state of flux, and until things settle down it's too early to be judging people or saying "You shouldn't be allowed to do this."
 
2005-05-25 06:36:32 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter :
OR brand me as a fundie (which I'm not), call me a fag-hater (which I'm not)

Well you certainly had me fooled! You have, though, been rather entertaining. :^)
 
2005-05-25 11:15:37 AM  
Live and let live. And if you can't do that, do the world a favor and go play on the freeway.
 
2005-05-25 01:00:12 PM  
This didn't happen. Disney is a huge conglomerate which, by default, makes them a conservative facist, and therfore anti-gay. Just ask any liberal fearmonger.
 
2005-05-25 02:12:19 PM  
B.P.:

This didn't happen. Disney is a huge conglomerate which, by default, makes them a conservative facist, and therfore anti-gay. Just ask any liberal fearmonger.

[image from sithoughts.mu.nu too old to be available]
 
2005-05-25 05:53:11 PM  
Some christians are already on the Clay aiken angle:

www.truechristiansunite.com
 
2005-05-25 11:03:51 PM  
I've said it before and I'll say it again: religious people are stupid.

But Clay Aiken is still lame.
 
Displayed 42 of 142 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report