[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
What part about that last sentence didn’t you understand?
You mean this sentence?
And we also know that there is no such thing as “safe” anal sex, even with a condom.
That has nothing to do with my question. All you did was repeat the points you’ve made throughout this thread, without touching on what I am asking. Here it is again:
Don’t you think that a formal legally binding union (call it marriage or a civil union, either way is fine) with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together?[/quote]
That question was answered by me in one word: No.
It then went on to explain that there are very very few “committed” homosexual couples based upon the research that I have read.
I think I then asked you to check back to the many links that I posted on the subject (prior to you getting amnesia).
The two issues can be treated separately in the very same way the issue of allowing interracial marriages was treated separately.
[/quote]
Race is genetic, homosexuality is an act…a choice when it comes right down to it. There is no comparision between the two, no matter how many times you try to compare the two it just does not work.
A better comparison is the one that I have made between homosexuals, polygamists and those who practice incest. As all three have deviated from the norm relative to traditional marriage and sexual relationships.
Now please give me solide logical reasons why a 5000 year old institution should be changed for less than 1% of the population?
Why should we grant special rights to homosexuals?
I’m asking if you agree that a formal legally binding union with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together.
That’s right man, you need to put these crazy dudes in their place. And, when he tells you that it would encourage more people to go try homo poop-pounding monkey love, you tell him that he’s full of crap.
Just because society embrases or accepts a behavior or lifestyle doens’t mean it will grow. I mean, we’ve got less drunks, fat people, and welfare cases in this country than ever! Eat that you crazy goofballs!
Then, tell him that he has latent homosexual tendencies, heh, heh, heh. It’s obviously true because anyone who is so against ram-rodden must be a closet ram-rodder.[/quote]
Well Forlife, you might as well hang it up. I mean how can you contend with arguments this razor sharp. Ivan’s keen insight into these issues clearly lays this to rest ;]
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Ha ha…no where in thier wildest dreams did any of the founding fathers ever imagine that two men having anal sex (or any kind of sex) should in any way be legitimized by the government.
Where in their wildest dreams did the founding fathers ever imagine that women and blacks should be able to vote or that a black man and a white woman should be allowed to marry? Even among themselves, there was significant disagreement on what constituted morality.
They were wise enough not to try defining morality by their own personal standards, and not to enforce that personal definition on others.[/quote]
Do you honestly think that there were no “moral laws” on the books against homosexuality in the 1700’s and 1800’s?
You would have been horse whipped if you had even dare mention such an act in polite company in the 1800’s.
LOL
Yes, I realize that blacks had a struggle on their hands, a mighty one!
So your illogical mind wants to equate the two even though they have nothing to do with each other right?
Therefore, anything that was discriminated against in the 1700’s or 1800’s was wrong…
How stupid is that?
But you have to continue to bring up the struggle of our black population every time that homosexuality is mentioned.
That is the single silliest argument that you have yet attempted.
But then again you have nothing else so…Please continue your assualt on marriage and on logic!
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It boils down to what sort of society that you want to live in.
You keep saying this, as if it justifies treating others unfairly.
What sort of society did the southern bigots want to live in prior to the civil war? What sort of society did the misogynists of the early 20th century want to live in?[/quote]
And you keep saying that others are being treated unfairly when they are not. We all have the same rights in this country.
By the way, Blacks wanted the same rights that whites had. They didn’t want special rights did they?
They wanted to be able to visit the same restaurants and bathroom facilities. They wanted equal pay for equal work, etc…
Homosexuals want special rights!
Beginning with the changing of marriage laws to fit them.
See the difference yet or do you need more?
Why can’t we change all of our customs, laws and socially accepted practices to fit what ever anyone wants?
Is there any reason that we cannot do this?
Please tell me your opinion.
You do?
Then you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry, right?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it and let me know why YOUR special right is more important than someone else’s.
That’s not the issue and never was my very very confused friend.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
After all, we are all just a bunch of monkeys who were born to hump.[/quote]
Do you realize how much you sound like the black-hating and women-hating bigots that have been referenced in this thread? Your posts are outright hateful.
Just because you love someone of the same gender doesn’t make that love any less rich or meaningful. If you want to define love as nothing more than humping, your definition applies to both straights and gays. Of course, I disagree with your definition on both counts.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
That question was answered by me in one word: No.[/quote]
Why? Because you say so, or do you have logical or empirical evidence for that claim?
Try to be objective for once and actually consider the question. Doesn’t it make sense that people would be more likely to stay together if they made a formal, legally binding commitment, with financial and social consequences?
Again, the question is whether or not making such a commitment would increase the likelihood of gays staying together. If anything, your claim works against you since it shows that people without access to marriage have less commitment.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Race is genetic, homosexuality is an act…a choice when it comes right down to it. There is no comparision between the two, no matter how many times you try to compare the two it just does not work.
[/quote]
Again, the comparison I am drawing is between two minority groups that have been discriminated against.
At one point in our history, interracial marriages were considered “wrong”. Bible thumpers were convinced that it was contrary to god’s will, and they had scripture to prove it. People catastrophized that the institution of marriage as we knew it would be forever threatened by allowing blacks to marry whites.
Yet somehow, several decades later, marriage continues on as it always has. The bigots were wrong back then, and they are wrong again when it comes to gay marriage.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Do you honestly think that there were no “moral laws” on the books against homosexuality in the 1700’s and 1800’s?[/quote]
Blacks were also held as slaves and women denied the right to vote during the 1700’s and 1800’s. Does that mean morality, as defined back then, was correct?
Again, the point is that the founding fathers did not enshrine their personal view of morality into the Constitution for a very good reason. They knew that, even among themselves, there was no consensus on a specific definition. Instead, they incorporated basic principles of fairness and the right to pursue liberty and happiness. It is those principles which eventually led to the liberation of blacks and women, and which in turn will lead to fairness for gays.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way, Blacks wanted the same rights that whites had. They didn’t want special rights did they?
[/quote]
They wanted the same rights, and so do gays. They wanted to be able to marry the person they loved, even if that person happened to be white. Gays want that same right, even if that person happens to be of the same gender. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love…gays and blacks should as well.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
First and foremost, I’ve yet to hear anyone mention how boring this film is. It’s tediously long and in most parts just plain dull. But let’s look at some of the propaganda aspects, shall we?
[/quote]
I just saw this flick and it was the most boring movie…EVER. I just watched it after all the hype has died down and I can now say, “wow, how lame.”
Firstly, love stories to me are boring unless they can be told in a way where they are not the main focus of the film. Personally, I prefer when there isn’t a happy ending–kinda like real life sometimes.
Secondly, aren’t we to the point that we can watch two men make-out with out having to read about it in the papers or the nightly news? We sat thru it for five seasons of “Six Feet Under” (which was a great series, BTW). This movie only got so much press because it was two men instead of a man and a woman. It would have been better if they had cast some super-huge non fem-boy in the lead role but hey, it still would have sucked.
This movie was so boring I didn’t want to finish watching it–but I did–lest I be accused of being homophobic.
I’m asking if you agree that a formal legally binding union with financial and social consequences would encourage people to stay together.
That’s right man, you need to put these crazy dudes in their place. And, when he tells you that it would encourage more people to go try homo poop-pounding monkey love, you tell him that he’s full of crap.
Just because society embrases or accepts a behavior or lifestyle doens’t mean it will grow. I mean, we’ve got less drunks, fat people, and welfare cases in this country than ever! Eat that you crazy goofballs!
Then, tell him that he has latent homosexual tendencies, heh, heh, heh. It’s obviously true because anyone who is so against ram-rodden must be a closet ram-rodder.
Well Forlife, you might as well hang it up. I mean how can you contend with arguments this razor sharp. Ivan’s keen insight into these issues clearly lays this to rest ;]
[/quote]
Hey, you can keep your right-wing propaganda pressing homophobia to yourself loserboy. Your just scared to admit that your a closet homosexual so you bash my posts. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Then, tell him that he has latent homosexual tendencies, heh, heh, heh. It’s obviously true because anyone who is so against ram-rodden must be a closet ram-rodder.
Well Forlife, you might as well hang it up. I mean how can you contend with arguments this razor sharp. Ivan’s keen insight into these issues clearly lays this to rest ;]
Hey, you can keep your right-wing propaganda pressing homophobia to yourself loserboy. Your just scared to admit that your a closet homosexual so you bash my posts. You should be ashamed of yourself.[/quote]
Huh? What the fuck are you on? Right wing? How can I be a propaganda pressing homophobic and a closet homosexual as you suggested? Definitely not right wing, definitely not homophobic, and DEFINITELY not homosexual. Just ask your Mom. You’re right though I should be ashamed of even responding to your junior high drivel.
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
After all, we are all just a bunch of monkeys who were born to hump.
Do you realize how much you sound like the black-hating and women-hating bigots that have been referenced in this thread? Your posts are outright hateful.
Just because you love someone of the same gender doesn’t make that love any less rich or meaningful. If you want to define love as nothing more than humping, your definition applies to both straights and gays. Of course, I disagree with your definition on both counts.[/quote]
Hey, don’t be calling me a hatemonger! You’re the hatemonger - it’s obvious by the way you call me hateful names. If you’d practice a little more love an tolerance I could live a happy life.
But Noooooooo. You don’t care about my views or the way I want to live my life. Let me live it how I want to. What I do affects only me and my lover. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL ME! ARRRRRRRRRRR!!!
Then, tell him that he has latent homosexual tendencies, heh, heh, heh. It’s obviously true because anyone who is so against ram-rodden must be a closet ram-rodder.
Well Forlife, you might as well hang it up. I mean how can you contend with arguments this razor sharp. Ivan’s keen insight into these issues clearly lays this to rest ;]
Hey, you can keep your right-wing propaganda pressing homophobia to yourself loserboy. Your just scared to admit that your a closet homosexual so you bash my posts. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Huh? What the fuck are you on? Right wing? How can I be a propaganda pressing homophobic and a closet homosexual as you suggested? Definitely not right wing, definitely not homophobic, and DEFINITELY not homosexual. Just ask your Mom. You’re right though I should be ashamed of even responding to your junior high drivel.[/quote]
Whoa, don’t try to backtrack now pal. You and the rest of these hatemongering freaky farts should just leave me alone and let me do what I want to do. IT’S MY LIFE!!!
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That question was answered by me in one word: No.
Why? Because you say so, or do you have logical or empirical evidence for that claim?[/quote]
There is no amount of evidence which will convince you that placing your penis in another mans rectum is not a healthy thing to do.
However, for the rest of us who are capable of reading studies we can easily see that it’s a dangerous activity. There is no such thing as “safe anal sex.”
Do we want to promote an activity which causes great emotional and physical pain and disease?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Race is genetic, homosexuality is an act…a choice when it comes right down to it. There is no comparision between the two, no matter how many times you try to compare the two it just does not work.
Again, the comparison I am drawing is between two minority groups that have been discriminated against.[/quote]
And that is FOOLISH!
If you can do that then I can draw any sort of comparison with any two (or more) groups and claim that it’s valid. And that would be equally foolish.
Yes, I am aware of that. But what you are doing is simply giving me one more example of how black people wanted (and deserved) EQUAL rights with white people.
Homosexuals want SPECIAL RIGHTS that currently do not exist.
Equal rights do not equal “special rights.”
Say that over and over again.
I think that the term “Bible thumper” is roughly equivalent to calling gay people “fags” or “fudge packers.”
I think over all you have conducted yourself pretty well in this debate. Do you really want to continue using that sort of term?
Since you want to rehash the 60 some page debate that we already had. Here is one of my many posts from back in March:
(If you want you can go back to page 67 I think and just give me the answer that you gave me then. It will mean as much to me now as it did then.)
Homosexuals cannot escape extreme health risks even in a “monogamous relationship.”
"Unhealthy Aspects of “Monogamous” Homosexual Relationships
Even those homosexual relationships that are loosely termed “monogamous” do not necessarily result in healthier behavior.
The journal AIDS reported that men involved in relationships engaged in anal intercourse and oral-anal intercourse (yuck) with greater frequency than those without a steady partner. Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.
The exclusivity of the relationship did not diminish the incidence of unhealthy sexual acts, which are commonplace among homosexuals. An English study published in the same issue of the journal AIDS concurred, finding that most “unsafe” sex acts among homosexuals occur in steady relationships.16