Blame not Homosexuality, but attack the root. , page 7

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 01:26 AM by Annee

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DavidWillts

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

Actually that is not true.

Two new books just came out on the history of AIDS. You should read them.

I like modern statistics over history books on subjects such as these. The "history" of AIDS does not change the fact that the high risk groups for aids are prostitutes, IV drug users and homosexuals

Yes - behavior is the major factor in spreading AIDS. I'll have to look up word statistics - - because I'm pretty sure there is more AIDS among heteros globally then gays.

Today, AIDS continues to directly affect thousands of gay and bisexual men and injecting drug users every year, but it has also become a serious problem among Black Americans and, more recently, among the Hispanic/Latino population. However, it is not necessarily individual behaviour, but rather a person's sexual network which determines an individual's HIV risk in America. Therefore, black males are much more likely to be infected because of the high prevalence in this community and a tendency to choose racially similar partners as opposed to simply high-risk behaviour.

Wealth status also determines the likelihood of HIV infection in America. A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2010 showed that in America's poorest urban neighbourhoods HIV prevalence was 2.1 percent among heterosexuals, or more than 4 times the national average.8 Race or ethnicity did not account for any significant differences within the high-poverty groups studied. Rather, higher HIV risk within poor urban areas was attributed to, among other factors, high HIV prevalence, limited access to health care and other basic services, and high rates of substance abuse and incarceration. Socioeconomic status and HIV prevalence are also linked among men who have sex with men.www.avert.org...

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 02:25 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Annee

Talking around a direct question is not answering it.

I answered the question. Every child born is a potential saviour of the world. If that seems a stretch to you, every child is at least a potential net benefactor.

In fact, we don't need to go nearly as far as this to find rational motives for having children. In the emirate of Abu Dhabi, as in many other countries, the parents of a newborn child receive cash gratuities and other incentives for bringing a new citizen into the world. Even advanced western countries offer child-support benefits, tax rebates, etc. These are all highly rational, economic benefits derived from having children.

Children are also economic assets in other ways; they can be sent out to work, or left to do the housework while an older family member works. Sons earn dowries at marriage. And in poor countries where social-security networks are faulty or nonexistent, children are still insurance for a parents' old age. I could go on in this vein for some time. However, my main point was that childbearing is not rational behaviour in the usual sense of the word; it is an instinctive process, thus hostile to rationality almost by definition.

Human's can choose to have or not have sex.

They can also choose where to put their apostrophes, but that doesn't mean – as we see here – that they are always able to make the rational choice.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 02:26 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by DavidWillts

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

The multiplicity of unexamined assumptions in this statement invalidates it. If relatively high susceptibility to a disease is socially stigmatic, then what are we to make of allergies? Or is it that AIDS is a disease drug users and prostitutes sometimes get, which means it's an immoral disease? Then what are we to make of the fact that babies and the faithful partners of straying victims get it too? Surely this must rescue AIDS from the moral sink into which you have plunged it?

No? Then I'm afraid I fail to see your logic.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 07:05 AM by eternal_vigilance

I am a gay woman. I dont know why I am gay but I do know I was born this way. Its not something that I can choose and I figure if God didnt want me to be gay, he would have made me straight.

So if God made me this way, and we are made in the image of God, then how do we know that the complexity of human sexuality is not exactly to Gods plan? Who among us has the right to question God's judgement? The Bible is a book written by man, not God. Its mans interpretation of the word of God and it doesnt matter how many verses you quote from it...its still just an interpretation. I mean seriously, how dare anyone presume to know how God thinks?

When I die and I am standing before Him in judgement, then, and only then, will I know if I have lived a good life or bad. But only He has the right to judge me and no-one else. Especially someone who flaunts a book around believing that they speak for God.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 10:27 AM by Annee

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Annee

Talking around a direct question is not answering it.

I answered the question. Every child born is a potential saviour of the world. If that seems a stretch to you, every child is at least a potential net benefactor.

In fact, we don't need to go nearly as far as this to find rational motives for having children. In the emirate of Abu Dhabi, as in many other countries, the parents of a newborn child receive cash gratuities and other incentives for bringing a new citizen into the world. Even advanced western countries offer child-support benefits, tax rebates, etc. These are all highly rational, economic benefits derived from having children.

Children are also economic assets in other ways; they can be sent out to work, or left to do the housework while an older family member works. Sons earn dowries at marriage. And in poor countries where social-security networks are faulty or nonexistent, children are still insurance for a parents' old age. I could go on in this vein for some time. However, my main point was that childbearing is not rational behaviour in the usual sense of the word; it is an instinctive process, thus hostile to rationality almost by definition.

None of that is an unselfish reason to bring another child into this world

Human's can choose to have or not have sex.

They can also choose where to put their apostrophes, but that doesn't mean – as we see here – that they are always able to make the rational choice.

Who said anything about rational choice?

edit on 16-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 11:45 AM by DavidWillts

reply to post by Astyanax

The multiplicity of unexamined assumptions in this statement invalidates it.

No, it is a fact.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 11:46 AM by DavidWillts

reply to post by Annee

Yes - behavior is the major factor in spreading AIDS. I'll have to look up word statistics - - because I'm pretty sure there is more AIDS among heteros globally then gays.

First it's "not true" but then its "yes", make up your mind.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 11:57 AM by Starchild23

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by Starchild23

You're saying that survival through reproduction is a more important aspect of life in a world where overpopulation is a legit problem, rather than loving everyone no matter what form it takes?

Exactly... How can the OP possibly be concerned about human extinction?
Seems like inbreeding would be a problem way before extinction!

This is why ATS should implement a "negative" rating system as well as positive, so threads like this can quickly fall into the waste bin... no stars for this thread, just a moon!

Because that would result in attention being drawn to negative contribution...they are rewarding quality content, not punishing unpopular opinions.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:01 PM by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by DavidWillts

I thought AIDS did that

Really? How?

AIDS is more prevalent in homosexuals thus stigmatizing it by placing in the same high risk group as IV drug users and prostitutes.

Actually that is not true.

Two new books just came out on the history of AIDS. You should read them.

I like modern statistics over history books on subjects such as these. The "history" of AIDS does not change the fact that the high risk groups for aids are prostitutes, IV drug users and homosexuals.
edit on 16-4-2012 by DavidWillts because: (no reason given)

I just thought I'd mention here that herpes is just as contagious as AIDS...and heterosexuals spread that around quite well. Also, there's a high risk of heterosexuals giving birth to a homosexual...

Wear protection next time! And better yet, because homosexuals find your love of the opposite sex disgusting, maybe you should be prevented from being treated with respect, from having a sex life, and from being married to the person you love.

Why? Because you're not like them... that's what it's all about, right? Yeah...go take your illogical and prejudiced arguments outside. This is a discussion for people who actually think before posting.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:15 PM by DavidWillts

reply to post by Starchild23

Yeah...go take your illogical and prejudiced arguments outside.

Facts are not illogical or prejudiced.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:19 PM by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

Yeah...go take your illogical and prejudiced arguments outside.

Facts are not illogical or prejudiced.

Ah, but you leave out plenty of facts, like all of the diseases and promiscuity that are flaunted by heterosexuals. Last year, I knew a 13 year old who was several weeks pregnant, but lost the kid. She went out partying to celebrate. A 12 year old, also a relative of one of my friends, was trying to get boys to visit so she could have sex with them. These are heterosexuals, being promiscuous and uncaring with their HETEROSEXUALITY before they're even in high school. You wanna call facts? Try that.

You only tell the half of the truth that fits your case.

Which technically makes it a lie.

edit on CMondaypm404021f21America/Chicago16 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:25 PM by DavidWillts

reply to post by Starchild23

Last year, I knew a 13 year old who was several weeks pregnant, but lost the kid. She went out partying to celebrate.

You party with 13 year old pregnant girls???

These are heterosexuals, being promiscuous and uncaring with their HETEROSEXUALITY before they're even in high school. You wanna call facts? Try that.

I have no idea what your knowledge of the sex lives of underage girls has to do with homosexuality and AIDS.

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:36 PM by Starchild23

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Starchild23

Last year, I knew a 13 year old who was several weeks pregnant, but lost the kid. She went out partying to celebrate.

You party with 13 year old pregnant girls???

These are heterosexuals, being promiscuous and uncaring with their HETEROSEXUALITY before they're even in high school. You wanna call facts? Try that.

I have no idea what your knowledge of the sex lives of underage girls has to do with homosexuality and AIDS.

No, my friend is cousins with her. Who said anything about partying?? I'm beginning to wonder if you think at all. Pregnant women =/= parties.

My knowledge of the sex lives of underage girls comes from friends of those underage girls, who are just as disgusted as I am. In fact, there's another girl who is the sister of yet ANOTHER friend I know, a lesbian straight out of the military. Trust me, we both wanted to bury our boots in that little girl's hind end for her stupidity.

But what do you expect in this world?

With that said, these chicks are heterosexual. Let's not get into men who are heterosexual. Sex has become an act of rebellion and an exploration into forbidden territory, not to mention a "cool kids club" initiation rite. It used to be sacred, a divine experience...and now it's a breeding territory for every known STD. And trust me, heterosexuals are a lot more diseased than homosexuals. I have never met a diseased homosexual (and I grew up with them, though am not one myself) and I have met plenty of diseased heterosexuals.

Do your research, instead of only reading the stuff that supports your precious illusion. You must be the prime example of unthinking acceptance, and ironically, rejection of open-mindedness.

edit on CMondaypm575738f38America/Chicago16 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 16-4-2012 @ 12:49 PM by Annee

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by Annee

Yes - behavior is the major factor in spreading AIDS. I'll have to look up word statistics - - because I'm pretty sure there is more AIDS among heteros globally then gays.

First it's "not true" but then its "yes", make up your mind.

I said behavior is the major factor in spreading AIDS. I did not specify behavior or refer to any one group.

So what's your point?

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 04:02 AM by Astyanax

reply to post by Annee

None of that is an unselfish reason to bring another child into this world

Nt even this?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Every child born is a potential saviour of the world. If that seems a stretch to you, every child is at least a potential net benefactor.

Even so, it is worth recalling that there exists a school of thought (one to which I am rather sympathetic) which claims all actions are selfish.

Ultimately, it is not we who are in control of our reproductive urges, but our genes. And genes are very selfish. Looked at in this light, there are no unselfish reasons for having children, and never have been.

edit on 17/4/12 by Astyanax because: of unselfish reasons.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 11:16 AM by Starchild23

Are we still arguing that reproduction is a legitimate reason to be hateful towards homosexuality?

In that case, our overpopulation problem really needs to be addressed. Let's march on Capitol Hill and hate the heterosexuals for having so many babies, eh? Have a voice for those infants that get dropped in dumpsters by women who make their living in prostitution. Sorry, but it happens. A lot.

However, if we still have not given birth to the child that will rescue us from ourselves, I doubt it's going to happen. Also, I doubt the child that saves us is going to be an avid fan of homosexual hatred. After all, that's counterproductive when it comes to love and salvation...hatred has no place in such a scheme.

And considering the main argument is religion, why would Christ be born? He's supposed to come from the sky!

This whole thread is ridiculous.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 11:42 AM by Annee

Originally posted by Astyanax

Ultimately, it is not we who are in control of our reproductive urges, but our genes.

That's pure BS.

We are an "evolved" thinking species. We know what choice is.

We are in control of this planet and all other species. We can and do regulate the reproduction of other species.

We do not take intelligent responsibility of our own species.

The reproduction argument against homosexuals is stupid.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 11:56 AM by chasingbrahman

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Romans 1:26-27

King James Version (KJV)

26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Lesbians are a no no too. I really wish people would stop trying to say that the bible somehow condones homosexuality. Nothing is taken out of context, it is really clear on the subject.

I really wish people would stop cherry-picking what they pay attention to in the Bible, and what they ignore.
If you are going to use the Bible to judge others, then you must live EXACTLY as it says in the Bible - otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Wasn't it the Council of Trent which determined "Thou shalt not judge" to be solely responsible for taking the fun out of Christianity?

I know I'D never work hard at something unless it qualified me to judge others for not doing it.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 12:22 PM by Annee

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

The only issue is when the same gender indulges in private intimacy such as the act of reproduction, which cannot be done. And that is the only issue religion has with homosexuality.

from the OP.

BS argument.

Most religious don't have any problem with Hetero's getting pregnant via artificial means.

As a matter-of-fact - - - the congregation prays for these childless couples that what ever treatment they use is successful.

This argument is just another stupid excuse of prejudice and bigotry.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 07:42 PM by Raxoxane

I dont see why the root of homosexuality has to be attacked- i myself am straight,but i see nothing wrong with homosexuality or lesbianism-each to his/her own.Its not like there's not enough people on the planet,and not enough babies being born everyday..Besides,more people will always be straight than gay,demographic-wise,if thats your concern.If its just that you dont approve,personally, consider all the evil and injustice in the world,there's plenty worse things -these are just people like you and me-they happen to just feel more comfortable in a same-sex relationship.

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 8 >> ^^TOP^^