Heterosexuality, Genetics, Environment, Religion...

[Lord J]

No. I am happy that they are who they are. Their sexuality has nothing to do with me.

Of course they obeyed. My parents were taught that the words of a pastor were the words of god.

Of course there is no reason that my mother should not have gotten remarried. Her choice in a mate left somewhat to be desired, however.

Sad? It is what it is. He feared a circumstance where he would be diagnosed with some mental illness or "fixed" in some way that would diminish his ability to make choices. I don't know. I know that a couple of years later he thanked my mom for giving him an ultimatum that forced him to go back to work and find a new relationship. He and I also communicated as adults for the first time in my life.

Two wrongs? Clearly you are misunderstanding what I am describing. My father's exit and my mother's expression were both points of relief. Both of these events allowed our lives to move on and develop into something meaningful, instead of clinging to the dogma of childish fear and stagnation.

I am sure that you love your parents.

Is this some attempt to be clever?

DIAF.

Thanks, though I doubt we multiply, really. As an overweight, nearsighted, balding man with a family history of heart problems and Alzheimer's, I suspect I am very near the end of my valid genetic materials. I'm also an only child, though I have many cousins. My wife feels similarly.

Here's my problem with your so-called godly behavior: you claim that God loves homosexuals, and yet you, a self-proclaimed emissary (I started to say, "tool", but I thought that was obvious) of God say that gays only care about orgasms and not children only a paragraph later. Do you really read what you write? Are you so brain-damaged from years of alcohol abuse that you can't even see that you are so self righteous and hateful that you cannot even make a post without pushing your agenda on each front?

Do you remember the story of Legion, from the New Testament? I suspect that "Legion" was suffering from dissociative identity disorder, or some form of schizophrenia, at the least, but what's interest about this story is it's allegorical power: here we have a man who claims many logically incompatible views, runs wild through the wilderness, tearing at his clothes and condemning others while suffering from a conflict that is purely mental. A slavering village idiot who must be exposed to truly divine healing to send his thoughts into their proper place: the minds of filthy pigs.

[athanasios]

I wish you have a happy family life and be fruitful. Bald... I am loosing my hair too! My aged mother was diagnosed 'on the limit' (heart valves operation) and cardiologists were surprised she could even walk (not to go into details again about 1. the moron/criminal cardiologists who admitted her into the intensive care diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction 2. pulmonologists who diagnosed lung cancer needing chemotherapy. It is a big story-I disagreed though with all of their bulls*** diagnosis and took her home and saved her life). Also she is loosing her mind too (Alzheimer's). Father died from blood disease. My son is 13 months old and we plan to bear more children. Live your life and forget those. Only do some diet.

[Dante]

Once again, eracist, I must insist that you specify exactly what "holes" are in any theory I put forward, and your reasoning for cosidering them such. Until that time, all you have is a more verbose version of playground taunts.

The objection that you put forward, that homosexuals aren't interested in children, is irrelevant. Mainly because it isn't, objectively speaking, true. I present Exhibit A:

And exhibit B:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/17/gay-fathers-drewitt-barlow

[arnoldo]

. . . Here are the facts: My father was told to get married by his pastor.

He married his best friend in the world, my mother.

After considerable difficulty, they conceived me.

My parents felt that the pressures put upon them by an authoritarian religion were... needless, so they left the church and divorced.

I don't honestly remember much of this period, but I do know that I preferred to spend time with my openly gay father and his partner over my stepfather, who was a disgusting, drug-using, worthless, verbally abusive piece of shit.

Apparently the stepfather attempted to punch (4-year-old) me and left a hole in the wall. My mother decided that it was not the best place to raise her son.

My parents moved back in together for the sake of convenience.

My parents decided that a religious understanding would be good for me.

My parents and I became active in church.

My parents remarried, partially because they felt that their combination would be a better source of support than split custody.

In my teenage years, I started chatting online, and began questioning my beliefs in earnest.

My parents' friendship was badly affected by frustration on my father's part.

My mother suggested he receive counseling, he refused, he left.

Shortly after this, my mother came out to me. I was not surprised, as I had noticed the way she spoke of one of her coworkers.

Fast-forward to college, each of my parents became involved in committed homosexual relationships. My mother's partner performed both wedding ceremonies (not legally, obviously, but it was what my parents wanted).

I met a lovely woman online, dated her for some time and married her last year.

Through this whole period, I am simply overjoyed that my parents are living the lives they want. I love both of my parents deeply, and I know they love me. This is why it makes me so very angry for people like you, Eras, to attempt to diminish their relationships out of your own confusion and willful ignorance. My family is based on every bit as much, if not more love than than you experience with your family, but because of what they do in bed, it's not good enough for you.

Wow, this little outline leaves so much out... I really should write a memoir sometime. . . .

Thanks for sharing your experience. It seems that the definition of family has changed from a traditional family model of mother>father>children to include a much more wider spectrum of possibilities. Still, due to pressure to conform to a traditional familly model based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, many people feel pressured to conform to this traditional family model despite having other desires. A possible solution to this would be to attempt to change the religious norms accepted by society at large (via legislature?) since genetic manipulation may be neither desirable or possible (for a look into how a society based on a model where the traditional family model is entirely abolished and instead determined via genetic manipulation see Aldous Huxley's, Brave New World). The following news story illustrates how religious norms continue to influence our society.

Israeli rabbis launch initiative to marry gay men to lesbian women So far, 11 marriages have been performed, and some were surprising successes.

[ErasOmnius]

Once again, eracist, I must insist that you specify exactly what "holes" are in any theory I put forward, and your reasoning for cosidering them such. Until that time, all you have is a more verbose version of playground taunts.

The objection that you put forward, that homosexuals aren't interested in children, is irrelevant. Mainly because it isn't, objectively speaking, true. I present Exhibit A:

And exhibit B:

http://www.guardian....-drewitt-barlow

Dante, This is where the rubber always hit the road between you and I. I respect your honesty and up-frontedness, until you start trumping up the exceptions rather than the rule.

You've got footage of the one male homosexual in front of the US Legislature who wants to have a family, blah, blah, blah. I like the forth-right Dante who tells the truth.

You Kin Relationship theory makes it sound like every male homosexual and L.E.S.B.I.A.N. is tripping over themselves to help raise their niece and nephew. Completely untrue, and you know it.

God man, why can't you just say it the way that it is? Most homosexuals don't believe in God, and want to live any way that they please. The lesbians tend towards poetry and long-term relationships, trucks, and fixing up homes.

The men tend towards either engaging in orgies, or fantasizing about it. They have a ridiculous fetish with penis size, seminal fluid, have an over-love of touching well-developed muscles, etc. I have never met a male homosexual who has a family, nor wants to start one. I met a few who have abandoned their family to engage in the 'gay' life-style.

What kind of proof do I need? Observation. My neighbors, my friend from last year. A few guys at the office. Not one has any kids that they want, nor do they appreciate or care for their nieces or nephews in a Kin way.

Let's be honest, then we care move forward with real discussion.

Lord J, just because you are balding, or have a tendency to over-weightedness, shouldn't restrict you at all from having children. I know that you would be a good father, and it would re-ignite your desire for true religion. Just because my dad raised me like a track coach, and our family doesn't have receding hair, doesn't mean that I should be having many more than 4 or 5 kids. Besides my wife, as said before, is sterile.

[Dante]

Your opinion might hold weight (I kid, it wouldn't, but I get a kick out of pretending to be polite sometimes) if you actually paid any attention to the argument. Or the evidence. Or reality. I'm reasonably sure that you haven't actually watched the video that I linked, because if you had might you have realised that the speaker is talking about his two mothers, not about any desire of his own to raise a family. I know you're a hopeless buffoon who wouldn't know a solid truth if it sat on your head and sang every national anthem in the world in alphabetical order, but could you at least pretend to be half competant? Or do you propose to refute all arguments without looking at them? There's a word for that kind of behaviour, you know.

I'm afraid that any argument as hopelessly generalistic as yours is doomed to failure (mind if I repeat that? Doomed to failure. Oh that felt good). See, the thing about people is that they really can't be categorised as you seem to believe. Believing that anyone will act in a certain way because of what they are is, frankly, bigotry of the worst kind. These days, people who believe that black people are stupid because they're black are publically ridiculed. People who believe that all women, men, blacks, whites, Jews, Arabs, gays or whatever act in a certain way are factually wrong, as none of those categories necessitate certain kinds of behaviour (feel free to attempt to prove otherwise, preferably with something more solid than "oh everyone knows it's true," which appears to be the best you can come up with). Are all black people stupid? No. Are all women obsessed wth children? No. Can one truthfully say that a majority of white people want to keep the black man down? Would anyone pay any attention to someone who claimed that, because of the crusades, all christians are warmongering oathbreakers? So I wonder, eracist, how is it that you feel justified claiming that minority A acts in a certain way, yet get so uncomfortable when that logic is applied to other groups of people? Minority B, perhaps.

I'm afraid that your "observation" just doesn't cut it, for several reasons.

One: You're a troglodytic mouth-breather without two neurons to rub together.

Two: You're attempting to show that, because some people acts in a way, that all such people act in a way. I could make some extremely unfavourable conclusions about all Americans from the evidence that you so amply supply, if I were inclined to follow your, aha, "logic."

Three: You completely misunderstood my application of Kin Selection, which incidentally is one of the reasons that I don't generally explain things to you. It's a bit like trying to impart understanding to a brick.

Four: You're attempting to argue from "these people do X" to "all people do X." That's a logical fallacy, not that I expect you to understand that.

Five: Even if anecdotal evidence were at all credible, and it's generally not, mine trumps yours. I am gay, I've known that since I was a teenager, and have yet to see a single orgy. I've met a great deal more homosexuals than you have, I suspect, and believe it or not they've been just like everyone else. By which I mean that, like the human population as a whole, they run the gamut between extrovert and introvert, friendly and unfriendly, interesting and really boring, clever and stupid, generous and selfish, swingers, romantics and just plain uninterested.

Six: You're seeing what you want to see in any case. My doubts about your ability to take in uncomfortable truths are now so concrete that they could practically be used as a bomb shelter.

Once again I state, for the invisible record I keep of how many times I deliver a verbal beating, that I am living refutation of everything you think you know. And no, I'm not an exception to the rule. You'll have to do a lot better than "observation" if you want anyone to believe otherwise.

Finally, just for fun, lets try a little experiment, shall we? I'll spout idiotic phrases using your pathetic excuse for an argument, and everyone else can have a jolly good time realising just how stupid you are. Ready?

> All homosexuals are obsessed with sex, because I've seen homosexuals who were.

> All women are obsessed with shoes, because I've seen women who were.

> All blacks are obsessed with stealing white women, because I've met some black people who were (I actually haven't, but since when has the truth ever mattered to you?)

> All Catholics want to be doctors or actors, because that's what the Catholics I know want.

> All Jews marry atheists, because I knew a Jew who did that.

> All books are in English, becuase all the books I've read are in English.

> The first woman I met was my mother. That means that 100% of the women I knew at the time were my mother. From this observation I can conclude that 100% of women are my mother.

See what happens when you apply logic poorly? Someone like me comes along and exploits your idiocy, providing everyone who can still stand to read this drivel with a bit of cheap entertainment.

Oh, one last thing. You don't get to talk about "real discussion" either. Someone who ignores arguments that he can't respond to because he lacks the brainpower probably shouldn't point out his shortcomings to those who might be keeping a tally, you savvy?

[ErasOmnius]

Well, I guess we're done then. I'm not going to debate with you if you're going to stick with 'the party line'. I can hear that anywhere. Allegedly, with you 'kin' bull**** you want me to believe that you cannot wait to babysit your nieces and nephews. That you're down at the daycare wanting to nurture children. That your local homeless youth shelter, and our shelter is overflowing with gay volunteers who want to platonically help out wayward youth.

But, as you know, because you are a male homosexual. Nothing is father from the truth.

So, when you are ready to be honest, and not parade around the media snippets of gays and their supporters 'during the day', let me know. Because at night for gays it's barhopping, male strip clubs, and bathhouses. I have been present at counseling sessions with male homosexuals who are now ex-gay, and want to serve God, to know that it's not anything like you describe. It's amyl nitrate up the nose, strange devices and instruments inserted anally, and an over-obsession with seminal fluid and phallic size.

But then sometimes after wards for them it's some dread. I have heard this common refrain from them, "I was worried about looking older". How they are willing to go under the cosmetic surgery knife in their 20s and early 30s. A strange over-obsession with youth. The desire to constantly work out at the gym, not for health purposes -- but a sick and twisted fetish about attracting males.

It's very odd. Very odd. None of them, not one, has talked about wanting to nurture young people like you describe in your 'kin theory'. I was present at a counseling session when a pastor was talking to a male ex-homosexual who had a 'ped' problem. He focused solely on getting 16-19 year old males into the sack, even though he was in his 30s. Not a lot of nurturing there. I am glad that he is now a servant of Jesus Christ.

Well anyway, as you can tell, I am really starting to tell it like it is; even more so than in 2010. I hope that you will be honest for all of us who debate on the Forum, and 'can' the media soundbites.

[Dante]

Well, you've once again confirmed your brainlessness. I suppose I'm not surprised, just constantly disappointed. I suppose I should explain, given that you've spectacularly failed to grasp the point once more, that Kin Selection (not Kin Theory, by the way) was intended to explain how altruistic behaviour (in this case non-breeding) may be selected for and thus preserved in a population. It does not, as you erroneously believe, insist that some people must act in a particular way. There are no genes which modify behaviour thus.

Has it ever occured to you that maybe the reason that the junkies you meet are so messed up is because they're junkies? I know that's a bit of a mental leap for you, but try to stick with it.

Now, back to the list of ways that you are wrong. I'm so glad I started delivering points like this, it's so much easier to just rattle off points instead of structuring them into proper arguments which will be ignored in any case.

> You have yet to provide any evidence for your claims. You do understand that arguments need evidence, right?

> You are in any case attempting to prove that because some people act in a certain way that all such people act in that way. Did you not see how I already pointed out the error in that logic? Hint: when I deliver a point that makes your argument a logical impossibility, you're supposed to stop using it.

> Ooo, at night the gays come out. What are we, werewolves?

> I still prove you wrong just by existing, you know. I don't even have to say anything, the fact of me disproves you.

> Are you seriously implying that the mothers of the young man in the video were swingers? Because I certainly didn't get that impression from him.

> You actually think you're stepping up the argument? Oh please, this is the same old shit you've been spouting since you realised you can indulge your fetish for gays here. That I'm still responding to you at all (I do have better things to do, you know) is less because you have anything even slightly interesting to say and much more because I enjoy the conflict. There's just something magical about winning every argument without even trying. It's like a warm glowy feeling of superiority every time you say anything. I don't get that when I argue with smart people, they're just too damned intellectually equal.

Lord J: I apologise for this. I'd have responded to the argument proper by now but, well, Dragon Age. These little asides don't take any brainpower, I can rattle them off during lunch.

[ErasOmnius]

Take care. Once again, I'm done with this topic unless you can honest. I, and millions of others, consider homosexuality, especially male homosexuality be a lust that is out of control. Male homosexuals are so misguided in following thier sexual desires that they would deny the natural function of their bodies. Unlike heterosexuality, which is encouraged by normal sexual intercourse, and is the usual and final outcome -- homoexuality has no natural outcome. That's why there are so many disgusting behaviors associated with gays.

That seminal fluid is for reproduction. Not for spraying over a male partner's face during ejaculation.

That our penises are for reproduction. Not for some piston-like action that stimulates a male prostate gland through the lining of an anal wall. It is also not a sexual organ to be near-worshipped like male homosexuals do.

Our anuses are for eliminating feces. Not for licking during analingus, or for anal intercourse, or for placing foreign objects inside of.

That our chest and back muscles are for lifting and creating heavy objects. Not for some male to near-worship with a strange and unusual oral fetish.

That the shape of our face and cranium is simply the shape of our face. We shouldn't strive and be over-concerned about having 'wide cheekbones' or having a small nose. Certainly not to have surgery to cause to happen. We should not fixate like gays do on ensuring a full head of hair, even if it means trasnplants. Styling should not be something we dwell on, either.

I know that you hate me, especially when I lay the gay life-style on the line like this. I have to. I am sorry that this world is upside-down, and that you were born at this time, as things go hay-wire just before The End. But I would be remiss not to tell you how God feels about male homosexuality.

I know you want me banned, and if I am, I am. It wouldn't be the first time I was banned from a sci-fi Forum.

I feel that I am doing you a favor by telling you the truth.

[Dante]

I feel that you've never seen the truth and appear to have ignored every argument put against your bigotry (because ignoring problems makes them go away!). Keep trying, pathetic little liar, I'm better than you.

Edit: I know you have this sad martyr complex thing going on, but seriously, I've said three times now that I don't hate you. You're just not worth hating, mmkay?

[ErasOmnius]

I want to let you know that this is nothing personal, and that I feel like I am your friend in doing this. I have never lied to you, I know you know that. I'm glad you're here.

[Dante]

I want to let you know that you're an ignorant clod who's about as welcome in my affections as a case of syphilis caught from a rabid hyena. Also, while you may not think you've lied, the effect is just the same. If someone truly believed that the sky is green and told me so then that person would still be wrong, regardless of how much he might believe it. You have written untruths and failed to provide a shred of evidence for them. That's what liars do.

I would rather have rocks as friends than you. At least they can be depended upon not to say anything migrane-inducingly stupid.

[ErasOmnius]

How would you like for me to respond when I ask for a scientific argument for homosexuality? As a person with a university degree, a person who lectures locally at a college, what would you have me to do?

I can only go by what I observe in nature. Male+female=procreation, and the carrying on of the species. Your 'kin' theory that you have put forth is riddled with holes, and is a stupid and feeble attempt to gain scientific credibility for a misguided lust. If I type in the word 'gay' and 'nephew', what do you think comes up in the search engine. Definitely not older male homosexuals wanting to guide and nurture their brother or sister's offspring. Far more disgusting things come up pertaining to incest.

But instead of trying to defend this ridiculous and preposterous 'kin' theory, you are defaulting back to your stupid name-calling. There are only 7 or 8 of us active on this Thread, entrenched in our beliefs. What are you afraid of? Why don't simply tell the truth? I thought over the last year that you were the one person who would finally tell the truth.

When I see the Media find the one or two 'stable gays' and parade them before Congress or the state Legislature, it is almost a burst out laughing event. 'They want to be married, they want to raise or adopt a kid.' But where are they in real life? The one's who work for my wife are constantly shuffling porn to each other on their laptops, and have to be reminded that it is against company policy.

My neighbors, even though they are allegedly 'married', there is an endless parade or strange men going in and out of the house, and all times of the night. I know, I have to go and drive home my drunk son from his friends house, so I am up at all hours of the day and night. And some of stories from the Shelter: Guys who have over 200 sexual partners, they had experiences with 5 or 6 guys at one time? They've done it in bathrooms at the mall, bathrooms at rest-stops next to the freeway? C'mon man, who are you fooling? Gay males are out of control.

Anyway, I'm bored with this topic. Let's forget it. I don't want to keep hashing over the same old stuff:

Eras: Show me some scientific evidence of homosexuality.

Dante: You're a stupid ingrate.

Eras: I dont' see any nurturing gays, and you don't seem to be one yourself since you really despise all children.

Dragoon: My friend is perfect. You're an idiot. I'm going to try to ruin you in your career.

Really gets to be boring after a while.

I am finding it far more interesting to discuss the imminent collapse of the dollar, or the rise of 'democracy' in the Middle East.

[Andrew]

Is it possible to stop flaming each other? It's pointless and this thread will get locked. State your opinions, discuss etc, but name calling adds nothing of value.

[Dragoon Knight]

Is it possible to stop flaming each other? It's pointless and this thread will get locked. State your opinions, discuss etc, but name calling adds nothing of value.

[colour=#005FFF]Not really, Andrew. Not when dealing with such obstinate idiocy. I'd encourage you to read the entirety of the threads that Eras has "participated" in. Structured argument doesn't work. Intelligent discourse doesn't work. Reasoned debate doesn't work.

Nothing works.

He simply ignores, repeats and hates. That's it. When faced with that sort of true, mind-numbing stupidity, there are only two options: ignore it, or get angry.

Ignoring it doesn't work. Time was that people like Eras would have been banned from these forums for his hateful opinions. But because people don't read what he says, or fall for his ruse of being "reasonable", he sticks around. I, for one, am sick fed up of it.

So I continue to argue. And I'm sorry, but I will not be called out by anyone who says "Hey, stop being so mean to eachother". Lock the thread and there'll only be another. Really, unless you've read everything and understand just what a colossal bigot and stain on humanity that man is, then while you may have the right as a moderator to judge these posts, you will be doing so unfairly.

Apologies for the harsh tones, it's not meant as a criticism of you or any other moderator. I can barely read Eras' shit, I wouldn't expect others to want to, either.[/colour]

[Dragoon Knight]

Double-post - quote is not edit.

[MrFlibble]

[colour=#005FFF]He simply ignores, repeats and hates. That's it. When faced with that sort of true, mind-numbing stupidity, there are only two options: ignore it, or get angry.

Ignoring it doesn't work. Time was that people like Eras would have been banned from these forums for his hateful opinions. But because people don't read what he says, or fall for his ruse of being "reasonable", he sticks around. I, for one, am sick fed up of it.[/colour]

However, the more you post, the more reaction you get back. And it's all the same over and over again. On the other hand, if you stop replying, which you yourself admit is pointless anyway, all these embarrassing "conversations" will cease.

[athanasios]

...

When I was 6 years old, I fell victim to a 15-year-old who began to abuse me sexually. This abuse continued for a long time. One result was that I became very confused sexually. I thought it was normal to feel attracted to men. When I sought the help of doctors or clergymen,they assured me that I had no problem and that my feelings were normal.

When I was 14, I made the decision to present myself to the world as a homosexual. I stayed that way for the next 11 years,even living with several different men during that time. Eventually, I took a course to become a hair stylist and ran a beauty shop. However, I was unhappy...

...

In fact, I had to undergo a complete metamorphosis, for I was living a feminine life. My speech, mannerisms, clothing, hairstyle, and choice of friends all needed changing.

My former friends began to mock me...

...

Today, I lead a normal life. I am married, and my wife and I are teaching our son to ...

I serve as an elder in the congregation,and I have been able to help others to learn the truth of God’s Word.

- GUADALUPE VILLARREAL, The Watchtower April 1, 2011

[ErasOmnius]

Thank you ath-, for posting what you have from The Watchtower, on page 28. It was very informative. The ex-gay phenomenon is exploding around the globe, as more men & women embrace the Change that is necessary to be truly happy.

Gang, it is true that we should stick only to facts & deal only with them. I feel that this is a good Thread, as it allows the discussion on homosexuality to occur only here, & not spill over into other threads. Closing this down will cause that spillover -- that's bad.

[Dante]

Andrew, Flibble, while I understand that you don't like to see the board we love getting so scorched, I'm afraid that trying to play the even-handed "can't we all get along?" card is a little naive. This is not a difference of opinion, it is not something that can be swept under the rug and forgotten about and it is not going to go away on its own. I realised this, Lord J realised this, that's why this thread was made: as a containment strategy. I am defending myself, others, and rational thought itself against the most puerile intellectual afterbirth ever to splat onto the hospital floor, if my methods are extreme then it's because they have to be. If you want to see a return to civility, tell eras to put a sock in it already, and don't you dare tell me to play nice when you're sitting cozy on the sidelines.

eracist:

> You're not the only one with a degree, you know. Though I truly fear to think what kind of substances whoever awarded you yours must have been smoking.

> You're not a scientist, but if you were any real kind of academic you would know that observation, especially limited observation, just isn't good enough to draw conclusions from. Otherwise one could pour water into a jug and declare that water is jug-shaped.

> You misunderstood Kin Selection. Once again: it explains how non-breeding behaviour is selected for in terms of genetics. It does not determine human behaviour, there are no genes that do that (this is actually the third time I've said this, you do realise that?)

> You asked, and I quote, "How does your inability, or lack of desire, to reproduce, fit in with Evolutionary thought?" I answered. You did not ask for a scientific argument for homosexuality, which in any case is a pretty stupid question. One might as well ask for an argument for bees.

> Once again: evidence. "I saw it and I say so" is not evidence. You claim that homosexuality innately leads to polygamy, misery and being a hair stylist. Fine. Prove it. Prove correlation, causation and statistical prevalence. I guarantee, with 100% certainty, that you cannot do it. If you're so proud of your academic credentials then put them to use. Otherwise, shut up.

> Stop abusing irony. If you talk about sticking to "facts" any more there's a good chance that the universe will split asunder rather than cope with the sheer force of concentrated hypocrisy.

> But of course, if you want to stop talking about it and slink away to fester in your pit of ignorance, please don't let me stop you. Do us all a favour and just shut up, that'd be nice.

Finally: For every gay person who throws themself back into the closet with gusto, there's someone equally happy to be coming out of it. ath's little aside is a prosaic stereotype, but it's hardly significant.

Edit: Oh yes, Lord J: I read through your post again, but I'm honestly not sure there's anything I can respond to. Not without going "Yeah, yes, that's right," anyway. How goes the search for more up to date paperwork?

[Lord J]

Found a fascinating-looking little French study with incredibly large samples (one of the reasons I love European studies). I don't have a hosting service and I wouldn't feel comfortable making it available on my server anyway, so feel free to make use of your access to university libraries to find this.

Lert, F., Sitta, R., Bouhnik, A-D, Dray-Spira, R., & Spire, B. (2010) HIV-positive men who have sex with men: Biography, diversity in lifestyles, common experience of living with HIV. AIDS Care, 22, (71-80).

[athanasios]

BTW: Gaddafi has accused USA for creating the HIV virus...

[MrFlibble]

If you allow me to throw in a few remarks without getting off topic :)

Andrew, Flibble, while I understand that you don't like to see the board we love getting so scorched, I'm afraid that trying to play the even-handed "can't we all get along?" card is a little naive.

I, for one, have never had any "can't we all get along?" sentiments (although I certainly would prefer if no one's feelings were hurt). I've realized long ago that sensible conversation here, especially if concerning scientific topics, has become nigh impossible since the anti-scientific side just won't listen to the arguments, lest counter them in a reasonable way.

This is not a difference of opinion, it is not something that can be swept under the rug and forgotten about and it is not going to go away on its own. I realised this, Lord J realised this, that's why this thread was made: as a containment strategy. I am defending myself, others, and rational thought itself against the most puerile intellectual afterbirth ever to splat onto the hospital floor, if my methods are extreme then it's because they have to be.

I always appreciate the inventive, imaginative ways in which you express your thoughts This is pure linguistic art, if I may say so :) I really enjoy reading your posts, they have both lots of interesting, informative points and possess of exquisite expressive skill.

Hopefully the above does not appear insincere or anything. I was very upset once when I thought I said something pleasant to Wolf, but there was a misunderstanding and he thought I was criticizing. This was not the first time my good intentions got lost somewhere during the process of communication (although in that particular case, my command of English could be blamed I suppose).

Back on topic,

don't you dare tell me to play nice when you're sitting cozy on the sidelines.

You're right. I take no part in this, even though I share your, Dragoon Knight and Lord J's discontent, because I prefer to avoid the troubles of being involved in such an unpleasant activity. I'm also concerned that it can go on and on forever without any real outcome, as every participating side seems very much inclined to stay by their initial opinions, and hence, since any kind of compromise is both impossible and unacceptable for anyone involved, what else can there be besides mutual, umm, dislike? I agree that you bring up valid points, but the response on EO's side tends to be repeating the usual stuff that can already be found in the old threads from the previous years.

So what's the point? Do you really expect this to change?

[ErasOmnius]

Don't worry about me. Really, just ignore me.

Don't call me names. Don't write an 8 page fanfic about me. Don't you or your friend try to threaten my career 4000 miles away. Don't mercilessly scour my grammar, and ignore everyone else's mistakes. Don't follow me around the Forum on unrelated topics.

Then you will have what you wish. Silence on this subject, if that's what you really want.

[Dante]

Come now eracist, you know as well as I do that Fenceposts wasn't intended to bear resemblances to anyone, living or dead, and that if it does then that's purely a coincidence. If it had, of course, then (hypothetically speaking, naturally) the first five pages would have been about someone else entirely.

Out of curiosity, whatever happened to that supposed thread about Lady Gaga? Or the proof that you understand how natural selection works? Or were they both just minor trolling activities?

Alternatively, might I suggest that if you don't like the heat, you get out of the fire? Stop saying stupid things, and we'll have no reason to call you stupid. It's a simple solution, and those are often the best.

Ok MrFlibble, it's possible that I filled in a few too many blanks back there. And I apologise for snapping at you. The flattery was much appreciated. ;)

As mentioned before though, I (I can't speak for Dragoon) keep doing this not through any hope of changing the world for the better but because- well, this would be easiest to explain with a metaphor.

Say someone brings a dog over to my house, and this dog promptly squats down on the carpet and takes a dump. I (or more likely the owner, at my insistance) will clean it up, not through any hope that the dog will be enlightened as to the error of its ways but because a steaming turd on the carpet is highly unpleasent to have around. The dog is just a dog, it doesn't know any better (and apparently has been poorly housetrained), but the turd is something that I can do my best to bleach before it stains.

Imagine what could happen if I just left it there in the hope that it would go away on its own, or that the dog would eventully learn to clean it up itself. You'd have people treading on it, spreading it all over the house, then outside the house, and the dog would probably keep doing it, and all the while it's getting deeper and older and fouler as it festers and grows little mushrooms all over the place until one day you find that there's dog crap everywhere and hey, your home is uninhabitable.

...I may have gotten a bit carried away there. But the metaphor holds. While it might be easier to just remove the dog, if that isn't an option then one simply has to fight the turds as and when they appear. Leaving them on the carpet is just... disgusting.

(Also, stupidity is something of a bugbear for me)

Lord J: that was an interesting paper, but I confess I'm not sure where you're going with it. I'm tempted to link the French anti-AIDS campaign as related info, but I'm at work at the moment and the French, well, they don't stand on ceremony. Maybe when I get home.