Username:
Comment:

Check here

Swede

Spouting this nonsense have made many young people think that ONLY gay people get STDs and AIDS, and the use of condoms have declined. Which means that it's the heterosexual young people who engage in reckless behavior.

You can't be homosexual AND bi-sexual. And what is a "homosexual predator"? A catholic priest or a televangelist pastor?
The typical sexual predator is a male praying on girls or women.

Homosexuality IS victimless, in that every person is responsible to protect himself or herself from STDs.
You can't blame someone else, because they didn't use protection, when you failed to use any protection as well.

Pup

'Many homosexuals are bisexual'? Urm, what?

Fundies Make Me Sick

First of all you moron, homosexuality is not a crime at all, so calling it a "victimless crime" is a misuse of terminology. Second, if someone is homosexual, they can't also be bisexual, so that's a logic fail. Third, heterosexuals spread disease much more than homosexuals do because there are more of them. Fourth, most homosexuals are not child-molesters and most child-molesters are not homosexual. Five, FOADIAF.

Thrutch

Turnabout is fair play.

Objective observers have declared that heterosexuality is the “culture of death.” It fearlessly engages in reckless behavior which spreads disease even among homosexuals because many heterosexuals are bi-sexual. Hence, heterosexuality is not a “victimless crime.” It has many, many victims, including innocent young people who are the prey of heterosexual predators.

This is at least as true as the original quote and because so many more young people fall victim to the heterosexual predator might be more true.

Angua

@ Think or GTFO--

You said:

"Free State Voice", "Free Conservatives", "Free Republicans".

Why bother with the word "free" if that's not what they believe in?

At first, I lol'd. And then I actually thought about it. "Free" is hardly the only word that's been misused like that. Other examples come to mind:

The National Organization for Marriage and the Alliance for Marriage -- given that the groups primary goal is preventing same-sex couples from getting married, they are clearly not "for marriage."

The Discovery Institute -- as an intelligent design think tank, they aren't really for the "discovery" of anything, except possibly new ways to sneak creationism back into the American classroom. Their Center for Science and Culture is certainly against science. Their Biologic Institute disagrees with the theory at the heart of modern biology, they're hardly in favor of biology

Truth In Science -- this is a UK organization, so I don't know as much about it (being an American), but they support intelligent design, so they seem to be neither in favor of truth nor science.


It's a bit like the Moral Majority. As others have pointed out, the Moral Majority was neither moral, nor was it a majority. It seems that there is a need for certain fundamentalist right-wingers to lie even in their organizations' names. It's almost compulsive.

(Come to think of it, the same principle also applies Fox News: Fair and Balanced. There slogan is so wrong it's laughable. Even the word "news" is often debatable.)

I don't know why this is. But you've definitely given me something to think about.

EDIT:
Actually, it's reminiscent of the way Nick from Maine wants to redefine the word "objective" -- but that still doesn't answer my question -- why is a regular dictionary not good enough for some people?

Quotidian Torture

...many homosexuals are bi-sexual.

Say what now?

FMG

1. Objective observers who are christian fundies have observed that it is a culture of death.

2. Reckless behaviour? You know a lot of gay men don't engage in anal sex. Guess what, its not fun for a lot of people. Infact more straight women engage in that kind of activity than gay men. FYI

3. Its not a crime.

4. So your basic argument is you can catch an STD. You can catch STDs if you are straight. And there are more straight paedophiles than gay ones by dint of there being more straight people.

The Bad Guy

So let's say we were living in a half-decently operated universe and your loving god didn't create STDs. Fundies would still hate homosexuals simply because they are different.

Then again, while I'm hypothesizing about a half-decently run universe, nature would be doling out much heavier consequences for being stupid and religious people would not even exist.

Objectively speaking, heterosexuals could choose not to make sex with infected people, regardless of their orientation. Sorry that it doesn't agree with your worldview.

Drax

'...many homosexuals are bi-sexual.'

Many cows are sheep. Many oranges are apples.

'Hence, homosexuality is not a “victimless crime.”'

Correct. In fact, it isn't a crime at all.

tranz2deep

"Objective" and "Objectionary" are NOT the same thing, you meme-twaddlers!

In other news, many vegetarians are omnivores.

Justanotheratheist

I think you have "objective" and "subjective" completely mixed up, dickweed.