Atheists are Intolerant

[Abishalom]

The US prohibits homosexual males from donating blood due to health risks. Isn't that discrimination?

[genkaus]

The US prohibits homosexual males from donating blood due to health risks. Isn't that discrimination?

Yes, it is.

Tu quoque, now? Are you that desperate to avoid the issue?

[Sciwoman]

The fact that this thread has reached 18 pages is evidence enough of the fact that the atheists on this forum at least are pretty damn tolerant. If a thread titled "Christians are Intolerant" had been started on a christian forum, it would have been deleted within seconds.

[Abishalom]

The US prohibits homosexual males from donating blood due to health risks. Isn't that discrimination?

Yes, it is.

Tu quoque, now? Are you that desperate to avoid the issue?

I am actually getting at a point. So we know that there are health risks with homosexual activity. We know that around the time of ancient Israel, medical advances were lacking compared to modern time. So then, what should we do considering the health risks of homosexual activity (no condoms, no medicine to treat STD, no medical screening for STDs etc)?

[The Grand Nudger]

You mean what should we do to protect ourselves from demons and evil spirits? Consult your holy book. Look, lol, demons and evil spirits weren't these peoples understanding of disease. They had no clue. Demons and evil spirits were their ritualized conception of "bad shit happens". That's why demons and evil spirits performed such varied tasks as stealing children via ferocious animals, shriveling penises, making milk sour, and killing crops.

Spiritual or ritual cleanliness is not equivalent to sanitation or sanitary practice. Magical cures or preventatives do not address medical issues. You can blow your neighbor all day long and so long as he doesn't have anything, you won't be contracting anything. You can appeal to magic all day long, and so long as he does, it will do nothing. End of.

[Tobie]

Yes, it is.

Tu quoque, now? Are you that desperate to avoid the issue?

I am actually getting at a point. So we know that there are health risks with homosexual activity. We know that around the time of ancient Israel, medical advances were lacking compared to modern time. So then, what should we do considering the health risks of homosexual activity (no condoms, no medicine to treat STD, no medical screening for STDs etc). What then should we do?

You are no less likely to get STDs during heterosexual sex. A large contributor to their spread is heterosexuals not using protection.

It is the prejudices of despicable people that lead to this misinformation.

[Abishalom]

I am actually getting at a point. So we know that there are health risks with homosexual activity. We know that around the time of ancient Israel, medical advances were lacking compared to modern time. So then, what should we do considering the health risks of homosexual activity (no condoms, no medicine to treat STD, no medical screening for STDs etc). What then should we do?

You are no less likely to get STDs during heterosexual sex. A large contributor to their spread is heterosexuals not using protection.

It is the prejudices of despicable people that lead to this misinformation.

What does that have to do with the discussion? Does that refute that homosexual activity was a danger to society back then? I'm not the one that chose to single out the gay community, you thank you friends for that.

[genkaus]

I am actually getting at a point. So we know that there are health risks with homosexual activity. We know that around the time of ancient Israel, medical advances were lacking compared to modern time. So then, what should we do considering the health risks of homosexual activity (no condoms, no medicine to treat STD, no medical screening for STDs etc)?

No, we don't. There are no inherent health risks involved with homosexuality. The actual risks involved are due to unsafe sex which are about the same as straight sex. There is no medical basis for this claim. This is a propagandist agenda that you are buying into.

---

Key words "Ancient Israel"...they had no Trojans back then...

So the rate of STD's would've been about the same.

[Abishalom]

I am actually getting at a point. So we know that there are health risks with homosexual activity. We know that around the time of ancient Israel, medical advances were lacking compared to modern time. So then, what should we do considering the health risks of homosexual activity (no condoms, no medicine to treat STD, no medical screening for STDs etc)?

No, we don't. There are no inherent health risks involved with homosexuality. The actual risks involved are due to unsafe sex which are about the same as straight sex. There is no medical basis for this claim. This is a propagandist agenda that you are buying into.

---

Key words "Ancient Israel"...they had no Trojans back then...

So the rate of STD's would've been about the same.

To your first post...How did the ancient Israelites practice "safe" sex? So you're actually not refuting the claim that their are risks involved in homosexual activity.

To the second one...it would depend on which STDs you are talking about. But seeing that we were just discussing homosexual (since you atheist chose to single them out) your statement is a moot point. You saying the rate would have been equal (with no proof) does not refute the fact that homosexual activity was a danger to ancient Israelite society.

[Tobie]

A prejudice against homosexuality seems to come with monotheistic religion. The Romans were fine with it till they became christian.