Omphalos <
[email protected]> wrote in
news:
[email protected]:
> On Fri 25 Jul 2003 09:59:12p, Nathan Nagel
> <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> David Allen wrote:
>>
>>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <[email protected]>,
>>>> Omphalos <#> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri 25 Jul 2003 01:43:41p, [email protected] (Lloyd
>>>>> Parker) wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>> David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer
>>>>>>> all the time, except it's from the other side of the
>>>>>>> opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the bestiality, incest and
>>>>>>> bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
>>>>>>> marriage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only in the minds of bigots and fools.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is homosexuality ok, but at the same time incest,
>>>>> beastiality, bigamy, and child molestation are wrong?
>>>>
>>>> If you have to ask that, you're too dumb to tie your own
>>>> shoelaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Humor us Lloyd. Do you have to dig deep to answer? Take more
>>> than 30 seconds?
>>>
>>>>>>> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point
>>>>>>> being that gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual
>>>>>>> backstop that doesn't have within it's boundary those
>>>>>>> vices
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two committed and consenting adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tolerance leads to perversity.
>>>>
>>>> Intolerance leads to murder. Drag any blacks to death
>>>> lately? Beat any gays to death? How about lynchings?
>>>
>>> Tolerance of mistakes is good. Tolerance of evil and wrong is
>>> perverse. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't, because it's
>>> common sense. All people of good will understand that and
>>> have for thousands of years.
>>>
>>> "Tolerance" by itself is just a word with no connection to
>>> good or bad. Like "discrimination". Both words the left
>>> loves.
>>>
>>> As far as marriage goes, it's not defined as "consenting
>>> adults". That's the problem here, you "tolerant" types want to
>>> redefing marriage so that anyone can join the party! Aren't
>>> we cool! We love everybody!
>>> We're so tolerant!
>>
>> And who are you to say what is "evil and wrong" and what isn't?
>
> Are you a moral relativist?
>
>> I know some people that I consider good people who happen to be
>> homosexual. Are you telling me that they aren't really good
>> people after all?
>
>> By what authority can you make that judgement?
>
> By all the statistics, including those from the U.S. government,
> that show that homosexuality is a dangerous and disease ridden
> behavior.
I may be a mental midget (which most of my friends and acquaintances
doubt) but I fail to see how statistics of homosexual activity can be
aligned with *Good or Bad* morally. It is moral good that this
thread is basically about. Get with it mate or be accused of arguing
off topic to satisfy your biases.
>Homosexuality is an activity that is inherently
> dangerous and cannot be made healthy .
Homosexuality is not a behaviour, honey. It is an orientation that
may or may not be expressed in an activity. If a homosexual does not
perform a homosexual act he will remain a homosexual and since there
is no activity it cannot be dangerous or unhealthy. So consequently
I deem you to be telling a porky.
>It carries with it health
> risks that, though they may be reduced in some cases, can't be
> avoided entirely.
Being a homosexual as explained above carries no health risks. Also
there are no risks in activities that are risk free and there are
quite a few of those associated with homosexuality. So once more you
lie.
>Second, homosexual conduct also puts people at
> risk who are not engaged in the activity.
Please explain how this is possible? Or are you referring to IV Drug
users who share needles with *Gays* Or perhaps those ever so nice
straight gays that **** prostitutes without taking precautions. On
the whole I think your point is moot as it is well known that
HIV/AIDS is caught from unprotected sex with any infected person,
straights included, or sharing a needle with such a person. Get with
it sport and don't be a dill all your worthless life.
>Since this activity
> can't be made healthful, and puts people at risk who do not
> choose to be involved in the activity, it seems to make sense
> that, as a community, we ought not do anything to encourage it.
Pure bloody bull-****ing-****. You have yet to prove that non-
infected homosexuals are the cause of HIV/AIDS in non-homosexuals
that they have never come in contact with. My some people are just
plain dumb.
>
> Homosexuality should be discouraged on public health grounds
> alone.
Why? A person can be a homosexual and be completely healthy and of
no danger to the general population. In fact most homosexuals are of
this category. Go somewhere else and practice your logic skills on
the less intelligent. They might just believe you.
--
Bernard Hubbard
Australian, Gay, Green and proud
Homosexuals are recruited from adolescent circle jerks.
Curious children who cannot wait for a willing member of
the opposite sex, because of hormonal rage, grow up to be
sexual and emotionally immature. You're not a freak from
birth, you're an immature child who didn't have the strength
nor the will to wait for the right person to pure our <sic>
your Testosterone.
CB on where homosexuals come from. APH July 5, 2003 12.03a AEST.
