In article <op.th18pxxf5i5s70@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Strife767 <strife767@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:34:02 -0400, Qazfez <qazfez@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > In article <45405c82$0$34569$742ec2ed@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > rfischer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> >Because there are strong grounds for thinking that homo***ual
marriage
> >> >would have negative effects.
> >>
> >> Your ignorant prejudices are no evidence of anything.
> >
> > My views are neither ignorant nor prejudices.
>
> They're both--ignorant for making baseless claims, and prejudiced
because
> you continue to hold onto them even after being corrected.
You mean contradicted, not corrected. It would have been correction had
you offered any evidence, but you didn't.
> >> >> Some people have ALWAYS worried about what would happen if "those
> >> other
> >> >> people over there" - Jews, women, blacks, Catholics, Irish, gays,
> >> etc.,
> >> >> etc., etc. - were to be given equal rights. Often they quote their
> >> >> religious beliefs to back up their concerns. Fifty years later,
they
> >> >> (just for example, Southern Baptists) aplogize profusely for their
> >> >> anti-black or anti-Catholic ways. But that's okay, because they
still
> >> >> have gays to kick around.
> >> >>
> >> >> Learn from history. Stop being a supremecist.
> >> >>
> >> >> (And PLEASE don't give me that nonsense about "being gay is a
choice,
> >> >> but being black isn't." Being Jeish is a choice. Being Catholic is
a
> >> >> choice. Being in a mixed-race relation****p is a choice.)
> >> >
> >> >Once people said homo***uality was harmless.
> >>
> >> When was that?
> >
> > You accept that homo***uality isn't harmless, then? You admit I'm
right?
>
> lol, no, I'm pretty sure he was just asking a straightforward question
> about time.
The question was not addressed to you.
> >> > Then AIDS arrived. That's a
> >> >good example of how arguments that freedom for homo***uals would
have
> >> >bad consequences have been proven correct by events.
> >>
> >> Except that AIDS is by far a hetero***ual disease. You're just
> >> proving to everybody that you're an ignorant bigot. Blaming it on
> >> gays is a bigoted as blaming WWII on Jews.
> >
> > AIDS appeared first among western homo***uals. It became noticed among
> > Africans only subsequently.
>
> It was traced back to Africa.
Allgedly.
> > Its main method of transmission in Africa is
> > probably not hetero***ual ***, contrary to the propaganda on this
> > subject.
>
> Scientific literature is not propaganda--what a strange definition for
> "propaganda" you have, the exact opposite of what it actually is.
What p***** for scientific literature is often propaganda.
|
