CoN 25th Anniversary: 1997-2022
Topic Closed New Topic New Poll
Homophobia in our world today

Posted: 7th December 2005 23:55

*
Holy Swordsman
Posts: 2,061

Joined: 5/3/2001

Awards:
Contributed to the Final Fantasy VI section of CoN. Participated at the forums for the CoN's 15th birthday! Second place in CoN European Cup fantasy game for 2011-2012. Contributed to the Final Fantasy V section of CoN. 
Second place in CoN Barclay's Premier League fantasy game for 2010-2011. Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. First place in CoN Fantasy Football, 2008. 
See More (Total 9)
I agree with Gears about "tearing apart families". Yes, I know, there are a good number of people who resent homosexuals to the point that they'd cast out family members. Is that the fault of the homosexual themselves, or for the ignorance of the one casting them away? Ignorance, I think, is the real culprit in those situations.

Sure, a standard set of acceptable Morals are needed in today's world, I have no arguements there. I don't believe that you have to strictly adhere to these ideals either though. Yes, killing is bad. So is stealing, and generally, most forms of law breaking aren't smiled upon, but we do have our own minds as well. As long as it remains within the boundries of what is considered legal, it should be fine, shouldn't it?

Well, from a love standpoint? I don't think a man loving another is in any way immoral, nor should it be considered illegal. They love each other, and I don't think that's harmful to anyone, at all. If God will condemn them for it, that's their own decision to make. I don't think the Church or any other Religious movement should have any say in the matter. These aren't like the Crusades, as naive as it sounds, I don't believe anyone should be persecuted anymore, especially not by a religion.

We should be embracing other ideas, preferences and beliefs, not shunning them because of our own opinions. People are what they are, for whatever reason, as long as it's something they don't try to force on others or hurt people with, they should be allowed to believe what they want, express what they want and even have their marriages.



--------------------
Okay, but there was a goat!
Post #104668
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 00:24
Group Icon
SOLDIER
Posts: 704

Joined: 9/12/2002


Quote (karasuman @ 7th December 2005 17:46)
I've only heard two so far: "God doesn't like homosexuality," ...Neither one of those sounds like a sufficient reason to me.

here's where you miss the whole point of our argument, and underestimate its validity.

the idea is that homosexual acts and the so-called "living in homosexuality" are sins. ok, fine, there are lots of sins. different people sin in their own peculiar ways; everyone sins and romans 3:23 says so itself. but to make a mockery of marriage, which originally was a sacrament from God, by giving recognition to sinful unions -- any sin, of course, mocking any sacrament would provoke the same response -- is an insult to the religion that founded this country. if such a majority of the american people still apparently believe gay marriage is wrong, then our representative government has an obligation to prevent radical steps taken by legislating judges from overturning the meaning of marriage in our country, until that majority is overturned.
Post #104670
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 00:39

*
Disciplinary Committee Member
Posts: 619

Joined: 2/4/2004

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. Third place in the 2007 Name that Tune contest. 
Goz, you said that allowing gay marriages is an insult to the religion this country was founded on. As Gears said, this country was founded upon the belief of separation of church and state. I personally believe that religion cannot be used as an argument when trying to restrict gay marriages in a country that should be separating religion and rights. The fact that religion is present in abundance in our country is really the thing that makes steam come from my ears. I can understand restricting gay marriages in the Christian church, but, like Elena said, justice of the peace (I thought it was called civil bonding) should not be restricted in any ways in a country that allows equality among all people and should be separating church and state.

--------------------
"We're not tools of the government or anyone else. Fighting... fighting was the only thing I was ever good at, but at least I always fought for what I believed in." - Frank Yeager (a.k.a. Grey Fox)
Post #104671
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 00:46

*
Magitek Soldier
Posts: 319

Joined: 1/10/2005

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. 
Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 7th December 2005 18:55)
I agree with Gears about "tearing apart families". Yes, I know, there are a good number of people who resent homosexuals to the point that they'd cast out family members. Is that the fault of the homosexual themselves, or for the ignorance of the one casting them away? Ignorance, I think, is the real culprit in those situations.

Sure, a standard set of acceptable Morals are needed in today's world, I have no arguements there. I don't believe that you have to strictly adhere to these ideals either though. Yes, killing is bad. So is stealing, and generally, most forms of law breaking aren't smiled upon, but we do have our own minds as well. As long as it remains within the boundries of what is considered legal, it should be fine, shouldn't it?

Well, from a love standpoint? I don't think a man loving another is in any way immoral, nor should it be considered illegal. They love each other, and I don't think that's harmful to anyone, at all. If God will condemn them for it, that's their own decision to make. I don't think the Church or any other Religious movement should have any say in the matter. These aren't like the Crusades, as naive as it sounds, I don't believe anyone should be persecuted anymore, especially not by a religion.

We should be embracing other ideas, preferences and beliefs, not shunning them because of our own opinions. People are what they are, for whatever reason, as long as it's something they don't try to force on others or hurt people with, they should be allowed to believe what they want, express what they want and even have their marriages.

Wow, I couldn't have put it better myself...
I was trying to think of a way to say it properly, but couldn't
I fully agree.

--------------------
Neneko is Neneko because Neneko couldn't be Neneko if Neneko wasn't Neneko!
--as quoted from Neneko, Mahoraba {Heartful Days}

I can stab a man with a thick paperback book thru the ribcage.
Post #104673
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 02:58

*
SOLDIER
Posts: 732

Joined: 17/12/2003

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. User has rated 500 fanarts in the CoN galleries. User has rated 150 fanarts in the CoN galleries. User has rated 75 fanarts in the CoN galleries. 
User has rated 25 fanarts in the CoN galleries. Member of more than five years. Has more than fifty fanarts in CoN galleries. Major involvement in the Final Fantasy I section of CoN. 
See More (Total 10)
Quote (gozaru~ @ 7th December 2005 19:24)
the idea is that homosexual acts and the so-called "living in homosexuality" are sins. ok, fine, there are lots of sins. different people sin in their own peculiar ways; everyone sins and romans 3:23 says so itself. but to make a mockery of marriage, which originally was a sacrament from God, by giving recognition to sinful unions -- any sin, of course, mocking any sacrament would provoke the same response -- is an insult to the religion that founded this country. if such a majority of the american people still apparently believe gay marriage is wrong, then our representative government has an obligation to prevent radical steps taken by legislating judges from overturning the meaning of marriage in our country, until that majority is overturned.

The Christian church doesn't have to give recognition to gay marriages. The government is the one who should give homosexuals equal rights by allowing them to marry. I guess the church could exclude gays from christian activities as much as it wants.

Thats something thats always peeved me about christians saying gay marriage should be illegal. They act like christians invented the concept of marriage and they are the ones who should have control over who does what with it.

--------------------
-- You're Gonna Carry That Weight --
Post #104676
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 04:03

*
Red Wing Pilot
Posts: 482

Joined: 14/9/2003

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. First place in CoN European Cup, 2008. Winner of the 2007 Name that Tune contest. 
Major involvement in the Final Fantasy IV section of CoN. 
Quote (gozaru~ @ 5th December 2005 12:22)
Quote
Also, doesn't the constitution say that all men are created equal? so why deprive our fellow people of their natrual born rights?


no matter how pleasurable, the constitution does not protect one's right to install cameras in the junior high girls' shower and jack off watching them in one's coaches' office. it is not a "natural-born right" to have sex with another man.

Quote
or some reason in my economics class, we got on the subject of gay seagulls. It happens...Also there were two gay penguins in the Central Park Zoo in New York, I remember hearing them break up. But now If i recall, there's a pair lesbian penguins.


....if a human wishes to rear a puppy for sexual pleasure, who are we to stop them? God made us all the same...if the pup is trying to have sex with humans, anyway, then it's just fine and proper, isn't it?)

That argument is disingenuous. Obviously installation of cameras in girls' locker rooms is illegal, because it violates those girls' rights. A gay couple having sex has their own rights violated by anti-sodomy statutes (oh, shouldn't anti-sodomy statutes also prevent straight couples from anal or oral sex?) As for "natural-born rights," it isn't men's "natural-born right" to have sex with women either.

As for the latter part of the quote, setting up a strawman doesn't make your argument any more impressive: "OMG, what's going to stop humans now from having sex with animals???"

Neither can I understand why people still insist that "our great nation" was founded upon Christianity. The majority of men who put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination. Most of them were Deists and threw in impressive references to God to make the Constitution an easy sell to Age of Reasoners when it was already facing a tough ratification process. Somehow I doubt the Founders, who were characterized far more by their remarkable intellectual ability than their religion, were more concerned with homosexuality than property rights and finding a balance between a strong and weak government.

--------------------
SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"
Post #104681
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 04:15

*
Chocobo Knight
Posts: 153

Joined: 24/4/2005

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. 
I think the whole HIV issue was a pretty reduntant. Aids didn't exist when homosexuality was just becoming accpeted in the late 70s. Condoms were uesd as birth control, therefore, men sleeping together didn't need them... when Aids appeared, it swept through the gay community like wildfire because they weren't protected. So yes, there is a higher proportion of gay men with Aids and HIV than the rest of the population, BUT, a woman having unprotected sex is more at risk of contracting the disease from a male partner than a man using protection with a male partner. That is the fundemental issue.

It was also mentioned that sex is only for creating babies. I don't agree 100%. What is the point of the femal orgasm? It's detrimental to the fertilization of the egg, as it ejaculates fluid out of the body. Plus, just as there is homosexuality in nature, there is also pleasureable sex in nature. Just research dolphins, or bonobos. They have sex on a regular basis at all times of the year, and usually the females don't get impregnated because they are not 'in heat'. The bible doesn't like that concept because doing ANYTHING that feels good is selfish, therefore, a sin. Even eating and resting.

[not directed at anyone in particular] I'm not commenting anymore on religion any further than: if it helps you cope with threatening forces in your life and explains the things that you don;t understand and eliminates your fear of death, then good for you. Not everyone feels the same way, though, so don't force your thoughts and beliefs on them. it makes you look all koo-koo like. wacko.gif

This is the greatest thread since I've been on CoN, by the way.

--------------------
The first duty in life is to assume a pose,
and the second duty is...well, no one's found out yet.
Post #104684
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 05:15

*
Engineer
Posts: 396

Joined: 4/1/2003

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. 
Just a couple ofnot too quick thoughts.

This country was founded by deepy devout people. Puritans? Pilgrims? Ring a bell? We're not an 'offical' Christian nation, it's not our national religion. But there has to be balance. The Bible's old, it was written 2000 years ago. Old Testament is even older then that. 6000 years old I think?

If we legalize gay marriage, then what about poligamy? Bestiality is a far cry from gay marriage, but multiple wives isn't too far off.

If we grant full rights to homosexuals, the deeply religous will take a hit. They'll be the victims now. Would anyone here want in a country where God is illegal?

Think a little bit about this, minorites have stuff like affirmitive action, there's lots of scholarships for minorities, reparations for slavery and taking the Native Americans land. Women get special shelters and scholarships too. What about the white guy? I'm a white guy, and if I look at the situation in a way, I'm the source of societies problems. But now, I'm the victim. That's why you see on the news white guys watching the border for illegal immigrants. White guys angry against affirmitive action. White guys tying a homosexual to thier truck and draging them around town.

If we legalize gay marriage, give them all these rights and privilages, we disenfranchise someone else. I'm not saying I'm against gay rights, or reperations, scholarships and this like. (I am against murdering homosexuals, but I'm also against murdering anyone.) But merely adding a bit of someone else's perspective. The main pro...non-gay marriage arguments are the Bible and Dark Paladin's apathy. This is merely diversifying the debate.

Dark Paladin...remember apathy elected George W. Bush in 2000. Oh and Hitler. Apathy sucks for democracies.

This post has been edited by Kylerocks on 8th December 2005 05:28

--------------------
Really Random Quote of the Day: "Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war." - Richard M. Nixon

So if you're done reading this, you know I have nothing to say and you've wasted your time. Thank you come again.
Post #104690
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 05:18
Group Icon
SOLDIER
Posts: 704

Joined: 9/12/2002


Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 7th December 2005 23:03)
That argument is disingenuous. Obviously installation of cameras in girls' locker rooms is illegal, because it violates those girls' rights. A gay couple having sex has their own rights violated by anti-sodomy statutes (oh, shouldn't anti-sodomy statutes also prevent straight couples from anal or oral sex?) As for "natural-born rights," it isn't men's "natural-born right" to have sex with women either.

As for the latter part of the quote, setting up a strawman doesn't make your argument any more impressive: "OMG, what's going to stop humans now from having sex with animals???"

Neither can I understand why people still insist that "our great nation" was founded upon Christianity. The majority of men who put together the Constitution were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination. Most of them were Deists and threw in impressive references to God to make the Constitution an easy sell to Age of Reasoners when it was already facing a tough ratification process. Somehow I doubt the Founders, who were characterized far more by their remarkable intellectual ability than their religion, were more concerned with homosexuality than property rights and finding a balance between a strong and weak government.

sorry, you missed the point. that's too bad. =(
Moderator Edit
And since I'm here, don't you stir the pot with things that I or others could read as condescending, either. Just in case. -R51
i am in no way equating voyeurism with homosexuality. nevertheless, the constitution is quite clearly not a carte blanche for pursuing every hedonistic pleasure one can find. i totally agree with you that it isn't man's "natural-born right" to have sex with women; it's a God-given biological sarament that is necessary for the propagation of the human species.

at any rate, my original post sounded like i thought gay coupling should be illegal. it is impossible to outlaw something just because it's a sin, and i don't believe we should outlaw sins that don't hurt anyone else. gays and anyone else are welcome to whatever in their beds; the constitution still does not provide for that.

and, btw, i'm not "setting up a strawman." do learn to recognise satire.

finally, the state of the elite ruling class in america has never been indicative of the country at large. the whole idea of america was a Christian religious haven from the oppresive church of england. the people of america have traditionally been, and, still are, in a majority, Christian people. it is impossible to escape america's Christian heritage, no matter how hard you try. the country was *founded* upon it, as i said. it really says a lot that you people refuse to so much as acknowledge the fundamental driving principle behind the colonisation of america just because it has to do with the Christian religion.

edit: add

Quote
Dark Paladin...remeber apathy elected George W. Bush.


oh yes, in the biggest voter turnout in american history, apathy was the key ingredient to bush's success.

no, i think i'd chalk it exactly up to the morals issue: a majority of the american people, as i have been saying all along, still adhere to the traditional judeo-Christian moral system.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 8th December 2005 07:35
Post #104691
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 06:32

*
Red Wing Pilot
Posts: 482

Joined: 14/9/2003

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. First place in CoN European Cup, 2008. Winner of the 2007 Name that Tune contest. 
Major involvement in the Final Fantasy IV section of CoN. 
Quote (gozaru~ @ 8th December 2005 00:18)
sorry, you missed the point.  that's too bad. =(  i am in no way equating voyeurism with homosexuality.  nevertheless, the constitution is quite clearly not a carte blanche for pursuing every hedonistic pleasure one can find.  i totally agree with you that it isn't man's "natural-born right" to have sex with women; it's a God-given biological sarament that is necessary for the propagation of the human species.

at any rate, my original post sounded like i thought gay coupling should be illegal.  it is impossible to outlaw something just because it's a sin, and i don't believe we should outlaw sins that don't hurt anyone else.  gays and anyone else are welcome to whatever in their beds; the constitution still does not provide for that.

and, btw, i'm not "setting up a strawman."  do learn to recognise satire.

finally, the state of the elite ruling class in america has never been indicative of the country at large.  the whole idea of america was a Christian religious haven from the oppresive church of england.  the people of america have traditionally been, and, still are, in a majority, Christian people.  it is impossible to escape america's Christian heritage, no matter how hard you try.  the country was *founded* upon it, as i said.  it really says a lot that you people refuse to so much as acknowledge the fundamental driving principle behind the colonisation of america just because it has to do with the Christian religion.

Your satire is as humorous as your "high-level political humor" (NPR = National Propaganda Radio lol).
Moderator Edit
Please don't stir the pot by bringing up old (and off-topic) discussions. It will only cause the thread to go further into flamesville (which I guess is kinda ironic given the topic). -R51


The people of America certainly are, in a majority, Christian people. But we don't always want our heritage to be the driving force behind our laws. After all, there's much in American history textbooks that we shouldn't be proud of.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 8th December 2005 07:32

--------------------
SPEKKIO: "GRRR...That was most embarrassing!"
Post #104695
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 13:08

*
Cetra
Posts: 2,336

Joined: 1/3/2004

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. Third place in CoNCAA, 2007. First place in CoN Fantasy Football, 2007. 
Second place in CoN Fantasy Football, 2008. 
Quote
Jenny wrote:  The bible doesn't like that concept because doing ANYTHING that feels good is selfish, therefore, a sin. Even eating and resting.


This is utterly, completely incorrect. Perhaps a bit of research before you post is in order?

Quote
Jenny wrote:  Aids didn't exist when homosexuality was just becoming accpeted in the late 70s.


Again, completely incorrect. I quote from TheBody.com's section on HIV/AIDS:

Quote
Quote
Q:  when was aids first discovered? and why wasn't really that big until the late '80's early '90's?


A: AIDS was first noticed in US in the early 80's. It started in a few people, and over time, before we knew enough and had enough focus on the issue of transmission - it spread. And since there is a period of years - often 10 years - in between exposure to HIV and development of illness, we saw more cases of the illness called AIDS in the late '80s as a result -- however - HIV infection itself wasprobably happening in the 70's - but since it is often without symptoms we wouldn't know it.




--------------------
Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978
Post #104704
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 13:53

*
Lunarian
Posts: 1,255

Joined: 27/2/2004

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. 
Around and around we go. Is homosexuality bad? Is it ok? Well we already know the Bible's take on it, it's quite pointless to argue that. Of course the bible is pretty clear about eating pork and shellfish as well but that's glossed over by most Christians for their own convenience. But all that is moot. This country's governing doctrine is not the Bible but the U.S. Constitution.

--------------------
"That Light has bestowed upon me the greatest black magic!"
Post #104708
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 20:08

*
SOLDIER
Posts: 732

Joined: 23/2/2005

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. User has rated 25 fanarts in the CoN galleries. Member of more than five years. 
Quote (strikerbolt @ 8th December 2005 00:46)
Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 7th December 2005 18:55)
I agree with Gears about "tearing apart families". Yes, I know, there are a good number of people who resent homosexuals to the point that they'd cast out family members. Is that the fault of the homosexual themselves, or for the ignorance of the one casting them away? Ignorance, I think, is the real culprit in those situations.

Sure, a standard set of acceptable Morals are needed in today's world, I have no arguements there. I don't believe that you have to strictly adhere to these ideals either though. Yes, killing is bad. So is stealing, and generally, most forms of law breaking aren't smiled upon, but we do have our own minds as well. As long as it remains within the boundries of what is considered legal, it should be fine, shouldn't it?

Well, from a love standpoint? I don't think a man loving another is in any way immoral, nor should it be considered illegal. They love each other, and I don't think that's harmful to anyone, at all. If God will condemn them for it, that's their own decision to make. I don't think the Church or any other Religious movement should have any say in the matter. These aren't like the Crusades, as naive as it sounds, I don't believe anyone should be persecuted anymore, especially not by a religion.

We should be embracing other ideas, preferences and beliefs, not shunning them because of our own opinions. People are what they are, for whatever reason, as long as it's something they don't try to force on others or hurt people with, they should be allowed to believe what they want, express what they want and even have their marriages.

Wow, I couldn't have put it better myself...
I was trying to think of a way to say it properly, but couldn't
I fully agree.

I also agree with this, very well put, well done.

Homosexual people do what comes naturally to them just like heterosexual people do. It seems very sad for us to attack them because they are different. Why should we be so bigoted?

I don't think they are hurting anyone either. Of course it hurts some families at the moment because they find it difficult to understand. But families have been hurt in the same way in the past by people with different coloured skins falling in love and marrying. It is indeed ignorance.

I believe they should be accepted for what they are and allowed to marry. They should have that right as we do.

--------------------
'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'
Post #104754
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 21:14

*
Chocobo Knight
Posts: 153

Joined: 24/4/2005

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. 
Quote (Hamedo @ 8th December 2005 08:08)
Quote
Jenny wrote:  The bible doesn't like that concept because doing ANYTHING that feels good is selfish, therefore, a sin. Even eating and resting.


This is utterly, completely incorrect. Perhaps a bit of research before you post is in order?

Quote
Jenny wrote:  Aids didn't exist when homosexuality was just becoming accpeted in the late 70s.


Again, completely incorrect. I quote from TheBody.com's section on HIV/AIDS:

Quote
Quote
Q:  when was aids first discovered? and why wasn't really that big until the late '80's early '90's?


A: AIDS was first noticed in US in the early 80's. It started in a few people, and over time, before we knew enough and had enough focus on the issue of transmission - it spread. And since there is a period of years - often 10 years - in between exposure to HIV and development of illness, we saw more cases of the illness called AIDS in the late '80s as a result -- however - HIV infection itself wasprobably happening in the 70's - but since it is often without symptoms we wouldn't know it.

I think your Aids quote kind of just confirmed what I said, really. As in, Aids didn't exist, but people were contracting HIV from unprotected sex. Aids doesn't show up until many years after contracting HIV, as in, the mid 80s?

--------------------
The first duty in life is to assume a pose,
and the second duty is...well, no one's found out yet.
Post #104767
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 21:25
Group Icon
SOLDIER
Posts: 704

Joined: 9/12/2002


Quote (The Ancient @ 8th December 2005 08:53)
Around and around we go.  Is homosexuality bad? Is it ok?  Well we already know the Bible's take on it, it's quite pointless to argue that.  Of course the bible is pretty clear about eating pork and shellfish as well but that's glossed over by most Christians for their own convenience.  But all that is moot.  This country's governing doctrine is not the Bible but the U.S. Constitution.

around, around, here you go again.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his tree; -- col 2:13&14.

if you don't understand what that means, maybe you're better off "glossing over" any urges you might have to post about things in the Bible that Christians "conveniently gloss over." it is impossible to ignore the malicious intent of your words; it is even more difficult to let you get away with pretending like you are in the know about some big Christian conspiracy to "conveniently" pick-and-choose what they will from the Bible. paul, who is the *major* apostle as far as Christian doctrine under the New Covenant, reiterated that homosexuality is wrong (along with lying, murder, adultery...). he also told us it's fine for women to sacrifice doves during their periods, should they be so inclined. we are no longer bound by the mosaic law; Jesus is the only Way we need be concerned with and the pure love he taught serves as the highest example to all of a system of morality.

did Jesus speak on homosexuality? no. Jesus didn't speak on a lot of things. Jesus was as elijah, he came to bring good into the world, not to take the bad out. but paul, being spoken through by God and the Spirit, gave the early churches the Christian doctrine that still governs the church today. he said comitting homosexual acts was still wrong, nothing had changed that made the pursuit of selfish, unholy pleasure an acceptable thing under the New Covenant.

nobody will take you seriously if you quote mosaic law as a "conveniently" ignored set of still-binding statues to Christians under the New Covenant.

edit: uh...

Quote
I think your Aids quote kind of just confirmed what I said, really. As in, Aids didn't exist, but people were contracting HIV from unprotected sex. Aids doesn't show up until many years after contracting HIV, as in, the mid 80s?


so, really, what do you know, here? what are you trying to say, jenny? is it that hiv, which is the precursor and causer of aids, did indeed exist in the late 70's, was being passed around by loads of unprotected, promiscuous sex, and then when aids itself was discovered, gay men immediately stopped having sex and straight people are the ones who have been passing around hiv ever since? gays, as a whole, are a much more promiscuous and sexually active group than straights, with a far more voracious appetite for multiple partners. of course, there are plenty of sexually promiscuous straight people, too, and straight sexual promiscuity is just as wrong. but the fact that it was gays' sexual attitudes that spread hiv through their community like wildfire cannot be overlooked.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 8th December 2005 21:35
Post #104769
Top
Posted: 8th December 2005 21:54

Group Icon
SOLDIER
Posts: 777

Joined: 19/7/2003

Awards:
Member of more than ten years. Member of more than five years. Contributed to the Final Fantasy I section of CoN. Major involvement in the Final Fantasy IV section of CoN. 
Vital involvement in the Final Fantasy VII section of CoN. 
Seeing as this thread has derailed far too much from ots original intent, I'm closing it.

People here expressed strong arguments about a great deal of subjects. Anyone should feel free to start another thread about any of these subjects, but I encourage the lot of you who rseponded a lot to each other posts to contact yourself in PMs if you want to pursue arguments, and also to keep it civil, as we have rules about harrasment (I'm not that concerned, but a friendly reminder is free, so...)
Post #104773
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Closed New Topic New Poll