Words cannot express the level of contempt that fills my heart upon hearing of such audacious selfishness described in this article.
MA wrote: "We get a taste of that potential by taking stock of the changes in countries that have had homo marriages for awhile. It doesn't bode well."Excuse me?? I live in Canada and we've had gay marriage for a number of years – let me tell you, it's a non issue. It really is. There are ZERO problems this has led to.MA cont'd: "…appeasing those who engage in bad behavior can…"You still haven't shown that homosexuality ~is~ "bad behavior". I don't see it…MA concluded: "The mission now is to go back and begin with the links I've presented and start looking at the situation with an objective eye."I did that. It was less than convincing… but I'll take another look.@Mark: is there anything you actually know the truth about? AIDS did not start with the gay population. It's widely agreed upon that patient zero (the first human infected) was a bushman in Africa that was infected by coming into contact with infected chimps. It's then passed among the human population in any number of ways (hetro sex, blood transfusions, sharing needles, etc.).It's not usually worthwhile to reply to Mark (he's SO ignorant and predjudiced) but in this case the misinformation might convince someone.What a hoot eh Mark?! Indeed.
"It's about adults controlling their desires."And this is what this blog is all about. For Marshal, it's all about people controlling their desires. Marshall is a hold over from 17th century Massachusetts, a Puritan. Sex is for procreation only. Sex is for married man and wife only. Sex is not what YOU want it to be. Sex is what Marshall wants it to be.To understand this is to understand everything about Marshall and this blog.
Of course all sorts of illness is passed between people of both sexes. That alone only shows why immature sex is bad behavior. Such includes homosex practices, but also fornication and adultery. I haven't time right now to go into any details, but I did want to comment on Mark's remark. I hate to oppose him on the general position, but we don't need to deal in such things that aren't really unique to homos.
They aren't unique to homos now, Art. But the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact. In fact, the first AIDS joke I ever heard went like this:Q: What's the hardest thing about having AIDS?A: Trying to convince your mother you're a Haitian.
Mark,My point was that illnesses of all sorts are transmitted between people of all sexes, with some being STDs transmitted through intercourse in the normal way. Syphillis, gonorhea(sp), herpes, just to name a few, have been transmitted between the sexes for eons, as you know. So the point was that the transmission of disease isn't unique to homos and not a worthy point to use against them since the same sort of things happen between men and women. Call it a wash. I would point to their sexual practices, but the they and their enablers like to point out that many of their sexual practices are engaged in by heteros as well. But while this is true, straight intercourse is not harmful between men and women provided no other factors, such as disease or poor hygiene complicate the situation. The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used. This opens up the partners to disease just by the damage they do to each other and the illness and short lives common among the homo community have unnecessarily orphaned adopted children.
Mark wrote: "the first several hundred or so cases were exclusively gays, then Haitians. That's a fact."Hmmm. "fact" you say… let's see your evidence for this "fact" – because it's common knowledge to anyone who actually looks into it that this is false.Patient zero – the first human infected – caught it from chimps. It happened in Africa and was a bushman likely eating chimps. It then spread among humans in any number of ways (the least likely being that these bushman engaged in gay sex.)The fact is that patient zero did not get the disease from being "exclusively gay" as Mark likes to believe.MA wrote: "The sexual practices of homos, particularly men as opposed to lesbians, are always risky even without adding disease or poor hygiene. This is basically, and medically proven, because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used."This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used.""meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for? I will agree that anal sex is riskier than vaginal sex or oral sex – but I can't agree with the 'not what they're meant for' statement.
The evidence for my earlier claims (I had to look them up):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_and_AIDS_misconceptions — Look at the part titled "History of HIV/AIDS"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDSIt's a consensus that it started by African bushmen eating infected chimps.
"This is a loaded statement because of this part: "because the parts aren't meant to be used in the manner they're used.""meant" by whom? Who decides what the parts are "meant" for?"Joe. C'mon. Meant by whom? How about nature, biology or God who created all things? This is an angle that makes me shake my head with sadness when attempts to present it occur. What a member is meant for and what the person to whom the member is attached chooses to use it for are two very different and distinct things. I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design. The anus is not meant for penetration or it would be equipped with a means of lubrication as is the vagina. The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it. To use a body part for a task not related to its design is to put it at risk. Purposely exposing one's self (not to mention one's partner) to risk makes the act in question wrong. It's not as if there is a trade off such as the risk one might put one's self through by running through flames so as to escape a burning room. It's done for selfish pleasure with the hope that harm is not inflicted. That also makes it wrong. The homo lobby seeks to change our culture and laws in a manner that legitimizes bad behavior, which is bad because of the harm done.
MA wrote: "I may use mine to hang my hat, but that's not what it is meant for. That's not the purpose of its design."That's exactly it. You talk about "purpose of its design" – but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution – which doesn't involve "design" at all.MA cont'd: "The mouth is not meant to take in more than food and drink or it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it."Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs… it's had to be over the millenia since it's used for eating, drinking, breathing, kissing, etc.MA cont'd: "It's done for selfish pleasure…"I think this is the crux of the problem… pleasure is always "selfish" by definition. Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!This is truly the only life we get – I don't believe in ANY afterlife – and thus it's all about pleasure NOW/today! It DISpleases me to harm another so I avoid that. I see nothing (necessarily) wrong with "selfish pleasure", in fact – I think it's to be actively sought!If life isn't fun, if it's all about adjusting pleasurable behavior because god wouldn't like it, I don't see what the point is. If you're not having fun then what have you got??
Joe, you poor ignorant soul. You need prayer.First of all, you are reading revisionist history off a web site that is well known to be Liberally biased. Wikipedia's articles are contributed by it's readers. It is far from an infallible source. Often times it is accurate but oftentimes it's not. If you want reliable facts, you want to go to some official history website, not a website where the articles come from contributors who may have an agenda.Your story of how AIDS began is wrong. I am old enough to remember when the presence of AIDS and it's inception was first reported by the news agencies, which, BTW, were considerably less biased than they are nowadays. The first reported occurrence of AIDS was determined to have been caused by at least one man having sex with green monkeys. Apparently, the man was a homosexual who was having some difficulty finding a male partner so he decided it might be fun to hook up with an animal. In the ensuing few years, AIDS was passed exclusively from one homosexual to the next, except for some curious cases that showed up in Haitians. Interestingly enough, Green Monkeys are indigenous to Haiti and Africa. It was only after homosexuals increased their sexual activity among members of the opposite sex that the virus crossed gender lines. Then, not surprisingly, people who were given blood transfusions were inadvertently affected by the AIDS virus before doctors discovered the connection.And that is how it started and that is how it became more than just a homosexual's disease.
Wow Mark… you're just all kinds of crazy aren't ya!Don't like wiki? Fine:http://www.avert.org/origin-aids-hiv.htmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12966623/Here's a UC San Francisco site that debunks your 'humans had sex with monkeys' ridiculousness:http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=ask-05-12-02-02Another one:http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/news/namonkey.htmYou better pray harder Mark – I'm still not buying your crap!
Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business. I think I safely eliminated all need of further talk of the origins of AIDS by conceding that the transmission of STDs is not the sole province of bad behavior of the homo variety. Thus, it makes all sex outside of marriage bad behavior. So, no more talk of sex with monkeys. Move on back to the topic.
"You talk about "purpose of its design" – but it wasn't designed! It's simply the product of biological evolution – which doesn't involve "design" at all."Joe, please. This statement in intellectually dishonest. Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part. If you want to go with evolution as a crap shoot, there still is intent in the function of body parts. What a part is used for is subjective choice, but to say a given body part has no distinct purpose, even as a result of a species evolving is ludicrous. Such statements don't give you a whole lot of room to denigrate Mark's comments."Actually the mouth is very good at defending against germs…"To an extent, but there are a lot of tobacco chewers that wish it was a hell of a lot better. There are a lot of dead whores and homos who would say as much as well. I didn't say the mouth had NO defenses, I said if it wasn't designed for more than eating or drinking, it would be more able to defend against the germ-ridden things some wish to put into it." You even copied my words and got it wrong."I think this is the crux of the problem… pleasure is always "selfish" by definition."Not the point, thus, not the crux. Worse, it's an example of taking words out of context. You create a meaning the whole sentence doesn't convey, particularly without the other sentences that surround it. Try not to do that (except for humor, when it's OK—as long as it's really funny)"Your religion (I'm assuming here) has made you feel guilty about "selfish pleasure", as if there is something wrong about it. There isn't!!"Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind. What makes this pleasure selfish is the fact that the sex is done with full knowledge of what is at stake, what the consequences might by and then that knowledge is dismissed and ignored without the consequences being mitigated. The participants don't give a rat's ass about the consequences but only the pleasure they hope to have. If I'm availing myself of the pleasure of watching the Chicago Cubs play like crap, it is not selfish. If I'm doing so while my wife is doing all the chores, that's selfish of me. Doing something for one's self and enjoying it isn't selfish. It's doing it when more important things are at stake or doing things at the expense of others.Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic. It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun. I have lots of fun. I know people with stronger faith than I, living a more devoutly faithful life, and having a hell of a good time. Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong. You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God. How sad.
MA wrote: "Allright, kids. Cut the monkey business."(in a whiny kid's voice) But he started it!! ;)Ok – I won't continue with Mark.MA wrote: "Try to find a biology or anatomy textbook that doesn't talk in terms of the function and purpose of any body part."Fair enough… I concede this point. There are some obvious functions that certain body parts have (the heart pumps blood for instance).I don't think this can be applied to every body part (what is the purpose of toe nails?) but it clearly works for some.I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though. Head hair's normal function/purpose (for example) is to keep the head warm. I don't think it's "bad" to shave your head though. The normal function/purpose of ears to absorb sound but I don't think it's bad to use them for decoration with earrings.I don't see anything wrong with using a body part for something other than what it evolved to do.MA wrote: "Actually, my religion doesn't say anything of the kind."I already said that I was guessing here (assuming) – I know you haven't said this and didn't mean to imply that you had.MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."No doubt. It struck a nerve.MA cont'd: "It is not uncommon for the foolishly ignorant to believe that faith in God means no fun."I certianly didn't mean to imply that believing in god means "no fun". No way – you're proof that this isn't the case (I'm assuming – again – that you do have fun.)I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time. If the fun doesn't hurt anybody – and just offends god – then I'm all for having that fun!!MA cont'd: "Your last two paragraphs paint you as an incredibly selfish person. I'm guessing you didn't mean to, but perhaps I'm wrong."You're right – I didn't mean to. I think I cleared that up with my previous paragraph."You seek pleasure to fill the void that was meant to be filled with God."Um… no. I seek pleasure because pleasure is FUN! Why does god have to factor into everything??
Joe,"I would ~not~ agree that using a body part for something other than it's normal function is bad though."But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well. By that I mean when heteros engage in the same activities for which homos are known. But even something as simple as kissing is bad in the sense that germ transmission takes place. Kissing isn't as likely to cause severe harm in otherwise healthy people, but the point is that the act isn't an intended function of the mouth and when used outside its function, risk of harm is hightened. With other acts perpetrated by homos upon each other, the risk is significantly higher and becomes more guaranteed when practiced with greater frequency."MA cont'd: "Your last two comments from your 11:27AM posting regarding fun and God is sad and pathetic."No doubt. It struck a nerve."Not really an appropriate phrase here. Not so much "struck a nerve" as "touched a chord" as in feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth, whether intentional or the result of never really seeking the truth. Take some time to visit WinteryKnight, 4Simpsons (Eternity Matters), or Winging It, all of whom have wonderful apologetics links that can help you better understand why believing God doesn't exist is foolishness. (Note to all: some other blogs on my blogroll may also have some good links and those under "Left Ones" may have some links of their own. But those I've listed I've looked at myself and they are all great sources. Can't say as much for the "Left Ones".)"I meant that if you spend ~any~ time adjusting your behavior to please god (someone/thing I don't believe even exists) then it's a waste of time."It's hardly a "waste of time" to live life in a manner pleasing to God. He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer. The arguments supporting the truth of God's existence are all based on tangible evidence as well as logic and reason. (Faith is not blind, but reason based.) Those who dismiss these arguments do so with less logic and reason and very little evidence for their counter arguments. "Why does god have to factor into everything??"Because in the end, it's all about God. The big mistake is to think it is all about ourselves.
MA wrote: "But as shown in my links, that is exactly the case with homosex as well as those sexual activities also practiced by heteros as well."No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences… not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do".Breathing might lead you to lung cancer… should we stop breathing?I think ~everyone~ should practice the safest sex they can… but abstinence taking it too far. The benifits ( of sex) outweight the possible harm.MA cont'd: "But even something as simple as kissing is bad…"Exactly! But I bet you kiss people… it's well worth the 'risk' right?!MA wrote: "…feeling bad for you for your unfortunate ignorance of the truth…"LOL! Don't feel too bad… I'm doing fine. ;)MA cont'd: "Take some time to visit…"That's OK – I'm good. Thanks for the offer though.(incidentally I'm commenting back and forth with 4simpsons right now on his site)MA wrote: "He is the Supreme Being, after all and created everything. It is to Him all will someday answer."I guess if I believed that I might take your stance too… I suppose if you ~really~ do believe that then you've got to act accordingly – that makes sense.It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!
"(incidentally I'm commenting back and forth with 4simpsons right now on his site)"Joe, can you help with navigation? What is the title of the post?
Here's the link:http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/how-does-god-demonstrate-his-love-for-us/
Joe,"No you haven't. Your links etc. show that they ~might~ have bad consequences… not that they ~do~. The key being "might" not "do"."This just isn't the case at all. The info I presented shows that they will have bad consequences. It's more a matter of if they can negotiate those bad consequences to live a full life. If doing so means a minimum number of years, they lose there as well on average and that is because of their lifestyle. Conversely, married heteros do not suffer from the engagement of sexual practices that are natural and biologically compatible with their physiology. Indeed, married hetero couples have typically the longest lifespan when compared with homos or even single heteros."Breathing might lead you to lung cancer… should we stop breathing?"You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process. So if you're talking about purposely breathing what the lungs are designed to process, that would be a stupid comparison. A better one would be smoking or intentionally inhabiting an environment because the air is foul and poisonous. Breathing clean air is comparable to having sex with one's spouse, because that is what is intended. Breathing foul air, as with smoking, is comparable to two men having sexual relations, because both conflict with the natural function of the body parts involved and lead to damage and premature death."But I bet you kiss people… it's well worth the 'risk' right?!"Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave. I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth. Are you starting to see how this analogy and comparison thing works? You're doing pretty much the same thing that Vinny was doing. Ya gotta keep it apples to apples."That's OK – I'm good. Thanks for the offer though."But if you're going to try to diminish the argument of another because of God, or your insistence that there isn't one, you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position. Simply not believing based on next to nothing doesn't serve you, even if you perceive your situation as being "good". It's very much like engaging in bad sexual behavior because it appeals to you, all the while it is damaging your body and shortening your life. It's always better to know the facts."It's just too bad that you'll miss out on some really great things that way!"Like what? Sex? I haven't given it up by a longshot. But at the same time, as great as sex is, it isn't all that great. I've used this line before and it confuses people. I hope you get the meaning because it really is about as accurate as anything can be.Aside from that, I can't think of too many "great" things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here.
MA wrote: "You wouldn't have to stop if you're intent on breathing that which the lungs are not designed to process."I think you meant 'what the lungs evolved to process'. ;)There are many many toxins in the 'fresh air' that people enjoy, we only process the oxygen – but only about %20 or so of our air is oxygen – so most of what we breath is not what the lungs are able to process. We're risking life every time we breath (not that we have another choice). My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!"Yeah, Joe. I'd risk a head cold to kiss a hot babe like my wife. If I thought kissing her could give me an incurable disease, I'd just smile and wave."So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then. The kinds of sickness you can get from kissing isn't enough to deter you, but the potential sickness you can get from promiscuous sex ~is~. Fair enough – you're willing to risk, but you're conservative with the risks you take.But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves… I don't agree with that.Except that you then wrote: "I'd likely not kiss her too often if I thought doing so would shorten my lifespan or damage my mouth."You mean you wouldn't stop kissing her altogether?!? But you want to stop gay people from doing what they do. It doesn't add up.MA wrote: "you should at least be up on the arguments so as to truly know your own position."I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks… do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense?That's how I am with religion. I see no need for it the way I see no need for fairies in my garden being responsible for my beatiful tomatoes. I'm not going to read up about the arguments for fairies in my garden anymore than I'm going to read up on all of the millions of different flavours of god(s) out there.MA asked: "I can't think of too many 'great' things of which my faith in the one true God might deprive me. Help me out here."I'm sure it's different for each individual, and I don't know you well enough to know ~what~ you deprive yourself of.But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin. This, while not a big deal AT ALL, is something you miss out on. It's fun, and something my wife understands as she does it with men. So what? It's a little harmless fantasy…You might not be one of them – but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs.Like I said – I know you have fun, I know you love life. I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad.
Joe,"My point is that it's somewhat risky just to breath!"The same can be said of life in general without being mere hyperbole. But the point is that the extent to what the body can tolerate is known yet to the best of our abilities we take pains to avoid that which is harmful. That is, if one is normal and rational. And if one is, one does not overexpose themselves to poor air quality if one can help it. In the same manner, normal and rational people, and those can include those with abnormal and irrational desires–pretty much everyone to one extent or another, avoid behaviors that are harmful. Practicing homos and sluts of both sexes are not in that number."So it's a matter of degree of danger with you then."To some degree, yes, particularly in light of the above statements regarding life being risky. If your wife has an outbreak of open herpes sores on and/or in her mouth, would you not withhold your oral expressions of your affections for at least the duration of the episode, or swap spit nonetheless? (of course you realize I'm not suggesting she has any communicable diseases whatsoever)"But you'd like to apply ~your~ risk assessment to other people rather than allow them to make the decision for themselves…"Aside from the fact that hundreds of laws and regulations do this already, I haven't made that suggestion myself in this post with the exception of the introduction of innocent children who are given no choice in the matter. I will say that I object to state sanctioning of harmful and immoral behaviors through licensing or certifications. As a society, our laws and regs, licensings and certifications should revolve around encouraging the best possible behavior and discouraging bad behavior. I believe that used to be the rule of thumb. That would satisfy your next statement about denying homos their desire to be perverted with each other. There's no way to prevent people from being stupid or even from being malicious, but our laws should reflect society's desire to discourage it. There are many things people do that are stupid that are not illegal."I am fully aware of my "own position" thanks… do you read all of the literature on astrology or the flat earth theory so you know about the arguments? Or do you just dismiss them out of hand because right from the outset they don't make sense?"Your statements suggest quite a substantial lack of pertinent information to justify your position. I dismiss things like flat earth or astrology because they're baseless and have nothing to counter what I do believe. I know that from investigating them. That not all alternate possibilities require much time to refute is not my fault. The flat earth thing is particularly quick to refute.Christianity is a bit more complex and supported by facts and evidence from more than a few fields of study. But I wonder how much of the basics is foreign to you. For example, you refer to the Bible (at Neil's) as "some book". I would hope you realize that the Bible is a collection of books. The Gospels, for example, are four separate authors giving an account of a particular person in history. Other historians of the time, but not of the faith, speak of the same person to one degree or another. Archeology has corroborated much of the Bible's stories, but never proven any of it false. There's plenty to satisfy reason if one takes the time to actually study it. It's nothing like fairies in your garden. Indeed, there is more evidence that supports the truth of the Bible, of Jesus and what and who He said He was, then for any other ancient figure that you take for granted. Tons more.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"But I'd guess that you won't look at a beautiful woman and appreciate her beauty and sex appeal because of the whole 'lust' sin."There's a difference between appreciating a woman's beauty and fantasizing about having sex with her. The former doesn't equate to lust, which is the latter. But this is another indication of your lack of knowledge, a lack of knowledge that provoked my comment about how well you know your own position. You make comments like this one about the faith (and others that I've read over at Neil's blog) that are no better than superficial perceptions. You ask why is lust bad, but it really only takes a little thought to come up with a good reason of your own, one that is likely on point, provided you're being intellectually honest in your pursuit of the truth. But such questions and statements lend validity to the Biblical assertion that the things of God are foolish to the non-believer. And really, if there is no God then that would still not be totally true. But I don't know that I've ever seen a teaching of God, meant for spiritual things, that didn't have an equally practical value for the physical as well. This is most apparent in the sexual realm as we've seen all sorts of problems that are related to a relaxed attitude about sexuality. I hope I don't need to list them yet again, but I will if need be. Most of it while people with attitudes similar to you speak of "safe sex". Thus, this following statement of yours becomes more foolish:"…but many theists deprive themselves of the beauty of science because it contradicts their beliefs."What we believe aligns with science. Science supports our policy proposals that align with our beliefs. My links have shown that to be the case with the issue that provoked this post. "I just think depriving yourself of ~anything~ (even as minor as lust) because of a god belief is sad."Depriving yourself of God's salvation because of anything, particularly something as insignificant and base as lust is far sadder and not a little pathetic. Exposing yourself to risk for a little pleasure is as well. Exposing children to the risks outlined in the links is something far worse.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.