(Post Deleted. Hopefully...)
(Post Deleted. Hopefully...)
Last edited by FE21; 20th July 2012 at 2:42 AM. Reason: offensive/bad/I shouldn't have posted this
I'm reading that the questionaire doesn't ask whether you are gay, but whether or not you've had sex with other men or women. Which is...subtly different. At first glance, it's not really discriminatory because it has a solid reasoning behind it: there is a apparently a higher rate of HIV and other STD's amongst sexually active gay men and women, and they don't want to pay for inspecting the blood if they're going to get contaminated blood too often. So basically, it's a combination of a medical reason and a limit to $$$. Not disciminatory, but they could definately do better to make it so that they don't look so damn discriminatory.
It doesn't make sense to me anyway; instead of turning away people who are gay and sexually active, why not at least allow them to give blood if they give documentation of a full physical and testing for all sorts of STD's on their own time and their own insurance? It's dumb to turn away someone who wants to donate blood. They could easily compromise.
I don't see too much of a risk of lying in order to donate blood...I highly doubt that it will get under their radar if there's anything wrong with it.
I'm allowed to be a camp councilor, when some of the kids are girls, when it should be obvious to everyone that because I'm a man I have perverse interest in children.
Can someone lend a towel? I'm sick of dripping in sarcasm.
Following that path of logic is absurd, but whatever, the world isn't going to change.
I don't understand why aspirations levied against you were retracted based on this. Why should religious conviction give you the right to dislike something? <.< *cough*I would say that is not necessarily true. My reasons for opposing homosexuality are based in my religious convictions. I have no inherent dislike of homosexuals. I do take what the Bible says about homosexuality as a sin seriously. It does me no good to hate homosexuals merely for being effeminate or being attracted to the same sex. I don't approve of christians (or anyone for that matter) bashing homosexuals with derogatory remarks. There are people who dislike homosexuals merely for those reasons I previously stated. But please don't assume that all religious people hate homosexuals merely because we don't understand them. I have spent much thought about this subject before coming to the conclusions that I have.
I take it you're alright with the killing of women who aren't virgins on their wedding night. Perhaps you also believe that a woman is unclean for sixty six(?) days after giving birth to a girl, and only thirty three(?) days after giving birth to a boy. Right? Riiighhhttt?
If you are willing to pick and choose your beliefs(which you clearly do, as you would likely be imprisoned if you obeyed the Bible word for word), like so many of your faith do; why not overlook the absurdity that perpetuates the persecution of a trait people are born with?
Last edited by Zevn; 19th July 2012 at 9:38 PM.
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
Gandalf to Saruman
why should your personal logic give you the right to support homosexuality?
no one needs any reason to like or dislike anything.
there are no opinion police.
we have the freedom to form whatever opinions we want for whatever reason.
even if he was picking and choosing, which he is probably not, he has the right to do so.
He has the right to do so, and everyone else has the right to 'levy aspirations' against him. There are no opinion police, but there are social expectations that many people share. Just like many people quietly respect someone's practices if they happen to religious and find it impolite to tell them their religion is wrong, other people find it impolite and too forward to say that homosexuality is wrong.
The right to free speech works both ways. It does not make it any less a right for us to scold each other for saying something particular than it is to say something. The right to free speech makes it so that we can't make it against the law to express ourselves in a certain way. It doesn't make sense to invoke it when someone accuses you of being rude because they are just as free to accuse you. It's freedom of speech, not freedom to have the last word.
*Oh, and all your posts are well writen, just FYI
because unlike Islamic Republics we don't stone people for being gay
says the man who supports homosexual marriage
Since the genetic theory of homosexuality only applies to males, does that mean that male and female homosexuality is different somehow?
I think a lot of us get the idea that while institutionalized Christianity is against extremism like stoning gay people, it's not for lack of trying to get there. I also think a lot of us get the idea that Christians who support gay marriage support it in spite of their Christianity, that Christian movements become more progressive because of outside perspectives. Of course, nothing changes without respect to how it already is, so there's always a connection to existing Christian practices, but the catalyst is mostly attributed to the outside, the other.
If we could find a monotheistic theocracy with laws based on their holy book and traditional practice without pandering to the diversity of cultures in their nation, then we'd have a safe metric in which to see what a religion could truly do without outside pressure. And the only real example of that seems to be the Islamic Republics.
*Underlining used to specify that I'm talking about what the case seems to be, not what I sincerely believe. For all I know, this hypthesis is completely wrong. Maybe the true face of Christianity is the mainstream Christianity. It's all so fractured, it's hard to ever say anything for certain and logically feel right about it. Plus, although I consider myself a Christian, here I'm talking about the Christianity that is not so sorely conflicted about the Bible.
Last edited by CSolarstorm; 20th July 2012 at 11:59 PM.
Probably a better statement would be, "It's simply not possible for a society to do that legally in the U.S."
Last edited by CSolarstorm; 21st July 2012 at 12:03 AM.
(don't read with a raised voice... just asking questions)
We riot after our sports teams win championships!!! How can you say "It's not possible."? It's frighteningly easy. Mob mentality is a Stone's throw(Yeah... I went there) from looting. I'm inclined to believe we are to close to being able to cast stones than being above it. There just aren't enough police to truly handle the populace if they decide to take matters into their own hands.
Key word being 'legally'. I'm talking about an entire society within the US getting away with openly making a law that homosexuality has be punished with stoning, and getting away with it without intervention to protect someone from a murder under federal law.
I'm sure a mob can together and easily stone people if they put their mind to it. : /
The question is then, if a mob could do it, why aren't they doing it?