Ah, so many posts - so little time.
Firstly, Salivor, let me unreservedly apologise for my tirade of abuse at you yesterday - it was totally unnecessary and precipated by watching the frustrating f@#$% Warriors lose to Penrith. Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology.
salivor said:
As usual Goangod you've failed to quote big parts of my argument, missing the one question I actually posed to you. Surprise surprise? Didn't want to answer that one did you? You've been avoiding it for several posts. No doubt you won't even quote this first paragraph.
What question is this? I thought I answered everything?
In your previous post I clicked on the medical institute link summerising the whole lot and surprise surprise the address was Austin, Texas, USA. Most of our argument has evolved around the United States, when faced with Africa's AIDS epedemic amongst heterosexuals you didn't want to know. Though doesn't it bother you when you go to that effort to get sources and then someone doesn't read them? I know it does because thats exactly what you did to me earlier in the debate when my sources didn't exactly back up your argument :lol: .
You still refuse to read.
The statistics I provided are from Canada, the UK, the US and the Netherlands. Just because you want them to be from only one place doesnt mean they are.
In relation to Africa, or anywhere else, this is how it should world.
Lets say we have a random sample of 10 people. Now, according to stats by the gay community themselves (which are grossly overinflated) 10% of people are gay.
Fine - lets accept this.
Therefore, we should find that the rate of AIDs cases and rate of pedophilia cases should occur in roughly the same proportions - ie 9/10 AIDs cases among heterosexuals and 9/10 abuse cases committed by heterosexuals.
But this is not the case - when taken proportionally, the number of AIDs cases for homosexuals and the number of abuse cases for homosexuals is vastly overrepresented.
I've made this point now several times - it is an undeniable fact.
Simple fact is I've told you that yes I have a moral viewpoint against child pornography and beastiality but the fact that I view these as child and animal abuse has nothing to do with morals. You conviently failed to address this.
No, you freely admitted that the reasons you were against these were moral ones/ Do you want me to quote your original post again?
Then, once I reveealed your blatant hypocrisy, you quickly changed your tune (surprise surprise).
You may have answered this question before- I cant remember - but please humour me. Lets say we have a case where two people want to marry each other.
They love each other dearly and want to be together yada yada yada.
One problem.
They are brother and sister. Society frowns on incest. So what do they do?
Well, based on your arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality, we should also accept incest.
1. It is natural and normal, since by your definition, nothing is considered unnatural and abnormal
2. This behaviour is observed in other primitive cultures
3. This behaviour is observed in the animal kingdom
4. Current marriage laws discriminate against this group of people
5. Some children of incestous marriages have birth defects, however, reasearch has shown this is not true
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo
First, inbreeding does not lead to congenital birth-defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth-defect will produce children with birth-defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth-defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. If children born with birth-defects die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population.
Therefore, if someone does fall pregnant - they can just get an an abortion. After all, its a womans right to choose and it really is just a lump of meat anyway.
So should we accept this Salivor?
Secondly, let's take the practice of necrophilia - having sex with a corpse or dead person. For whatever reason, this turns some sickos on. Fine. Lets say that before they die, a person gives written consent that their corpse can be used for whatever purpose for 1 week by their necrophiliac partner.
What is your basis for denying this apart from moral grounds?
Surely we should allow this type of behaviour as it harms noone and both people have consented. This isnt sick and unnatural - because there is no concept of normal and natural - its whatever turns you on.
Whether you like it or not we don't have an accurate measure on the homosexuals in our society. I've never been asked my sexuality on a census form, never been asked by a doctor or anyone carrying out research. We don't know, you only assume that homosexuals make up a small percentage of the community. Yet I know you don't want to directly address this so its ok goangod you don't have to.
You keep flogging a dead horse.
Salivor, we dont have an accurate measure of AIDs cases in Africa - there could be many more or many less cases - many of these places have zero infrastructure and technology - and yet you are quite willing to place your trust in these studies.
Varied estimates of the gay percentage in the community have fluctuated between 1% (science) and 10% (gays). However, on this basis you will discount any and all scientific research conducted anywhere in the world. :roll:
