Babylon

[rockouthippie]

Somebody left a message on one of my blogs. It was describing the US as Babylon.

I just got back from a walk with the dog. I saw some kids playing round. It looked all innocent, but you can tell the whole neighborhood will be damned by hell fire! They were actually playing soccer. Soccer. An obvious commie threat.

You whore of Babylon :D Man... these pagans are really getting out of hand. Next thing they'll be sacrificing some animal on a pit of fire.

9UbqZ_oN5do

[Too-DAMN-Much]

weird.... i thought babylon was typically a reference to the police, but then again that's from a rastafarian usage.

[Wildrose-Wally]

Next thing they'll be sacrificing some animal on a pit of fire.

I'm just putting some pieces of animal in a frying pan.

[rockouthippie]

>I'm just putting some pieces of animal in a frying pan.

I'm not sure if that counts. I think it depends on whether you use Rastafarian sauce. Being turned into a gay lib by your barbecue sauce. Could happen.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

i'm almost depressed by how well the following sums up this entire thread:

http://i.imgur.com/5yPO0.jpg

[rockouthippie]

People. Religion is just something either God or somebody wrote down. It's people that are the problem.

God or not, your beliefs aren't supposed to make you mean.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

i meant that as a response to the crap that was posted on your blog, didn't think of how ambiguous it was when i posted it.

[rockouthippie]

I had breakfast with some friends, including friend of friend, a UC Berkeley know it all who decided the breakfast conversation...

Anyway he blames the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, bla bla Berkeley bla... on religion...

I shut him down pretty good.

"There are examples of secular societies. Find me one that was less corrupt..."

Sputter.

"Slavery. That's as old as religion. Who were the first people who ended it? Poland in the 15th century. It doesn't get more Catholic than that."

Sputter.

"Love your brother. Be kind to those that oppose you. I didn't find those in the atheist cookbook".

Sputter.

One liberal shut down like a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Poor bastard couldn't even resort to personal insults, which would be the norm. We have a business relationship which requires him to be polite.

We've been talking about doing an internet startup. That was what breakfast was about. I'm hoping this guys work ethic is better than his breakfast conversation.

Perhaps this the the replacement for saying grace in SoCal.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

"Love your brother. Be kind to those that oppose you. I didn't find those in the atheist cookbook".

really? that was a point you made to him? god, love a discussion with someone too dimwitted to refute that, it's so blatant and obvious it almost speaks more about the fact that religious nutjobs HAVE to be reminded about it, it's that basic of an idea and concept.

[rockouthippie]

Then remind them. You have no frame of reference to make a similar appeal to an atheist. That's because being an atheist requires nothing of you. When you make yourself God, there are no rules.

Lenin and Stalin proved it. You can't have the people's revolution without killing off the religious. They won't buy the "new morality" where the infirm are murdered, and anybody that doesn't believe in the body politic finds themselves making ice cubes in Siberia.

Actually, it's probably because of the religious bent of America, that we are able to express an opinion about anything.

I wish we could show you the completely secular United States you'd like. I doubt you'd live through the transition, but it would prove my point.

[mike-db]

God or not, your beliefs aren't supposed to make you mean.

Satanisim. Though not widely practiced, is all about being selfish and not concerning your self with anyone else problems only your own.

[thinktink]

Actually, Satanists don't believe either God or "The Devil" exists. Satanism is really more a peculiar form of hedonism than a religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan#Beliefs

[rockouthippie]

"No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."

That isn't exactly liberal is it?

[Too-DAMN-Much]

"No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."


words to live by there...

[mike-db]

Actually, Satanists don't believe either God or "The Devil" exists. Satanism is really more a peculiar form of hedonism than a religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan#Beliefs

That's not what I said, but thanks.

[swingdjted]

You have no frame of reference to make a similar appeal to an atheist. That's because being an atheist requires nothing of you. When you make yourself God, there are no rules..

I would have to disagree, because I believe that not all people need the external motivation from a deity but could still get it from effective communities and their own understanding of what is good or bad for society. At the risk of getting attacked for saying this, it works for many types of animals. If you're looking for a reference when it comes to acting right, and you want to use a reference that atheists will accept, use any code of ethics. Such references tend to actually work well for both religious and non-religious.

"No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity."

That isn't exactly liberal is it?

Correct in that it's not generally a liberal standpoint.

But, people who believe this as an all-the-time hard and fast rule are not looking at the big picture. You're not necessarily just protecting the stupid from their own stupidity; you're also protecting the non-stupid from the damage and side-effects caused by the stupid. When you analyze the effects of protection vs. non-protection using the scientific method or other acceptable data-gathering means (while making honest efforts to avoid bias), you will find that sometimes protection helps the overall group enough to make it worth it, and of course other times it's more of a waste. That's how I look at it, but that's more of a moderate leaning liberal standpoint.

[rockouthippie]

I would have to disagree, because I believe that not all people need the external motivation from a deity but could still get it from effective communities and their own understanding of what is good or bad for society.

I disagree. The community conscience is shit. It lets you kill 100 million people like Stalin did. Luckily we have a couple thousand years of Jesus, Allah, Yahweh to tell us we're not God.

When that isn't the case, they usually shoot teachers first.

[swingdjted]

Codes of ethics evolve and are evidence-based. They don't allow for actions that cause inhumanity. An understanding of what is good for a community or society wouldn't include intentionally harming others. Such actions from people like Stalin have nothing to do with a "community" conscience and have more to do with protection of abused power and unreasonable assertion of one's own beliefs over others'.

[rockouthippie]

You evidently haven't been exposed to the propaganda the communists used to take over Russia. Traditional morality is wrong. Religion is wrong. Conventionality steps on the masses.

Sound familiar?

Most of the anti-theists I ever met didn't want to abide the moral code taught by Christians, Jews, Islam...

Stalin and Lenin didn't want to either.

If you don't like "because God said so", look at things pragmatically. Maybe because God said so. Maybe just because it's a good idea. The consequences of conduct outside of the realm of traditional religious conduct is perfectly predictable.

Fly straight or the world will kick your ass.

So.. take God out of the equation and you have the same morality and the same consequences (usually fairly dire) of failing to follow traditional moral imperatives. I'm by no means public enemy number one, but wow.... I would have saved myself a hell of a lot of trouble........

[swingdjted]

See, codes of ethics won't assert that religion is wrong, especially since some of the material that they contain came from religions. I'm the same way. I have no way of proving that God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, etc. exist, yet I have no way of proving they don't exist. Therefore I just work with what I do know exists without claiming to know what I don't know. Those that work this way can still be productive and ethical.

A lot of lessons taught by religions can be very good, but some can be bad too. I like to take everything that is presented before me and evaluate what seems to help people and what seems to harm people. For example, some of the Bible teaches one to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Good. Leviticus forbids homosexuality and tattoos. Why is that such a bad thing? Neither harms or threatens me as a non-tattoo straight person at all.

To assert laws, rules, ethics, or morals, I feel there should be evidence of harm done when not followed before putting into place. Otherwise live and let live, religion or not.

[swingdjted]

Look at 2 Kings (just start from the beginning like vs. 1 through about 16) in the Bible. Do as I say or I'll kill you and all that are with you with fire... and that's what happened to 2 groups of 50 men. That's more like Stalin if you ask me than following a non-religious code of ethics.

[rockouthippie]

50? 100? Stalin got 100 million. That evil czar he replaced... might have killed a few thousand...

Besides, Christianity is a new covenant with God, where for the sacrifice of Jesus, God promises not to stick us in the microwave.

[swingdjted]

Killing is killing, especially when not in true self defense. Sure, higher numbers make it far worse yet, but I'm just pointing out that there are things that I agree with from religions and things I disagree with.

[rockouthippie]

What did you need to do that isn't allowed by God? It seems to me that every "Thou shalt not" in the Bible has a pretty practical reason for it.

99 % of the time, an atheist is going to agree with me about what is moral and what is not. Buddists and Islam are in the cheering section.

You might be thinking that life would be so much better and easier without religious kill joys. Whatever made you think that? Right and wrong are largely agnostic concepts.

If something is wrong in a religious context, it's likely wrong in a secular context.

[swingdjted]

That's a very good point, one I usually agree with, but every once in a while I run into an exception.

For example, I mentioned tattoos and homosexuality. Both hurt no one in my opinion, and yet are forbidden in Christianity. Beer, which I love and respect, and hopefully will never abuse or lose, is forbidden by over a dozen religions.

Many religions believe it is prudent to actively tell people of other religions that they're wrong, without any proof that either side is right or wrong.

Christians forbid males to wear head gear in their religious buildings. Jewish people often require males to wear head gear in their temples and synagogues. What's funny is that for women, it was once encouraged that the exact opposite happen for both.

There are a lot of examples (http://www.11points.com/books/11_things_the_bible_bans,_but_you_do_anyway), mostly small stuff, but still, the point is that I don't mind taking each religion's teachings on a line-item-veto basis, so long as I'm left with a philosophy that discourages harm to others.

I'm not big on people engaging in organized religious practices (e.g. prayer) that is specific to a certain religion during public functions where there's a chance that not everyone there subscribes to that religion. I tend to subscribe to the separation of church and state, while still recognizing that both are important to people, and that both can still have their place in peoples' lives. That, to me, is a bit harmful to people that want to do organized prayer in a public school, but it's less harmful than what happens if you encourage it.

[Wildrose-Wally]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/293083_408530005876508_1757533402_n.jpg

[rockouthippie]

homosexuality

That's generally lethal and makes people miserable. Being straight is dangerous enough. If women were 10X as likely to have STD's, 4X more likely to suicide...always cheated.. etc... I'd be done. I'm pretty damn cautious as it is.

don't mind taking each religion's teachings on a line-item-veto basis

Yeah.. You're smarter than God. You went to college and got an edumacation. But look at what you believe. It is not at all reasonable, pragmatic or sensible to say gay is not very wrong. It's deadly. It's sad. The consequences people have to overlook are just too big to whitewash.

It's taboo, and the reason it's taboo is because it's deadly. Any sensible person wouldn't be motivated by sex enough to kill themselves over it. Any sensible person wouldn't be cheering over people killing themselves and making their life miserable.

If once, I saw gay guys ending up happy, I might change my opinion. I've known a couple dozen gay guys in my life. It doesn't end well.... ever...... at my age, you're either dead or a miserable, bitter, angry old queer living with his paranoid cat.

But your liberal belief trumps reality. Because of some sort of liberal fair play, we're supposed to ignore the death and disease around the practice. I universally don't like what I've seen happen to gay people I've known. It's not a good life even if you survive it.

Finding love and happiness for straight people is hard enough. Finding it if you're gay is practically impossible. It's because you're dealing with people whose primary motivation is sex. Sex is so important, they are willing to make themselves social outcasts and die over it. It's not a mindset that's gonna yield good mates.

So at 50, you're either dead or angry and alone.

[swingdjted]

I've said this before, and once again (why do I feel like a broken record?), homosexuality itself isn't deadly. Promiscuity is. The fact is, all committed and/or protected relationships have an extremely reduced correlation with STDs; gay or straight. If you cite stats, you're probably citing stats on gay sluts. Well, the same thing happens with straight sluts. There are gay committed relationships out there; countless examples, and when you examine their stats, they're as good as straight.

I don't claim to be smarter than any deity. However, I do claim to be smarter than some of the text writers (humans) that did their work hundreds or thousands of years ago. Do you eat pork, ham, bacon, etc? If so, it's against the bible's teachings. If someone chops off your junk, you're not allowed in heaven. If some deity sends me to some kind of hell when I call bullshit on that, then fine. I'll at least be the one being moral and/or ethical. The bible has over 400 contradictions, and that's just looking at one religion.

Your experience with gays must be limited reality. My experience includes dozens of gays that I've worked for plus family (one of which is a very close family member at age 39 and two other more distant relatives in their 50s), none of which have a single STD that I know of.

Finding love and happiness isn't all that hard for the gays I've known. It even appears that they've been just as successful as I have been. As a matter of fact, every gay I know over age 25 is in a committed relationship, and every angry-and-alone person I know over 25 is straight.

Finally, sex is not at all the primary motivation behind being gay, unless you're willing to concede that sex is the primary motivation of being straight. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.

[Too-DAMN-Much]

i hate to nitpick here ted, but sex is the primary motivation of being anything but completely asexual.

[swingdjted]

That's why I had to toss in that little disclaimer, although many people incapable of sex still get together romantically in straight or gay couples.

[rockouthippie]

The fact is, all committed and/or protected relationships have an extremely reduced correlation with STDs; gay or straight.

Even in hetero-relationships a lot of STD's are transmitted between trusted partners because trusted partners lull people into a false sense of security. It isn't unusual at all to find out your partner has been cheating via a good case of the clap.

Numbers don't lie. Your large percentage of potential partners that are a biohazard should scare you enough that your sexual preference wouldn't make you act on it.

Your experience with gays must be limited reality. My experience includes dozens of gays that I've worked for plus family (one of which is a very close family member at age 39 and two other more distant relatives in their 50s), none of which have a single STD that I know of.

That you know of. Who runs around saying they got the clap? Even if you are gay, you likely don't share the details of your sexual life, but CDC data does.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

They even have a special education program at CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm

.... and the CDC recommends a yearly (or less) AIDS test....

Can I believe a gay man could find love and a faithful partner for life where nobody cheats and everything is cool? I guess it's not impossible, but it sure isn't those idiots dancing around in a thong at the gay pride parade and it isn't their political arm.

[swingdjted]

Look, being a forklift operator increases your chances of becoming involved in a forklift accident. I get that. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to become a forklift operator.

You're still blaming homosexuality for the problems of irresponsibility of promiscuity while assuming that gays are more promiscuous than they really are, and I'll admit, they might be somewhat more, but not as much as people typecast them to be.

But there's a fix to that. All you have to do is encourage the anti-promiscuous behavior by making it recognized as a good thing to be married. Having gay marriage legalized could potentially reduce the number of STDs in homosexuals, because it adds recognition and solidification to the monogamous bond between the two in the couple, making them less likely to sexually stray away so to speak.

Another thing that makes numbers very misleading is the fact that there isn't an even remotely valid way of measuring how many gays there are out there without these diseases. Nobody has a way to count healthy gays, and yet many people have very elaborate ways of counting unhealthy gays. That makes statistics much more difficult to compare.

[rockouthippie]

That doesn't mean that it's wrong to become a forklift operator.

They wouldn't let you have a license to drive a forklift if you had 44X more accidents than the average driver. Should you get a marriage license?

gays are more promiscuous than they really are

Everything points to the fact that they are far more promiscuous than they say they are. You make me laugh. 44X more likely to contract STD's. Promiscuous... nah... couldn't be.

All you have to do is encourage the anti-promiscuous behavior by making it recognized as a good thing to be married.

By all accounts that hasn't worked in the Netherlands. Their studies say married gays usually each have 12 extra lovers in a year. Straight couples have 0.2 extra lovers in a year.

Reports lately show gays say they have fewer partners than in the 90's, but the STD reports don't show it.

numbers very misleading

In the US:

How many gay/bi men have HIV? About 20%.

How many straight guys? Rounding to the nearest percent .... ZERO percent.

How many straights stay marry and stay married to the same person for life? About 25%. Our parents were about 50%.

How many gays stay with the same partner for life? About 0%

How much more expensive are men who engage in MSM contact in lifetime health care costs over the rest of us? About triple.

That's the math. There isn't anything misleading about it.

[swingdjted]

You missed the point of my forklift analogy. Far more than 44% of forklift accidents are caused by forklift operators. In other words, you're more then 44% more likely to cause a forklift accident if you're a forklift operator than if you're not. Should that mean I should ban the issuance of forklift licenses altogether? Gays, like forklift operators need to be taken on a person-by-person basis. You can't make an assumption based on others with the same label.

Sure there are a lot of misleading numbers, again, you, the CDC, and even I have no valid way to determine how many healthy gays there are out there.

Therefore the 20% is a guess or a hunch at best. How many gays stay with the same partner for life? How could you answer that with any degree of validity? How can you say triple health care costs if you can't tell who's msm and who's not?

That's not math, that's guessing based on very limited information.

I'm White. That gives me a very much increased chance of getting skin cancer compared to non-Whites. Thankfully I know that, and I can limit my exposure to the things that cause it and take protective measures to avoid it when I choose to be in an environment where the risk factors are increased. Some Whites don't know or willfully ignore, causing increased cases of skin cancer. Gays who have been taught about increased risk factors can do the same.

Finally, the biggest point that needs to be made is the fact that you'll never change the fact that people are homosexual, and therefore none of these numbers will change based on a choice to ban gay marriage, especially combined with the fact that the act of a homosexual marrying another homosexual does nothing to increase risk of disease. In other words, by defining marriage as between a man and a woman (and not same-sex) does nothing to medically help people at all, whatsoever.

[rockouthippie]

Therefore the 20% is a guess or a hunch at best.

Not a guess:

To get these numbers, CDC teams visited bars, dance clubs, and other venues frequented by gay and bisexual men in the 21 cities. They interviewed 8,153 self-identified gay and bisexual men who agreed to undergo HIV testing.

The findings:

19% of the men tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
28% of black, 18% of Hispanic, and 16% of white men tested positive for HIV.
44% of the men who tested positive for HIV had been unaware of their infection.
59% of black, 46% of Hispanic, and 26% of white men who tested positive for HIV were unaware of their infection.
63% of the HIV-positive men age 18-29 were unaware of their infection.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20100923/1-in-5-gay-bi-men-have-hiv-nearly-half-dont-know

Portland, about 18 miles from here is one of the cities. It's a big old gay town.

This study, the best one I could find in your favor says that married gay men may contract AIDS 13% less than their un-partnered counterparts. Most of the other studies say it's a wash. The best studies from the Netherlands (legal gay marriage since the early 90's) say gay marriage didn't do shit about disease.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/medical/health/medical/menshealth/story/2011-12-17/Legalized-same-sex-marriage-may-boost-gay-mens-health/52012738/1

What that tells you is what John McCain said: Gay marriage is a farce.

Not "just another lifestyle choice". A plague. A concentrated petri dish for STD's. 20 years off the average male lifespan on average. The reason almost no one at age 60 claims to be a homosexual is that they're dead.

The truth without civil rights bullshit.

[swingdjted]

The statistics above just identified validity problem: bars, dance clubs, and "other venues". Well, the numbers are likely much higher for people that frequent those places although I'll admit, that is a guess, but not an unreasonable one. I rarely go to bars, almost never. Nothing against bars; I may even open one someday as a little retirement project someday. Again, I'm guessing here, but I would say that people in general have a higher occurrence of STDs if they frequent bars, because an increased amount of people become more promiscuous as a result of drinking and socializing at a bar. That's not to say I should ban bars though. That's to say that bar-goers need to be taught to be careful, just like gays need to be taught to be careful with their increased risk. I've actually taught this at a previous job, including a sexual exposure chart (https://www.google.com/search?q=sexual+exposure+chart&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=Kpj&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=YpFXULnqN9LH0AHX8YGYCg&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1014) and the very good point you made about not knowing if someone (or even yourself) is infected with STDs.

I appreciate your posting of the married vs. non-married information, and I agree that it might not be a end-all fix, but I would add that straight marriage isn't an end-all fix either, but if it helps even just a few people without really harming anyone, why stop it?

But still, banning gay marriage does nothing to make people healthier, and it could maybe make people healthier to make gay marriage legal and/or recognized.

[rockouthippie]

The statistics above just identified validity problem: bars, dance clubs, and "other venues".

Where are you gonna find a date? Gay is uncommon. A reasonable statistic for how many gay men there are is about 1.4% of the population.

why stop it?

Because gay needs to stay taboo. It's not something for experimentation. If someone is on the fence, we need them playing for the home team.

marriage isn't an end-all fix either

No but that's because in my parents generation they started making it trivial. I think an extension of that is allowing gay marriage.

This is not about banning gay marriage. It's about allowing gay marriage. The default state is banned. It's been that way for thousands of years. Tolerating gay activity is one thing. Condoning it or making it mainstream is preposterous.

[swingdjted]

It is harder in some ways to find a date, especially a healthy one if you're gay. Some resort to online options including setting up social events that aren't quite so heavy on the booze as a bar. I'd have to admit though, it would be harder. Despite this, of my straight vs. gay friends, the gays/lesbians seem to be more successful at finding someone. I could speculate one reason or another, but honestly I'm not sure how it became the case.

Taboo isn't really something that is a game changer, and when it is, it usually results in more cases of defiance than compliance when you really think about it, and that could partially explain all the risky multi-partner, unprotected behavior.

I think marriage in general really has been cheapened across the board, but I wouldn't say that homosexual marriages is a reason. I think really the hidden underlying decision is whether or not someone feels a homosexual life-bond is right or wrong based on personal morals and values, not so much on health statistics. Some people have decided that it's just "wrong", after all, Mother Nature designed human sex organs a certain way for a reason. But, I argue that there's more than procreation to a marriage, far more, enough to say that procreation is not the top priority for a marriage, but that's still just my personal opinion.

I have even suggested in conversations (at leas for the sake of discussion) to end all government recognition of marriage. It's just not fair that Renee and I get to enjoy goodies that the non-married don't get. What if someone was born with something that mostly prevents them from being able to find a spouse? What if someone falls so in love with someone, that they can't possibly be with someone else, and then their loved one dies prior to getting married? What if someone just doesn't want to get married?

What about pairs of people that are co-dependent that aren't romantic e.g. brothers, or sisters, or mother-daughter, or room mates, etc. that have no interest in being married? Why can't they get what Renee and I have from the government when they're just as co-dependent as we are? For example, I know a pair of twins, never married, in their 60's, always lived together and shared resources. Both professors at the same college. Why can't they have one insurance policy or tax form that covers both the way a husband could for a wife?

How about in-love, co-habitation couples that refuse to get married because one earns too much money at a job and would make the other ineligible for their enjoyed government cheese for them and their kids? How is that fair to a married couple with a stay-at-home-mom that can't get that cheese? Some states have "common-law" marriage I guess.

How about people that get married for money? Maybe one is terminally ill and wants to give a life insurance policy or pension or other benefits at the expense of the more honest and fair payers-in. Maybe one is in the business of marrying a rich person and then divorcing for keeping half.

Getting rid of government-recognized marriage could actually help solve these kinds of problems, even including the one we've been discussing all along. The marriage would be less focused on bullshit and more on people's own values, morals, religions, and/or beliefs. The rest ideally shouldn't matter anyway. People should marry under their own terms unless the marriage itself poses measurable harm to others. Then it would matter a lot less if two homosexuals were considered married if you were a person that didn't accept it.

[rockouthippie]

OK, so if I get you right, you think that we should allow gay marriage because we allowed a bunch of other bullshit we shouldn't and therefore it would only be fair?

/me shakes head

I think I heard that logic from a teenage daughter once. She would have been just a little younger than you are.

[swingdjted]

Not at all.

I was originally saying allow gay marriage because it hurts no one. On the other hand, in my last post I offered another option worth considering of just having our governing bodies get rid of their part in marriages and leave it to non-state bodies e.g. religions. All-or-none I guess. I don't see it as fair to tell some people it's ok and encouraged and tell the minority that it can't be recognized or accepted.

Default arguments are about as good as saying slavery was the default for extremely long periods and therefore we should keep it. Women couldn't vote by default, etc. Sometimes it really is better to change in an effort to help a different-than-majority person out.

[rockouthippie]

Do you think the traditional burning of homosexuals by middle ages European societies was taken on lightly? They just got tired of their peckers falling off. Gee.... the Bible here says it's a bad idea to sleep with other men.. Let's adopt that. Then their peckers fell off a lot less and everyone said it was good. 1 wife. Missionary style. No cheating. No oral sex. Perfect. No dicks falling off. If they caught anybody being gay, they burned em'

If there was just this little minority of guys who would have engaged in homosexual activity do you think they would have went to all the trouble of smoking gay guys?

I think if this had no taboo, it would be a catastrophe. I think we'd be back to the smoking.

Now go teach the boy to smack each other on the ass with a towel and call each other fag. It is our survival.

[rockouthippie]

I don't think I was really clear about this. We have mostly removed the social stigma from divorce, living together, pre-marital sex and arguably drugs. It's a disaster.

You don't think that if we remove the social stigma from MSM sexual contact that we will have a lot more people at least experimenting with it?

What if that 1.4% men engaged in MSM contact turned into 14%? What if those 500,000 HIV+ guys were 5 million? I don't think we're born gay or straight. I think we are born to bugger anything that will hold still long enough.

That's why we have laws and customs about our sexual behavior. We already have a country where nobody knows who their daddy is. 1 in 10 women wandering around with chlamydia. Only half my generation ever got married. 40% of my generation caught herpes. HPV is so bad, now we're inoculating little girls.

Damn. We're hitting the gas, when we should be hitting the brakes.

Even if you are a gay guy, you've got to understand that this is not something that should be mainstreamed. It needs to be wrong to be gay. Otherwise, it's a slaughter.

You're going to say that education and safe sex practices will cure all ills. Has it? I think everyone has got the basic information to wear a condom. It's not a secret. If it were true, you don't think the last 40 years of sex education would have fixed this? It's worse.

When we make things socially acceptable... if it feels good, do it.... people will do it... which is why we have an STD problem that's epidemic in proportions. We have a double divorce rate of our grandparents. Half of us never get married. Illegitimacy is massive. Poverty is up. We're turning into a bunch of drugged, sick, poor people.

We need to somehow clean up our media. Civilized people don't go bed hopping, but it's portrayed as something almost admirable. We need to make Charlie Sheen really lose and make Brittany put some clothes on.

Get back in the closet. We got enough trouble. Keep your powder dry and your pecker in your pocket. And bulldoze the sex clubs. Even the straight ones. And I think we make a first amendment exception for pornography.

The liberal idea... when someone throws a punch, lean into it.

Why are we sick and fucked up and don't know who our daddy is? Why do we do abortions in a factory on an assembly line? Because somebody had the bright idea to make that more or less acceptable. The flower children decided conventionality was just too restrictive. We are paying for it now.

It was my folks generation that started this crap. If you ask the now 70 year old hippies about what they think, I think they'd honestly tell you they screwed up big time. A lot of the abortion advocates from the 70's have recanted... 50 million abortions and counting.... they didn't mean that! ... uh... oops....

There were about 10 years of "free love", but it caught up in my generation with some really nasty epidemics. Homosexuals in 80 were dying all over the place from some unknown disease and everybody got herpes. Yay!

1969-1980.... the summer of love... and then the music died... But we kept going like nothing was wrong....

[swingdjted]

Eating pork was made wrong by the Bible because of health issues associated with it. Then people figured out how to eat pork safely. So is it still wrong?

[rockouthippie]

Yeah... but we haven't figured out how to make sex safe... that requires self restraint we can't expect from people.... We haven't figured out what to do with a bunch of kids who don't know who their daddy is...

If you eat some pork, it's not gonna give you HIV 20% of the time.

If it did, you wouldn't eat pork.