Think there's no proof for evolution? Have a cigarette!

[musicman]

around 1800 years ago convinces so many people here that homosexuality is "wrong" and that the theory of evolution should be rejected. Do you ever ask yourselves whether this makes sense?

I can certainly agree that ancient wisdom can be profound. After all, the first Hindu stories are now being dated to 6000 years ago. But ancient wisdom can also be totally wrong. Nearly everyone 1800 years ago (except a few Hindus and a few Greeks) thought the world was flat and sat at the center of the universe.

Open your minds, people. Your dogmatic acceptance of the ideas of ancient people might be blinding you to reality. Dogmatism about spiritual or ethical truths makes sense. Dogmatism about social or scientific truths doesn't.

Mariner.

I don't have to look very far back into history to see the disaster homosexuality has wrought upon American society, Mariner. What I've witnessed in my lifetime is sufficient for me.

You don't have to look back very far either - nothing like 6000 years. You need only go back a few posts in this very thread.

 

[Hobbit]

around 1800 years ago convinces so many people here that homosexuality is "wrong" and that the theory of evolution should be rejected. Do you ever ask yourselves whether this makes sense?

I can certainly agree that ancient wisdom can be profound. After all, the first Hindu stories are now being dated to 6000 years ago. But ancient wisdom can also be totally wrong. Nearly everyone 1800 years ago (except a few Hindus and a few Greeks) thought the world was flat and sat at the center of the universe.

Open your minds, people. Your dogmatic acceptance of the ideas of ancient people might be blinding you to reality. Dogmatism about spiritual or ethical truths makes sense. Dogmatism about social or scientific truths doesn't.

Mariner.

Many of us have stated again and again on this board that while we originally questioned homosexuality and evolution based on religion, our continued rejection of these concepts is a result of critical thinking. Your continued insistance that it's just a bunch of 'dogmatic zealotry' indicates that you either have a reading comprehension problem or are unable to accept the fact that intelligent people are capable of rejecting these ideas with logical consideration. In either case, further discussion of the issue is not worth the effort.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So, science cannot be politicized? I suggest you read, "It Ain't Necessarily So". Twisting science to suit an ideological agenda is a breeze - it happens all the time; your link, for example. It's homosexual apologist crap.

Exactly, that's what the media did when the misreported patient O as patient zero.

Why don't you re-read your own crap link? The Conclusion, which I cited, dealt specifically with the question of how AIDS was spread. What do you have trouble with - English?

How it was spread TO the human race by monkeys, fool.

Speculation is useless. However, if it had come via, say, junkie whores, it would never have found critical mass: it would have been brought under control - unless, of couse, it had hit the homosexual community before sane, reasonable medical action could be taken. It is because the big city homosexual community was promiscuous, possessed political power, and didn't give a rat's ass about public safety that AIDS got a foothold in the U.S.. Thanks a lot, guys. Gee, we ought to figure out ways to FURTHER legitimize this lifestyle!



That's the point I've been trying to make all along. Thanks for nailing it in for me.

You can't simultaneously claim that AIDS is a huge problem amongst heteros in other nations and that AIDS could not have become a problem in the US without homos. Which is it?

 

[Nuc]

A book written in the middle east around 1800 years ago convinces so many people here that homosexuality is "wrong" and that the theory of evolution should be rejected. Do you ever ask yourselves whether this makes sense?Mariner.

One look at the Middle East today tells us that any philosophy that originated there is, to coin a phrase, fruit of the poison tree. Why must people who live in civilization desire to return to that primitive mindset?

 

[musicman]

Exactly, that's what the media did when the misreported patient O as patient zero.

Yeah, ABC News 20/20 - that bastion of right-wing hysterical hatemongering. The mainstream networks have really got it in for the homosexual community; you can tell by watching their programming.

How it was spread TO the human race by monkeys, fool.

Please tell me how this addresses the spread of AIDS in the human population, fop.

You can't simultaneously claim that AIDS is a huge problem amongst heteros in other nations and that AIDS could not have become a problem in the US without homos.

Why in the world not? Do you imagine it would have been beyond the capabilities of U.S medicine to arrest the spread of the disease, had they been allowed to exercise a bit of common sense? No - blame the promiscuous, sociopathic, and politically powerful homosexual community for this one, Spiderman. Self-centered reprobates that they were, they considered their image in the public eye more important than the public safety. There's no arguing that away.

 

[Mariner]

critical thinking can resolve the question of homosexuality, Hobbit. I think it's a moral judgement. I am willing to accept the evidence of my own eyes: the gay people I know seem like happy, decent people, who contribute enormously to society.

My closest gay friends are: a Harvard Business School graduate who works in public health, his partner who is a Harvard-trained physician, a social worker, her partner, who is a Harvard-educated mediator who worked on helping the military and the people of Cape Cod reconcile with one another, two educators who have devoted their lives and considerble brainpower to special needs kids, a Hispanic man who has done vast service in the medically underserved Hispanic community, a woman athlete who was in the last Olympics, several Harvard medical students, a physicist and a legal advocate. It's hard for me to see how these stable, decent people are bringing down society. Quite the opposite--several of them are purposefully living in fringe neighborhoods in Boston, helping to bring them back to life. All of them are in long-term committed relationships. None are promiscuous. None are child molesters. None are criminals. None has AIDS.

Lowest divorce rate in the country? Here in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal.

Safest city in the country? Newton, Mass., home of more than a few gay people.

You'll have to find some evidence to convince me that gay people are tearing society apart. It looks more like people here are referring to the Bible when they choose to condemn homosexuality. 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

As for evolution, anyone who seriously wants to say that they've rejected it after doing some critical thinking about it had better be able to show at least a college degree in biology. The theory is deep and the evidence is broad. There's no more reason that it should seem "obvious" than that quantum mechanics should seem obvious. It can't be dumbed down. A true skeptic would study for several years, and then propose alternative ideas that seem to better explain the facts. It's no good just to reject it because it doesn't "feel" right. The round earth didn't feel right either, and QM was so weird that it never felt right even to Einstein--but he was wrong. Again, I would say most people here reject it because it appears to conflict with literal readings of 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

Mariner.

 

[musicman]

My closest gay friends are: a Harvard Business School graduate who works in public health, his partner who is a Harvard-trained physician, a social worker, her partner, who is a Harvard-educated mediator who worked on helping the military and the people of Cape Cod reconcile with one another, two educators who have devoted their lives and considerble brainpower to special needs kids, a Hispanic man who has done vast service in the medically underserved Hispanic community, a woman athlete who was in the last Olympics, several Harvard medical students, a physicist and a legal advocate. It's hard for me to see how these stable, decent people are bringing down society. Quite the opposite--several of them are purposefully living in fringe neighborhoods in Boston, helping to bring them back to life. All of them are in long-term committed relationships. None are promiscuous. None are child molesters. None are criminals. None has AIDS.



Mariner.

I'm glad you have a good life, Mariner. You are surrounded by bright, successful people - and that's good. Perhaps, though - as you issue your edicts on what is good for America - you should be mindful of the Pauline Kael Syndrome.

Kael was the film critic who - upon learning that Richard Nixon had won the 1972 presidential election by the biggest landslide in American history - sputtered, "I can't believe Nixon won - I don't know ANYONE who voted for him!"

There's a world outside your bubble.

 

[archangel]

critical thinking can resolve the question of homosexuality, Hobbit. I think it's a moral judgement. I am willing to accept the evidence of my own eyes: the gay people I know seem like happy, decent people, who contribute enormously to society.

My closest gay friends are: a Harvard Business School graduate who works in public health, his partner who is a Harvard-trained physician, a social worker, her partner, who is a Harvard-educated mediator who worked on helping the military and the people of Cape Cod reconcile with one another, two educators who have devoted their lives and considerble brainpower to special needs kids, a Hispanic man who has done vast service in the medically underserved Hispanic community, a woman athlete who was in the last Olympics, several Harvard medical students, a physicist and a legal advocate. It's hard for me to see how these stable, decent people are bringing down society. Quite the opposite--several of them are purposefully living in fringe neighborhoods in Boston, helping to bring them back to life. All of them are in long-term committed relationships. None are promiscuous. None are child molesters. None are criminals. None has AIDS.

Lowest divorce rate in the country? Here in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal.

Safest city in the country? Newton, Mass., home of more than a few gay people.

You'll have to find some evidence to convince me that gay people are tearing society apart. It looks more like people here are referring to the Bible when they choose to condemn homosexuality. 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

As for evolution, anyone who seriously wants to say that they've rejected it after doing some critical thinking about it had better be able to show at least a college degree in biology. The theory is deep and the evidence is broad. There's no more reason that it should seem "obvious" than that quantum mechanics should seem obvious. It can't be dumbed down. A true skeptic would study for several years, and then propose alternative ideas that seem to better explain the facts. It's no good just to reject it because it doesn't "feel" right. The round earth didn't feel right either, and QM was so weird that it never felt right even to Einstein--but he was wrong. Again, I would say most people here reject it because it appears to conflict with literal readings of 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

Mariner.

some of my best friends are...(fill in the blank) and what pray tell does one need at least a BS in Biology to comprehend history...fact Mass just initiated the Gay rights Marriage clause...not exactly something one can go back and gather facts as to Gay marriage having a very good history pro or con...and if ya do a little research on the Roman and Greek history of acceptance of homosexuals you will find that both empires collapsed under this type of degradation...get a grip Doc way to many meds taken...you are numbed or is that dumbed to reality!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yeah, ABC News 20/20 - that bastion of right-wing hysterical hatemongering. The mainstream networks have really got it in for the homosexual community; you can tell by watching their programming

I'm not really following your argument. How does the supposed political orientation of a media outlet change the fact that something was misrepresented? Are you suggesting that left wing news outlets when reporting something that could be construed as leaning to the right, are as immune and infallible as God?

You seem to have a severe problem with "facts". A fact is either true, or not true. It doesn't matter who is telling it to you. It is a FACT that Patient Zero was really patient O, and patently irrelevant as to who first misrepresented that fact.

Please tell me how this addresses the spread of AIDS in the human population, fop.

It doesn't. The whole point of the piece is to address the spread of AIDS TO the human population from animals.

Why in the world not? Do you imagine it would have been beyond the capabilities of U.S medicine to arrest the spread of the disease, had they been allowed to exercise a bit of common sense?

Yes. Millions of people cross our borders every year, fool.

No - blame the promiscuous, sociopathic, and politically powerful homosexual community for this one, Spiderman.

Sorry musicman, I'm not a bigot looking for scapegoats. Go back to Nazi Germany.

Self-centered reprobates that they were, they considered their image in the public eye more important than the public safety. There's no arguing that away.

Sure, it was a massive conspiracy of gays to promote their image to the point that you couldn't murder them in cold blood and virtually get away with it. And they decided to unleash AIDS on the rest of us to get back at us. They even purchased a fleet of black helicopters to spy on people who might try and thwart their plans to spread AIDS across America.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm glad you have a good life, Mariner. You are surrounded by bright, successful people - and that's good. Perhaps, though - as you issue your edicts on what is good for America - you should be mindful of the Pauline Kael Syndrome.

In fact cities with higher percentages of gay populations tend to be doing better economically than other cities. Gayness of course does not cause economic success, but more socially progressive social settings cause economic success, which leads gays to want to move to those places.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

some of my best friends are...(fill in the blank) and what pray tell does one need at least a BS in Biology to comprehend history...fact Mass just initiated the Gay rights Marriage clause...not exactly something one can go back and gather facts as to Gay marriage having a very good history pro or con...and if ya do a little research on the Roman and Greek history of acceptance of homosexuals you will find that both empires collapsed under this type of degradation...get a grip Doc way to many meds taken...you are numbed or is that dumbed to reality!

The Romans and the Greeks had gayness throughout the entire period of their empires. You might just as well claim their society collapsed because they liked olives.

 

[manu1959]

In fact cities with higher percentages of gay populations tend to be doing better economically than other cities. Gayness of course does not cause economic success, but more socially progressive social settings cause economic success, which leads gays to want to move to those places.

san francisco's economy sucks

 

[Hobbit]

In fact cities with higher percentages of gay populations tend to be doing better economically than other cities. Gayness of course does not cause economic success, but more socially progressive social settings cause economic success, which leads gays to want to move to those places.

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

critical thinking can resolve the question of homosexuality, Hobbit. I think it's a moral judgement. I am willing to accept the evidence of my own eyes: the gay people I know seem like happy, decent people, who contribute enormously to society..

they might "seem" that way, but studies suggest otherwise, as for being "happy", not "gay".

My closest gay friends are: a Harvard Business School graduate who works in public health, his partner who is a Harvard-trained physician, a social worker, her partner, who is a Harvard-educated mediator who worked on helping the military and the people of Cape Cod reconcile with one another, two educators who have devoted their lives and considerble brainpower to special needs kids, a Hispanic man who has done vast service in the medically underserved Hispanic community, a woman athlete who was in the last Olympics, several Harvard medical students, a physicist and a legal advocate. It's hard for me to see how these stable, decent people are bringing down society. Quite the opposite--several of them are purposefully living in fringe neighborhoods in Boston, helping to bring them back to life. All of them are in long-term committed relationships. None are promiscuous. None are child molesters. None are criminals. None has AIDS..

Gee, go figure, you are university educated, so most of your friends are. Hmmm, maybe thats the whole problem, YOU REALIZE MOST PEOPLE ARENT HARVARD GRADS???? Besides, most of us dont claim they are bringing society down. Plus, all those credits you give them indicate NOTHING about happiness. The unibomber was a brilliant mathmatician. And if you are trying to say you have a large number of gay friends and NONE Of them are promiscuous, criminals, have aids or are child molestors (if they were, you wouldnt know anyways) then I simply dont believe you.

Lowest divorce rate in the country? Here in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal..

How long has it been legal? You actually want to try and make that correlation?

Safest city in the country? Newton, Mass., home of more than a few gay people..

no, no,no, you arent really doing that are you?

You'll have to find some evidence to convince me that gay people are tearing society apart. It looks more like people here are referring to the Bible when they choose to condemn homosexuality. 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

As for evolution, anyone who seriously wants to say that they've rejected it after doing some critical thinking about it had better be able to show at least a college degree in biology. The theory is deep and the evidence is broad. There's no more reason that it should seem "obvious" than that quantum mechanics should seem obvious. It can't be dumbed down. A true skeptic would study for several years, and then propose alternative ideas that seem to better explain the facts. It's no good just to reject it because it doesn't "feel" right. The round earth didn't feel right either, and QM was so weird that it never felt right even to Einstein--but he was wrong. Again, I would say most people here reject it because it appears to conflict with literal readings of 1800 year old dogma. Believe it if you want.

Mariner.

nice you can dismiss "WHY" people here reject it, as though you would even know, and how about that NICE BROAD BRUSH GENERALIZATIONS you have done. Isnt that exactly what liberals condemn? Isnt it liberals who scream when anyone makes a generalization about homos? Why is it ok to make GOOD generalizations about them, but not bad ones? Me thinks your thinking is way whacko. Not to mention the generalizations, negative I might add, about those here who argue homosexuality is wrong/immoral. Hypocrite.

 

[musicman]

You seem to have a severe problem with "facts". A fact is either true, or not true. It doesn't matter who is telling it to you. It is a FACT that Patient Zero was really patient O, and patently irrelevant as to who first misrepresented that fact.

Whether the airline steward was called Patient O, Patient Zero, or King Neptune, the initial findings of the study appear to remain intact:

"The AIDS virus was first discovered around year 1980 in the United States. A group of young gay men and also some drug users were getting ill often... During first few years of the detection of the new disease AIDS, all the possible reasons of spread of the disease were unknown. This helped the disease spread from one infected person to another. Back in the decade of 60's, there were very rare chances of a disease spreading across continents or countries. It was possible only when one person traveled from one country to another and carried the disease knowingly or unknowingly. The spread of AIDS is also said to be related with the same situation. It is said that when flight attendants used to fly across the seas, they had many sex partners in almost all the countries they visited. This helped AIDS spread from Africa and allowed it to enter in America."

Google "where did AIDS come from?"; go to this link:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-12-2004-62421.asp

It doesn't. The whole point of the piece is to address the spread of AIDS TO the human population from animals.

Your reading and comprehension skills are woeful. Actually, the whole point of the piece is to deflect responsibility for the spread of AIDS away from homosexuals - and it's quite well done. You'd think they were on another planet when all this took place.

Yes. Millions of people cross our borders every year, fool.

Picture common-sense measures having been put in place BEFORE the disease spread. I've got an even better dream: Picture common-sense immigration policies.

Sorry musicman, I'm not a bigot looking for scapegoats.

No - you're an apologist looking for excuses.

Go back to Nazi Germany.

Your ideology is a hell of a lot closer to Mein Kampf than mine is.

Sure, it was a massive conspiracy of gays to promote their image...

That's one way of looking at it.

...to the point that you couldn't murder them in cold blood and virtually get away with it.

You condone their actions, then - their use of political power to thwart the reasonable efforts of the medical community to arrest the spread of AIDS? You actually believe homosexuals would have been butchered in the streets - with impunity - if the 4000 early cases had been quarantined?

Or will you admit that they considered the political gains they had made more important than the public's safety?

 

[Nuc]

I'm afraid I'm gonna have to call BS on that one.

Calling it BS doesn't make it BS. I'm calling your calling it BS BS.

 

[Mariner]

actual evidence that gays are bringing down society?

I like the way everyone's changed his tune. Before gay marriage was approved in Mass., conservatives worked themselves into froth about how it would destroy society. Well, it's been a while now, and Massachusetts is thriving. When's the sky going to fall?

I'm not making generalizations about gays based on those I know. I'm simply saying that those I know don't fit the generalizations that homopprobes here are making. All it takes is one counterexample to disprove a theory. If your theory is that all gay people are dysfunctional, then a single functional, happy one, should disprove it, and force you from black-and-white thinking on the issue to more gray thinking.

I'm perfectly aware that I'm talking about a particular, very privileged and highly educated group of people.

I don't agree with the ivory tower thing, though. I'm not a crusty academic who never leaves the office. I'm a physician who works in an underserved community (deaf people). I travel extensively. I spend most of every workday with people who are poor, disabled, or undereducated--or all three. I mentioned my gay friends--but I know far more gay people as patients, and I'd have to say the same is true of them--their homosexuality seems like part of them, and is painful only to the extent that others don't accept it as such.

I've previously mentioned the superb book by physician Abraham Verghese, an internist who began seeing gay patients in Tennessee early in the epidemic. Towards the end of the book, which poignantly portrays the problems of closeted life in a rural, traditional, culture, he has an epiphany: how did all these gay people get AIDS? Because they went to the cities, NY and SF especially. Why did they do that? Because their form of love was not acceptable at home. What if they had been able to have long-term, accepted relationships in their own communities? Well, then they wouldn't have had to travel, wouldn't have experienced the low self-esteem that leads to promiscuity, and wouldn't have caught AIDS. In other words, a major driving force behind the AIDS epidemic is homopprobrium. A powerful point worth dwelling on. The AIDS virus doesn't know if it's infecting a gay man or woman.

Here's more food for thought. All those disease--e.g. measles, mumps, and rubella--which decimated the American Indians, were acquired by Europeans from their livestock. Were they having sex with their animals? Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other ways for a virus to pass from animal host to human host.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

All those disease--e.g. measles, mumps, and rubella--which decimated the American Indians, were acquired by Europeans from their livestock. Were they having sex with their animals? Maybe, maybe not.

Mariner.

F#ck you, you piece of sh%t.

 

[dilloduck]

actual evidence that gays are bringing down society?

I like the way everyone's changed his tune. Before gay marriage was approved in Mass., conservatives worked themselves into froth about how it would destroy society. Well, it's been a while now, and Massachusetts is thriving. When's the sky going to fall?

I'm not making generalizations about gays based on those I know. I'm simply saying that those I know don't fit the generalizations that homopprobes here are making. All it takes is one counterexample to disprove a theory. If your theory is that all gay people are dysfunctional, then a single functional, happy one, should disprove it, and force you from black-and-white thinking on the issue to more gray thinking.

I'm perfectly aware that I'm talking about a particular, very privileged and highly educated group of people.

I don't agree with the ivory tower thing, though. I'm not a crusty academic who never leaves the office. I'm a physician who works in an underserved community (deaf people). I travel extensively. I spend most of every workday with people who are poor, disabled, or undereducated--or all three. I mentioned my gay friends--but I know far more gay people as patients, and I'd have to say the same is true of them--their homosexuality seems like part of them, and is painful only to the extent that others don't accept it as such.

I've previously mentioned the superb book by physician Abraham Verghese, an internist who began seeing gay patients in Tennessee early in the epidemic. Towards the end of the book, which poignantly portrays the problems of closeted life in a rural, traditional, culture, he has an epiphany: how did all these gay people get AIDS? Because they went to the cities, NY and SF especially. Why did they do that? Because their form of love was not acceptable at home. What if they had been able to have long-term, accepted relationships in their own communities? Well, then they wouldn't have had to travel, wouldn't have experienced the low self-esteem that leads to promiscuity, and wouldn't have caught AIDS. In other words, a major driving force behind the AIDS epidemic is homopprobrium. A powerful point worth dwelling on. The AIDS virus doesn't know if it's infecting a gay man or woman.

Here's more food for thought. All those disease--e.g. measles, mumps, and rubella--which decimated the American Indians, were acquired by Europeans from their livestock. Were they having sex with their animals? Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other ways for a virus to pass from animal host to human host.

Mariner.

God I hope I can hold back my tears. That's quite a sad story of oppression.

 

[manu1959]

actual evidence that gays are bringing down society?

I like the way everyone's changed his tune. Before gay marriage was approved in Mass., conservatives worked themselves into froth about how it would destroy society. Well, it's been a while now, and Massachusetts is thriving. When's the sky going to fall?

I'm not making generalizations about gays based on those I know. I'm simply saying that those I know don't fit the generalizations that homopprobes here are making. All it takes is one counterexample to disprove a theory. If your theory is that all gay people are dysfunctional, then a single functional, happy one, should disprove it, and force you from black-and-white thinking on the issue to more gray thinking.

I'm perfectly aware that I'm talking about a particular, very privileged and highly educated group of people.

I don't agree with the ivory tower thing, though. I'm not a crusty academic who never leaves the office. I'm a physician who works in an underserved community (deaf people). I travel extensively. I spend most of every workday with people who are poor, disabled, or undereducated--or all three. I mentioned my gay friends--but I know far more gay people as patients, and I'd have to say the same is true of them--their homosexuality seems like part of them, and is painful only to the extent that others don't accept it as such.

I've previously mentioned the superb book by physician Abraham Verghese, an internist who began seeing gay patients in Tennessee early in the epidemic. Towards the end of the book, which poignantly portrays the problems of closeted life in a rural, traditional, culture, he has an epiphany: how did all these gay people get AIDS? Because they went to the cities, NY and SF especially. Why did they do that? Because their form of love was not acceptable at home. What if they had been able to have long-term, accepted relationships in their own communities? Well, then they wouldn't have had to travel, wouldn't have experienced the low self-esteem that leads to promiscuity, and wouldn't have caught AIDS. In other words, a major driving force behind the AIDS epidemic is homopprobrium. A powerful point worth dwelling on. The AIDS virus doesn't know if it's infecting a gay man or woman.

Here's more food for thought. All those disease--e.g. measles, mumps, and rubella--which decimated the American Indians, were acquired by Europeans from their livestock. Were they having sex with their animals? Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other ways for a virus to pass from animal host to human host.

Mariner.

massachuests has a kennedy and a kerry in charge it can not possible be considered thriving....