Inferno
activist professor
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,017
- Reaction score
- 713
- Location
- Tipping Velvet
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
above is for humor purposes only, I know the information is false.
Yeah but it still was cute.
above is for humor purposes only, I know the information is false.
It's certainly none of your business what two or more consenting adults do behind closed doors.
I recall saying it was.
Yeah well guess what, unrelated couples with inheritable genetic disorders can marry, so I guess according to your argument this means incest should be legal.
People with inheritable genetic disorders comprise a very small % of marriages, so they are, once again, benign exceptions which prove the rule against incest.
If we have to ban those unrelated people with inheritable genetic disorders from marrying so that we can stop incest, fine, let's ban them. If we have to ban infertile couples from marrying also, fine, let's ban them.
Do you even realize what you just said?
Fine, ban them.
At least we agree that your point was random and off topic :2wave:
Neither can people from Haiti. There's a good reason for that.
Are all gays banned from donating organs, or only gay men?
Are all gays banned from donating organs, or only gay men?
I think it is all which is really asinine to the max. Lesbians have fewer STD's then any other group on the planet.
Just because the two are connected does not mean that there is not a massive and important difference between procreation and raising children. Infertile couples and couples with inheritable genetic disorders, much like homosexual couples, are more than capable of raising children they have acquired by other means.
My opposition to incestuous unions is not based on genetics, and I do not believe that the laws which prohibit them should be based on genetics, either-- unfortunately, the laws and the majority of the populace disagree with me on this issue, just as they seem to disagree with me on nearly every issue pertaining to family relationships.
In any case, it is not necessary for the institution to only promote those relationships which provide a healthy environment for children, only to promote those relationships which tend to. The fact that intentionally childless couples can be married does not detract from marriage being the best condition in which to raise children, and thus does not detract from the government having a legitimate interest in promoting marriage.
What would you say that the government's interest in marriage is, then? For what other reason should the government subsidize and extend special privileges to certain kinds of relationships between adults?
After all, in order to argue that homosexuals should be allowed, we have to accept the point that heterosexual marriage is a valid social institution and that the government has a legitimate reason to encourage it. As much as I am vehemently opposed to the position, several people have stepped forward and claimed that the government has no business in marriage whatsoever.
I can defend marriage-- whether it is equal opportunity or not-- on the grounds of providing the healthiest and most stable home environment for children. I can probably defend it on a few other grounds, though my argument will be shakier. I think anyone would be hard pressed to defend marriage on no grounds whatsoever, and that appears to be all you're offering to counter mine and Jerry's position.
I'm not sure what the current standards are. Lesbians are an extremely low-risk group for HIV/AIDS, so if they are excluded from donation this should be rectified as it makes no sense.
Gay men, however, are a high-risk group, as such the Red Cross excludes them from donation not because they're afraid of spreading AIDS but because it's a matter of cost-effectiveness.
Testing blood for diseases is not cheap, and if you have to throw away blood after it's been tested you've effectively thrown away your money. By precluding high-risk groups from donating (persons visiting Africa within the last six months, Haitian citizens, gay men), the Red Cross increases the cost-effectiveness of doing business by decreasing the amount of wasted tests and equipment.
That was the point I was getting at, yes.
I suspect you rage at others using the word "queer" about you.The cost of what it is and can be like to be lesbian and gay is not even close to that of a hetero relationship. The idea that you could be a pariah from even your own family and friends. I have seen people lose all their close contacts as they came out.
Endless stories as to the end of same sex relationships ending in the death os one partner by suicide because of the rejection of their partner because they are afraid to come out and be counted.
Pride and self respect was the early answer to these problems. If because you were lesbian or gay you were into self loathing it was hard to stand up and be counted. The idea behind gay pride was to stand together and be mocked as the many with love and support all around there is no pain that can't be overcome. It stemmed a growing tide yet death still comes at a high rate of suicide.
Pride is still the answer self respect is what the tool is. It comes from knowing the LGBT community cares about your life.
So I celebrate every year that I am queer. I made one more year in the fold of the hated.
I suspect you rage at others using the word "queer" about you.
Once again you give reason to consider homosexuality a dangerous mental disturbance.
Contrary to belief, no one has to like you. No one has to like anyone. In fact, all of us have the right to dislike anyone for any reason or no reason at all.
That seems something just asserted past on this forum. No one has to like gays or anyone else. The only restriction is not commiting crimes against people you don't like. If someone kills themselves because they are rejected by someone else it is not the someone else who victimized that person. The person victimized themself.
No one is more insulted and rejected than fat kids. Yet I don't see anyone lamenting fat kid suicides. If someone who is gay commits suicide because they are rejected and if this happens in mass numbers like you claim, then you have made the strongest possible case that homosexuality is a dangerous, even life threatening, mental disorder that isn't normalcy at all.
A good point as well. Lesbians are also the coolest people on the planet as well. hehehehehe:lol:
Some of my favorite people in the world are lesbians.
Read the last few posts, it's plain.
Care to provide the countervaling logic that refutes them?
Irrelevant to the issue of the mental disorders presented, as already discussed.
Yeah, all I see is you making baseless assertions. That's why I was asking for proof.
It's obvious that you hold extreme views in regards to homosexuality,
so it is pointless trying to have a reasonable conversation with you about it.
There's nothing I'm going to say to convince you otherwise,
nor is there anything you can say that's going to suddenly make me not bisexual.
So, what you're saying is that you lack the ability to follow the logic of elementary statements and you want some man to hold your hand for you.
I'm not that kind of a guy.
It's obvious that I know what words mean and use them correctly.
It's obvious you know what some words mean and object to their proper usage.
So I ask you, do you believe homosexuality is caused by:
A) Genetic defect?
B) Developmental deviation caused by environmental factors?
C) Personal choice of freewill?
I've already explained the implications of each.
Which option do you choose? Are you able to invent a fourth option? That would be entertaining.
I'm having a reasonable conversation.
It's not reasonable for you to expect me to abandon a lifetime of rational thought and careful weighing of meaning and concept simply to lower myself to your level of prejudice, bigotry, and misconceptions.
So you're admitting you're not capable of rational argument.
I don't recall stating any such goal. Are you afraid that if you learn how to be rational you'll stop having the urge for amateur proctology checks with unorthodox equipment?
I suspect you rage at others using the word "queer" about you.
Once again you give reason to consider homosexuality a dangerous mental disturbance.
Some of my favorite people in the world are lesbians.
Mine too, just not the man hating dykes though... they are simply angry and mean.
So, what you're saying is that you lack the ability to follow the logic of elementary statements and you want some man to hold your hand for you.
I'm not that kind of a guy.
I met a man-hating lesbian once. She actually liked me, though, because I had heard of Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto.
I have known a few man hating lesbians in my life. Most of them at one time or another had some kind of run in or abusive problem with a male. It seemed not really to be a lesbian thing. It may have had something to do with their being lesbian that the problem arose.
I have never hated men. I find them funny and engaging and nice to pal around with. I like gay men because they are like GF's that can lift heavy things. (JK) I sometime say things in a way that men think i don't like them. I just don't like the ones that think they are all it and a bag of chips.
I just Love you Dr Patrick you are great.
I completely understood where she was coming from, though. Her stepfather had molested her several times while she was growing up and she had been in a lot of abusive relationships with men before coming out. It would be hard not to hate men after that.
Amen to that. So many men are like that too, which is unfortunate.
Thank you very much. That means a lot to me.
I think that you are great as well!
I think people think that man hating is a lesbian trait. I find it more uncommon than the reverse. As I said and you confirmed that it has something to do with the nature of the male female relationships that these women have had. It is the same for some gay guys where they have had bad abusive relationships with a female in their life and hate women.