Re: My last word..... I hope.....(was Re: Drug-resistant staph found to be passed in gay sex)


"Thumper" <jaylsmith@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:glr9p35misp03ete3bdrb8179t4qmkrogc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:54:35 -0800, Rita <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:02:43 -0500, "Evelyn Ruut"
<evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rita" <Rita@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kje9p3t4ps52131o51lalgs6c8qgekbc5o@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:19:45 -0500, "George Z. Bush"
<georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Evelyn Ruut wrote:
< sordo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5vj5v4F1legv6U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:17:07 -0500, "Evelyn Ruut"
<evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jean Paul" <jobbahut@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4794058a$0$4972$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


You can read one article here.
http://www.originofaids.com/

The gay community seems to have become the reservoir of the virus in
the
US but it cannot be said that it was their sexual behavior that was
responsible for that.
JP


That's amazing! The truth is stranger than fiction.

But as Sordo himself said, people believe what they WANT to believe.



Just how does the gay community become a "reservoir of the virus"
without their sexual behavior? Since the virus is past from one to the
other by exchanging body fluids, just how did it occur?

Inquiring minds need to know.

And Evelyn, you go right along with his ridiculous thinking. You are
not that gullible are you?


Hi Sordo,

I don't think I am gullible. It makes sense though. There is no
question
that if you infect a particular segment of the population that only has
sex
with one another, that it is going to spread around among their group,
and
ultimately it will leak out to the general population......which is what
it
did.

But these various links to articles have me questioning, overall. You
produce articles that support your view. Jean Paul produces articles
that
support his. What is interesting to me is the fact that articles
supporting ANYTHING are available somewhere on the internet. So anyone
can
come up with link after link, supporting any cockamamy theory they want.

Ultimately the moral compass of the individual must form in their own
mind.
Yours leans toward the punitive, limiting freedom for gay people, and
indiscriminately lumping them together with pedophiles, which can be
either
hetero or homosexual, but you tend to ignore that fact in an attempt to
lend
your aversion to homosexuals, a bit more credibility. When that
little
discrepancy has been pointed out to you, you have just blown it off.

You have focused repeatedly on a certain cut and paste list of what gays
do,
as being "disgusting," when in real life, I am sure that gay people are
probably a lot like heterosexual people...... in that some are a bit
more
conservative and only involve with their one loved one and whose sex
life
might be considered nearly boring, while others are promiscuous and will
do
anything, even that which others would consider "weird" or "kinky."

Lest you think I am wrong about that, you should have listened last
evening
to Sue Johanson on the Oxygen channel. (I had never heard her before)
The
weird and wild sexual questions she answered were indicative to me, that
heterosexuals can be just as 'wild' and 'off the wall' as the gay people
you
have castigated so severely for their sexual practices. "Nothing is
new
under the sun," as they say.... and heterosexuals having the same
nervous
system makeup, will stimulate each other in many of the exact same ways
homosexuals do.

Some are more conservative and some more outgoing in their sexual
practices,
depending on the individual. That applies to ALL people, not just
gays.

Now in my world view, which has been literally trained to see with the
wisdom-eye of what might be called consideration and loving kindness for
all
living beings, I see that only that similar freedoms for ALL people, can
be
right or fair. I am careful about using tricks to lend credibility to
my
theories and careful to weigh all aspects and approach the discussion
without anger and hatred, even if it gets ..... ah.... "animated." :-)

As to whether homosexuals will be good parents to children, I kind of
lean
towards what Olly has said, about kids needing at least a simile of
"normalcy" in their formative years. But if I myself were an orphan,
and
my only choices were to either spend years kicking around in the
disgusting
foster care system, going from pillar to post, or to be adopted by a
secure
and loving pair of either male or female partners, you can bet I'd
choose
the latter.

This thread has gone around and around and much has been said. Some
very
intelligent people have weighed in on this, and I want you to know that
I
do
connect and sympathize with your views, even if I don't feel the same
way
myself. I haven't lived in your skin, or had your experiences. Your
experiences have of course, formed your opinions. But sometimes it is
wise
to divorce oneself from our experiences and realize that not all people
have
the same kinds of experiences, attractions or aversions.

Being aware of the tremendous diversity among human beings is key to
having
true understanding of any situation. No matter how many people one
lumps
together under one banner for a purpose (as in "homosexuals") , there is
still going to be enormous diversity.

There will be gentle and caring and responsible ones as well as bizarre,
weird, and socially unacceptable ones. There will be conventional,
responsible, socially aware ones, as well as immature, irresponsible,
unconventional ones. The more we try to categorize them with any one
label, the more natural human diversity makes it impossible.

I think that is the key to finding your wisdom here, Sordo. Not ALL
are
as
you have painted them, and if you paint even ONE with the same brush as
the
worst, then you have perpetrated an unfairness. I do believe you are a
fair man in your heart. If you yourself wouldn't like to be treated
unfairly, then neither would someone else.

We may never come to fully agree, but please know that I respect your
right
to your opinion, and I hope that our discussion has provided you with
something to think about, and that you have gained from it. I have.

If I may interject a few appropriate words into your discussion with
Sordo,
what you have done is to present a wordy (and hugely valid) argument
against
the practice of stereotyping people, an argument in which you have my
complete support.

That said, it's probably fairly safe to predict that you'll get an
argument
about it from the person to whom you directed your comments.

And that, my dear, is a demonstration of how one goes about boiling things
down to their nubs.
(^v^))))))))))

George Z.

Well, George, I don't fault anyone including myself, for posting
in response to Sordo's claims, but I am not naive enough to think for
one minute that such posts do one damn thing to change opinions.

Sordo considers anyone who responds to him a "dupe" and is pleased
as punch he has been able to draw us into his web like a spider does
a fly. But I will go further than that and say I don't believe any
posts made here on inflammatory topics ever change one mind or heart.
That's not why I am here -- it is just a fun pasttime not an effort to
change a person's opinions. Because I know that words seldom have the
power to do that -- and certainly not mine.



There are many people who read here, but do not post. I would like to
believe that some of them are able to sort through the various opinions
here, and come to some thoughtful conclusion of their own. Agenda always
stands out like a sore thumb. Sordo's is unmistakably slanted and if he
gave in even an inch, to the most rationally put argument, he would lose
face forever with a certain element. I know that he can't do that. But
it is fun to put the real truth in front of him and watch him squirm and
throw the same tired cliches at it.

I agree there are good reasons to refute the tired cliches, but I do
not believe anything posted in a news group will change hearts or
minds. Of those who post here or those who "lurk" here. I think
people form their opinions in the real world not via news groups.
News groups simply reflect ideas and views we are already committed
to in most cases. They can provide information on some topic we
have missed. But people's beliefs on social issues and values are
not easily overturned. And usually if they are, it is because of
something in their real lives. I have learned a great deal from
some posters on matters such as economics I am not well versed in.
And also useful information on more mundane matters. But my social
attitudes were acquired through life experience.


Not all people have fully formed opinions now. Hopefully what we say
will sometime help light that bulb over their heads.
I asked my younger brother who was a real hell raiser and problem as a
teenager, " what changed you." He said "I don't know. One day
someone said something that made sense. I'm sure I probably heard it
many times before, but the time was just right."
Thumper


Yes, it was that way for me too, Thumper.
--
Best Regards,

Evelyn

.