AD versus Common Era

[Darth Duck]

Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)

[...]

But are you flat-out saying, then, that sexually responsible LGBTs have no risk of contracting STDs?

If a committed homosexual couple has only had sex with each other, by your logic they would not contract an STD through the "normal" process. Unless you think all homosexuals are sluts or just happen to carry STDs...

Whatever the heck "if used properly" means. And even if it is "used properly", it's still a percentage; the risk still exists.

So you don't know how to use a condom properly? The American education system is effed.

Furthermore...a major reason for the widespread sexual activity involves the culture.

I'd argue hormones and hand cramps would be bigger causes of sex. And, well, it's just so much damned fun.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)

Interesting.

In the first place, coming from someone who does not favor the marriage of homosexual couples, the discussion of situations in which couples have no sex until marriage is hardly meaningful or worthy of being taken seriously. That's just another way of suggesting that homosexuals need to permanently abstain from having sex of any kind.

In the second place, I've never heard of a homosexual couple, who never had sex with anyone but each other, and who contracted a disease which is only ever transmitted by sexual means.

"gays" in general have a shorter average life span than "straights".

I'm just saying it's an odd coincidence....

Care to back up this claim by citing a source?

I already suspect that you are conflating homosexuality and promiscuity. Let's hear about a source in a scientific journal that only publishes peer-reviewed articles.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)

[...]

But are you flat-out saying, then, that sexually responsible LGBTs have no risk of contracting STDs?

If a committed homosexual couple has only had sex with each other, by your logic they would not contract an STD through the "normal" process. Unless you think all homosexuals are sluts or just happen to carry STDs...

Not at all. In fact, I am curious as to exactly what creates STDs in the first place. I'm not sure at all--I'm simply pointing out the odd coincidence.

Whatever the heck "if used properly" means. And even if it is "used properly", it's still a percentage; the risk still exists.

So you don't know how to use a condom properly? The American education system is effed.

It's not lack of education so much as the problems of vague advertising. Classic example: "natural flavors" being a code term for MSG.

In the case of "used properly"--heck, for all anyone knows, it could simply just be a disclaimer along the lines of, "we are not responsible if the condom breaks".

I've heard a theory along the lines that "used properly" means: conducted in a clean-room!

Wierd, I know...but theorys like that are what happens when things are left vague.

Furthermore...a major reason for the widespread sexual activity involves the culture.

I'd argue hormones and hand cramps would be bigger causes of sex. And, well, it's just so much damned fun.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg kind of thing, I'd say. Kill the chicken, if you don't want more eggs. No more eggs, no more chickens.

I honestly don't think using STD's is a fair barometer for whether a certain group of people should be eligible for marriage.

I can see that people can be against gay marriage and yet not be bigoted towards gay people in general. I think part of the barrier to gay marriage is that some feel like their position on the matter is being ignored. Change frightens people and change to something that people feel ownership over can create the kind of furor we're seeing over gay marriage.

One way or another the gay and straight communities will be on equal legal footing in regards to the legal uniting of two individuals in the near future... it'll be interesting to see how we get there.

Oh, I actually firmly agree on that. I'm no homophobe by any sense of the imagination. (My religious beliefs leads me to believe the behavior's morally wrong--but "let he who is without sin", and all that.)

My problem is just, like the AD/BC thing, a matter of terminology.

Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)

Interesting.

In the first place, coming from someone who does not favor the marriage of homosexual couples, the discussion of situations in which couples have no sex until marriage is hardly meaningful or worthy of being taken seriously. That's just another way of suggesting that homosexuals need to permanently abstain from having sex of any kind.

Civil unions, then.

In the second place, I've never heard of a homosexual couple, who never had sex with anyone but each other, and who contracted a disease which is only ever transmitted by sexual means.

The gay community has been very involved in the AIDS issue for a long time. Again, connections are connections.

"gays" in general have a shorter average life span than "straights".

I'm just saying it's an odd coincidence....

Care to back up this claim by citing a source?

...Let's hear about a source in a scientific journal that only publishes peer-reviewed articles.

Scientific journal? By all means!

The Oxford International Journal of Epidemology:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Their addendum:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

I already suspect that you are conflating homosexuality and promiscuity.

Not at all, and I apologize for any misconceptions to that effect.

 

[Captain Robert April]

*WARNING! TOPIC CONTAINMENT BREACH IN ONE MINUTE!!

 

[Darth Duck]

Simply this: I have yet to hear of a situation in which a heterosexual couple who did not have sex with anyone until their marriage--and then, only with one another--would contract an STD through the "normal" process. (I.e., they might get it through a tainted needle, etc.--but not through sex.)

[...]

But are you flat-out saying, then, that sexually responsible LGBTs have no risk of contracting STDs?

If a committed homosexual couple has only had sex with each other, by your logic they would not contract an STD through the "normal" process. Unless you think all homosexuals are sluts or just happen to carry STDs...

Not at all. In fact, I am curious as to exactly what creates STDs in the first place. I'm not sure at all--I'm simply pointing out the odd coincidence.

Odd coincidence? Little kids get the common cold a lot. I wonder what creates the common cold.

It's not lack of education so much as the problems of vague advertising. Classic example: "natural flavors" being a code term for MSG.

In the case of "used properly"--heck, for all anyone knows, it could simply just be a disclaimer along the lines of, "we are not responsible if the condom breaks".

I've heard a theory along the lines that "used properly" means: conducted in a clean-room!

Wierd, I know...but theorys like that are what happens when things are left vague.

No. Everything you say points to lack of education. Condom instructions are pretty simple and easily found. Didn't you put one on a banana in sex ed class?

I'd argue hormones and hand cramps would be bigger causes of sex. And, well, it's just so much damned fun.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg kind of thing, I'd say. Kill the chicken, if you don't want more eggs. No more eggs, no more chickens.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No. Everything you say points to lack of education. Condom instructions are pretty simple and easily found. Didn't you put one on a banana in sex ed class?

And I assume such prevents condoms from breaking...?

I'd argue hormones and hand cramps would be bigger causes of sex. And, well, it's just so much damned fun.

It's a chicken-and-the-egg kind of thing, I'd say. Kill the chicken, if you don't want more eggs. No more eggs, no more chickens.

The sex-driven culture (billboards, TV, magazines, etc.) makes it more appealing. Change that, and sex becomes less "cheap" and "casual" in the mindset of the populace.

 

[Darth Duck]

It's a chicken-and-the-egg kind of thing, I'd say. Kill the chicken, if you don't want more eggs. No more eggs, no more chickens.

The sex-driven culture (billboards, TV, magazines, etc.) makes it more appealing. Change that, and sex becomes less "cheap" and "casual" in the mindset of the populace.

We're biologically prone to bone. We can change the culture all we want, but it won't change the fact that people want to get it on.

 

[BillJ]

The sex-driven culture (billboards, TV, magazines, etc.) makes it more appealing. Change that, and sex becomes less "cheap" and "casual" in the mindset of the populace.

I call bullshit on this.

Come on, you do it. You love to do it. We all do it.

I do it, I love to do it. I just did it and I'm ready to do it again, don't tell me you don't do it!

We seemed to have no issues populating the planet prior to billboards.

 

[Sci]

Since others have this argument covered, I'll just say one thing.

Rush Limborg is not a homophobe; he is not afraid of LGBTs. This is true in the same sense that it is true that David Duke is not afraid of black men.

However, because Rush believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, he is a heterosexist, which is also a form of anti-LGBT bigotry. Believing that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality is still a form of bigotry, and he deserves to be called on it.

 

[MacLeod]

I felt in 2161 when the Federation was founded, Earth would have to have held some kind of predominate influence to have the initial Federation institutions located there. And in the 24th century a majority of the non-Starfleet Federation officials shown are human, which repeated enough times does allow for some inferences. But certainly the Federation Council itself is shown to be very pluralistic in TVH. And Starfleet is certainly human dominated (and a lot of those human Starfleet members do have North American backgrounds), although Vulcans having their own segregated ships does raise its own questions.

MY interpretation of why Earth was the Capital World was it was choosen for a number of reasons the primary one being

1.>It was no doubt the least objectionable planet to choose. i.e Would Vulcans agree to Andor being choosen or vice versa?

 

[BillJ]

Since others have this argument covered, I'll just say one thing.

Rush Limborg is not a homophobe; he is not afraid of LGBTs. This is true in the same sense that it is true that David Duke is not afraid of black men.

However, because Rush believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, he is a heterosexist, which is also a form of anti-LGBT bigotry. Believing that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality is still a form of bigotry, and he deserves to be called on it.

I'm not quite as black and white on the issue as you are. If a man truly believes in the Bible and believes his afterlife is predicated on what the book outlines as right and wrong. I can see a man being resistant to change on those things that the book tells him to be wrong.

I don't have to agree with it but I also won't simply write someone off as bigoted because of it.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

YMMV.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Ask Elton John about how much of a homophobe (or "heterosexist") Rush Limbaugh is. Rush was the first one to call Elton to congratulate him on the adoption of his son. They still converse on a regular basis.

Do you honestly think someone as proudly gay as Elton John would tolerate someone as bigoted as you seem to think Rush Limbaugh is?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Since others have this argument covered, I'll just say one thing.

Rush Limborg is not a homophobe; he is not afraid of LGBTs. This is true in the same sense that it is true that David Duke is not afraid of black men.

However, because Rush believes that homosexuality is morally wrong, he is a heterosexist, which is also a form of anti-LGBT bigotry. Believing that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality is still a form of bigotry, and he deserves to be called on it.

I'm not quite as black and white on the issue as you are. If a man truly believes in the Bible and believes his afterlife is predicated on what the book outlines as right and wrong. I can see a man being resistant to change on those things that the book tells him to be wrong.

I don't have to agree with it but I also won't simply write someone off as bigoted because of it.

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

YMMV.

Thank you.

Frankly...I'm bitterly amused that Sci would compare me to David Duke.

As I recall...he wasn't keen on what he saw as my comparing homosexuality to non-consentual incest.


Now...let's get something straight: if I'm to be condemned as a "bigot" because of my allegedly "anti-gay" beliefs ()...than by that same arguement, Sci should be held to the same standard, because as it stands, his standard effectively condemns any Christian who believe that the Bible is the innerrant word of God.

It is a matter of belief; some people believe that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. They--or rather, we--believe that homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to race, gender, etc.--and that the choice is wrong.

Some people do not--and rather believe that the belief that it is morally wrong is itself morally wrong.

Thus, since the battle is one over which side is immoral, than it would seem that, if one side is to be held as bigoted towards the other, the same therefore goes to the other side.

The question is: is the opposing side to social conservatives willing to accept that mantle of being bigoted against those who hold the Bible as the inerrant word of God--effectively, discriminatory against a religion? Because if not--than to be blunt, calling our side "bigoted" is a pot calling a kettle black.

 

[Darth Duck]

CRA: He's talking about Rush Limborg, the poster, not Rush Limbaugh, the windbag.

EDIT: Oh for crying out loud Rush, not the homosexuality is a choice BS.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^He was making a finer point about those whom Sci brands as "heterosexists". If I'm one, than someone who shares my beliefs--such as Rush Limbaugh--mush also be branded as one.

Now--

Ask Elton John about how much of a homophobe (or "heterosexist") Rush Limbaugh is. Rush was the first one to call Elton to congratulate him on the adoption of his son. They still converse on a regular basis.

Do you honestly think someone as proudly gay as Elton John would tolerate someone as bigoted as you seem to think Rush Limbaugh is?

Indeed...Sir Elton made it a point to play at Rush's wedding last year. He himself noted on stage that he was in the business of building bridges, not burning them--or words to that effect.

Interestingly enough...the Left dumped on him like mad as a "traitor" for that. Perhaps that had something to do with his apparent changing of viewpoint in regards to marriage....


EDIT: Darth, kindly explain how it's BS, please? A biological gene has yet to be discovered--after all the research to prove that there is one.

As it were...the same kind of debate exists over alcoholism--are alcoholics "born that way" or not, etc.* In either case...until we're sure either way scientifically, it remains a matter of belief.



*Now--just to make things clear for everyone: I am not saying that homosexuals are like alcoholics. I am pointing to a similar dabate on birth vs. behavior!

 

[Sci]

Sorry guys, but you ether believe in the equality of heterosexuality and homosexuality, or you believe in the superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality (in which case you are a heterosexist), or you believe in the superiority of homosexuality over heterosexuality (in which case you are a homosexist). There's no compromise here -- it's equality or bigotry, period.

Now...let's get something straight: if I'm to be condemned as a "bigot" because of my allegedly "anti-gay" beliefs ()...than by that same arguement, Sci should be held to the same standard, because as it stands, his standard effectively condemns any Christian who believe that the Bible is the innerrant word of God.

That depends on whether a given Christian interprets the Bible as condemning homosexuality. I know more than a few Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God who also don't agree with the idea that it condemns homosexuality. (The general argument they tend to make is that the ancient Hebrews had no concept of homosexuality, and that references to "men lying with men" in the OT referred to the pagan practice of ritualized sex with priests as part of the worship of polytheistic gods, not to the inherent act of homosexual sex.)

In any event, yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. I never claimed not to be. Being tolerant is a meaningless phrase -- it's only being tolerant of certain things that become meaningful. I'm tolerant of minority sexual orientations; I'm not tolerant of bigotry against minority sexual orientations.

They--or rather, we--believe that homosexuality is a choice, as opposed to race, gender, etc.

Yeah, and you're wrong about that.

(My cousin is gay. I dare say I trust her word over yours on the issue.)

 

[Turtletrekker]

Seriously. I didn't "choose" to be "straight", it's how I was born. Did any of you other "straight" people make an actual choice in the matter, or did it just come naturally? Why would it be any different for gays?

It might take some people a little longer to realize that theyuare gay as society sort of pushes people into the boy/girl relationship model, but once they come out, they realize that this is how they were always meant to be. I have a gay friend who, in his youth, was a real lady-killer. After he came out, he told me that being with women just never felt "right" to him, and that he realized who he really was after coming out. That that was who he really always was.

 

[Rosalind]

Care to back up this claim by citing a source?

...Let's hear about a source in a scientific journal that only publishes peer-reviewed articles.

Scientific journal? By all means!

The Oxford International Journal of Epidemology:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/3/657.abstract

Their addendum:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

Since no one bothered to go and read the paper, I thought I will. Let me just quote the authors from their follow up paper ("Gay life expectancy revisited") published in the same journal, which you also linked, on this subject:

Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being.

<summary of the previous paper> In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure. Death is a product of the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual orientation or any other ethnic or social factor. <what people should do if they want to present argument of individual's health in a legal sense>

<what the research was for> Overall, we do not condone the use of our research in a manner that restricts the political or human rights of gay and bisexual men or any other group.

[mod hat on]
On the other hand, this thread has gone so far off the topic, it's not funny. While neither LS nor myself mind off topic discussions in general, I draw a line when discussion start to get personal. So, I'm closing this one to let everyone cool off, and let the mods discuss this in peace.

comments to PM, please.