No same-sex hugs allowed

[chatfsh]

Also, I had intended to do this for some time, but I forgot.

Galatians 5:14 (King James Version): "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

In other words, to Hwi's baseless and un-Christian assertion that Christianity is not "all" about love, scripture indicates otherwise. "For this is the whole of the law." I believe that any interpretation of scripture that leads to a condemnation of homosexuality is inconsistent with this, and ought to be discarded in favor of the unquestionable commandment that we are to love one another. You can call that "twisting" scripture: but when you are accusing someone whose entire point is that Christianity is about love, and love alone of "twisting" the scripture... well, then I think you ought to look in the mirror.

Very good, Wolf.  So let's think about love, in fact, let's consider the greatest example of love -- God.  God IS love.  He is the very epitome, the perfect standard of love.  He loved us so much that He gave us the most precious thing that He had

[SandChigger]

Yeah yeah yeah, God is tough love, yadda yadda. That's cool and all, whatever churns yer birdbath, but come on and tell us what we REALLY want to hear, yalla, about the gay guy that jilted you! :D

[Acriku]

Sorry but you cannot equate love with eternal damnation for sinners who do not repent. That's pure hatred.

[ErasOmnius]

And here's Dante, repeating himself as per usual.

1) Intercourse is not the same as orientation, and it was Edric who first clarified that.

2) How do you feel about female/female intercourse, Eras? All this attention to one particular aspect looks very much like... obsession.

Dante, people on this forum are squeamish about just saying what they believe [i'm not].

Obviously, DUNE is going to attract a lot of humanist thinking post-ers, and followers. I know, I used to be one when I first picked up DUNE in the 1970s. As a lurker for a few years of this Forum, I know that people have been having a grand ol' time, ragging on 'traditional' views of life.

But there are really some 'conservative' [for lack of a better word] viewpoints that are expressed here by different folks. As someone who is called names and ridiculed in this Forum, just for having a point of view, I want others to commit or de-commit to what they truly believe.

We can quote the doctrines of the Jewish, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faith till we are 'blue in the face' -- but what do we really believe? That is what is important.

As far as your claim of obsession. Not obsessed.

I pick male/male because it is the least easiest to defend for those who support 'homosexual rights'. Homosexual males: Highest AIDS rate amongst studied groups, almost zero monogamy rate, obsession with youth culture, fluid of life in waste canal lifestyle, etc.

Even the Book of the written First Covenant [Old Testament] acknowledges this, by giving a much less penalty to lesbian sex than male/male.

Women tend to be monogamous romantics, I know, I've been married to one for almost 20 years. Lesbians seem to follow the same pattern. Not sure if they even engage in intercourse.

I could start an Abortion or Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia thread -- but I'm having a hard time keeping up with this one.

[Wolf]

Once again, Hwi has posted a fiery and violent post about "love" that is completely circular. Sure, I suppose you're right, Hwi, if I suppose you're right.

You've ignored the fact that many mainline Protestant sects have found homosexuality not to be incompatible with Christian faith and/or not to be a sin. Are they going to hell, too?

You've ignored the fact that there is some scriptural evidence for Christian universalism (which is what Acriku is getting at).

You continue simply to assume that your interpretation of a handful of Biblical passages is contextually correct when there is an indication that they conflict with other passages in the Bible.

You rely on a literal, strict-construction approach to interpreting the passages regarding homosexuality, however, were you to apply the same standard to other parts of the Bible, absurd results would be reached: once again, you have failed to address passages regarding slavery, sexual slavery, agriculture, the creation of the Earth, etc. The only passage you've raised in defense of a non-literalist approach to some passages of the Bible dealt solely with kosher law.

My conclusion: you have selectively chosen some passages of the Bible to apply one interpretative standard to, while you subject others to a different standard. This is inconsistent, and you have failed to offer any reason whatsoever for why you might have done this. You merely repeat, ad nauseam, your impression that (1) homosexuality is a sin because God says it is (no serious analysis of scripture is offered; you quote the same passages out of context--many of which do not even deal with homosexuality per se), and (2) anyone who even suggests that homosexuality is *not a sin is going to hell. There is even less support for the second proposition than there is for the first. Once again, all of your conclusions rely wholly on the assumed truth of their premises. Therefore, you are committed to this position for personal, not for scriptural reasons.

EDIT: Typo fix.

[SandChigger]

As a lurker for a few years of this Forum...

But... you just joined and started posting last May. So you were lurking here for "a few years"? Sorry, but besides being just a wee bit creepy, that also sounds kinda... obsessive.

So, do you have an untold gay abuse story to tell? Too? Hweeopatra, Queen of Denial, is obviously avoiding the question, but what about you? Some loved and trusted adult touch you wrongly as a boy? Some too close friend come out to you? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

I know, I know, it's small and tawdry and, Holy Sweet Jesus, oh so damned clich

[arnoldo]

Yeah yeah yeah, God is tough love, yadda yadda. That's cool and all, whatever churns yer birdbath, but come on and tell us what we REALLY want to hear, yalla, about the gay guy that jilted you! :D

Do you two know each other?  Not that there's anything wrong with that  :P

[chatfsh]

Acriku, please elaborate on your point. What exactly do you mean by 'not equating love with eternal damnation?  Are you saying that you, personally, cannot reconcile the two concepts - that of a loving God and of one who would condenm unrepentant sinners to the lake of fire?  If that is the case, perhaps I'll start a new thread to exploree that topic.

Wolf - My views on what constitutes sin is consistent with the Christian Church. I have provided numerous scriptures that either condemn homosexual sex explicitly or by default. But you know this. Every Bible reading Christian knows this fact. It is only those who seek to undermine the faith by watering it down to "fit in" with world's corrupt view of morality that twist the obvious meaning of the scriptures.  Christians should endeavor to meet God's standards, not that of a fallen world. 

I have proven, by means of scriptural texts, that Christians do not arbitrarily choose which laws to obey.  It is you who is guilty of reading the scriptures, determining that some are not in keeping with current views and therefore, tossing them out.  Read the New Testament and you tell me which of the laws I'm choosing to ignore.  And regarding the Old Testament, the Apostles were the ones who, under divine inspiration, determined which of the old laws remained in effect for the gentile believers. (Acts 15). This is not a difficult concept to grasp - Christians are required to obey ALL of the laws required by their faith as set forth in the Holy Scriptures.

Eliyyahu - I hope to reply to your thread over the weekend. 

[Wolf]

Hwi, if you find that my conviction undermines your faith, then that is a problem with you, not me.

No, Hwi, your views are not consistent and you have failed to do even all of that. And when the price of failure is social injustice, then your failure results in precisely the state of affairs that Christ lived and died to prevent.

You seem to keep on missing the point, so I'll keep on repeating it.

1. You apply an inconsistent interpretative standard to the Bible. Some passages you interpret literally; others you interpret figuratively. I ask again, Hwi: how old is the Earth? Unless you can offer a reasonable basis for this inconsistent interpretative standard, you are merely engaging in a prejudicial exercise. If you apply different standards (as I believe you have done), then your interpretation of scripture is inhernetly invalid--especially where that interpretation seems to result only in an unjust position.

2. All of your conclusions rely on their premises: you have presented no compelling analysis for why your interpretation is "obvious." Furthermore, you simply state that your views regarding sin are "consistent" with "the Christian Church." And for you to refer to a body of "true believers" is not only epistemologically useless to you (because it implies that everyone's personal view that recognizes Christ is valid), it's also arrogant for you simply to assume that it supports your views. Well, which church? Mainline Protestants? Universalists? Unitarians? Catholics? All have widely differing views on such things as the afterlife, the status of the soul, and, yes, the sinfulness of homosexuality and/or homosexual behavior. Once again, no analysis: mere repetition of your conclusions.

3. In addition to being merely a repetition of the above, your post is also simply a personal attack attempting to label me a "false Christian" ... yet again. Others have called you out on this. Besides being offensive, it ignores the earnest and faithful attempt to understand the theological underpinnings of Christianity. If God is just, then his scriptures cannot be those that produce injustice? If Christ, Himself said that "love everyone, this is the whole of the law," then how can other laws advise us not to love others based on who they are? A state of being cannot be a sin. Behavior that necessarily arises from a state of being that does not commit any other sin also cannot be a sin. *EDIT: I understand your literalist objection that sin does not equal dislove, but to be quite fair, the theological criminilization of a people's state of being so universally and necessarily results in communal hatred that, for policy reasons, it ought to be treated the same.

*EDIT 2: And you seem to have a very mistaken view of faith: it is individualized, personalized, and exclusive between one person and God. You seem to have some intellectually "imperialistic" (for lack of a better word) notion that The Faith (note, not God), should not "change with the times." But if a religion is no longer relevant to a people, it will be discarded. I have no problem with metaphysics, and actually, neither do I think many of the athiests here (save for Chigger and perhaps Acriku), but if you create a God that an individual does not even want to believe in even assuming you provided proof of his existence, then what kind of religion are you creating? What sort of justice is that? Ultimately, I think my position is very reasonable. You are allowed to think homosexuality is a sin, and we are allowed to think that you suck for it. However, because faith is a personal and individualized matter, we are also allowed not to think that it is a sin, just as we are allowed to think that there is One God, A Pantheon, or No God, that there is Heaven & Hell, or Reincarnation, or Oblivion. For you to keep on demanding that everyone who seeks to use the label "Christian" conform to your view of religion is the very model of self-destructive pride. I think this is pretty "obvious," to use your favorite word, but I think I've even supported it, too.

4. Lacking any substantive merit or rational support, your homophobic position can only arise from personal prejudice. Chigger has asked you, and I shall ask again: who spurned you? Who complicated your life? Who did you trust that hurt you?

Hwi, if you want to keep posting, you need to stop talking past people and address their objections. You should also drop your arrogant and self-righteous attitude. To be fair, I have worked hard recently to keep the tone of my posts neutral. These points are valid, and you ingore them. To continue to do so is not only ignorant, it is simply inconsistent with Christ's "prime commandment" to be a good person. You have behaved cruelly, unjustly, cowardly, and wickedly. So far, you have not been a very good person, at all. In fact, you have been the very epitome of a "false Christian" yourself: unthinkingly repeating scripture in such a fashion that it harms your fellow man. You have only very limited chances to salvage any hope of commanding any respect with me, or any other person on this forum who does not merely happen to agree with you. Unlike you, I choose not to contemplate what God might think of you.

[SandChigger]

Actually, Wolf, you asked first. ;)

Do you two know each other?  Not that there's anything wrong with that  :P

Personally, in real life, you mean? No, of course not, no more than I know you in that way. I'm actually quite successful in avoiding the small, vexatious and stupid in real life. :) But as with you, I know her type. ;)

[ErasOmnius]

But... you just joined and started posting last May. So you were lurking here for "a few years"? Sorry, but besides being just a wee bit creepy, that also sounds kinda... obsessive.

Hey, what's a year or two of lurking, when you've got 46 of those years under your belt? Started posting about Dune last year, when I thought I wouldn't get too roasted about my support for Brian. As you know, I spent 18 months filling in the Sequels for DuneWiki.

So, do you have an untold gay abuse story to tell? Too? Hweeopatra, Queen of Denial, is obviously avoiding the question, but what about you? Some loved and trusted adult touch you wrongly as a boy? Some too close friend come out to you? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera?

No, no weird story. Just happened to be the 'thread of the month'. Who knows, maybe the abortion thread will be July's?

I know, I know, it's small and tawdry and, Holy Sweet Jesus, oh so damned clich

[Wolf]

An interesting article indicating that Fed2k has its thumb on the pulse of America.

[Dante]

Someone has to, I suppose.

Hello Lord J! It's gratifying to see someone else with a personal stake taking part. Besides Hwi and myself, that is, though she has yet to admit exactly what her bugbear is. And thanks for the reference to the topic that we're actually meant to be discussing. I watched the documentary, as expected it was disturbing. But at the same time a helpful reminder that things could be worse here in the west. Even now, the worst thing I face is impotent ranting over the internet. Government sanctioned death has, thankfully, not been on the cards.

Someone needs to show that African Pastor a heterosexual scat site. Eras could probably benefit from that as well.

Dante, people on this forum are squeamish about just saying what they believe [i'm not].

Really. Are you suggesting, then, that the people who have stated their disagreement with you aren't saying what they really believe? Because I think that Edric, Wolf et al have been more than clear. The only person who hasn't explicitly taken a side is SandChigger, and that's because he's the kind of cheeky, soot-faced little urchin who prefers to throw rocks than take part, which is why we love him. Some of us altogether too much, apparently.

Ask me something. You'll get an honest answer. You'd have gotten one anyway, but hey, might as well state the obvious.

Unless you ask how many people I've slept with or something, because that's personal and, after all, none of your business.

But there are really some 'conservative' [for lack of a better word] viewpoints that are expressed here by different folks. As someone who is called names and ridiculed in this Forum, just for having a point of view, I want others to commit or de-commit to what they truly believe.

1) Are you really so stupid that you need to divide people into "for" and "against" categories? Are you proving yourself even stupider by finding yourself unable to do so from their posts alone?

2) You appear not to have noticed, you farcical parody of a human being, that Edric has also stated that homosexual sex is a sin. Has anyone called him names? Not that I've noticed. Why? Because Edric deals with points sensibly, and while I and others might disagree with him, we can still hold something resembling a reasonable debate. Such a debate has not been possible with you, anathiothingy or Hwi because you are stupid, delusional and laughably poor debaters. Both respectively and combined.

I pick male/male because it is the least easiest to defend for those who support 'homosexual rights'. Homosexual males: Highest AIDS rate amongst studied groups, almost zero monogamy rate, obsession with youth culture, fluid of life in waste canal lifestyle, etc.

...

Women tend to be monogamous romantics, I know, I've been married to one for almost 20 years. Lesbians seem to follow the same pattern. Not sure if they even engage in intercourse.

Oh, so you're not just magnificently ignorant of homosexuality, but of women as well. I guess that makes you sexist too. Congratulations.

Trust me, lesbians have sex. Yeah... as usual, there's really not much to say other than that. Facts. You should try them sometime.

Now, your puerile childishness, did you miss the parts when people pointed out that anal intercourse is also prevalent in the heterosexual community, numerically outnumbering the homosexual community in fact? Did you miss the part wherein you are actually speaking to a homosexual who has never been polygamous? And just how do you justify telling people what to do with their own lives, hm? I mean besides the poorly conceived and pathetically inconsistant quotes from dead people.

Finally, pretend that I just reiterated all of Wolf's last post here. He's more or less saying what I would have said if he hadn't already done so.

[SandChigger]

SandChigger ... he's the kind of cheeky, soot-faced little urchin who prefers to throw rocks than take part

Am not! You lie! Now pay me my half-penny and be home by ten! ;)

[athanasios]

A bit of topic but because Wolf asked here is the answer:

According to scientific data available Earth is probably 4.5 billion years old. This might be adjusted in the future though.

Now, where does this contradict the Genesis account?

[ErasOmnius]

Dante, you don't like that I bring up the very physical act of male/male sex. No matter how much any one ever says of how accepting the West, or the UK, or the USA, or Italy, or whomever; is accepting of male/male sex; the people of these nation-states are not ever going to be THAT accepting.

And that is ALL that can occur when two males get together. When a male and a female, great things can occur. Another human can be created. Two males -- well, I have described that event enough this week.

Someone needs to show that African Pastor a heterosexual scat site. Eras could probably benefit from that as well.

Heterosexual scat groups, lesbian butch clubs? C'mon man, I am a volunteer at a shelter in the Detroit area. 5 million people, with an international border. I've seen many, many different types of people come in; asking for help, for food, for shelter, for counseling, for major change in their lives. When the requested counseling begins, there are a lot of stories. A lot.

Stories about drugs, alcohol, women getting beaten up by men, you name it. This thread is not about those stories. It's really about two males in Malawi, about AIDS in Africa, and the resulting millions of dead by HIV world-wide.

[Dante]

I don't care that you bring up sex between men, Eras, important difference. What consenting adults do together is their own affair. I just think that you're applying a double standard by condemning homosexuals for male/male sex when half of them are women. And the pathetic thing is that you actually think you're being graphic.

Here's a thing. Despite your own country's desperate contortions and the cancerous corrution of places like Uganda, large parts of the world have got their act together and recognised sex-same attraction, even legally recognised couples. Just last week the new Prime Minister of Britain hosted a dinner party for gay, lesbian and transgender people at his official residence. It was held to mark the unveiling of a new action plan by the government to, among other things, allow civil partnerships (like marriage, but available to same-sex couples and with some differences) to take place in religious buildings. Even then, Britain is still behind some other countries.

So yeah, I think you'll find that some countries really are that accepting. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your argument seems to be that homosexuality shouldn't be encouraged because of AIDS.

My counter is that straight people are just as succeptable to infection by HIV.

Your argument seems to be that you find anal sex distasteful.

Well my counter is that it's none of your business what consenting adults decide to do with each other.

Your implication seems to be that as a volunteer worker you're somehow well placed to judge people.

Well tell me, if homosexuality is so terrible then how is it that your VP neighbours manage not to become crack-snorting gigolos?

Your argument seems to be that homosexual couple are invalid because they are infertile.

My counter is to ask if that applies to infertile heterosexuals as well? Whether by choice of not?

If so, you may want to book Hwi in for one of your councilling sessions.

Well done on ignoring all of the points in my last post, by the way. Wouldn't want to break a pattern now, would we?

[chatfsh]

Hwi, if you find that my conviction undermines your faith, then that is a problem with you, not me.

Wolf, bless your heart, you couldn

[Wolf]

I have never seen someone so thoroughly miss so many points all at once in earnest. Just go back and re-read my last post, Hwi, and if you don't get it, keep on re-reading, maybe at some point you'll get at. Virtually none of what you said matters because you talked past pretty much everything they had to say. I'm not going to spend time to re-type all of it out just so that you can use them as a platform to level more personal attacks. I think my shift is done here for a but, I'll the others take over for a while. But, you've pretty clearly demonstrated that you're about as Christian as an ant. (I say that because that was pretty much the most defensive, venomous, and hateful reply I've ever read on a forum. I could feel your anger.)

EDIT: But I will respond to this because it illustrates a good point:

Wait a sec, a few posts back you all were claiming that the majority think homosexuality is perfectly acceptable

[SandChigger]

So, really, Hwi, who was he? The gay guy that hurt you, I mean.

Anyone we know?

(Oh, and KUDOS for comparing yourself to the founder of your religion, Paul! Humility is so becoming! :D )

[ErasOmnius]

I don't care that you bring up sex between men, Eras, important difference. What consenting adults do together is their own affair.

I know that a substantial part of your personality does not care, and that's sad.

But I mainly talk about the actual physical acts between men/men, because heterosexual males care. Straight men and women can casually talk about how much they are for 'gay rights', because on a broad level, it takes almost no engagement. When the physical acts of male/male sex are brought up, straight people get repulsed; and that's when their views begin to change. That's when the so-called religious who say, "Oh, celibate male homosexuality is okay; just as long as there's no expression of it orally or anally," start to change their opinions. Because it's simply not possible for a male homosexual to be celibate.

I just think that you're applying a double standard by condemning homosexuals for male/male sex when half of them are women.

God has a difference. They are both wrong -- but lesbians, simply by physically being women, have less chance of activating the Diseases of the Created Universe. They are more monogamous, therefore have less partners. They do not ingest or take male reproductive fluids. Male Reproductive fluid is a perfect carrier. It carries the code of Life. It carries virulent venereal disease, including HIV.

And the pathetic thing is that you actually think you're being graphic.

You do your argument a great dis-service when you say stuff like this. I am being ultra-graphic--for heterosexual society. I understand from listening to people that there deep psychological issues that can occur in negative sexual experiences. Fetishism, etc. Sex has come a long way 'down' since the beauty of creating another human being.

But just because you have been exposed to, or have an awareness of, what I, and many others; consider even more anti-Universe, anti-Creator experiences, doesn't mean you should bring them up.

Here's a thing. Despite your own country's desperate contortions and the cancerous corrution of places like Uganda...

Don't label me with the government of the USA. I was simply born in this nation.

...large parts of the world have got their act together and recognised sex-same attraction, even legally recognised couples. Just last week the new Prime Minister of Britain hosted a dinner party for gay, lesbian and transgender people at his official residence. It was held to mark the unveiling of a new action plan by the government to, among other things, allow civil partnerships (like marriage, but available to same-sex couples and with some differences) to take place in religious buildings. Even then, Britain is still behind some other countries.

So yeah, I think you'll find that some countries really are that accepting.

It will only lead to sadness, and the Earth's rejection by way of Natural Law, established by the Creator.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Don't smoke.

Your argument seems to be that homosexuality shouldn't be encouraged because of AIDS.

My counter is that straight people are just as succeptable to infection by HIV.

Male heterosexuals have an almost zero chance of contracting AIDS. Lesbians are even less than that. Once again, AIDS travels in seminal fluid. The anal colon is a perfect host receiver for HIV, which has led to millions of male homosexuals dying -- which is a tragedy. Through re-aligning themselves with the Creator, it simply does not have to happen! Heterosexual women contract AIDS, but the vagina is not as perfect a host receiver as the anal cavity is.

Your implication seems to be that as a volunteer worker you're somehow well placed to judge people.

No, I have life experiences, and have seen male and female homosexuals come in -- want to change, and change.

Well tell me, if homosexuality is so terrible then how is it that your VP neighbours manage not to become crack-snorting gigolos?

The sad thing is, observing them, they act like type of gigolos. They are not happy with each other. They made a few comments to my 18-yr old son -- that obviously, I did not like, nor did he. They are not monogamous. I'm not spying on them, but the neighborhood is not blind to their activities either.

Is that the goal of male homosexuals in their late 40s and early 50s, who are alledgedly committed to each other? To be constantly 'on the prowl' for males half their age? Sad existence.

And I brought them up because you talked about discrimination. These two men's half million dollar home, their 5 sports cars, their trips all over the continent and islands -- show a lifestyle that has NO discrimination.

Your argument seems to be that homosexual couple are invalid because they are infertile.

My counter is to ask if that applies to infertile heterosexuals as well? Whether by choice of not?

Goes against the flow of the Universe, the Creator, against ourselves. That's why I'm against it.

If so, you may want to book Hwi in for one of your councilling sessions.

Hwi and I agree on this, but probably not everything.

Well done on ignoring all of the points in my last post, by the way. Wouldn't want to break a pattern now, would we?

Never ignored you.

[Dante]

Really? Well in that case, you may want to explain how you answered the following points:

1) Are you suggesting, then, that the people who have stated their disagreement with you aren't saying what they really believe?

2) Are you really so stupid that you need to divide people into "for" and "against" categories? Are you proving yourself even stupider by finding yourself unable to do so from their posts alone?

3) You have been called names not because of what you believe but because of how you act and what you say. As proof: nobody is calling Edric names.

4) Lesbians have sex.

5) Now, your puerile childishness, did you miss the parts when people pointed out that anal intercourse is also prevalent in the heterosexual community, numerically outnumbering the homosexual community in fact? Did you miss the part wherein you are actually speaking to a homosexual who has never been polygamous? And just how do you justify telling people what to do with their own lives, hm? I mean besides the poorly conceived and pathetically inconsistant quotes from dead people.

And that's just the list from that post. Believe me, you've failed to deal with a great deal of argument over the past few pages. Take heart though, it's something that you and Hwi have in common.

Now, on to the grit of the matter. Because lets face it, I'm the wounded party here and I'm just going to have to keep defending myself. Because that's what people do.

But I mainly talk about the actual physical acts between men/men, because heterosexual males care. Straight men and women can casually talk about how much they are for 'gay rights', because on a broad level, it takes almost no engagement. When the physical acts of male/male sex are brought up, straight people get repulsed; and that's when their views begin to change. That's when the so-called religious who say, "Oh, celibate male homosexuality is okay; just as long as there's no expression of it orally or anally," start to change their opinions. Because it's simply not possible for a male homosexual to be celibate.

Behold exhibit A) Dante, 23 year old male homosexual, has been single and celibate for... well, a long time. Years.

Yeah, not only am I living proof that you are wrong, but such crass generalisations are always wrong.

Do you really think that Wolf, Acriku et al aren't aware of what they're saying? Ask them. Because I can practically guarantee that the reply will be something akin to "What consenting adults do in private is their own business, and if I feel uncomfortable about it it's no more uncomfortable than I feel when I contemplate old people having sex."

... but lesbians, simply by physically being women, have less chance of activating the Diseases of the Created Universe. They are more monogamous, therefore have less partners. They do not ingest or take male reproductive fluids. Male Reproductive fluid is a perfect carrier. It carries the code of Life. It carries virulent venereal disease, including HIV.

...

Male heterosexuals have an almost zero chance of contracting AIDS. Lesbians are even less than that. Once again, AIDS travels in seminal fluid. The anal colon is a perfect host receiver for HIV, which has led to millions of male homosexuals dying -- which is a tragedy. Through re-aligning themselves with the Creator, it simply does not have to happen! Heterosexual women contract AIDS, but the vagina is not as perfect a host receiver as the anal cavity is.

By dear sweet Marie Curie, just how stupid are you?

HIV is a disease, the V stands for virus. It is transmissable through mucus membranes such as those found in the mouth, vagina and anus and is carried in many bodily fluids, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid and breast milk. If a man has unprotected sex with an infected woman, or anal sex, or receives a blowjob, or performs cunnilingus on her, he runs the risk of being infected. This is not "zero chance," viruses are not discriminating according to orientation. Anal sex is more likely to result in an infection, but that's what condoms are for. A lesbian who gives oral sex to an infected partner also runs the risk of being infected. HIV is not some sort of stalker carefully selecting victims, it is an indescriminate biological machine. And is isn't solely carried by men.

In short, infection with HIV, as with any STD, depends not on who you have sex with but how safe you are about it. If you don't know a partner's sexual history, use protection.

Also, stop generalising lesbians. There aren't any around at the moment (that I know of), but the ones that I know would be quite angry to see themselves categorised like that.

But just because you have been exposed to, or have an awareness of, what I, and many others; consider even more anti-Universe, anti-Creator experiences, doesn't mean you should bring them up.

Have I called you stupid during the last five seconds? No? You're stupid.

You misunderstand my point, your supreme ignorance. Your language is not graphic. It might be considered slightly risqu

[Dragoon Knight]

Words words words...

Oh this is wonderful.  Hwi's cracks are beginning to show as the widening maws of ignorance they really are.  Her tarpaulins of self-righteousness and smug superiority are no longer adequate to keep them hidden.  Instead, she is resorting to anger and hostility.  Let's do some minor Post Surgery, shall we?

Wolf, bless your heart, you couldn

[ErasOmnius]

Really? Well in that case, you may want to explain how you answered the following points:

1) Are you suggesting, then, that the people who have stated their disagreement with you aren't saying what they really believe?

No what I'm saying is that if people actually came out and said what they believe. Emoted it, said it, like I do, then change might happen. What you don't like is that myself, and perhaps Hwi, would like to ask you if you would like to change.

2) Are you really so stupid that you need to divide people into "for" and "against" categories? Are you proving yourself even stupider by finding yourself unable to do so from their posts alone?

I don't have a problem with your forth-rightness, nor your honesty. What I find strange and unusual are people who claim one thing, but believe another.

4) Lesbians have sex.

Yeah, and they are acting against the Natural Flow of the universe.

5) Now, your puerile childishness, did you miss the parts when people pointed out that anal intercourse is also prevalent in the heterosexual community, numerically outnumbering the homosexual community in fact?

I understand that some heterosexual people engage in anal intercourse. It's wrong, as well. But heterosexuals have the in-nate natural ability to perform the 'normal' deed of intercourse, which may create another human being.

Did you miss the part wherein you are actually speaking to a homosexual who has never been polygamous?

And you deserve applaud. That's good.

And just how do you justify telling people what to do with their own lives, hm?

I can only give advice. As you know, I am not an advocate for any political legislation, etc.

I mean besides the poorly conceived and pathetically inconsistant quotes from dead people.

The Book is God's loving attempt to reach out to a mankind that inherently wants to ignore Him.

Believe me, you've failed to deal with a great deal of argument over the past few pages.

This is a DUNE Forum. I have been involved with DUNE since the late 1970s, I know the type of people I am dealing with -- I used to have a solely humanistic philosophy.

Now, on to the grit of the matter. Because lets face it, I'm the wounded party here and I'm just going to have to keep defending myself. Because that's what people do.

I don't want to censor you, ban you, or try to force your behavior by any law or legislation; so you should not feel threatened.

Behold exhibit A) Dante, 23 year old male homosexual, has been single and celibate for... well, a long time. Years.

We probably have a different view of celibacy, as does the Orthodox and Catholic Church. They exclude self-gratification, as do I.

Yeah, not only am I living proof that you are wrong, but such crass generalisations are always wrong.

Once again, you deserve applaud for restraining yourself; but, once again, we probably have different definitions for what constitutes behavior.

Do you really think that Wolf, Acriku et al aren't aware of what they're saying? Ask them.

I know what Wolf is trying to say. He explains himself well.

Because I can practically guarantee that the reply will be something akin to "What consenting adults do in private is their own business, and if I feel uncomfortable about it it's no more uncomfortable than I feel when I contemplate old people having sex."

I know what they are trying to say

By dear sweet Marie Curie, just how stupid are you?

HIV is a disease, the V stands for virus. It is transmissable through mucus membranes such as those found in the mouth, vagina and anus and is carried in many bodily fluids, such as blood, semen, vaginal fluid and breast milk. If a man has unprotected sex with an infected woman, or anal sex, or receives a blowjob, or performs cunnilingus on her, he runs the risk of being infected. This is not "zero chance," viruses are not discriminating according to orientation. Anal sex is more likely to result in an infection

Bingo. Anal Sex is more likely to result in infection. Go to the CDC web-site page, and see how many times more likely to get infection through being a 'receiver' of anal sex. I'm glad we finally agree on something.

, but that's what condoms are for.

And when the condom breaks. Then what? Then what? HIV? What kind of odds are those?

A lesbian who gives oral sex to an infected partner also runs the risk of being infected.

If she already has HIV.

HIV is not some sort of stalker carefully selecting victims, it is an indiscriminate biological machine. And is isn't solely carried by men.

Dante, you need to go and volunteer at a free health clinic in a major urban area in the West. Then you will see the sadness of who is coming with STDs, AIDS, and hepatitis. Almost a third are male homosexuals. Do you think I want this to be true?

In short, infection with HIV, as with any STD, depends not on who you have sex with but how safe you are about it. If you don't know a partner's sexual history, use protection.

Until the condom breaks, then your playing VD Roulette.

Also, stop generalising lesbians. There aren't any around at the moment (that I know of), but the ones that I know would be quite angry to see themselves categorised like that.

I work with two [not in a relationship to each other]. Very much into poetry.

Have I called you stupid during the last five seconds? No? You're stupid.

You misunderstand my point, your supreme ignorance.

Classic Dante the Titan!

Your language is not graphic. It might be considered slightly risqu

[athanasios]

Wolf do us the favor and go and read the Bible. You claimed that you have done so. If it is true then you are twisting God's word. But I suspect you didn't read it. Where on earth did you read that the earth was created a few thousand years ago? The creation of the earth precedes the creative days. And since you mentioned it those creative days are of unknown length. They are not 24 hour days.