Gay bashing

[equanimity]

If the opposite were true, the human race wouldn't have lasted this long.  Most of us are the result of individual acts of human love.

Even though I agree somewhat with that. There are bacteria and viruses and other very "loveless" life forms which are much older then the human race and will most likely outlive us without the need for love,

Plus, if it truly was "human nature for love to win" we would live in Utopia and not in Reality land were people kill out of joy and greed. We'd just all love each other which is clearly not the case in the real world.

The progress you described is nothing new either. Many empires had more open minded views on sexuality and love then the modern western world. Look at India today and you'll see a bunch of sick shit on every corner. The same goes for China.

I'm not talking about non-human organisms right now, though some of them apply maybe.  That utopia is where we're headed, but first we have to realize we're running around in circles and make the conscious decision to move forward.  It's coming, but very likely not in our lifetimes.

Yes, we've celebrated weird sex at various times and places throughout human history.  Until we stopped for whatever reasons we invented.  This refers back to the running in circles thing.

Interracial love is nowhere "celebrated" let alone all over the world. Maybe in some hipster cities in the US and Europe but the rest of the world hates that shit.

I guess that's fair.  But we've made tons of progress in the world I live in.  Let's hope we make that progress last this time.  If we don't it won't be a huge deal in the grand (grandest!) scheme of things, because we'll make it back there eventually.  Love is always the eventuality.

That's just wishfull thinking on your part.

You think so?  We're living in an exciting age of progress, and as we move forward fewer and fewer groups are holding tightly to the "gays = bad" view.  Even the Mormons and Catholics are going forward, albeit slowly.

[Slave of the Beast]

By 2013 the researchers project that the total population of HIV-positive people attending NHS services will reach 78,370 and that in 2013 HIV treatment and care services will cost between £720 million and £758 million. But this would increase to as much as £1,065 million when the cost of social and community care was included.

Source.

Also, the number of new cases of HIV has actually fallen, however, a cause for concern is the increase in the number of new cases among men who have sex with men, and now accounts for approximately 50% of all new cases of HIV.

Source.

It's just as well hair stylists are worth their weight in gold.

HIV is obviously a legitimate concern both in the direct deaths it produces and the societal burden imposed by those who have it. The higher frequency of HIV among gay men also can't be ignored. But I suspect what you want to say is more than "aids is bad, gays have aids".

And I suspect you'd like to drag my post into the moral quagmire of human sexuality to such an extent that you can triumphantly denounce me as an 'ignorant homophobe', because you currently have no grounds to denounce what I've said.

Instead I suggest you practice what you preach and stick to what you can prove.

If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?

What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.

[starvingniglet]

I'm not talking about non-human organisms right now, though some of them apply maybe.  That utopia is where we're headed, but first we have to realize we're running around in circles and make the conscious decision to move forward.  It's coming, but very likely not in our lifetimes

 

[equanimity]

And it's not a "utopia", as such.  More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.

[Lanny]

And I suspect you'd like to drag my post into the moral quagmire of human sexuality to such an extent that you can triumphantly denounce me as an 'ignorant homophobe', because you currently have no grounds to denounce what I've said.

I don't really know what you're talking about here dude. It seems like the theme of the thread has been the morality of a particular class of human sexuality so I don't know why you're acting like I'm trying to trick you or something. I'm asking what your position is so I can address it instead of trying to guess.

If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?

What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.

So that's a yes?

[starvingniglet]

And it's not a "utopia", as such.  More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.

are you for fucking real with this shit?

[equanimity]

And it's not a "utopia", as such.  More like a society largely comprised of enlightened individuals, celebrating human expression and practicing gentle harmony.

are you for fucking real with this shit?

Of course.  Why wouldn't I be?

It's kinda sad that you think this isn't even a possibility.  People accepting each other's differences, and working to understand them before making the move toward judgement.  Working issues out politely and respectfully.  Teaching their children that calm minds and open hearts are admirable qualities.

What's so strange about that?

[Slave of the Beast]

If HIV just didn't exist would you consider homosexuality perfectly permissible?

What privately occurs between two or more consenting adults is not my direct concern. When I have to pay taxes to fund the aftermeath of their lifestyles then it becomes my direct concern. In this case I object to funding the treatment of the STD-riddled homosexual community (the issue is not confined to HIV) as a consequence of their comparatively selfish, indulgent and feckless sexual relationships.

So that's a yes?

I fail to see why you think I'd find homosexuality 'perfectly permissible' given what I just said. After all that has happened in the last 30 years, the continued very significantly-greater spread of HIV through the homosexual community is symptomatic of the mindset behind that community; that many clearly don't give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on wider society. Their rights as a special status group are what really matter. HIV/AIDS merely highlights this attitude.

An attitude that I find grossly unacceptable.

[starvingniglet]

Of course.  Why wouldn't I be?

It's kinda sad that you think this isn't even a possibility.  People accepting each other's differences, and working to understand them before making the move toward judgement.  Working issues out politely and respectfully.  Teaching their children that calm minds and open hearts are admirable qualities.

What's so strange about that?

Nothing is strange about wanting such a world, but to think that it is actually a physical possibility?  Sheer madness, or the wishfullest of wishful thinking. 

[Lanny]

After all that has happened in the last 30 years, the continued very significantly-greater spread of HIV through the homosexual community is symptomatic of the mindset behind that community; that many clearly don't give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on wider society.

There are very few groups that give a flying fuck about the burden their actions place on the wider society. Drive a car? Looks like you don't give a fuck about how your actions affect society. Work at or give your patronage to fast food restaurants? You don't give a fuck about the wider society. Smoke, tobacco or otherwise? You're basically trying to destroy society.

Their rights as a special status group are what really matter. HIV/AIDS merely highlights this attitude.

An attitude that I find grossly unacceptable.

What special status? The special status of being social pariahs or the special status of being the target of hate crimes?

[Lanny]

physical possibility

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[starvingniglet]

physical possibility

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Having a possibility of becoming a physical reality?  I know exactly what I typed.

[Lanny]

lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?

[starvingniglet]

lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?

potentially nothing, but since it has never happened in the natural world, like, not ever...

[Lanny]

lol, so what is physically impossible about the society equanimity has described?

potentially nothing

So it's a physical possibility then? Well I'm glad we cleared that up.