WWJD
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by WWJD on May 16, 2005 19:47:15 GMT -5
I want to say something about the diseases gay males contract. Please bare with me, what I am about to say may repel some. I read an artical on anal sex between males and females, That the male should wash his penis/or fingures before intering in the vagina. Because the anal holds alot of infections and diseases and can transport it to the vagina. So what I thank the reason male gays are such a high percentage in having diseases is because this is there way of having sex. You all might have aready know this and if in that case my bad. WWJD
|
|
|
Post by fawnmarie on May 16, 2005 20:18:08 GMT -5
Well, that's true - if you're going to have anal sex, you should wash up before taking the act on the road. But that's just part of the HIV problem. During anal sex tiny ruptures can occur in the rectum, and it is in broken or irritated skin where diseases are most easily picked up. Anal sex can cause bacterial infections from residual feces, unless you use a condom, wash thoroughly and urinate afterwards. Regular vaginal sex can cause bladder infections, too. In general, your skin is very suited to protecting you from disease. When the skin is broken, it's much easier to pick up germs, viruses, etc. Like I said, it's less likely you can get HIV from a woman unless the skin you have in contact with her blood or vaginal secretions is broken. It can enter through the urethra, but the mechanics don't make it as easy as you'd think. HIV is a virus and not the same as a bacterial infection, but one should be careful about such practices. But I do stand behind what I said, men in general are more highly sexed and promiscuous than women, and since HIV started in the gay population it was spread pretty rapidly. Since BOTH partners tend to be more promiscuous, I'm sure it doubles the odds of veneral diseasing being passed around. Whether or not granting gay men the right to marry would curb that promiscuous behavior is another story. Since heterosexual men seem to marry and STILL mess around plenty, my guess is it wouldn't change that impulse. I guess my whole take on the thing is why anybody CARES whether or not they marry. It doesn't affect me one way or another, unless they are my friends or my family, in which case it means I have to find out where they are registered. Fawn
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 17, 2005 1:56:37 GMT -5
gigi, I do not have the ability to shove anything down anyone's throat. I do not impose my views on anyone. I was answering a specific question in as much detail so as to be understood. I prefer to be as plain as possible so that there are no hidden agendas. What you see is what you get. I apologize if you feel anything was shoved down your throat. I do speak in terms that are counter PC because being PC just makes it all worse in my opinion. I don't have a problem with tolerance, but to me, tolerance does not equal acceptance. Tolerance is just that - tolerance. There is also a point that should be made. I hope that we are interested in the truth. I do not have the ability to impose my views on anyone. I cannot force anyone to believe anything I say. But, that does not mean that truth isn't truth. The fact is, as I was answering a question put to me, that there is no "right" to be gay. GEORGIA Felony 16-6-2, Sodomy, 1 to 20 years Upheld as to homosexuals on the grounds that there is no fundamental federal constitutional right to "engage in sodomy." Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). MINNESOTA Misdemeanor 609.293, Sodomy, 1 year/$3000 MASSACHUSETTS Felony 272-34, Crime Against Nature, 20 years Felony 272-35, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts, 5 years/$100-$1000 MICHIGAN Felony 750.158, Crime Against Nature, 15 years (Taken from United States Sodomy Laws, state by state, Stephen Cohen; Ocean Fund International Ltd, 1996, 1997) So, since 1997 some things have changed. Many states have repealed their anti-sodomy laws. We are beginning to come full circle with many states now passing laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman to counter activist judges attempting to legislate from the bench. We are also faced with possibly amending the Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage. (a concept that escapes some people) Arizona has one such law: ARS 25-101.c "Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/25/00101.htm&Title=25&DocType=ARSPlease don't confuse this conversation with throwing accusations at someone. I don't have anyone in particular in mind when I write this. I am simply addressing the issue. That's it. Wahaika
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 17, 2005 2:03:35 GMT -5
Hi flatandgreen.
I think you missed my point. I was not referring specifically to you.
I could point you toward scriptures that show you how serious it is, and that I categorized it correctly. But I don't thing you want to see them. If you do, let me know and I'll post some.
I am not trying to get into a religous discussion. I am only showing the nature and source of rights to demonstrate that there is no right to be Gay or to commit gay acts. Again, I'm just addressing an issue. No reference to you. No offence intended.
Wahaika
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 17, 2005 2:10:22 GMT -5
>>First of all, Wahaika, the entire basis of your argument is that sexually moral and immoral behavior is dictated by your god.
The laws of the U.S. are based on moral and immoral behavior dictated by God. The existence of the country is directly related to religious freedom. Ever hear of William Bradford?
I have already quoted Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. You are really disagreeing with them. But what if you were right and the U.S. rejected God? Who/what defines right vs. wrong? On what is it based? How much integrity could it have? Think of it. People defining right and wrong for themselves. How very convenient!
1) There is no proof of the existance of your god, so we can not base our laws on that dogma.
You are not allowing for the existence of Faith. There is plenty of proof, but my proof or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether God exists or not. However, it can be proven using scientific rules and it can be proven using legal rules. The scientific world and the legal world are interested in truth and facts right?! But one person cannot prove this to another. One must run their own experiment on the hypothesis, so to speak, personally. A prerequisite is that one must sincerely want to know, and be ready for the commitment, otherwise it is a waste of time.
2) There is not a vast majority of citizens in this country that believe in your God. Defining law to suit your dogma would not be a democratic answer.
>>And whether you want to think this is a democracy or a representative republic, the point is the laws are supposed to represent the will of the majority of people, and as a complete bloc, the conservative christian may just be outnumbered.
Wouldn't it have been nice to understand what it was you spent all those years in the military protecting? Have you ever heard of the Rule of Law? Do you understand the nature of Representation? Judeo/Christian ethics is the foundation of our laws. That point is not even arguable.
Laws don't represent the will of the majority in this country. They represent what is right, regardless of personal opinion - even of the majority of constituents. Legislators are to uphold the law and the Constitution, not the whims of the masses. If it were the reverse, you would see exactly what the forefathers were specifically trying to avoid. You can read about it in the Federalist Papers; 10 and 14.
If the U.S. is so secular, why does Congress begin each session with a prayer? Why are the ten commandments posted in the Supreme Court Chambers? Why are there crosses and stars of David on thousands of graves at Arlington National Cemetery?
BTW, I don't teach my kids to hate anyone. Tolerance (by its true meaning) is a requirement of civilization. I'm not raising a bunch of religious vigilantes. The whole reason for my previous post was to answer a question on gay rights. Namely, that there are none. Gays have the same rights as the rest of us.
That aside - I think we can disagree and be friends, and it's okay not to think ANYTHING is okay - it's a free country. On the other hand, we do have civil liberties and they must be upheld for the good of the whole.
I completely agree.
Wahaika
"Skin color is a benign, nonbehavioral characteristic. Sexual orientation is perhaps the most profound of human behavioral characteristics. Comparison of the two is a convenient but invalid argument." (Colin Powell, Letter sent to AMR Corp., CEO Robert L. Crandall, 2/8/97)
|
|
|
Post by fawnmarie on May 17, 2005 8:47:23 GMT -5
Wahaika,
I was referring to "YOUR" god - not "God" in general. I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear enough. Many people in this country believe in "God" in general, but not everyone interprets the christian dogma the same way YOU do.
So I'm not arguing that American laws are based on judeo/christian ethics - what I'm saying is that the majority of jews/christians don't interpret or follow the bible the same way YOU do. This has nothing to do being secular, but having a variety of intepretations of those biblic laws.
The variety of do's and don'ts in the myriad of christian religions is extremely broad. Your flavor of christianity is very different than other's. Your intepretation of the bible and what it means in day to day living is not the ONLY judeo/christiona viewpoint. And I don't mean that personally, judeo/christians have different sects and viewpoints and dogmas. Some are against drinking alcohol, some are against birth control, some drink, some use alcohol, some are accepting of gays, some not. Some eat pork, some do not. BTW - the muslim religion is also derived from the judeo/christian tradition, so don't leave them out.
So, what I'm saying is that the 'judeo/christian' ethic itself is so broad and changeable, that saying that laws against gay relations should exist because it violates the judeo/christian ethic is pretty pointless, because the judeo/christian ethic isn't black and white, itself.
The bible contradicts itself in a lot of places, and quite frankly there is such a collection of varying ethics, viewpoints, ideas, concepts of good and evil, contradictions of right and wrong, etc. in the bible that it's really a wonder anyone can reconcile them.
So, no, just cause you believe in ONE intepretation of the bible, doesn't mean other christians believe the same. Many christians I know think that god created/invented everything, and that he has less of a problem with the homosexuals he made than you do.
Fawn
|
|
|
Post by gigi on May 17, 2005 8:49:19 GMT -5
Wahaika, I was making a general statement, not referring specifically to your remarks with the exception of what I considered divisive. As a matter of fact I appreciate your candor even if I don't agree with everything you say. You right that there is a distinction to be made regarding tolerance and acceptance. I believe we accept people and tolerate behaviour for example. Faith is extremely important; without it we founder. You put your faith in God. Not everyone subscribes to God yet still has faith. These threads always raise the temperature a bit but I prefer that to apathy. Take care.
|
|
|
Post by Wahaika on May 17, 2005 10:36:46 GMT -5
Fawn,
Your attempt to isolate this down to my belief in God as if I were alone in it is rather amusing.
I would be the first to agree that there are a lot of conflicting Christian religions all claiming to be right and all claiming to follow the same book. I also agree that the Bible contradicts itself in plenty of places, and where it doesn't, there is a religion somewhere that will. (acceptance of homosexuality for example) But a) This discussion is rather narrow in scope, b)The vast majority of Christian religions condemn homosexuality, and c) When two ideas conflict, at least one is incorrect. Those Christian religions that do accept it are not necessarily correct when one asks the question "are they right or are they wrong." d) This is all beside the point. The point is that there is no right to be gay. Like it or not, believe it or not, that's the way it is. Gays have no more rights than the rest of us.
When it comes to the foundation of this country and our laws, I do leave Muslims out, and Buddists, and Hindus, and whatever else, simply because they were not here. They are not part of the foundation of the country or its laws or principles even though, by luck of the draw, that some ethics just happen to coincide. BTW, Islam does not approve of homosexuality either. I have plenty of Muslim friends, some very close ones. When you start discussing and studying specifics, you find out very quickly that the religion itself teaches anti-Jew and anti-Christian philosophies in spite of initial claims to the contrary. If fact, they are just like every other religion. They think that they're right and everyone else is wrong. If you want to discuss this, get out your Koran and let's take it to another thread.
But, back to this discussion. No, nice try. I am far from alone in what I have said in this thread. But even if I was alone, I'm still right. (categorically, not attacking any one individual)
>>Many christians I know think that god created/invented everything, and that he has less of a problem with the homosexuals he made than you do.
If you think that, then it is obvious that you really have no idea what I believe. However, the only way to settle that kind of statement, and stay on subject, is to start quoting scripture to show what God thinks because of what He has said. If you really want to go there, just let me know.
>> ...the homosexuals he made... Very nice play on words. God created all of us. Once created, those who choose to become homosexuals do it on their own.
Are you making the case that God approves of homosexuality?
Wahaika
|
|
|
Post by Cassandra on May 17, 2005 11:48:51 GMT -5
:(I thought this was a Breast Enhancement board? Wahaika, sorry to say but u seem to be making Christians in general look bad and are pushing people away by the way u are coming across. Just thought I'd let you know to give you something to think and pray about .
|
|
|
Post by fawnmarie on May 17, 2005 12:40:25 GMT -5
I am not isolating this to your personal belief in god. Believe whatever you wish.
Naw - this was all to rough. Personally, I don't think it really matters. People change, laws change, social 'norms' change.
That's all.
Fawn
|
|
|
Post by lilsx1 on May 17, 2005 17:08:12 GMT -5
I think it would be nice if people would mind their OWN business instead of sticking it in other peoples. Live and let live. As long as no one is knocking at my door or pushing their beliefs on me I am happy! We are not the judges of each other, much less in the end so why do you worry about what other people want to do?! To the people who do judge: what if you were wrong and gay people are born that way and what if you read scriptures and misinterpret them. What about "He that is without sin, cast the first stone..." Jesus associated with prostitutes and other people that the general population looked down on, even though there are scriptures that say to "Quit mixing with bad association" or something like that. People who point fingers and cause arguments and hate are the same people who have turned this world in to the ugly mess it is today.
|
|
|
Post by PepeLePewtheDivine on May 17, 2005 23:18:38 GMT -5
This thread moves so fast and I have been gone for two days so I dont even know where to begin.... Fawn Marie's reply's have made some excellent points and argued certain points far better than I could have so I wont bother commenting on those things. *WWJD - you missed my point entirely in post #80 which was that when you speak of "guiding" those who are "without christ" and "saving them" you are being somewhat arrogant and disrespectful in assuming that they are somehow less enlightened, spritual, whatever than you and other christians are. Spirituality is personal and not neccesarily catagorical. Also i find Fawn's statment "Jesus seemed like a nice guy, I wish more Christians were like Him" rather interesting because I think there is a tendancy to catagorize the bible and Christ himself together. There is signifigant historical evidence that Jesus was a person( meanining mortal...) whose morals were considerably more evolved than His time and that he showed compassion and unconditional love for living things on a truly massive scale, and inspired millions of others to do so. The bible as we know it however was not wirtten by Jesus himself....It was written 400 years after his death... by a King with political motivations. I just wanted to make clear this distinction when I am speaking about Christianity as we know it. Im very tired...and now y'all are getting me worked up before bed so Im gonna refrain from further discussion tonight. I cant beleive I said y'all....Im from Canada...?! Hahaha, Love Pepe.
|
|
|
Post by PepeLePewtheDivine on May 17, 2005 23:24:46 GMT -5
Ok one more thing - Wahaika - you are clearly very anti gay, and yet you are a dude who's trying to grow a set! Either your profile is wrong or thats the biggest contradiction I've heard in awhile.
Im assuming its the former but it says it twice in your profile...please clarify.
|
|
|
Post by flatandgreen on May 18, 2005 0:36:37 GMT -5
Wahaika's here helping us out w/his very detailed BE info and to gather info for his wife, Madredesiete, as I understand it. Also, to me some of his statements seem very anti-gay because it raises the point that I could burn in hell and he thinks things I feel are very natural, are unnatural and abominations in the sight of God. That's uncomfortable to contemplate. After all, I could have missed the mark. I don't wants to squirm under the gaze of a deity that judges my fun harshly. However, if I was worried about keeping my hypothetical children from burning in hell b/c they've been led by society to think sinful actions are normal and acceptable, OF COURSE I'd try to keep society from moving in what I considered (in this scenario) a misleading direction that endangered the kiddies' souls. However, outside of hypothetical instances Wahaika and I just...disagree. Wahaika is tolerant in that he didn't respond negatively to me when I made it clear earlier in a different thread that I'm a lesbian. He didn't respond to that at all and responded to what else I had to say positively. That's pretty f**kin'* tolerant for someone who feels as strongly as he does about this (and other ) issues. Once this thread turned into a moral debate, though, he felt free to enter it, just as I did. He hasn't attacked anyone personally, although the intense emotions this debate causes ARE very personal, but rather defended his beliefs with sources he finds valuable. It's irritating, but we're all just going to keep disagreeing. No one's won anyone to their side in this. We've just raised our boiling points. Yes, Wahaika is anti-gay, but I don't get the impression that he goes and beats up the flamers in his locale: that's tolerance, just not the acceptance that would make life more lovely for ME and other queers out there. *Excuse the swearing. I just can't help it sometimes, even though I know it makes me sound crass.
|
|
LadyR
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by LadyR on May 18, 2005 9:34:38 GMT -5
This discussion has been very interesting, yet here is what I still don't understand. All the comments that suggest that gays are born this way. Is there proof of this? It seems to me that we are all just born. Period. From that moment on, our families, friends, personal experiences, etc. help to form the people we become. Are we born heterosexual? I don't think so. I think this comes later. You know, when we feel something, we tend to say that something is, simply because we feel it. Yet if we dig a little deeper we will uncover the reasons for why we feel a certain way, or believe something.
But to those posters who asked, "Why does anyone care if others are gay and why is it anyone's business"? Well, it is every American taxpayer's business. I live in the NY metro area and I can tell you that you do not want to be anywhere near NY City on the day of the gay pride parade. At least not with your children. It's disgusting, lewd and lascivious. Who foots the bill for this display? And when the gays are marching and lobbying for more money to be allocated for AIDS research, who do they think is going to pay for that? Sure, AIDS can affect all of us, but who introduced it to our society in the first place? Yet it becomes a matter of discrimination and bigotry.
What exactly are gay rights anyway? It seems to me that they have all of the same rights as the rest of us in this country. Are we referring to marriage? Well, they do not have the right to marry because they want to change the rules. They don't want to do it the way it is supposed to be, between a man and a woman. Look, there are a lot of things out there that I don't like or agree with. Things could be changed to suit me too, but that's just not how it works. I'm not opposed to a civil union of some sort, but don't go changing marriage just because it doesn't suit you. Suppose I decided that I wanted to shack up with a chimp and then demanded to be able to put my chimp on my insurance and got all bent out of shape because no one would perform a marriage ceremony for us. I don't mean to sound rude, but my point is that we have to draw a line or eventually it will just be a free for all. People will just take and do whatever they want, and many in some very bizarre ways. We have laws and rules for a reason. Not everyone is going to agree with them but we must accept that this is the way it is.
I will be honest when I tell you that there is no way in hell that I would stand by and allow taxpayer dollars to be spent on educating my children that gay is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. We have no control over what our children decide to do later in life, but I will not stand for someone telling my kids that it's OK to be gay, with taxpayer funds.
Has anyone ever been down the far end of Duval Street in Key West? It looks like a perverted freak show. Drag queens, 50 and 60 year old men dressed like flaming fools with young, and I mean young, teenaged boys. Look, my partner and I do some strange things together too, but we do it in private. If you're going to take it to the street than you have to expect the reactions that you get from others. Labeling people as bigots is unfair, because where are our rights? What about my right to walk down a public street without being exposed to such a sick display?
As I said, I have a nephew and several friends who are gay and so I know that not everyone is out there in drag and causing a scene. Most people are just trying to make a life and a living. I'm just trying to respond to the statement that it shouldn't be any of my business if someone else is gay, and on a personal level it certainly isn't. But when you form a group and start looking for special treatment and demanding rights, well, as long as I'm a taxpaying citizen, it is my business.
|
|