26
   

Why are people against homosexuality?

 
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 03:58 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
So homosexuality harms the individual like cancer or diabetes? Interesting.


Look at the rate of HIV in this risk group of males homosexuals to start with along with other STDs. A health risk every bit as bad as cancer or diabetes would you not agree?

I am sure you will find it interesting<grin>.


So exposing HIV to both a straight person and a gay person will have a different outcome? Interesting.

STIs effect all people. If the argument is made that homosexuality is a fatal defect, it seems stupid to mark the scorecard because of a communicable disease that anybody can get.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:05 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
So exposing HIV to both a straight person and a gay person will have a different outcome? Interesting.

STIs effect all people. If the argument is made that homosexuality is a fatal defect, it seems stupid to mark the scorecard because of a communicable disease that anybody can get.


Thank you for the laughs so the CDC numbers showing that male homosexuals as a group are many many many times at greater risk of getting HIV and other STDs then straight males as a group is not meaningful or a health risk that is directly connected with being a homosexual male?

You really wish to go down that road of denial? Cheerfully overlooking the mountain of dead gay men since the 1980s?

Seem strange that the gay Act Out movement did not agree with you that HIV was not of very special concern to them.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:24 pm
The risk arises from choosing to behave in a certain reckless manner, it does not arise from any genetic predisposition. Bill is truly an idiot child.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:40 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Bill is truly an idiot child.


Perhaps however without females to act as a damper to having almost unlimited sexual partners and throwing is the higher likelihood of anus sex acts young gay males are at must higher risks of all forms of STDs then straight males see the CDC numbers once more.

Hell not even a Tiger Wood is as likely to have as many partners in a year as a young homosexual male living in a big city is in a month or so.

The above is inherent in having male partners instead of female partners and therefore is directly tied into being a male homosexual.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:52 pm
@blueprince,
blue prince wrote:
Why are people against homosexuality?

Since our other Prince, also known as Gautam, isn't here today, I'll make his point for him: Homophobes are just not good-looking enough to be gay.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 05:07 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Homophobes are just not good-looking enough to be gay.



LOL such good looking men as Senator Larry Craig perhaps and he fitted nicely into both categories gay and a homophobe.


0 Replies
 
blueprince
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 05:53 pm
Yikes... I posted this yesterday and have five pages...
I'll just throw an extra thought in because I feel like it, a thought nicked from some random youtuber:

What makes homosexuality and heterosexuality different?
The gender, obviously, but what is the difference between same sex and opposite sex relationships? No children. So? Some heterosexuals are infertile. Do these face the same discrimination? No. Why? They're not of the same sex. What's the difference between one gender and the other? AIDS? Heterosexuals have AIDS, so why don't they face the same discrimination? They're of the opposite sex. So?
And so on...

Roughly translated: double standard. I'll be interested to hear any of your takes on this... And will be dreading the amount of responses...


And currently the advert below is 'lesbian match-dating service'. I laughed.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 06:32 pm
@blueprince,
Quote:
Why? They're not of the same sex. What's the difference between one gender and the other? AIDS? Heterosexuals have AIDS, so why don't they face the same discrimination? They're of the opposite sex. So?


I fear your logic is sadly lacking and I mean sadly lacking.

First yes not all heterosexuals couples can and or does in fact produce children however not one gay couple in the history of life on this planet had produce one offspring at least when we are talking about higher life forms.

Not all cars run however, that fact does not somehow turn an object such as a wheel barrel into the same thing as a car. Not all straight couples have children that fact however does not in any way or in no manner mean that same sex coupling is the same as male/female coupling.

Yes, you surely do not need to be a homosexual male to get an STD however, it is many many many times more likely you will come down with an STD if you are a homosexual male therefore as far as health risks of the two forms of sex being the same they are not.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:04 pm
I'd like to hear if someone could tell me how my life would be better if there were no gays?

T
K
O
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:14 pm
@BillRM,
You said you would put me "on ignore"--no fair peeking.

This is a typically **** for brains response. As has been p0inted out, heterosexuals get AIDS, too. The HIV is no respecter of sexual preference. In Africa, heterosexuals are the greatest at risk group. Being heterosexual dos not guarantee that one will have fewer sex partners.

What an idiot.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:18 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You said you would put me "on ignore"--no fair peeking.

This is a typically **** for brains response. As has been p0inted out, heterosexuals get AIDS, too. The HIV is no respecter of sexual preference. In Africa, heterosexuals are the greatest at risk group. Being heterosexual dos not guarantee that one will have fewer sex partners.

What an idiot.


No but it does limit your prospects!
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:22 pm
@Seed,
No it doesn't. WHO has determined that the spread of HIV in Africa is greatest among long distance truck drivers, because they avail themselves of the services of prostitutes, thus contracting and spreading AIDS. There is never a shortage of prostitutes. What kind of "logic" is behind the thought that being heterosexual will limit one's opportunity to put one's little pecker in a variety of women? It's beyond me why people think that's a reasonable proposition.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:26 pm
By the way, for those who seem to need this explained to them (and it seems there are several here), à propos of the topic of this thread, an assumption that AIDS is a disease of homosexuals is just another manifestation of an underlying assumption that something is wrong with homosexuality which is not a problem of heterosexuality. The assumption is without merit.
0 Replies
 
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:32 pm
@Setanta,
I sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I meant that being a heterosexual lowers your percentage of sexual partners. Just like being homosexual. Now if you were bi sexual your range of partners would be a more wide arc.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:40 pm
Well, that's arguably true--although i suspect that the true limiting factor is the frequency with which any man can get an erection.

None of that, though, is germane to the topic of the thread. And the topic of HIV has been introduced into this thread in an attempt to suggest that homosexuality involves debilities which don't apply to the heterosexual population, with an inferential condemnation of homosexuality as being "more risky" behavior--all of that deriving from a pathetic attempt to suggest that homosexuality is an evolutionary debility.
Seed
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:46 pm
@Setanta,
It's like saying people who get blood transfusions are to blame for the spread.
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 10:57 pm
@Seed,
A good point. Epidemiologists at one time claimed that HIV was brought to North America by an airline steward who had been in Africa and had availed himself of male prostitutes. He then spent a vacation on Fire Island, and it was claimed that the disease thereby spread to the homosexual population of North America. It could just as easily have happened that way with heterosexuals. By the way, i'm not insisting upon that scenario, and don't know if epidemiologists still take that line--the point, though, is that the spread of HIV among homosexuals was coincidental to the circumstances.

One could as easily blame intravenous drug users, whose behavior is far more risky than other groups in the first place, involving as it does the spread of other diseases, such as hepatitis B. That just underlines that there was a pre-existent hysterical and hateful attitude toward homosexuality. Homosexuals have not been condemned because of HIV, they were condemned before HIV arrived on the scene. HIV just tends to give ammunition to the haters, who already operate without reference to logic.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 11:16 pm
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
if someone could tell me how my life would be better if there were no gays?


Let see Diest TKO going back to the issue of HIV one of the main reservoirs for this lovely virus in society is gay/bi males along with intravenous drug users and people who have sex with either group.

HIV is one hell of a hard virus to get being something of the order of ten times harder then Hepatitis for example to transmit and lacking the large reservoir of the virus in homosexual males that disease might just had die out in the population or not even had became establish in the first place in the 1980s. I remember reading an article in Science American that dare to go as far as to hint at that idea many years back. Also see the story of patient zero a gay male flight attendant and his possible role in establishing the disease in the West.

Without the gay New York City population my favored author Isaac Asimov might had written any numbers of books to add to his output of 500 hundreds or so he did produce in his lifetime before AIDS kill him after he most likely picked up the HIV virus in the 80s from the large blood transfusions given to him during open heart surgery.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 11:28 pm
@BillRM,
I asked how my life would be better if there were no gays.

You gave me an answer tantamount to there would be less fleas if there were no dogs.

You fail.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 03:51 am
@Diest TKO,
LOL So you was not a fan of Asimov writings and yes it is a lot to ask that you do not exist so I can read some more of his fine books<grin>.
 

Related Topics

I'd like to know your opinion! - Question by fabianacaro
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
What's so wrong with being Gay? - Discussion by RexDraconis111
Homosexual Role Models - Discussion by RexRed
Homosexuality- a christian perspective on 'love.' - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The Causes Of Homosexuality in men - Question by Omri123456777
Am I gay in real life? - Question by Samismo
Don't know what to do - Question by Joe jo 91
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 11:11:14