AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(that expression made me smile!)

Here's Lizra's phrase in some different sizes:

On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size1
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size2
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size3
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size4
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size5
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size6
On my computer it's this HUGE thick black howler thing - size7

On MY (RÃ*an's) computer, size 3 and 4 are both normal. 2 is smaller by about 1/3. 1 is teensy. 5 is bigger by about a third. 6 is a screamer, and 7 is a howler! I bet you have your computer set to large text, so my 5 (slightly bigger) is your 7 (howler).

Anyway, I guess I'll stick to size 4 just so I'm not howling at anyone

You truely ARE annoying Rian...

[Rían]

No, I'm just an engineering type, and the font thing intrigued me, and I decided to analyze it. If I do say so myself, I was an excellent engineer while I was out in the workforce (other people thought so too; I won several company awards )

I'm sorry you think I'm annoying. Oh well ... at least my family loves me and also some of the people at Entmoot. I'm sorry I annoy you at times, but I need to be who I am, and not try to go after the impossible task of pleasing everyone. I only need to love everyone, and I'll keep striving for that

I think you're a hoot and a half, and lots of fun, and I think you have a very beautiful tender heart under your sometimes prickly exterior, and I appreciate your honesty, even if it's painful to me sometimes.

[BeardofPants]

****This is an image****

****This is an image****
That's what I'm seeing at various font sizes... dunno if ye can see the difference there, Rian. A good large size is prolly 4-5.

Anywhoo... back to that aids debate.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

all right kiddies, listen carefully cause this obviously isn’t sinking in at all.

"kiddies"?

You CANNOT as a PRIVATE citizen VOTE for a constitutional amendment to discriminate against gays. That is done by a super majority of our congress not by an open referendum or ballot measure or something.

Yes, kiddie, I do indeed realize this fact. And I've posted on that fact before at Entmoot.

We as citizens have NO DIRECT say in such radical and rare pieces of legislation (thank goodness). So all your high minded democratic right to vote babbling is irrelevant to the question of making a constitutional amendment to ban gays from marrying.

"babbling"? You're not off to a good start here, IRex ...
I never mentioned specificially voting for the constitutional amendment. I was talking about voting on gay marriage issues. And if an issue doesn't come up on a ballot, it's obvious to all kiddies involved that it can't be voted on. I can, and did, however, VOTE for the DOMA in California. And thank God, I was not discriminated against based on my worldview beliefs. And atheists and agnostics were not discriminated against based on THEIR worldview beliefs. Thank God ... or wait ... who do they thank?

BTW, 38 states out of 50 now have some form of DOMA. Often, people on your side talks like those who want to keep the existing definitions of marriage are some wild-eyed minority. Well, that idea is wrong (at least IMO; what's yours?) The majority of Americans want to keep the definition of marriage the same. I think they're good and sensible people, in general, but if you think otherwise, you're free to say so.

And you can bring up the "well, years ago people thought that owning slaves was right", then I'll bring up "well, years ago people thought murder was wrong". IOW, time has nothing to do with whether something is right or not. Each issue should be evaluated on its own merits. The mere fact that something was once thought right and now thought wrong does not, of course, mean that ANYTHING once thought right should now be thought wrong.

Of course you can vote for your LEGISLATOR who may THEN be in a position to make a vote for an amendment but you CANNOT make any such vote YOURSELF.

You're quite right, and I never said I could vote on a constitutional amendment. But then again, you don't seem to read my posts carefully, I'm sad to say, since I often have to correct you when you say I've said something or think something.

And you know full well that I totally support your right to vote whoever you desire into office. Have you seen me telling you not to vote for George Bush? Hm? So enough of your painting me as some anti democratic wack job when I’M the one trying to promote EQUAL rights and YOU disagree with ME.

But do you support my right to vote for issues related to homosexuality? I support YOURS, tho I strongly disagree with you. Do you support mine? And I definitely want to promote equal rights. We just don't agree on the definition of a certain area of this issue. And you can say your definition is right all you want to, but mere repetition won't convince me, since I have thought the issue through and have concluded otherwise. I think everyone should think things through carefully for themselves, don't you?

Not oh sure you can discriminate if you get enough people who want to discriminate with you.

Again, I don't agree that it's discrimination, any more than it's discrimination to say a man can't marry his sister. And all your repeating that it IS won't convince me otherwise. I don't take people's words for things like that, I think it through myself. (and of course, many MANY people disagree with you; why shouldn't I take THEIR word for it if I'm gonna take someone's word for it?) And frankly, our society is based on the opinion that a majority of people in America are sensible, kind people, so laws that are wrong WON'T get passed. That's why I'm not worried about laws like "you can have slaves" will reappear, even if people that DO believe in slavery have the RIGHT to lobby for those laws. I guess people that don't think that ALL citizens, REGARDLESS of their beliefs, should be able to lobby for their positions must think that the majority of Americans are NOT kind and good.

Every fool in the world can be against the concept of gay marriage and ill still be fighting them and showing them that according to the founding ideals of this country that you CANT do that.

"fool"? Well, I guess it's helpful to my cause when you show that you have such a low opinion of those who happen to hold different beliefs. I repeat yet again that even tho I disagree with people of different beliefs, I respect their right to hold those beliefs, and think they should keep their right to vote. And I go even further and repeat again that if they sincerely think their viewpoint is beneficial, then I encourage them to go fight for it. And if I disagree with them, I'll fight against it. But I don't call them fools or try to say they shouldn't vote for things based on their beliefs.

why do you keep bringing these up after several people including myself have already pointed out several times how these things are fundamentally different?

And why do you keep denying that I say that they're NOT fundamentally different? Your repeating it over and over does nothing to convince me, since I have thought it through and I think it is fundamentally the SAME. I don't understand why you can't realize that I have heard your arguments on it, thought it through, and just plain disagree with you. It is your OPINION that they're "fundamentally different"; it's MY opinion that they're NOT. And I think everyone should go with their own thought-out opinion, don't you?

.... Meanwhile the GENDER discrimination you support has no parallels to any of these.

Wrong; or more accurately, I can see (since I'm openminded) that given YOUR worldview, there are no parallels. Of course, I think your worldview is wrong, altho I grant that it MIGHT be right. But I have to make up my own mind, and choose the worldview that I think is right. And according to MY worldview (which I am still waiting for you to say might be right), it is an EXACT parallel with a brother being unable to marry his sister. EXACT. Because IF my worldview is right, then it is TRUE that homosexual marriage is harmful. Do you agree?

Indignation again? You SAID YOURSELF you would keep gays from marrying because YOU THINK ITS BEST FOR THEM AND FOR SOCIETY AND FOR MARRIAGE. So why the diatribe about not knowing what you think when you already said what you think.

"diatribe"? OK...
Please go back and re-read what I disagreed with. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is harmful, BUT in your quote, you also tossed in the word "discrimination". And THAT'S the part I disagree with, as explained above.

You don’t see endless news stories about people lieing. You don’t see conservatives out picketing against the notion of coveters marrying. Why is that?

Why? Because homosexual activists brought the issue of gay marriage up.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

That's what I'm seeing at various font sizes... dunno if ye can see the difference there, Rian. A good large size is prolly 4-5.

Thanks, Bopper! Yours is different than mine, but close. You understand my dorky engineering instincts, don't you!

So what do YOU think about the issue of if people should be able to lobby for their positions (including things like AIDS policy - whew! got in a reference to the thread title! ) based on their beliefs? Do you think that "religious" people should be somehow singled out (even tho their beliefs are of the same kind as the beliefs of atheists and agnostics) and forbidden to lobby for a position that the entire country will be voting on?

And I repeat my position yet again that I think BOTH abstinence and condom use should be TRUTHFULLY and impartially presented, and I always vote for what I think is best for society, even if it doesn't always agree with what I personally strive to achieve myself. (That last little phrase always seems to get overlooked when I get accused of forcing my religious beliefs on others.)

Yes, Virginia, that was indeed RÃ*an using a rollie-eyed smilie! A rare occurrance, but in this case, not uncalled for, according to our experts

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

You truely ARE annoying Rian...

Uh . . . RÃ*an? Lizra may have been chuckling when she wrote this. Maybe not, but maybe. The computer doesn't allow for humorous tone very easily. Lots of mistakes are easy to make. Just wanted to remind of that possibility.

[Rían]

thank you

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

oh criminy. Even if I was angry, anger is an ANIMAL response to outside stimuli. Not something you do only to sentient beings when they discuss philosophical questions with you.

Well, as long as you admit that if you ARE angry at people, that they don't actually DESERVE it, then I'll say that your position is consistent

But why get into this here? If you want to bait me with silly statements about genetics then lets find a more relevant thread where we have already gone over that and we’ll go over it again for you.

I don't want to "bait" you, and the accusation makes me sad (along with your disrespectful use of "silly"). I wanted to bring up an entirely valid and relevant question. And you don't need to "go over it again" with me, because you already presented your explanations, and I thought about them, and IMO they were not valid. You never explained to my satisfaction. So unless you have any other information to present, we should probably not bother to discuss it.

Ill just say this though: your genes in combination with your ENVIRONMENT have sure allowed you to believe some pretty far out things. But Ill have to admit if I was raised EXACTLY under the SAME circumstances to this point in life as you were then I too would hold the exact same opinions on things that you do. So much for your vaunted free will.

I know that I have free will, and I need a lot more evidence than someone saying I don't have it, to believe otherwise But I'll grant you that you don't have free will, since you seem to believe that

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry you think I'm annoying. Oh well ... at least my family loves me and also some of the people at Entmoot. I'm sorry I annoy you at times, but I need to be who I am, and not try to go after the impossible task of pleasing everyone. I only need to love everyone, and I'll keep striving for that

it's fun to tease the ones we love... especially when they take it so seriously

btw, on the 'lobbying' point of the debate... i think people should be allowed to express there own opinions... but the fact is, the opinion you are expressing is not the view of many... and certainly not the view of many in the religious right... a large portion of them tend to lobby not for the truth, but for abstinance-only... which i would equate to the extreme religious groups who insist upon not bringing their children to the doctor, because they believe illness should be dealt with by faith alone... this crosses the line of an 'opposing idealology' to threatening the health and well-being of an innocent child

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it's fun to tease the ones we love... especially when they take it so seriously

btw, on the 'lobbying' point of the debate... i think people should be allowed to express there own opinions... but the fact is, the opinion you are expressing is not the view of many... and certainly not the view of many in the religious right... a large portion of them tend to lobby not for the truth, but for abstinance-only... which i would equate to the extreme religious groups who insist upon not bringing their children to the doctor, because they believe illness should be dealt with by faith alone... this crosses the line of an 'opposing idealology' to threatening the health and well-being of an innocent child

I don't want to be forced to have my child accept stem cell research products medically, after it progresses. Even if that lack endangers his health. This is because stem cell research, in my opinion, kills some humans in order to resolve the health problems of others. Ethically that's unacceptable to me. Shouldn't I have that right to choose?

I guess there needs to be a balance sometimes. While I think it is right for children to be taken away from parents sometimes for reasons of abuse, this can be a very tough issue. I'd hate to see children protected by a new law that comes out which infringes on freedom to see that protection, and that law is followed up by numerous others working off that precedent, but which tear apart freedom in more debatable areas (such as my stem cell research example).

[brownjenkins]

it is a matter of balance, i agree

though on the research thing... many basic drugs which we take for granted today were tested via unethical means... whether it be upon children, prisioners, soldiers

i'm making this up (as you know i like to do ), but if it was found that innocent people were killed in the development of penicillen, would you feel it should be outlawed? or even that you could say to your child, 'no, you can't take it'

i think one can, and should, fight unethical practices... including stem-cell research, if you believe it's wrong... but if something works, irregardless of how is was developed... it's seems crazy to me to just toss it aside

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it is a matter of balance, i agree

though on the research thing... many basic drugs which we take for granted today were tested via unethical means... whether it be upon children, prisioners, soldiers

i'm making this up (as you know i like to do ), but if it was found that innocent people were killed in the development of penicillen, would you feel it should be outlawed? or even that you could say to your child, 'no, you can't take it'

i think one can, and should, fight unethical practices... including stem-cell research, if you believe it's wrong... but if something works, irregardless of how is was developed... it's seems crazy to me to just toss it aside

It was my impression that stem cell research, in order to work, requires more and more abortions. Is that only in the testing stage? I'd be interested to hear your answer, always being interested myself in increasing my knowledge .

Meanwhile, I think that the point you made is flawed whether the abortions are merely in the development stages or not. Your argument is the same as Shakespeare's Richard III, when he convinces Elizabeth to allow him to marry her daughter. He'd murdered Elizabeth's sons already. Then he argued to her, "the past is in the past and cannot be amended. We need to look to the future. In this future I will bless you and your own even more then I have deprived from them."

It's a call the ignores justice, that ignores clear wrongdoing in an attempt to make the future a better place.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It was my impression that stem cell research, in order to work, requires more and more abortions.

I'd like to point out a HUGE omission here - ADULT stem cell research has been far, FAR more promising than embryonic scr, and requires NO harm to anyone.

Meanwhile, I think that the point you made is flawed whether the abortions are merely in the development stages or not. Your argument is the same as Shakespeare's Richard III, when he convinces Elizabeth to allow him to marry her daughter. He'd murdered Elizabeth's sons already. Then he argued to her, "the past is in the past and cannot be amended. We need to look to the future. In this future I will bless you and your own even more then I have deprived from them."

Great quote! I've never read RIII; I need to amend that!

Reminds me of an ethical dilemma (one of many, sadly) presented by Nazi Germany. They had subjected prisoners and Jews to freezing experiments so they could help their own people recover from exposure to cold, and found some valuable information, but the decent people that discovered this were so repelled by the inhumanness and cruelty of the experiments that they needed to ponder if the info should be thrown out or not. Interesting question...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

... but the fact is, the opinion you are expressing is not the view of many... and certainly not the view of many in the religious right...

And that's why I appreciate not being lumped in with them merely because I'm a conservative Christian.

I repeat my call - let's judge each person on what they say, and not stereotype them!

*runs off to the bookstore to find a copy of Richard III*

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Homosexual marriage was only one example brought up to support various points. I realize that to you it's been the center of the discussion now that you tell me it has been. To me the discussion has been far broader. I guess I was right, that we've been talking over one another's heads all this time. A fairly pointless exercise .

seems that way.

I urge you to be careful. Your words and phrases could very easily be interpreted as anger. Some, such as your most recent "what are you babbling about", are unkind and could easily spur anger.

I urge you to relax and not take everything personally. Ive told the same thing to rian but shes very easily offended and bruised unfortunately. If you want to debate with me (especially about topics like gay marriage and evolution and such) then yer gonna have to deal with that fact that I play rough. Its just how I am. I do the same thing with my friends in real life. Im always informal and I don’t hold back on the words I use or the tone of my phrasing. Think of me as a big bear who when he wants to play with his friends bats them around with a big paw. Don’t get offended or frightened if I send you head over heals. Its just how I play. Now if that’s too rough for you then that’s understandable and don’t get into debates with me. But if yer ok with it then great. Don’t take it personally and in fact do the same back. I enjoy that. Makes me feel like things aren’t so formal and that im accepted as part of the group. I would have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with you giving me a hard time when you get the opportunity to. Id probably get a good chuckle out of it. Others do and it amuses me. In fact I feel closer to them when they do. So don’t worry about hurting my feelings at all. its how I play the game.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If my worldview tells me that homosexuality is wrong to have called marriage, I should have the same right to keep it from being called marriage as you have the right to implement laws against a woman marrying her brother. You do that because from your worldview, it's wrong. I do the other because I believe from my worldview, it's wrong. Our beliefs are equally valid to be implemented in law.

you just aren’t getting my point though. That when you tell a group of citizens that they CANT do what everyone else can do you are discriminating against them. And that in this country at least that goes against our founding ideals. The right to liberty and pursuit of happiness and the freedom to not have ones civil liberties arbitrarily restricted because other people don’t like the very idea of what you do with your own life. You CANT make laws that DO that. They would be wrong from the inception. We used to have amendments to the constitution that were enacted to allow discrimination against race to be legal. They were just as wrong. And they were determined to be so ultimately once the country had the balls to face up to the fact that they went against the rest of the constitution.

It seems very much to me like you're saying your worldview should be the basis from which discrimination should be defined. Something's only discrimination if you say it is, and it isn't if you say it's not.

give me your definition of discrimination.

There are plenty of laws protecting minorities. Those should be appealed to in such a case, and the judgment is for the courts.

wait are you saying you know its wrong but you still want the right to impose it anyway and that I shouldn’t worry because the courts will throw it out?

I have to divorce before marrying! How unfair!

yeah sorry fraid you do. Because your wife may not WANT you marrying while she is married to you. Therefore you are undermining her legal rights by doing that.

I'm not planning to have any children! How unfair!

GREAT POINT! And one that ive thought of before when this topic comes up. If a brother and sister want to marry and agree to get sterilized or some such why shouldn’t we let them marry? There is now no longer any harm being done to another party in their marrying (since they cant have kids) and it does no harm to any of us for them to marry each other so yes why not. Id support it in this case because im consistent.

Marriage doesn't have to be permanent! It's not like the decision's going to impact me all my life. Let me marry if I want now, and then be free of it as soon or as long later on as I wish.

nope. Sorry. If you aren’t legal age to give consent NOW then you cant marry NOW. Because we don’t recognize that your child brain and childhood emotions can deal with the adult requirements of making a marriage decision according to the scientific data to date regarding development that our country recognizes as factual. If you cant give consent the state shouldn’t be bound to recognize your relationship legally.

On a sidenote: In plenty of other cultures even in modern days people are allowed to marry earlier.

ah but not HERE. And only the law applies HERE. Not in Bangladesh or those last few places on earth where you can marry off your 8 year old and exchange her for property. Want to know where I would stand on that one?

When individuals gain maturity also can vary enormously based upon circumstance, situation and upbringing. In many countries outside of our affluent circumstances, people that are many years younger then me are many years more mature.

are you making the argument here that there are 8 year olds who are developmentally ready for marriage? By the way isn’t it true that the age of consent for MARRIAGE is younger then the age of consent for SEX? So we aren’t talking about if like 15 year olds can marry. Im pretty sure they can. I believe I just read something about a 13 year old marrying. We are talking about really young children. Single digits. Is that your argument?

Inbreeding is not always harmful to the child.

but its MUCH MUCH more likely to be harmful! And sometimes deadly. Shooting someone in the leg isn’t necessarily always fatal but hey you know what its probably dangerous enough that it should be illegal to do.

Harm is also caused to children that grow up in poor families, because of lack of opportunity. Parents have the right to marry and bring up kids in those bad, impoverished situations, though.

absolutely. Because the threshold for harm to the child is much lower then when you cross breed purposefully. Therefore we cant base marrying on the simple fact that you aren’t rich. You can still raise your child ok even if you are poor. And you can raise your child like crap if you are rich. JUST as you can raise your child great if you are homosexual and raise them like crap if you are heterosexual. You seem to be arguing my ultimate point here…

Of course, RÃ*an, you may wish to respond to Insidious Rex in a very different way then I have . I don't know. I'm hopeless. I just love to argue.

and that makes you ok in my book. Debate is what its all about.

But I think the different issues I brought up are not only concluded upon in the way that they are for genetic and social reasons, like Insidious Rex suggests. It's because marriage is defined in one particular way, in a Christian way.

maybe in church. But marriage is NOT owned by a certain sect of Christianity. So this kind of reasoning is faulty from the start. Even some Christians will marry gays. I never understand causing such a huge uproar over a silly word. Believe it or not people were actually marrying each other WELL before the bible was written. Hard to believe huh.

[Lizra]

It seems to me, Rian and Leif are saying even though their "worldveiw" is discriminatory (against homosexual marriage) it is their right as Americans to vote for discriminatory laws that support their discriminatory "worldveiw". I suppose it IS their right to vote for discriminatory laws, but the laws (if passed) would be wrong, and "worldveiw" doesn't really matter. It's unfair, It's wrong. It's a shame "worldveiws" and religion have divided our country so. It seems to be getting worse.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd like to point out a HUGE omission here - ADULT stem cell research has been far, FAR more promising than embryonic scr, and requires NO harm to anyone.

As I know very little about stem cell research, I can't argue for anything I say here .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Great quote! I've never read RIII; I need to amend that!

Reminds me of an ethical dilemma (one of many, sadly) presented by Nazi Germany. They had subjected prisoners and Jews to freezing experiments so they could help their own people recover from exposure to cold, and found some valuable information, but the decent people that discovered this were so repelled by the inhumanness and cruelty of the experiments that they needed to ponder if the info should be thrown out or not. Interesting question...

Mmm-hm. That was not an exact quote by the way- Shakespeare speaks far better then I . The argument was the same, though.

Richard III is a brilliant play; I'm glad I've inspired you to get it . It's my second to favorite. When I started reading Richard III aloud with my sister, I was so into it that I wouldn't stop. I read the whole thing aloud with her that afternoon and evening, it was so good. Richard III went to the top of my list of favorite villains in the single day .

Originally Posted by Lizra

It seems to me, Rian and Leif are saying even though their "worldveiw" is discriminatory (against homosexual marriage) it is their right as Americans to vote for discriminatory laws that support their discriminatory "worldveiw".

That's all correct, except I'd exchange the word "though" for "if" . I don't think it's discriminatory to argue against homosexuals being allowed to marry. It's about the definition of marriage. That definition is undermined and changed to become virtually meaningless if homosexual coupling is allowed to be defined as marriage.

Originally Posted by Lizra

the laws (if passed) would be wrong, and "worldveiw" doesn't really matter.

Your right if you're assuming there is a divine standard . Amazing it is to hear you so emphatically taking a ardent Christian position .

Originally Posted by Lizra

It's unfair, It's wrong. It's a shame "worldveiws" and religion have divided our country. It seems to be getting worse.

(Sorry, there isn't anything for bug eyes except something that looks like it's vomiting)

Freedom of religion and freedom to hold differing worldviews is what the country's about!

(The Mayflower comes floating across Lief's mind's eye )

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If you want to debate with me (especially about topics like gay marriage and evolution and such) then yer gonna have to deal with that fact that I play rough.

I will, but will choose to play my own way also

Originally Posted by IRex

Debate is what its all about.

I disagree in a big way. Love is what it's all about. And part of love includes vigorous, passionate debate on issues I feel are important, but does NOT include calling people "fools", in my book. So I'll realize that for you, it does include using these terms, but I'll deal with it how I see fit.

Originally Posted by IRex

Believe it or not people were actually marrying each other WELL before the bible was written. Hard to believe huh.

No, not hard to believe at all! God instructed the VERY FIRST two people on earth, Adam and Eve, on what marriage is. It wasn't written down until thousands of years later, but it was verbally given right at the get-go.

Feel free to point out that this statement comes from my beliefs, and I'll feel free to point out that your statements come from your beliefs

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"kiddies"?

that’s right. Kiddies. rather I call you a bad name or something?

Yes, kiddie,

see I don’t mind.

"babbling"? You're not off to a good start here, IRex ...

oh dear…

I never mentioned specificially voting for the constitutional amendment. I was talking about voting on gay marriage issues.

but you never mentioned “specificially� that you were talking about voting on generic “gay marriage issues�. And the big thing involved here is the constitutional amendment so forgive me for assuming we were all on the same page with that.

And you can bring up the "well, years ago people thought that owning slaves was right", then I'll bring up "well, years ago people thought murder was wrong".

Eh?

Each issue should be evaluated on its own merits. The mere fact that something was once thought right and now thought wrong does not, of course, mean that ANYTHING once thought right should now be thought wrong.

are you saying if we brought back slavery it would be ok? That it isn’t fundamentally wrong?

You're quite right, and I never said I could vote on a constitutional amendment. But then again, you don't seem to read my posts carefully, I'm sad to say, since I often have to correct you when you say I've said something or think something.

don’t blame me if I use your own words against you. just be more specific in what you say.

Again, I don't agree that it's discrimination, any more than it's discrimination to say a man can't marry his sister.

so what IS discrimination then? For the record…

And frankly, our society is based on the opinion that a majority of people in America are sensible, kind people, so laws that are wrong WON'T get passed.

oh dear me no. are you kidding? Our society is based on the opinion? You think weve never had wacky or discriminatory laws passed in this country before. Im gonna have to ask you to wake up and smell the coffee now. We live in a world of bias and human limitations. Not a utopia of happy smiley people who all love each other and live together in perfect harmony. So you need limitations of legislation built into the system. You also need a judicial system to provide checks and balances to the inherently imperfect legislative system. And ironically enough after all this proud talk about our great system and how it works fine I notice that you have been railing against the judicial part of the system lately because they have been going against YOUR opinion on a number of things.

And according to MY worldview (which I am still waiting for you to say might be right), it is an EXACT parallel with a brother being unable to marry his sister. EXACT. Because IF my worldview is right, then it is TRUE that homosexual marriage is harmful.

what genetic defects are caused by homosexuals having kids again? If a lesbian wants to artificially inseminate herself and they determine through blood tests that the sperm doner is related to her THEN youll have yourself your exact parallel. Until then sorry.

Please go back and re-read what I disagreed with. Yes, I believe that homosexuality is harmful, BUT in your quote, you also tossed in the word "discrimination". And THAT'S the part I disagree with, as explained above.

I said: “The fact that you think you are doing them a favor� because you said you want to keep them from marrying for THEIR sake and for the sake of society. THEN you turn around and explode at me because I said I was assuming what you were thinking? THEN when I point out to you that you already said what you were thinking and I was just spelling it out you say well I know that but I disagree with me saying discrimination in the sentence even though the sentence was still correct makes ME the one who has to reread things?

Why? Because homosexual activists brought the issue of gay marriage up.

note I said BEFORE this whole brew ha ha swelled up. Homosexuality has always been a serious topic with a lot of conservatives. Check out the 700 club any given Sunday dating back as far as you like if you don’t believe me.


And by the way do you support the LEGAL means that the folks from the Christian Exodus movement want to engage in? seems like its right up your alley. Apparently they are sick and tired of all the sinners and fornicators and the politicians who talk and never do anything about it so they are taking advantage of our democratic system to mass likeminded people in one location thereby heavily favoring the representation toward their agenda. Then their city council members and school board members will change things to what they want. From there they will move on to a county level and then a state level and if they succeed they can (and they have run the numbers) seceed from the union and have their own Christian state that god intended. Nothing wrong there that I see. All following the rules carefully so that they can ram their agenda down the throats of normal south Carolinians who don’t agree with them based on the democratic concept of SHEER NUMBERS which is your signature argument. So what are your thoughts on that? More power to them? Disturbing? Are you packing your bags to join them? I find it rather terrifying myself.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree in a big way. Love is what it's all about.

we are here talking to each other on this message board because of love? gee funny. i though i came here for a good chat. well if you arent here for debate then why are you debating me?