The Hill publishes ‘hate science.’
By on Apr 13th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
The Hill publishes ‘hate science.’
John Aravosis details how The Hill (and several leading cultural conservative groups) have published the work of David Cameron, who heads an organization labeled a “hate group” by the respected Southern Poverty Law Center. Some of what Cameron espouses:
He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that “extermination of homosexuals” might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.
Much more HERE.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Oh isn’t he just a cuddlebug..
April 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pmHate is a common specialty among the 29 percenters.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pmMy “final solution” (monogamous sex within marriage) would be easier and save a lot of bloodshed . . .
April 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pmWe are many, they are few.
This is the death gasp of a discredited ideology.
-GSD
April 13th, 2007 at 4:18 pmthe rotting souls allow one to smell idiots like these from a mile away.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pmA warning that these Straussian NeoCons are excellerating thier plans for a dictatorship in this country. Everything is in place to do it legally thanks to Patriot I, II and assorted presidential signings that Hill calls the “cultural conservative “, but better known as the the Straussian NeoCons. Welcome to the New World Order!
April 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pmWhen someone shows you who they REALLY are, BELIEVE THEM!
April 13th, 2007 at 4:24 pmJake sez:
First of all, Jake, nice choice of words with “final solution”. Your admiration of the Nazis is breathtaking.
Second, would the gays also be permitted this ‘monogamous sex within marriage’? They’d pretty much have to for your ‘final solution’ to make any sense. Can we then infer that you’re an advocate of gay marriage?
Feel free to respond to me, but by using your pathetic ‘for the record’ line to avoid responding directly to me. Everyone here knows how much I frighten you.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:25 pmHey, this is America! We do not condone hate speech or open bigotry against a group of people.
Disclaimer: Unless they are Muslim, African/American, Mexican/American, Asian/American, Women (especially black women), or anyone else on our current hate list.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pm#6 JT
Sad but true. What do we do about it?
I have an idea!. How about a party by the banks of Potomac?
For entertainment we toss all the politicians, the Executive branch and the judiciary into the river, pull the Consitution from the Library of Congress and start all over again.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmWhen you get a chance, support the Matthew Shepard Bill:
http://www.matthewshepard.org/ si…mes_Legislation
formerly called The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA).
Time to end the hate, the violence, and the bashing.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmMy “final solution†(monogamous sex within marriage) would be easier and save a lot of bloodshed . . . Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Says the 12 year old boy, that’s never been married…
No bloodshed within marriage – that’s a funny delusion! ;)
April 13th, 2007 at 4:33 pmJTitor:
When Bush does not step down on January 20, 2009, look me up.
Webster:
I’m opposed to “hate-crime” enhancements based on principle — much better to increase the sentences in the underlying crime than pick and choose politically-correct victims.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:33 pmSo Jake, then are you going to support a constitutional amendment that prohibits remarriage, and divorce in all cases except adultery the way your *bible* says?
Remember, that makes it a criminal penalty for adultery, including any *sex* or *dating* after divorce.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pmFor the record, I am currently reviewing records of the 1,500 wives who are killed by their husbands each year for my hypothesis below: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/wolfowitz-family-planning/
I am not in favor of ANY bloodshed within marriage.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pmTell us again, Chuckles, how you’re opposed to same-sex marriage because one of the outcomes could be that everyone will get married to someone of the same sex and society would fall apart as a result. We just can’t wait to hear more of your fairy tales.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pmI’m opposed to “hate-crime†enhancements based on principle — much better to increase the sentences in the underlying crime than pick and choose politically-correct victims. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
So Jake denies some people are victimized purely out of bigotry and hate crimes. Ironic coming come from a bigot.
Tell me Jake, are you tired of fearing getting caught for Gay Bashing and going to jail for being the bigot you are?
You’re a pervert Jake, did you know that?
April 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pmYou gotta be a might big wimp to be this afraid of gays.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pmFeel free to respond to me, but by using your pathetic ‘for the record’ line to avoid responding directly to me. Everyone here knows how much I frighten you. Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 13, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
Yeah, the *irony* of a man that claims to be a veteran, who’s such a *coward* when it comes to responding to words. Good thing people like him weren’t defending the country during the revolution. Oh wait, I remember some B. Arnold fellow that sounds a lot like Jake!
April 13th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAnn Coulter as head of Health and Human Services!
-GSD
April 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pmFor the record, I am currently reviewing records of the 1,500 wives who are killed by their husbands each year for my hypothesis below: http://thinkprogress.org/ 2007/ 04/ 13/ wolfowitz-family-planning/ I am not in favor of ANY bloodshed within marriage.Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
Is that the same thread where you thought Google showed a million murders during their honeymoon, because you didn’t know how to use ”the tubes” and google? BAHAHA, yeah, that was great fun showing you what an IDIOT you are!
So your “final solution” doesn’t work, yet you want it! We call that a delusion – idiot. You know, otherwise known as YOUR LIFE!
April 13th, 2007 at 4:39 pmYou gotta be a might big wimp to be this afraid of gays.
Comment by USA — April 13, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
He’s afraid they’re going to want to trim his *ss hairs, and blind him! ;)
April 13th, 2007 at 4:40 pmDo they really not know about Google, Wikipedia, or have Lexis Nexis access; or do they just not effing care?
April 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pmneocon axiom #1 = 99.9% of the people are too stupid to be told the truth. To lead you must lie to them. The so-called virtuous lie (Plato)
neocon axiom #2 = Any government can be overthrown by appealing to the primal fears of the people. (Machiavelli)
Republickin axium#1 = Our base is the stupidest of the stupid and the more pathetic and/or ugly the lie, the more our base will buy into it. (Karl Rove, Frank Luntz)
Faggot, gay marriage, same sex marriage, sanctity of marriage
Islamofacists, feminazis, agitators, activists judges, ghetto, terrorist, follow us home, defeatists, integrationists, secular humanist, atheists, war czar, cut off funding for the troops, voter fraud, at the pleasure of the president, quotas, reverse racism, happy holidays(anti-Christian), wet back, shadow diplomacy, one more F.U., the surge is working … [place the lie or primal fear that gets you going here].
April 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pmJake,
I’m opposed to “hate-crime†enhancements based on principle — much better to increase the sentences in the underlying crime than pick and choose politically-correct victims.
Go tell Matthew Shepard’s mother that, will you? And then report back.
You idiot.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:46 pmIt’s Paul Cameron not David. The Box Turtle Bulletin has a lot of info.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:49 pmMy “final solution†(monogamous sex within marriage) would be easier and save a lot of bloodshed . . . Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
And Jake, I am still waiting to see the numbers you have on how many people with only one lifelong sexual partner have marriages where both partners enjoy sex. Again, yours does not count unless Mrs. Jake herself lets us know she happily enjoys sex with you.
On the last thread where you talked about this and this thread, you conveniently leave out the “enjoy” part. There is no doubt that there are monogamous people. Give a number or pecentage of those where both partners enjoy sex.
*chirp* *shirp*
April 13th, 2007 at 4:54 pmCrickets are loud today…..
Bluedahlia:
That can be YOUR hypothesis, if you’d like — I will stick with mine for now, unless I get a stipulation that there’s been MILLIONS of monogamous marriages throughout history — that, and the KNOWN FACT that doing so now would eliminate the HIV/AIDS crisis.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:03 pmwould be easier and save a lot of bloodshed . . . Comment by Jake
So, Jake. Are you saying you want the women to be pregnant constantly as well? That would save a lot of blood shed too.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:10 pmthat, and the KNOWN FACT that doing so now would eliminate the HIV/AIDS crisis.
Comment by Jake
WRONG AGAIN!!!! HIV/AIDS is not caused by soley by non-monogamous sex , but by shared needles and transfer of fluid contact from an infected person to a non-infected person.
Sheesh! Even a college dropout is calling you wrong, what is this world coming to?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pmJake,
April 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pmWhat is good about “forcing” (through guilt from religion or because they feel they are doing their “duty”)people to be virgins when they marry and then stay monogomous if one or both is unhappy?
You know that sex is not the only way to recieve AIDS/HIV, right? So that won’t work. Period. Even if people could or would want to have sex with only one person their whole life. Can you not see that? Is defending an idea to the death worth it, or is it to hard to see the inherent flaws in this hypothesis?
If it has worked for you and your wife and one of you hasn’t become resentful and angry because there is something missing inyour sex life, well great. I think you have survived lottery odds. But that still doesn’t give the rest of the population very good odds.
Well I guess he could start with the Vice President’s daughter. Any response Mary?
RIP
Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
Or as the POTUS calls him,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,comma #1462
April 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pmSo what?
Anyone seen what Imus did? Now THAT is bad… executing gays in comparison is nothing.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:55 pmBluedahlia:
It wouldn’t be a “crisis” if everyone had sex only within their OWN marriage — that’s what I’m saying — I know there are other methods of transmission (that are, what, 0.00001% of the total infections through sex?).
April 13th, 2007 at 5:58 pmJake, the topic has nothing to do with you and sex. It has to do with the Nazi tactics of the neocons.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:10 pmApril 13th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
For the record, I understand the “topic” is about how our hero, Aravosis, has attacked the big, bad enemy, Cameron — I don’t agree we need the forced “extermination of homosexuals†either — as I said, my “final solution†was monogamous sex within marriage only. That’s possible as a reasonable middle ground, right?
April 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pmJake,
Did you miss the point or ignore it? Why do you continue to cherry pick only some parts? Have you even acknowledged that there is more to your statement than 1 man 1 woman monogomous marriage and AIDS. Nothing is just one thing that will work for everyone.
It wouldn’t be a “crisis†if everyone had sex only within their OWN marriage
Possibly, but we will NEVER know because what you propose could never, ever happen. And even if it did,(which it couldn’t) there would be other crisis’ like more murder within marraige, depression, suicide, AND the AIDS problem still wouldn’t be solved because sex is not the only way it is spread.
I can imagine if Jake got to be GOD for a day. After the first hour when he whereas he smote the entire human race, only to be left with himself, maybe he would see that things can be a whole lot more complicated than black/white. LOL
Sorry guys, I am officially done engaging the troll. It’s just that I have fallen into the trap that if only the obvious is pointed out, someone who is a thinking human being can be reasoned with. My mistake.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pmBluedahlia:
I can be reasoned with — if you want to continue and think I missed something you asked above, please point it out — I certainly never saw you ask me to “Have you even acknowledged that there is more to your statement than 1 man 1 woman monogomous marriage and AIDS.” I would also be happy to discuss “other crises” but note I never said the entire AIDS problem would be solved. I already admitted that sex is not the only way the virus is spread, but the few remaining cases wouldn’t be a crisis anymore, right? It is “possible” — you are just not thinking globally.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:10 pmIn fact, from my post @ 5:58 pm: “I know there are other methods of transmission” — if you don’t want to answer my questions, though, that’s fine with me.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:12 pmI can be reasoned with Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
All evidence available disproves this.
— if you want to continue and think I missed something you asked above, please point it out Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
The fact you need it pointed out, proves your inability to be reasoned with.
— I certainly never saw you ask me to “Have you even acknowledged that there is more to your statement than 1 man 1 woman monogomous marriage and AIDS.†Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Yeah, like secret Meth man drug use that can still f*ck up partners that are being *good*?
I would also be happy to discuss “other crises†but note I never said the entire AIDS problem would be solved. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
So men staying in the closet and getting married, while sneaking around with their Meth and Man-Wh*res is better? You’re a bigot, an ignorant idiot, and a human piece of sh*t you hateful little excrement.
I already admitted that sex is not the only way the virus is spread, but the few remaining cases wouldn’t be a crisis anymore, right? It is “possible†— you are just not thinking globally. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Uhm, rape, incest, secret affairs, yeah, none of those happen…
While we’re on “Globally” most, spreading of AIDS is heterosexual and within a marriage. Didn’t know that, did you, you ignorant j*ck*ss?
April 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pmIn fact, from my post @ 5:58 pm: “I know there are other methods of transmission†— if you don’t want to answer my questions, though, that’s fine with me. Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Yeah, and there’s such a thing as a *condom*, which is what’s learned in SEX-EDUCATION that you don’t want to happen that prevents it. What spreads disease isn’t sex, it’s unsafe practices – period. Those may or may not involve sex.
You’re a f*ck*ng piece of sh*t Jake. You’re the reason abortions exist – too bad your mom didn’t have one when her father r*p*d her.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pmCorrection alert: It’s Paul Cameron, not David Cameron.
The guy is so batshit crazy both the American Psychological Association and American Sociological Association threw him out of their organizations.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pmCorrection alert: It’s Paul Cameron, not David.
And, he’s so batshit insane that both the American Psychological Assn. and American Sociological Assn. threw him out of their organizations.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:47 pmThis Cameron fellow seems dangerous enough…
…to be taken seriously…
April 13th, 2007 at 9:09 pmI understand that this dude is an a$$hole and everything – but I’m not seeming to understand what was actually wrong with this particular “study”, other than it was conducted by him. I realize that taints him and his group in a particular way. But looking around and following the magic ball, I haven’t found anyone that’s offered anything to discredit his so-called “study” other than to cite things that he has said in the past. And I’d like to have that information if someone can point me in its direction.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:22 pmJake suggested that the “solution” to the AIDs epidemic is to only have sex within monogamous marriage.
That is only correct if you consider the “solution” to driving fatalities is to take everyone’s driver’s license away and force them to take public transportation.
And I do wonder what the punishment will be for having sex outside monogamous marriage. Surely the punishment would need to be harsh to truly stop the practice, right? Or is Jake’s solution more like “well, if we all just agreed to not have sex outside marriage…,” which is equivalent to solving crime by having everyone “agree” not to cheat, steal, or murder.
Jake there is no way your plan would work. Sexuality is an expression of the human condition. It is not a crime nor should it be treated as one. We simply need to educate the young and ignorant about how to have sex safely. And yes, part—but only part–of that education should include teaching the relative benefits of monogamy and the dangers of casual sex.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm#46 Let’s put it this way, Rufus. Dr. Mengela had many studies that actually had valid results. Didn’t mean he wasn’t a sadistic, sick, motherf$cker.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm#46 The Nazis liked branding their study subjects too.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:30 pm#46 By the way, you fake, if you want to see his study debunked just Google “Paul Cameron debunked”. It is pretty simple.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:55 pmTry that, Rufus.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:57 pmI am not in favor of ANY bloodshed within marriage.
Comment by Jake — April 13, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
I guess she wasn’t a virgin, Jake. You putz.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:15 pmThe United States Constitution is nothing more than an old piece of paper which the Republicans and Conservatives would like to burn. Some of these people want to turn this country into a dictatorship so they can complete Hitler’s final solution. The conservative movement is made up primarily of hateful A holes who say they want smaller government, but what they really mean is a few of them running things. If the founding fathers could get up from their graves they’d start fighting these idiots for control as they did against Britian. If you doubt this just read the writting of Thomas Jefferson and some of the other early leaders and Presidents.
Why any fool would want one party control is beyond any comprehension. I challenge anyone including ignorant Jake to give one example of a sucessful dictatorship. That’s right Jake, you can’t because there are none. People like you should be put out of America and sent to the middle east where tin horn dictators are plentiful. Maybe then you could get rid of all of the undesirables like gays, blacks, hispanics, and women. Oh, that’s right, you might need a few ignorant women like Ann (Hitler loving) Coulter to repopulate the country.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:17 pm#52 Heh. Well, he does know that it isn’t 100% so maybe she told him she had a gymnastics accident.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pmHate is a common specialty among the 29 percenters.
Comment by VerbalKint — April 13, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Are these the “29 percenters?” These folks tend to spew some serious hate:
You’re a f*ck*ng piece of sh*t Jake. You’re the reason abortions exist – too bad your mom didn’t have one when her father r*p*d her.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 13, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
I guess she wasn’t a virgin, Jake. You putz.
Comment by SKdeA — April 13, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
The conservative movement is made up primarily of hateful A holes…
Comment by The Unknown Democrat — April 13, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
Didn’t know that, did you, you ignorant j*ck*ss?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 13, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
It’s always interesting to read a comment section that starts with a statement about how hateful conservatives are and then see just how few posts appear before these types of comments begin. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:42 am#55 Of course CC. How nice of you to drop by. Would you like a scone?
April 14th, 2007 at 12:49 am#55 Of course CC. How nice of you to drop by. Would you like a scone?
Comment by JPark — April 14, 2007 @ 12:49 am
No thanks, just a valid response. I do, however, appreciate your civility.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:55 am#55 Of course CC. How nice of you to drop by. Would you like a scone?
Comment by JPark
Don’t forget to offer tea and jammy dodgers. :P
April 14th, 2007 at 1:00 amDon’t forget to offer tea and jammy dodgers. :P
Comment by Zooey — April 14, 2007 @ 1:00 am
Now that’s progress.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:11 amand next they will isolate the one eyed one horned flying purple people eaters…
so much to object to in this statement, but Leper colonies? That’s so progressive of him…
April 14th, 2007 at 1:13 amIt’s always interesting to read a comment section that starts with a statement about how hateful conservatives are and then see just how few posts appear before these types of comments begin. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Says the *sshole that defends Jake, the troll that this morning said the NYTimes building should be bombed.
Yeah, I’m the one filled with hate for calling someone that is nothing but a petty terrorist a piece of sh*t.
You CONS sure can pick your friends. Why don’t you go give the Saudi prince a pucker – *ssh*le.
Indeed, you CONS shouldn’t be throwing stones, yet here you are, acting like the *ssh*les we expect.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:15 amNo thanks, just a valid response. I do, however, appreciate your civility. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 12:55 am
When you defend those that advocate murder and terrorism, you shouldn’t expect civility *ssh*le. Any more than I would imagine you would be civil to Osama? Then again, maybe you would, he is after all one of YOURS (conservative religious *ssw*pe).
April 14th, 2007 at 1:16 amComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 14, 2007 @ 1:15 am
I haven’t defended anyone. I only pointed out the inconsistency of accusing a group of people of being basically hateful, then following that up with post after post filled with vile, hateful language. Apparently it made you quite angry that your posts figure prominently as examples. But, then again, that seems representative of your posts (not unexpected considering your user name). My point is that it is possible to disagree in discussion without being hateful and nasty. You lessen the effectiveness of your arguments by being guilty of the very thing you are railing against.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:34 amThanks, JPark #50. Your link was entirely useless but by googling what you suggested, I found this deconstruction of his study. It is fairly simple to debunk but it seemed to take that author some considerable effort to properly frame the context in which Cameron was using the data to demonstrate its fallacy. I posed the question because in none of the links provided here @ TP or in the AB post did I find anything that credibly refuted the methodology employed by this quack.
I was only asking because this was the first I had heard of this particular “study” and knew I could look forward to hearing it in discussions with my family and friends, as well as regurgitated on the talk radio circuit. Thank you so much for referring to me as a “fake”. You know jack s**t about me or my political orientations. You wouldn’t know that I have met the head of the HRC and put him on statewide television in a deep south state. You wouldn’t know that I regularly sign petitions and/or write my congressmen to support LGBT issues. And you wouldn’t know that I do these things because I believe in equality for all – not because I am gay.
It’s about time I was ignorantly called out by reactionaries on my own side, I guess. For the record, I’m a Menshevik.
I’ll await your icepick, traitor.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:53 amI haven’t defended anyone. I only pointed out the inconsistency of accusing a group of people of being basically hateful, then following that up with post after post filled with vile, hateful language. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:34 am
So you think calling someone that calls for mass murder a piece of sh*t is hateful? How ‘pc’ of you.
Apparently it made you quite angry that your posts figure prominently as examples. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:34 am
Angry? Project much? I’m not *angry*, nothing you hateful piece of sh*ts say surprise me anymore. But I’m going to call you all, exactly what you are. That’s not *hateful*, it’s descriptive. Learn the difference, junior.
But, then again, that seems representative of your posts (not unexpected considering your user name). Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:34 am
My name derives from the troll Valiant Venus, who’s famous here for making dead baby jokes about her own dead child (we’re all sure is fake).
My point is that it is possible to disagree in discussion without being hateful and nasty. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:34 am
Tell that to your fellow trolls that come here and say such hateful nasty things. They and you are *guests* here on a progressive blog. Yet you come sh*t on the place like its yours. You don’t like being called an *ssh*le – stop acting like one.
You lessen the effectiveness of your arguments by being guilty of the very thing you are railing against. Comment by CC — April 14, 2007 @ 1:34 am
Ditto, that’s exactly what you and your *ssh*le friends do when you come and troll here with your *ssh*le posts. You lessen your arguments by being *ssh*les. Pointing out you’re an *ssh*le doesn’t lessen our argument, it puts you and yours in the proper context.
Catch a clue, clueless one. You’re defending people that are acting like d*cks. By that very act you become one of them.
April 14th, 2007 at 3:31 amGuys, Jake isn’t being overly objectionable here. Monogamy would help against the AIDS crisis, even serial monogamy where people divorce and remarry, and I haven’t seen him saying anything against Gay Marriage.
Personally, I feel the solution is a moral one, not a legal one, and that you should marry someone before having sex with them, you should go and get tested before you get married and you should know your status.
Unlike most Christians I actually do practice what I preach on this. (Okay, I live in South Africa, which has horrific AIDS statistics, which adds a certain incentive to the whole thing.)
Sex before or during marriage shouldn’t be legislated against, and personally I am against prostitution being illegal too, but there is nothing wrong with putting out the message that one should keep a certain degree of control of oneself and not screw everything that moves. Keeping it in your pants may not solve the AIDS crisis all on its own, but it helps.
Not using dirty needles, thorough testing on donated blood, and people being honest with each other and getting tested should help too.
The main thing we need to do is move away from being a sex-based society, where sex is the defining feature of one’s masculinity or femininity, both in the positive and negative, towards a morality based society.
Sex is a basic, if enjoyable, natural function. It is sold to us via everything in our entertainment industry, but it doesn’t change the fact that in real terms it is not the defining feature of our lives. We need to stop treating it like it is.
What this means? First off, a guy gets an extramarital blowjob, but on balance he is good at his job and a nice person: Still a nice person who is good at his job.
A guy is absolutely faithful to a wife he beats? He is still a wife beater.
While morality should play a part in it, the basis of that morality should be concern for one’s partner, as should the basis of all morality, not concern for one’s own soul.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:36 amComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — April 14, 2007 @ 3:31 am
Unfortunately I don’t have time to respond to each of your statements directly. You refer to my ******* friends here. I know no one here, nor have I addressed any comment to any poster who seems to agree with me. I’ve only attempted to engage those with whom I disagree for the purpose of discussion, not for vile, hateful exchanges. You say I come and **** on the place like it’s mine. Please show me one post where I’ve said anything that is anywhere near as vile as yours. Now if you consider any disagreement with you to be objectionalble, I guess there is no point in discussing anything with you anyway. I doubt that was the goal of the creators of this site or they wouldn’t let others post. And as for your name referring to someone who makes jokes about her dead baby; if she does, she is obviously very disturbed and you make fun of this? And you hold yourself in such high esteem because you defend gays? I think making fun of mentally disturbed people kind of trumps that.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:22 amBTW, AIDS can be acquired too by mean of a blood transfusion. There have been a series of cases of AIDS being transmitted by contaminated batches of blood bags.
Think of it when you need a transfusion due to a major surgery, or think also in the many soldiers coming from Iraq that need a transfusion. If they acquire AIDS unadvertedly, what would happen to their wifes/husbands? Or if they give blood for transfusions in turn?
Retugs, AIDS isn’t simply a God’s punishment for gays and cheating partners. It’s an illness and all means must be used to combat him. Including condoms and vaccines, that aren’t “free rides pass” to have sex.
April 16th, 2007 at 7:31 amJake and the rest of those of you forget that we are dealing with the fraility and failablities of humans. People, that is what we are dealing with here, make mistakes. They stray from marriage, they have sex before marriage. This is not a new phenomenom. Even in times when the punishment was dire for such acts, people still strayed, they still got pregnant outside of marriage. It is all fine and dandy to say they shouldn’t but the likelyhood that it is possible is slim. Of course, it is possible for some but for some unknown reason some are not able turn away from temptation. If you believe in God one would have to suppose he created man this way. If you believe in science, perhaps this is the natural way of things. As for aids/ hiv victims, are you forgetting the children that for no fault of there own are infected? How about medical staff that become infected through their employment? How about victims of crime that become infected? Who are you that can say they or one of their family won’t be a victim of this disease. We must find a cure and quit arguiing about how people are infected and how the disease originated at this point it makes absolutely no difference.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:57 amBTW, AIDS can be acquired too by mean of a blood transfusion….
Retugs, AIDS isn’t simply a God’s punishment for gays and cheating partners. It’s an illness and all means must be used to combat him. Including condoms and vaccines, that aren’t “free rides pass†to have sex.
Comment by Evil Spaniard — April 16, 2007 @ 7:31 am
The fact that there are other ways to transmit AIDS was mentioned, as well as the fact that those cases were the minority in the beginning of the crisis. For the record, not all conservatives believe AIDS is a curse from God. Many believe that it was a natural occurance from the failure to control sin in our lives just like every other bad thing that happens to people. And no, I’m not saying that every person who is ill is ill because of their sin directly. It is a general symptom of our sick society. Not that I expect to convince anyone here. And I agree that we need to work to find new treatments and, hopefully, a cure. But honestly, we all know that drug users and promiscuous people do consider the needle/condom give aways a license to continue their destructive, irresponsible behavior. Fortunately for them, most people hate to see human suffering and agree with the search for a cure.
April 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am