MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
blargh said:
Fine..then again I ask...what "national, racial, political or ethnic" group is this genocide being attempted?
What is this "gay agenda" that I've heard so much about?
- Thread starter .Shane.
- Start date
Fine..then again I ask...what "national, racial, political or ethnic" group is this genocide being attempted?
MobBoss said:
You missed this bit of your link:-
Tends to support my assertions does it not? It is a sexual disease not a gay one. Focusing on the gay issue is damaging the message, it needs to be emphasised that the Heterosexual populaiton are the group where it is escalating most, the message needs to be directed at all casual unprotected sex.
MobBoss said:
Umm never said it was although it isn't the 17th century anymore and besides, words aquire meaning from their usage not the word God. Relevant laws in some jurisdictions have changed to include exactly what you infer is not part of the definition.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Sidhe said:
In turn you miss exactly how many more heterosexuals there are compared to homosexuals. While I am not sure of the population percentages in the UK, but gays account for roughly 3-5% here in the USA. Why is it a shocker that 95% of the population has the highest number of new cases?
If you took both populations as a whole..and then divided them by the number of new cases, you would find a much higher rate in the gay population. Do you disagree?
No, your statement is false. It may be escalating in sheer numbers, but not in its rate. Try comparing the numbers of new cases against the total demograph populations and then you would see what I am talking about, and why your allegation that its "escalating most in the heterosexual population" is a false statement.
Actually, it's not, he's just using a higher-order of mathematics you are. But I don't know how to explain the concept of 'escalation of rate' properly.
MobBoss said:
It's a percentage Mob Boss, it means per capita, it stands. I don't think you understand the implications of the numbers, if these figures show that more heterosexuals by population are becoming infected then the disease is growing at a faster rate within that population, yes size matters, but only because eventually the infection rate will dramatically increase in a larger population much more readilly than a smaller population, this should give you reason to worry about a majority population more than a minority one, which is something you miss. Target sexuality not minorities, you'll save more people, and make more sense, as I said ignoring the major side of the infections is going to make people on the more significant side ignore the risks, your damaging your impact because of religous intolerance, that you fail to grasp this is echoed throughout all these threads, world wide it is women who are becoming the incumbent vector, this also passes your radar because of a self righteous factor.
El_Machinae said:
Well it's quite easy for me, I'll try: 27% of 10,000,000 is far more significant than 13% of .5 million and if you take the increase as a mathematical population infection rate. say one is multiplied by .27 the other is multiplied by .13 and then plug this into a year by year process, you get a far higher growth in the heterosexual population than in the homosexual population, simply put more people die over time, and because more are infected, this leads to a higher vector populous(or means to spread infection) I'm not sure I can make it simpler than this, but if it's still not clear I'll try by showing equations and numbers. with simple logistical models.
Well, let me put it this way: if I really thought that gay marriage was a real threat to the institute of marriage, if I really thought that gay people were often child molesters, if I really though that there was a "gay agenda", I would be front and center fighting it. The reason I can afford to take such a relatively liberal view is because I think such beliefs are mistaken. But I think a lot of those who hold them are sincere, they really do think that there is a gay agenda. That is why my view of gay marriage is far more liberal than that of most members of my church; I hold the same views on sexual morality, on the importance of free will, and on the inherent dignity and worth of every human being, but experience has led me to different views of what effect homosexuality has on society as a whole.
Who says they aren't raising awareness of prejudiced action? That is one intent of "pride" organisations. And more general awareness goes hand in hand with fighting prejudice, I guess. I've never been on a march so I'm not going to be a great advocate in favour, but sometimes you have to raise awareness that these minority things exist - many people are happy to support biased laws, by pretending these things are insignificant.Stile said:
What different quartering? You're the one suggesting this is needed.
Also, consider this: by your logic that different quarters are needed due to sexuality, then, if we had gay men sharing showers with straight women, then it should only be the men who have a problem with that, not the women. Do you think that's likely to be the case?
For gay *men*, I don't deny this is risk. Everyone should practice safe sex, though.
Most or not is irrelevant - but many of them are, and there is no evidence to suggest that gay people (men and women) are more non-monogamous than straight people, nor is there evidence to suggest that most gay people are non-monogamous (and as a side note, non-monogamy isn't the same as being promiscuous or having unsafe sex - but there's no evidence of this, either).
I presume you mean sex toys here - yes, I agree they have a good reason to use a certain type of sex toy. But beyond that particular need, there is no reason to associate homosexuality with sex toys in general. Many straight people use sex toys too. And what's wrong with sex toys, anyway?MobBoss said:I would say a lot of lesbians would disagree with you.
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Its just that Gays wave sex toys around in public for all to see during pride parades. Sex toys are suppost to be left in the bedroom where it belongs. Though as a Catholic, I am against the use of Sex toys if its used for masturbationmdwh said:
(And dont get me started on that).Indeed - any parade has these attributes of flamboyancy and so on. To suggest that this is a feature of homosexualty, not parades, is silly.El_Machinae said:
And if people mean that gay people shouldn't associate with parades, why not? Should the military not have parades, because we don't like their flamboyancy and silly walks?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
Military parades are acceptable because they dont go around waving dildos around and people in Military parades dress more modestly than a gay filled Mardi Grasish parade.mdwh said:
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Sidhe said:
And here is where you perpetrate your falsehood. The number of new heterosexual cases is not resulting in a higher percentage as compared to the number of new gay cases. In fact, those percentages you listed are most likely reversed in the real situation, as opposed to your fantasy.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Well, according to one member of the Oregon Constitutional Party:
(roughly paraphrased)
"To infiltrate the American Boy Scouts, our schools, and our lives and pollute them each with an oppressive cloud of forced sodomy."
Whoo boy.
(roughly paraphrased)
"To infiltrate the American Boy Scouts, our schools, and our lives and pollute them each with an oppressive cloud of forced sodomy."
Whoo boy.
Shaihulud
Deity
Not that im trying to start you on something, butr i noticed your often used opinion as a Catholic. Do you have any moral opinion that is not dictated by your religion? What do you really feel as a human, not what you think your religion feels.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Yeah, they only wave weapons around, nothing as offensive as dildos.CivGeneral said:
edit: What's your opinion on displaying a crucified person as a symbol?
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
There wont be anyone in a military uniform who is an offical member of the armed service of the military. If a person from the military was waving a dildo, he would face disaplinary actions of causing a disturbance. The solder will face a discharge if he was found in a gay pride parade.blargh said:I wonder what he's say about someone in a military uniform waving a dildo.
Oh dildos are quite offensive when displayed in publicZiggyS said:
If you are refering to the Passion plays, I have no propblem so long as the person is not harmed.ZiggyS said:
You will be supprised that my moral options are within agreement with the Catholic Church.Shaihulud said:
