Partnership Rights: Spanned from: INTP Sexual Orientation

[Deleted member 1424]

ps, to manipulator: are you a troll or just, like, 13?

He's probably from one of those small towns in the boonies; full of godfearing, trigger happy rednecks who find interracial couples deeply upsetting.

 

[samjonathan]

ps, to manipulator: are you a troll or just, like, 13?

or Russian? I noticed you mentioned Putin...

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

The state should have nothing to do with sexuality nor marriage, including approval, disapproval, and regulation.

Well, okay, then why are we being pushed by the politically correct MSM to legislate and enforce so-called non-discrimination legislation?

People can do in their bedrooms whatever they like to and suffer the consequences of their ignorance.

What has been happening since the 90s is that the LGBT "community" is terrorizing the rest of the population with their ultra minority viewpoints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrgdfl_e1Xg

Aristocratic wolves in grassroots democratic sheep clothing.

 

[Jennywocky]

What has been happening since the 90s is that the LGBT "community" is terrorizing the rest of the population with their ultra minority viewpoints.

I haven't bothered with this thread for the last few days, but as I suspected from your approach early on, you were never really neutral at all despite your pretense of examining "alternate views." Thanks for finally being honest.

Your "bedroom" comment is ridiculous. There's a lot of het stuff that goes on outside the bedroom, as well as prejudice that exists in housing, workplace, and public venues against people who aren't part of the het norm. I don't know of people who are beaten or killed for being het or cisgen, but they ARE beaten and killed for being gay or trans.

Likewise, freedom in a private room in one's house is not social equality. Is this really about happens in the bedroom? No, it's about what happens in public. Marriage is marriage, gay or het, and neither is detracted by the presence of the other. Equality is when people can establish households, hold down their jobs and progress on the basis of merit in their careers, not be denied housing or medical care because of their preference or gender identity (gay or het, cisgen or trans), etc.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Aha, so it's about the economic, social and legislative side of things and not about sexuality?
Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[redbaron]

What has been happening since the 90s is that the LGBT "community" is terrorizing the rest of the population with their ultra minority viewpoints.

Yeah fighting for equality is, "terrorizing".

Martin Luther King, what a terrorist.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Yeah fighting for equality is, "terrorizing".

Martin Luther King, what a terrorist.

Racial equality and equality based on a behavioural preference are hardly comparable, at least not outside of apple and orange frames of reference.
Actually, the video "Inside the Homosexual Agenda" explores the differences between the civil rights movement and the LGBT lobbyism in more detail.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

One of the most reasonable man is Putin and I think he deal with homosexuals properly.
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_...propaganda-among-minors-in-banned-Putin-2990/
They are not prohibited, but there is ban for promoting it.

LOL. Only three kinds of people would call Putin a 'reasonable man':
1) Wannabe fascists from other countries who look at Russia and see only its facade of a strong, stable dictatorship(the facade that covers an unstable, weak, chaotic government);
2) Those of the Russians who bought into Putin's cult of personality and did not do the research on the inconsistencies of his reign;
3) Trolls.

Therefore, Manipulator is either a troll or a fanatic. In any case, it's best not to feed him.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

HIV is the enemy.
The homosexual population is a reservoir and a vector to spread it to the bisexual population, which in turn spreads it to the heterosexual population.
You can't put together an army to do damage on this scale.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I see you still believe every human is equal.
Interesting fact is I didn't offend anyone, but some people offend me. That shows you don't have more logical arguments.
I also don't undestands why you don't like Putin. He is MUCH BETTER politic than obama.
Tell me, why all the ingenius scientists aren"t gays, lesbians, black, punk, hippise, or any useless comunity?

PS Yes, I'm also racist.

 

[redbaron]

Racial equality and equality based on a behavioural preference are hardly comparable, at least not outside of apple and orange frames of reference.
Actually, the video "Inside the Homosexual Agenda" explores the differences between the civil rights movement and the LGBT lobbyism in more detail.

Oh right. You're one of those people who doesn't want to accept that homosexuality is natural and ubiquitous throughout nearly all species of the animal kingdom.

Well, can't say I'm too interested in debating with wilful ignorance.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

I'll say that again: don't feed the Manipulator, please. His reliance on ad hominems and a tendency to ignore rational arguments against him indicate that he is a troll.

HIV is the enemy.
The homosexual population is a reservoir and a vector to spread it to the bisexual population, which in turn spreads it to the heterosexual population.
You can't put together an army to do damage on this scale.

1) Some populaces of black-skinned people are also a reservoir and a vector to spread HIV. Should all black-skinned people be considered subhuman as well?
2) Ummm... yes, yes you can. Look at any kind of war. It kills military and civilians alike, destroys infrastructure, spreads diseases - including STDs - and can be repurposed to destroy the enemy's civilian population with exceptional efficiency. That's way more damage than HIV can inflict.
3) What the hell does this have to do with homosexual parenthood? Shouldn't all adoptive parents be screened for STDs?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

His reliance on linux indicate that he is a troll.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

Congratulations to Salmoneus and Manipulator for being abjectly terrible.
I bet it feels wonderful.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

I'll say that again: don't feed the Manipulator, please. His reliance on ad hominems and a tendency to ignore rational arguments against him indicate that he is a troll.

His reliance on linux indicate that he is a troll.

To reiterate: you altered my quote into a form that makes little logical sense and indicated that there's something funny about that dastardly act. Care to explain the joke?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I see you still believe every human is equal.
Interesting fact is I didn't offend anyone, but some people offend me. That shows you don't have more logical arguments.
I also don't undestands why you don't like Putin. He is MUCH BETTER politic than obama.
Tell me, why all the ingenius scientists aren"t gays, lesbians, black, punk, hippise, or any useless comunity?

PS Yes, I'm also racist.

Ok, so you are a fascist, or quite close on that line, did you ever consider your opinion as biased, did you ever try to look at different possibilities? You seem to rely on biased information such as tv and russian media.

I'll say that again: don't feed the Manipulator, please. His reliance on ad hominems and a tendency to ignore rational arguments against him indicate that he is a troll.

You did the same ad hominem as you try to assign to him.

Spoiler

LOL. Only three kinds of people would call Putin a 'reasonable man':
1) Wannabe fascists from other countries who look at Russia and see only its facade of a strong, stable dictatorship(the facade that covers an unstable, weak, chaotic government);
2) Those of the Russians who bought into Putin's cult of personality and did not do the research on the inconsistencies of his reign;
3) Trolls.

Therefore, Manipulator is either a troll or a fanatic. In any case, it's best not to feed him.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

You did the same ad hominem as you try to assign to him.

No, I didn't.

His ad hominem:

Interesting fact is I didn't offend anyone, but some people offend me. That shows you don't have more logical arguments.

Translation: "You have offended me, therefore the multitude of rational arguments you have provided in response to my posts do not exist."

My post, on the other hand, wasn't an argument at all, it was my analysis of his most ridiculous argument(an argument from authority, no less) and an explanation of why I think he's trolling. By the way, which part of 'don't feed the troll' did you miss?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I am not too bothered to do this, but let me help you.

Spoiler

No, I didn't.

His ad hominem:
Translation: "You have offended me, therefore the multitude of rational arguments you have provided in response to my posts do exist."

My post, on the other hand, wasn't an argument at all, it was my analysis of his most ridiculous argument(an argument from authority, no less) and an explanation of why I think he's trolling. By the way, which part of 'don't feed the troll' did you miss?

Your post that comes before he even says anything that could be personal;

Spoiler

LOL. Only three kinds of people would call Putin a 'reasonable man':
1) Wannabe fascists from other countries who look at Russia and see only its facade of a strong, stable dictatorship(the facade that covers an unstable, weak, chaotic government);
2) Those of the Russians who bought into Putin's cult of personality and did not do the research on the inconsistencies of his reign;
3) Trolls.

Therefore, Manipulator is either a troll or a fanatic. In any case, it's best not to feed him.

Your post put bluntly:You are one of the three kinds of people:
1)an ignorant fascist
2)ignorant authoritarian
3)a troll
From this you conclude: You are either a troll or a fanatic, which in this context is negative.

Later you receive his more personalised response that you assign as ad hominem.
All this time you can see Manipulators deficient or incomplete opinion that could be corrected or ignored.

I saw Manipulator asking someone about gender, calling the homosexual community dangerous or wrong and later he was assigned as a Russian, 13 year old, troll, fascist.
Then the escalation begins.

I would say that this kind of labelling is not the primary focus of this thread and is in itself useless. What you all seem to do is to exchange ad hominems, what Manipulator could have initiated expanded into negativity.

This way of attacking will not bring anything constructive imo.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

All this time you can see Manipulators deficient or incomplete opinion that could be corrected or ignored.

By marking him as either a troll or a fanatic, I implied that his opinion cannot be corrected and therefore should be ignored. Which is exactly what I meant when I asked you not to feed him.

This way of attacking will not bring anything constructive imo.

Not directly, but if people stopped feeding the troll, he would lose control over the discussion, which means that people would stop bothering with his opinions and focus on talking to those who are actually receptive to arguments.

I saw Manipulator asking someone about gender, calling the homosexual community dangerous or wrong and later he was assigned as a Russian, 13 year old, troll, fascist.
Then the escalation begins.

I would say that this kind of labelling is not the primary focus of this thread and is in itself useless. What you all seem to do is to exchange ad hominems, what Manipulator could have initiated expanded into negativity.

You did not see the same thing I saw. For the sake of clarity, allow me to draw out the timeline:

1) Manipulator's first post. It contains three assertions: that homosexuality is a disease, it's dangerous, and it's not a necessary part of society. It also contains a promise to prove each of these assertions true if they are questioned.
2) He received two answers questioning the assertions: TheHabitatDoctor's, and mine.
3) Manipulator's second post contains a fallacious argument from authority(Putin is a 'reasonable man', therefore all of his views are correct) and further assertions (homosexuality 'shouldn't exist' because it decreases birthrate, homosexuality is dangerous because... parades?) to support the assertions in his first post. No proof, no evidence. Just more assertions.
4) Latte requests evidence from Manipulator, TheHabitatDoctor gives a serious answer to Manipulator's points, and I point out to everyone else that he, being either a troll or a fanatic, is not worth arguing with.
5) Manipulator's third post contains an invalid argument in support of his previous assumption that Putin is reasonable(Obama is not a reasonable man and Putin's policies are not Obama's policies, therefore Putin is a reasonable man - unfounded premise, invalid logic), another fallacious ad hominem that is supposed to invalidate all arguments against his position("you offended me, therefore all of your arguments are illogical"), a very broad and insulting categorization: "gays, lesbians, black, punk, hippise or any other useless community", and a fallacious argument in the form of a question: "why isn't every ingenious scientist a member of the 'useless comminities'?", which is such an obvious provocation that it requires no answer.
6) Based on his previous actions, I conclude that he's definitely trolling and remind people not to feed the troll.

If you look at the entire timeline, you will notice that Manipulator is not as ignorant as he looks. He is deliberately giving us fallacious arguments again and again, does not give any evidence in his favor and does not deign to respond to our counterpoints in any but the most vague ways.
Because of all this, I assume that he was trolling long before we called him a troll.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Congratulations to Salmoneus and Manipulator for being abjectly terrible.
I bet it feels wonderful.

Bullying?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

To reiterate: you altered my quote into a form that makes little logical sense and indicated that there's something funny about that dastardly act. Care to explain the joke?

Explained jokes lose their magic.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I'm tottaly calm, but must say this: Ninety-Fourth get the fuck out. You didn't say anything valuable. I have my own views, and if you don't respect others, you are just ignorant. Same to: Adaire and in minor sens to Jennywocky

@Blarraun
I knew, my view will be controversial, maybe I sometimes use not proper words to say something (because I can't speak in english perfectly yet) - sorry for that, and thanks for keeping this thread more rational.

To clarify my views:
1) [my subjective opinion]
I don't like homosexuals, and they make me disgust. I think this is natural feeling in me, because this feeling is very strong, and noone ever told me that homosexuality is good or bad. Most of my friends also feel disgust about gays (lesbians not, because they are attractive to men).

2)[my theory]
Homosexualism isn't natural. It's obvious that couple of male and female is good for species. But what gives couple of two male or two female? For me - nothing.

There are a lot of mental diseases. Homosexuality for me is one of them. Abnormal development of parts of the brain responsible for sexual desire.

For now, I CAN'T give you any trustfull scientific proof, because West is full of Feelers worried about to not hurt others, introducing such things as political correctness, for example.

And about Putin: I don't really like him, but he is good leader for his country. Something about it from polish journalist who live in New York, and he is complety independent in his videos:
from 1:10, you have to turn on english subtitles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9fLsWL4Sgo

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

1) Some populaces of black-skinned people are also a reservoir and a vector to spread HIV. Should all black-skinned people be considered subhuman as well?

2) Ummm... yes, yes you can. Look at any kind of war. It kills military and civilians alike, destroys infrastructure, spreads diseases - including STDs - and can be repurposed to destroy the enemy's civilian population with exceptional efficiency. That's way more damage than HIV can inflict.

3) What the hell does this have to do with homosexual parenthood? Shouldn't all adoptive parents be screened for STDs?

1) No, they should be taught how to minimize risk and contain the spread.
(It's a bit sad that you need to pull the racist card to make a point.)
Notice that i have not encouraged anyone to make anyone subhuman.
I have not advocated removing human rights from anyone.

2) "Ummm" is an ugly word. I think you got your numbers wrong.

3) Good idea. Yes, why not? At least for HIV.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

1) No, they should be taught how to minimize risk and contain the spread.
(It's a bit sad that you need to pull the racist card to make a point.)
Notice that i have not encouraged anyone to make anyone subhuman.
I have not advocated removing human rights from anyone.

2) "Ummm" is an ugly word. I think you got your numbers wrong.

3) Good idea. Yes, why not? At least for HIV.

1) Africans are already being taught how to minimize risk. However, it doesn't seem to work very well, just the same as it doesn't work very well with the LGBT community or straight people. That is because no matter how well you train the community in general, some members of the community are infected and irresponsible enough to spread disease. That, of course, doesn't mean the entire community is to blame.

Also, my apologies for assuming that you want to take away LGBT community's rights: I didn't read carefully enough, mistook you for a homophobe. My bad.


2) Don't change the subject. The perceived ugliness of my words bears no influence upon their meaning.

If you wish to avoid the question of infrastructural damage by switching to cold, hard numbers, then it's my pleasure to oblige:

- Numbers on HIV, according to WHO: 1.7 million people dead of HIV during 2011 and 2.3 million dead during 2005, out of 6 billion.

- Numbers on World War 2, according to that handy table on Wikipedia: approximately 60-85 million people dead, out of them 19 or more million civilians killed in military action(out of 2.3 billion people total in late 1930s).
Let's roll it down to 60 and 19 respectively and divide by 7 for the amount of years it lasted; we get an average of 8.5 million dead every year, out of them 2.7 million civilians who got killed in military action.

Conclusion: with an army big enough, you can wreak even more havoc than AIDS does, which is what I've been saying in the first place.
That said, if you want to dispute my numbers, then please, go ahead and present your own. You must have some illuminating data to share.


3) I think it's already being done as part of the adoption process.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I'm tottaly calm, but must say this: Ninety-Fourth get the fuck out. You didn't say anything valuable. I have my own views, and if you don't respect others, you are just ignorant. Same to: Adaire and in minor sens to Jennywocky

Manipulator, you are building negativity upon negativity. The fact that people request a reasonable response and evidence for your arguments doesn't mean they shouldn't do this. You are personally attacking people and you were since this post. Which made people feel more uneasy besides reading your initial opinion. As some other members tried to remind you, your negative behaviour and fallacies are defined as trolling.
If there is some logic or mindful decision behind your behaviour in this thread, then you should really try to explain yourself instead you assumed that they cannot disagree based on their response and not arguments.

As for now I see your posts as ignoring others opinion and after you admit your opinion is subjective and yet you don't respect others as hypocritical and illogical, intentionally negative or insecure and ignorant.

@Blarraun
I knew, my view will be controversial, maybe I sometimes use not proper words to say something (because I can't speak in english perfectly yet) - sorry for that, and thanks for keeping this thread more rational.

The problem is not in your inability to use english. It lies in your willful ignorance and disdain you have for others.
You are not being controversial, you are being counter-objective.
You manage to label others and then you bring your opinion, you have done nothing to understand other views and I can see you as intentionally ignorant.

By marking him as either a troll or a fanatic, I implied that his opinion cannot be corrected and therefore should be ignored. Which is exactly what I meant when I asked you not to feed him.

If you look at the entire timeline, you will notice that Manipulator is not as ignorant as he looks. He is deliberately giving us fallacious arguments again and again, does not give any evidence in his favor and does not deign to respond to our counterpoints in any but the most vague ways.
Because of all this, I assume that he was trolling long before we called him a troll.

I am aware of his fallacious reasoning, however he also persists in ignoring different views and arguments. I think it is good that you pointed out his trolling, however to me at that stage he didn't clearly behave intentionally ignorant, now he admits. Your service to the thread wasn't negative, as his initial opinion wouldn't be, had he some respect for other members.The labelling and ridicule that happened beyond that only increased the insecurity and agressiveness here.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

1) ... Also, my apologies for assuming that you want to take away LGBT community's rights: I didn't read carefully enough, mistook you for a homophobe. My bad.


2) Don't change the subject. The perceived ugliness of my words bears no influence upon their meaning.

If you wish to avoid the question of infrastructural damage by switching to cold, hard numbers, then it's my pleasure to oblige:

- Numbers on HIV, according to WHO: 1.7 million people dead of HIV during 2011 and 2.3 million dead during 2005, out of 6 billion.

- Numbers on World War 2, according to that handy table on Wikipedia: approximately 60-85 million people dead(out of 2.3 billion people in late 1930s, out of them 19 or more million civilians killed in military action).
Let's roll it down to 60 and 19 respectively and divide by 7 for the amount of years it lasted; we get an average of 8.5 million dead every year, out of them 2.7 million civilians who got killed in military action.

That said, if you want to dispute my numbers, then please, go ahead and present your own. You must have some illuminating data to share.


3) I think it's already being done as part of the adoption process.

1) https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr

2) You said "take any war", not "take the most terrible war in history and make an annual average death toll from it".

3) Are you talking about the children or the parents? Because i was of the latter.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

I was writing very long text, but (un)fortunetly I missclick and lost everything. In brief: talking with you in this thread does not have any sense.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

1) https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr

2) You said "take any war", not "take the most terrible war in history and make an annual average death toll from it".

3) Are you talking about the children or the parents? Because i was of the latter.

1) I don't see how that's related. Unless this is a roundabout way of saying "I'm a homophobe, but I only want to take away the rights that aren't in this document".


2) Yes, I said "take any war". The meaning of "any war" was literal: pick any war from the list of all wars, and you'll see that locally, it had the potential to outdo HIV in destructiveness.
Which, if you let me paraphrase, basically meant "let's take the biggest, baddest global war we know about and use the statistics from it to prove or disprove that it is generally possible for an army to inflict damage on par with HIV regardless of the local specifics", not "let's take the Anglo-Zanzibar war and prove/disprove that it has failed to compare to HIV in destructiveness".

In other words, we were discussing the possibility of an army inflicting damage on the scale comparable to HIV. I have proven that possibility with numbers, like you asked me to do.
Speaking of which, I'm rather disappointed that you didn't give me any evidence that disproves the possibility in question.


3) Oh, got it. Yeah, it appears that you're right on this point. It's messed up that they check the kids for infectious diseases but not the adults.

Answering your earlier question: I don't know why that's not being done already. But it would be a good idea to do this to every couple of adoptive parents, not just homosexuals, even if that would be an unpopular move.

 

[Hawkeye]

Tell me, why all the ingenius scientists aren"t gays, lesbians, black, punk, hippise, or any useless comunity?

There are too many people that contradict this statement to even begin mentioning.

If you're going to troll, at least put some effort into it.

 

[Hawkeye]

1) "I'm a homophilanthropist and I only want to not take away the rights that aren't in this document".

2) Well, of course i could be nitpicking on the numbers as well.
Various estimates established a number of 60 mio. people died of HIV until today.
The same number is given for the casualties of WW2.
The main problem here is that it is a close match and we would end up in a discussion of how casualty numbers are acquired, etc. etc.
(For instance, in your figure of 60 mio. WW2 casualties, 25 mio. are famine and disease related collateral victims.)
But we can do that if you want.

3) Okay, then, let's include EVERYBODY in order to treat a RISK GROUP.
I guess we should put that in the UNHRC too then?

So, it all boils down to "you're afraid of being bummed in the night".

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

So, it all boils down to "you're afraid of being bummed in the night".

Are you not?

 

[Hawkeye]

Are you not?

No. I might enjoy it and I think that's why you're afraid. ^^

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

1) "I'm a homophilanthropist and I only want to not take away the rights that aren't in this document".

2) Well, of course i could be nitpicking on the numbers as well.
Various estimates established a number of 60 mio. people died of HIV until today.
The same number is given for the casualties of WW2.
The main problem here is that it is a close match and we would end up in a discussion of how casualty numbers are acquired, etc. etc.
(For instance, in your figure of 60 mio. WW2 casualties, 25 mio. are famine and disease related collateral victims.)
But we can do that if you want.

3) Okay, then, let's include EVERYBODY in order to treat a RISK GROUP.
I guess we should put that in the UNHRC too then?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

No. I might enjoy it and I think that's why you're afraid. ^^

Good point.
Same thing that happens in prisons.
People go in healthy, get out HIV infected.
Great idea.
We can get this to work.
Sometimes i just want to nuke the world instead of trying to make it a better place too.

 

[Ninety-Fourth]

1) "I'm a homophilanthropist and I only want to not take away the rights that aren't in this document".

2) Well, of course i could be nitpicking on the numbers as well.
Various estimates established a number of 60 mio. people died of HIV until today.
The same number is given for the casualties of WW2.
The main problem here is that it is a close match and we would end up in a discussion of how casualty numbers are acquired, etc. etc.
(For instance, in your figure of 60 mio. WW2 casualties, 25 mio. are famine and disease related collateral victims.)
But we can do that if you want.

3) Okay, then, let's include EVERYBODY in order to treat a RISK GROUP.
I guess we should put that in the UNHRC too then?

1) Mimicking your opponent is a very childish and uninformative way to respond to an expression of puzzlement, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt and pretend that you phrased your retort as "You seem to be treating homosexuals preferentially." I shall respond to it accordingly; I apologize if I miss some of the less obvious implications that you have put into the original response.

I'm not in favor of preferential treatment for homosexuals; I'm in favor of giving equal rights to all people, unless there are practical, measurable reasons not to do so. Homophobia and ideology alone are neither practical nor measurable.

Possible pandemic is a good enough reason to consider taking away the right to have children, but all evidence I have seen to date suggests that homosexuals as a high-risk group for STDs aren't nearly dangerous enough to merit such severe limitations.

Also, your retort still doesn't explain what that link had in common with this argument.


2) Ah, so that's why you're still doubting my conclusions: you're comparing the amount of deaths that HIV has caused in the timespan of several decades to the amount of deaths that military action has caused in seven years.

I, on the other hand, am measuring the amount of destruction that wars and HIV cause during the same amount of time. That way is not as flashy, but it's significantly more precise when it comes to displaying the danger that each of them poses to humankind.


3) Do you truly think that, if adoptive parents were straight, they wouldn't have a reason to hide or ignore a dangerous infectious disease they're carrying?

And what did you mean with your "put that in the UNHRC"? We should put what in the UNHRC, exactly, and for what reason?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Well, okay, then why are we being pushed by the politically correct MSM to legislate and enforce so-called non-discrimination legislation?

Because the state already regulates it.

Either the state can renege on their existing regulations, or they can be perpetually burdened by appeals for inclusiveness because their regulations are hopelessly reductionist.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

HIV is the enemy.
The homosexual population is a reservoir and a vector to spread it to the bisexual population, which in turn spreads it to the heterosexual population.
You can't put together an army to do damage on this scale.

HIV is becoming less and less of an enemy with each passing day.

Lifetime transmission rates from a positive partner to a negative partner are low, approximately 3.5% over a time span of 100 years if the positive individual is on antiretroviral medication. Lower still with condom use. And decent strides have been made in the area of medication in recent years, to the point where life expectancy is only a few years shorter than that of the general population. 71 years, and increasing, in the U.S. and Canada.

The homosexual population is indeed a reservoir, but not necessarily the source of the infection. It doesn't matter how a virus enters a reservoir for the reservoir to function as it does, including entry in the reverse of what you described.

And sure you can. Poverty is stronger than any army.

I see you still believe every human is equal.
Interesting fact is I didn't offend anyone, but some people offend me. That shows you don't have more logical arguments.
I also don't undestands why you don't like Putin. He is MUCH BETTER politic than obama.
Tell me, why all the ingenius scientists aren"t gays, lesbians, black, punk, hippise, or any useless comunity?

PS Yes, I'm also racist.

Not all humans are equal, but all are useful. You'd be surprised, but I'm also a racist. I just define race much differently than the old guard who relies on ancestry and skin color.

You haven't combated anyone else's logical arguments, which shows that yours are terrible.

You also seem to think we like Putin or Obama, or any political figure, for that matter.

And you don't know very many scientists, do you?

I'm tottaly calm, but must say this: Ninety-Fourth get the fuck out. You didn't say anything valuable. I have my own views, and if you don't respect others, you are just ignorant. Same to: Adaire and in minor sens to Jennywocky

You can't just ignore those who disagree with you. Doing so is strong evidence that you haven't figured out a use for them. How embarrassing...

To clarify my views:
1) [my subjective opinion]
I don't like homosexuals, and they make me disgust. I think this is natural feeling in me, because this feeling is very strong, and noone ever told me that homosexuality is good or bad. Most of my friends also feel disgust about gays (lesbians not, because they are attractive to men).

Have you ever tried it? How can you conclusively say you don't like broccoli if you've never tried broccoli?

Why were irrumatio and pedicatio used by straight men to punish homosexuals in Greece and Rome?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrumatio

Why hate homosexual men if they have no interest in women (meaning more potential women for you)?

2)[my theory]
Homosexualism isn't natural. It's obvious that couple of male and female is good for species. But what gives couple of two male or two female? For me - nothing.

There are a lot of mental diseases. Homosexuality for me is one of them. Abnormal development of parts of the brain responsible for sexual desire.

For now, I CAN'T give you any trustfull scientific proof, because West is full of Feelers worried about to not hurt others, introducing such things as political correctness, for example.

Yet I've given you mathematical proof that shows that a decline in birth rate has no negative impact on the human population.

Natural (adjective):
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

The physiological differences appear to arise from nature: http://www.ajnr.org/content/29/10/1890.long

No one altered the brain to cause the physiological changes. No alien abductions or secret surgeries required.

 

[redbaron]

I have my own views, and if you don't respect others, you are just ignorant.

So I guess not respecting blacks, hippies, punks or gays makes you ignorant, by your own logic.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Ok, I submit. You're right. Sorry.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Ok, I submit. You're right. Sorry.

Hmmm..... I'm not sure what to make of this; whether you really believe it or just want to stop talking about it. So which is it?

If you believe you are correct, you should not stop merely because you're outnumbered.

 

[Ex-User (8886)]

Hmmm..... I'm not sure what to make of this; whether you really believe it or just want to stop talking about it. So which is it?

If you believe you are correct, you should not stop merely because you're outnumbered.

My uncle told me some words: don't talk about politics, religion and money.
I think he should add: homosexuality.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

My uncle told me some words: don't talk about politics, religion and money.
I think he should add: homosexuality.

You could always shut them up the same way the Greeks and Romans did.