• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

bikerdruid said:
that's a really disturbing thought.
i'd rather think that robert is an anomaly, or a deliberate caricature.
Click to expand...
Good point. As a former staunch conservative I can tell you that for me it was a lot of contradictory feelings. I think the GOP is not monolithic however many if not most buy into the idea that there is something improper/inappropriate/immoral with homosexuality. But many of them also have a sense that they are not being bigoted or hurtful to think gays and lesbians deviant or unnatural. And I think that is part of the problem. Religious morality is often vague and contradictory. I should point out that when I came to this forum 10 years ago I was a deist who was against gay marriage and gay adoption. It caused me a lot of dissonance. Letting go of that freed me from those contradictory views. I think we should be careful to avoid stereotyping Republicans however I don't think it is unfair to point out that many Republicans are bigoted toward gays and lesbians (as well as bisexuals and transgender people) and this results in much harm to the LGBT community. Bullying and suicides being some of the worst and most prolific results.
 
RandFan said:
Good point. As a former staunch conservative I can tell you that for me it was a lot of contradictory feelings. I think the GOP is not monolithic however many if not most buy into the idea that there is something improper/inappropriate/immoral with homosexuality. But many of them also have a sense that they are not being bigoted or hurtful to think gays and lesbians deviant or unnatural. And I think that is part of the problem. Religious morality is often vague and contradictory. I should point out that when I came to this forum 10 years ago I was a deist who was against gay marriage and gay adoption. It caused me a lot of dissonance. Letting go of that freed me from those contradictory views. I think we should be careful to avoid stereotyping Republicans however I don't think it is unfair to point out that many Republicans are bigoted toward gays and lesbians (as well as bisexuals and transgender people) and this results in much harm to the LGBT community. Bullying and suicides being some of the worst and most prolific results.
Click to expand...
It's my humble opinion having watched the Republican Party campaign techniques over the last 2 decades, that the mainstream Party leaders courted this extreme wing and are now reaping the results of promoting these single issue homophobic, anti-abortion, Evangelical Christian fanatics that have been lured into the Party.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So, you can imagine you were saying whatever you imagine you think you were saying. We, OTOH, have the recorded evidence. You made these claims and have been unable to support them.
Click to expand...

"According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html
 
Robert Prey said:
"According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html
Click to expand...
We are doing the math, and it disagree with your claims.

Robert Prey said:
Anal sex by homosexuals and to a lesser extent by a clueless woman with a bi-sexual partner or one that shares needles
Click to expand...
This statement is clearly false.
 
Robert Prey said:
"According to data released earlier this year by the Centers for Disease Control, the probability of HIV acquisition by the receptive partner in unprotected oral sex with an HIV carrier is one per 10,000 acts. In vaginal sex, it's 10 per 10,000 acts. In anal sex, it's 50 per 10,000 acts. Do the math."

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/09/ass_backwards.html
Click to expand...
Well Joobz has already said it but let me put it a different way.

Robert Prey said:
I don't know what sample you are referring to, but in the US it's not sleeping with, but being an anal receptor, or sharing needles, or sex with open STDs or other sores.
Click to expand...
You seem to have a problem here in that you've claimed 3 means of contracting HIV as the only means of contracting HIV. To support this claim you cited a higher probability but not the only means of contracting HIV. Consider that in those same statistics the CDC also notes one might contract HIV only 50 times in 10,000 acts of anal intercourse. That's really not relatively that much different from 10 in 10,000.

Maybe in your mind you think you've supported your claim, "in the US it's not sleeping with, but being an anal receptor, or sharing needles, or sex with open STDs or other sores," but objectively you have not even come close. Do you believe all those cases of HIV contracted through vaginal intercourse are explained by additional STDs? There is no evidence for that either, only evidence HIV spreads more easily in the presence of other STDs.

What you are ignoring in your 'it can't happen to me' mentality is the other side of the equation. An HIV infected person with a very high viral load is extremely contagious. You've noted the conditions that make the susceptible person more likely to contract HIV. But you've ignored the conditions that make the infectious host considerably more contagious. Try doing the math with a proper equation.



Robert Prey said:
So you were referring to world wide where anal sex is far more rampant for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
You've cited nothing supporting this outrageous claim.

Robert Prey said:
I was referring to US stats where hetero is by far the lessor, and not caused by monogamous hetero sex but women who engage with a bi partner or share needles.
Click to expand...
Obviously monogamous relationships are safer than having multiple partners, but that is true for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. When you take "monogamous" out of your claim, you have "not caused by hetero sex but women who engage with a bi partner or share needles." This claim would depend on your definition of "by far the lessor" until you also added "not caused by". That suggests you are claiming the only heterosexual women who've contracted HIV only did so because they had sex with bisexual men or because they used illegal IV drugs.

It's my impression from your comments that you do not believe men without STDs ever contract HIV from vaginal intercourse. Care to clarify if that is your belief or not?
 
joobz said:
to follow up on this, Many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex. Homosexuality only specifies WHO you are attracted to. Not what you do with those people.
Click to expand...

There is also a faction of gay men that do not have anal sex.
 
Robert Prey said:
Because homosexual "marriage' is not marriage.
Click to expand...

While I get the feeling you'll be arguing over this for a while for other reasons, I would like to point out that the implication here is that you are conflating sex with marriage. Which is something I take great issue with.
 
Robert Prey said:
Because homosexual "marriage' is not marriage.
Click to expand...
Again with the evidenceless claims.

Apparently you are unaware even MerriamWebster has updated their definition of marriage.
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
Because homosexual "marriage' is not marriage.
Click to expand...

In addition to Laughing Baby's objection.

Even if we ignore the whole sex != marriage problem, you are also using circular reasoning and argument from tradition. The only reason that gay unions are not marriage is because you choose to define it that way. There are sufficient traditional precedents for this, especially in the west where for about 2 millennium marriage has pretty much been exclusively monogamous and heterosexual. However, there are other traditions (Roman, Eastern, and Meso-American) that have included homosexual unions within the definition of marriage.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Again with the evidenceless claims.

Apparently you are unaware even MerriamWebster has updated their definition of marriage.
Click to expand...

Marriage defined:

"The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage+(traditional)

You can call a pig a horse, but it is still a pig.
 
Robert Prey said:
Marriage defined:

"The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which one man and one woman, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of Husband and Wife in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

Marriage is a legally sanctioned contract between a man and a woman. Entering into a marriage contract changes the legal status of both parties, giving husband and wife new rights and obligations. Public policy is strongly in favor of marriage based on the belief that it preserves the family unit. Traditionally, marriage has been viewed as vital to the preservation of morals and civilization."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marriage+(traditional)

You can call a pig a horse, but it is still a pig.
Click to expand...
The legal definition isn't a biological entity. The comparison is silly. If we can change laws to allow iterracial marriage then we can do the same for gays and lesbians. Hell, legal definitions change all the time and in Canada and other jurisdictions it has changed. You are quite demonstrably wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom