California Court Upholds Prop 8

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]anonym wrote:
Vegita wrote:
As I pointed out in my “how gay are you” thread, for a very large sum of money, I would most likley engage in a homosexual act. So i guess i’m not 100% straight if a circumstance exists that would cause me to have sex with another man. But that act would be a choice I made, I was not born gay because under that circumstance I had sex with a man.

Homosexuality is, ultimately, an attraction to the same sex.

You can engage in a homosexual act without this attraction.

Duh.

Oh, and your cousin was definitely gay back in high school and college. If you asked, you would most likely learn that he always had homosexual urges and was probably trying to just fake it until he made it… and ultimately failed.

I’m not saying that sexual appetites can’t be learned… just that I have a strong feeling bodybuilding wasn’t the cause of your cousin catching teh ghey.[/quote]

Um no I actually have talked with him at length about it, and he was definately NOT gay before he entered the bodybuilding scene in Miami in the 80’s. The stories he has told me would really open some eyes, mass orgies with bodybuilders and pornstars and strippers. And eventually, all the naked bodies around fornicating desensitized him to the fact of touching a naked man and eventually he said it became normal and he began expiramenting with it further. He later realized he did not like the emotional up and downs of the opposite sex and had several strong bonds with some of his male friends who he viewed as better relationship material. It’s pretty simple really, they viewed it as taking out a sexual urge and instead of needing a woman to do it, they used eachother and then it was basically like hanging out with the guys all the time. Obviously drugs were rampant in his life as well, so a lot of his inhibitions were shattered with the use of drugs. I don’t need to go into it any more than that, and there have been countless articles about how strong the gay element is in bodybuilding. I’m not saying it is the only cause, but his situation at that time, led him down that road.

V

102

[quote]Vegita wrote:
The human species is depandant on only one thing, reproduction.[/quote]

Not true. There are many other things that must happen before we even get to reproduce; and let’s not forget all the work that goes into gestation and rearing a child.

Humans are dependent on many things. There is no reason why we should believe homosexuals do or do not serve some genetic purpose. Least wise, it isn’t really provable anyway.

103

[quote]ZEB wrote:
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage![/quote]

I would love to see your “statistics”, showing that gays who marry are equally likely to be promiscuous compared with gays who don’t marry. I bet even your NARTH website doesn’t have those numbers.

You still haven’t addressed the basic premise that marriage includes 1000+ responsibilities and privileges, sticks and carrots, which help ensure the longevity of the relationship. If that weren’t the case, why have marriage in the first place?

I’ve shown you solid research demonstrating that gay marriage reduces promiscuity and helps reduce sexual disease. For example, Thomas Dee published research in 2005, in which he studied the effects of gay marriage in nine European countries that allow it. Guess what?

He found that gay marriage laws led to a 43% reduction in syphilis rates.

Want to try again, given the inconvenient truth that actual scientific research directly contradicts you?

Tell that to the 18,000 gay couples that married in the short time that gay marriage was allowed in California.

Damn those facts.

104

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
The human species is depandant on only one thing, reproduction.

Not true. There are many other things that must happen before we even get to reproduce; and let’s not forget all the work that goes into gestation and rearing a child.

Humans are dependent on many things. There is no reason why we should believe homosexuals do or do not serve some genetic purpose. Least wise, it isn’t really provable anyway.

[/quote]

Look I understand what you are saying and I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. But the human species cannot survive if 100% of the population was homosexual, no children would be born and we would die off. Conversely, if there were no homosexuals, we would continue on just fine. They are not necessary, while men having sex with women is quite necessary.

V

105

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Actually, longitudinal twin studies have shown that about 1/4 of chronic disease is attributable to genetic factors. So if we can extrapolate from that at best you could say that 1/4 of gays are so by genetics. [/quote]

You’re assuming that homosexuality is a “chronic disease”, and thus genetics couldn’t account for more than 25% of the variance. Guess what?

In 1991, Bailey and Pillard studied three all male groups: identical twins, fraternal twins, and men with adoptive brothers.Of the 170 relatives examined, 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of fraternal twins were both gay, and 11% of the adoptive brothers were both gay.

In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian .

So genetics accounted for roughly 50% of the variance in sexual orientation. Since according to you, genetics only account for 25% of the variance in chronic disease, by your own logic homosexuality cannot be a “chronic disease”.

Thanks for that.

106

[quote]Vegita wrote:
if you want to be gay and you want to have gay marriage, say I am now gay and I would like to have gay marriage. You don’t need to go through all this well I was born this way so I can’t help it bullshit. [/quote]

I agree it doesn’t matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not.

As it turns out, the research has shown that sexual orientation is NOT a choice, as unanimously concluded by every major medical and mental health organization.

But yes, the point is irrelevant. Religion is a choice too, and people still enjoy the right not to be discriminated against due to their choice of religion.

107

[quote]Vegita wrote:
As I pointed out in my “how gay are you” thread, for a very large sum of money, I would most likley engage in a homosexual act.[/quote]

Take that up with Zeb, who insists that as a straight male, it would be impossible for you to have sex with another man.

You’re confusing sexual orientation with sexual expression, by the way. Yes, you could have sex with another man (sexual expression), but no, you wouldn’t normally have any desire whatsoever to do so (sexual orientation).

108

[quote]Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
The human species is depandant on only one thing, reproduction.

Not true. There are many other things that must happen before we even get to reproduce; and let’s not forget all the work that goes into gestation and rearing a child.

Humans are dependent on many things. There is no reason why we should believe homosexuals do or do not serve some genetic purpose. Least wise, it isn’t really provable anyway.

Look I understand what you are saying and I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. But the human species cannot survive if 100% of the population was homosexual, no children would be born and we would die off. Conversely, if there were no homosexuals, we would continue on just fine. They are not necessary, while men having sex with women is quite necessary.

V[/quote]

But none are suggesting that, and even still, asexual reproduction does happen in nature. Are we so certain that it cannot happen in human nature?

109

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Vegita wrote:
The human species is depandant on only one thing, reproduction.

Not true. There are many other things that must happen before we even get to reproduce; and let’s not forget all the work that goes into gestation and rearing a child.

Humans are dependent on many things. There is no reason why we should believe homosexuals do or do not serve some genetic purpose. Least wise, it isn’t really provable anyway.

Look I understand what you are saying and I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. But the human species cannot survive if 100% of the population was homosexual, no children would be born and we would die off. Conversely, if there were no homosexuals, we would continue on just fine. They are not necessary, while men having sex with women is quite necessary.

V

But none are suggesting that, and even still, asexual reproduction does happen in nature. Are we so certain that it cannot happen in human nature?[/quote]

Sure, you can clone humans and never have to worry about natural reproduction again. Homosexual attraction goes against a humans genetics. Again, i’m not even saying it’s wrong or that I care, but we are genetecally designed, or evolved to reproduce with the opposite sex, and since sexual orientation is the topic I’d say I can prove humans are born heterosexually. They are born with the design of having sex with the opposite sex in mind. Even a homosexual man, is still designed to have sex with a woman, like I said earlier, I’m quite positive there are no lubricating secratory glands in the anus which are triggered by sexual arousal, as there are in the vagina.

I’m also not saying you can’t go dropping a 454 big block into a ugo, it is really not suited to that nor designed for it, but i’m sure someone could make it work. It would probably make more sense to drop it in a pickup truck though.

V

110

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Over the years I’ve posted a plethora of facts, figures and statistics numerous times on this very site. However, it is my mistake to assume that you or anyone else actually read them. [/quote]

Honestly I don’t recall ever noticing you screename before. Have you done/said anything to set yourself apart from the rest of the conspiracy-theory types on this site?

Boy, I can’t imagine why you’re not taken seriously!
Homosexual marriage → world dictatorship by central bankers! Of course!

111

[quote]Vegita wrote:
I can prove humans are born heterosexually. They are born with the design of having sex with the opposite sex in mind.[/quote]

Heterosexual doesn’t mean “being designed to have sex with the opposite gender”. Heterosexual means “being sexually attracted to the opposite gender”. And no, not everyone is born “sexually attracted to the opposite gender”.

Are you aware that the prostate gland happens to be located in just the right place to provide sexual stimulation from anal insertion?

By your logic, men were designed to have anal sex with one another due to this biological fact.

112

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Boy, I can’t imagine why you’re not taken seriously!
Homosexual marriage → world dictatorship by central bankers! Of course! [/quote]

Lol, he found me out.

113

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage!

I would love to see your “statistics”, showing that gays who marry are equally likely to be promiscuous compared with gays who don’t marry. I bet even your NARTH website doesn’t have those numbers.[/quote]

I don’t have to spend any time on the NARTH site (by the way you’ve never been able to dispute a single fact from that site) as there are plenty of statistics which demonstrate that committed gay relationships are practically non existent.

And you have not addressed my previous post which clearly points out that homosexuals across the globe are NOT taking advantage of their marriage rights. In fact most gays could not care less about traditional marriage. And, we all know why!

[quote]
I’ve shown you solid research demonstrating that gay marriage reduces promiscuity and helps reduce sexual disease. For example, Thomas Dee published research in 2005, in which he studied the effects of gay marriage in nine European countries that allow it. [/quote]

That’s funny stuff. How long has gay marriage been around in the Netherlands? Maybe 10 years? Homosexuals still lead the way in STD’s, suicide, depression and a host of other UGLY statistics. Marriage solved nothing homosexual men still run around like the promiscuous alley cats that they are. Oh and for your information only about 6% of the gay population is “married” in the Netherlands. They just don’t care do that?

[quote]Also, poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity.

Tell that to the 18,000 gay couples that married in the short time that gay marriage was allowed in California.[/quote]

Again you’re entertaining me and I thank you.

Last time I checked California had a population of about 37 MILLION people. If your previous claims of the general population are true and 5% of the 37 million are gay that means that there are approximately 1,850,000 homosexuals in California. I would say that about 1% of the gay population marrying is indeed dismal. It is you that makes outlandish claims that gays want this right and are just chomping at the bit to get this privilige. They get it and what happens? 99% couldn’t care less!

Thanks for proving my point.

114

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
if you want to be gay and you want to have gay marriage, say I am now gay and I would like to have gay marriage. You don’t need to go through all this well I was born this way so I can’t help it bullshit.

I agree it doesn’t matter if sexual orientation is a choice or not.

As it turns out, the research has shown that sexual orientation is NOT a choice, as unanimously concluded by every major medical and mental health organization.[/quote]

Would you like me to post the inside scoop on exactly why and how homosexuality was removed as a mental disease?

No, no that’s right I’ve posted it before and you’ve ignored it.

No problem.

For now everyone will have to take comfort that the US military still declares homosexuality a (ready?) MENTAL DISEASE!

Now why is that?

115

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:

The vast majority of homosexuals don’t want gay marriage. It is being foisted on them and on society by elite social engineers using the media, government and a few activists. The goal is to undermine heterosexual marriage by obscuring its true character. [b]The purpose is to destroy the family and render society more vulnerable to world government dictatorship by the central bankers."[/b]

Boy, I can’t imagine why you’re not taken seriously!
Homosexual marriage → world dictatorship by central bankers! Of course! [/quote]

That’s typical, I put up a lengthy post which clearly shows that homosexuals don’t care about marriage world wide and you pick up on one line which is actually amusing.

Now tell me what you think of the basic fact that homosexuals don’t care about marriage. Do you want to address that?

No?

116

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:

The vast majority of homosexuals don’t want gay marriage. It is being foisted on them and on society by elite social engineers using the media, government and a few activists. The goal is to undermine heterosexual marriage by obscuring its true character. [b]The purpose is to destroy the family and render society more vulnerable to world government dictatorship by the central bankers."[/b]

Boy, I can’t imagine why you’re not taken seriously!
Homosexual marriage → world dictatorship by central bankers! Of course!

That’s typical, I put up a lengthy post which clearly shows that homosexuals don’t care about marriage world wide and you pick up on one line which is actually amusing.

Now tell me what you think of the basic fact that homosexuals don’t care about marriage. Do you want to address that?

No?

[/quote]

Mate. You’re spouting crazy-ass conspiracy theories and you want me to engage you in an honest debate? Are you really nutty? I’m not forlife. He’s nice enough to humor you. I’ll just laugh at your theories about how homosexual marriage is actually a plot by central bankers. Honestly, it’s craziness like this that keeps me on this site. I don’t know where else I could look to find such gems.

BTW, are you really PRCalDude? (sp?) He had some theories like this I think.

118

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Mate. You’re spouting crazy-ass conspiracy theories and you want me to engage you in an honest debate? Are you really nutty? I’m not forlife. He’s nice enough to humor you. I’ll just laugh at your theories about how homosexual marriage is actually a plot by central bankers. Honestly, it’s craziness like this that keeps me on this site. I don’t know where else I could look to find such gems. [/quote]

No actually I’m not spouting off any such thing. One site had that statement on it which I do not agree with.

Can we now move on?

I posted four web sites and clearly pointed out where homosexual marriage is legal gays are NOT taking advantage of it.

It’s time now for you to address the substance of my post. Not one line from one web site but the actual facts and information that I brought to the board from four different web sites.

Here you go:

"less than one-in-20 gays took advantage of Canada’s decision to legalize marriage in June 2005, according to a census a year later.

Gays make up just 0.1% of all married couples, a proportion which is consistent with other countries that permit same-sex marriage.

And

" 1.9 to 4.7 percent of Belgium’s gay population had married, 5.9 to 16.7 percent of Massachusetts’ gay population and 2.6 to 6.3 percent of Dutch gays had married.

And

Australia?

"When actually asked, for instance, as they were during the Private Lives Report produced by La Trobe University in 2006, most of the gay partners surveyed indicated that they had no intention of ever “formalising’ their relationships.”

And

Spain?

“But the number of gay marriages there have been since the approval of the law is tiny, almost ridiculous. A handful of gay marriages when compared with the Spanish gay population. For example, in my region, which gathers a population of two million people (gay people are estimated between 5% and 10% of the population), there have been only two gay marriages during the two years and a half passed since the approval of the gay marriage law (June 2005). Yes. Two gay marriages. One and one. This is between 0,002% and 0,004% of the possible gay marriages.”

http://www.news.com.au/...5000117,00.html

If you do have some information which disproves the above I’d love to read it. I’m sincerely interested in this topic and would love to read some relevant information that you could provide.

There you have it, are you able to actually address the issue or is this debate over?

119

Here’s the thing about debates, you need credibility. Yes you’ve cited sources, but look at the sources you’ve cited! The first thing anyone would do when looking at someone’s questionable statistics would be to do just that, question them. You actually included some of the craziness from that site in your cut and paste! I didn’t even have to dig to find it! Now you’re asking me to “get serious” and suggesting that you never agreed with the site YOU POSTED! Come on man, how can I take you seriously? Why should I invest ANY time in looking at your stats? Is this “debate” over? No mate, it never started.

Again, I’m not forlife. He’ll humor you. I’ll just make fun of you until you become something other than a joke. “Central bankers,” huh…that’s a good one. I bet the guys who thought that up have great stats to look at.

120

I’m sorry, but when did the military become an expert on homosexuality? The military is the largest homophobic institution world wide, and why is that? Because straight men think gay men are wimpy and not as manly enough to handle war and guns and stuff like that. Gay men = wuss, to the military. Oh, and that being surrounded by men all the time, a gay man wouldn’t be able to control himself and go on some kind of anal raping spree. Straight men, I have noticed, are so caught up in their own manliness and making sure everyone knows they are straight and entertain NO gay thoughts whatsoever, the go overboard. Personally, knowing how catty women can be, if a woman told me I looked good, I would take it as a compliment, where as a man would take it as an insult and being hit on and probably hit the guy.

Concerning genetics, we can say that heterosexuality is the dominant gene, which is why it’s so much more prevalent, such as right-handedness, while homosexuality is the recessive gene, as in left-handedness. Therefore you would need two recessives to make the trait present itself. So, if you have two right-handed people with a left-handed recessive gene each, they have a 25% chance of having a left-handed child. Apply this to homosexuality: if you have 2 parents with a recessive homosexuality gene, they have a 25% chance of having a homosexual child.