California Court Upholds Prop 8

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Vegita wrote:
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]

Actually, our genetics haven’t caught up to where we are at this stage in human history. In caveman times it would have been quite beneficial to have a gay uncle who could help with child rearing while the men were out hunting etc.

122

[quote]forlife wrote:

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.[/quote]

Incorrect on yet another statement. Setting aside your preposterous comparison between religion and sexual orientation, which has been dealt with, laws “discriminate” against religion quite frequently.

Why, how about that? Even marriage laws discriminate against religion on a regular basis: neither polygamy-supporting Mormons nor Muslims are allowed to take multiple marriage partners, even as their religion permits (and encourages) them to.

Other laws “discriminate” against religion, too - your religion may permit (or encourage) the use of drugs in your religious ceremony, but your religion doesn’t exempt you from drug possession laws.

Get some new material.

Thus, your religious “discrimination” canard comes to rest in the waste basket with all of your other failed examples.

123

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
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. [/quote]

You can continue to make believe that this information does not exist but that only makes you look like a foolish kid, over and over again.

You see junior that means that you have no statistics to counter those that I’ve posted, you have no argument. One would think that if I posted the wrong statistics regarding the very low rate of gay marriage which has clearly been noted you would actually have a legitimate response, but you don’t. And as anyone can clearly see you’ve conceded the point. Homosexuals are NOT marrying in states and countries where it is legal.

Point won, thank you and goodbye.

:slight_smile:

126

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

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.

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?

[/quote]

It does not surprise me that you don’t notice his screen name as you have only been here for 5 minutes.

Zeb has added solid training article after solid training article over the years on this site, I suggest that you ask yourself what you have added to this site apart from hissy fits.

127

Hurray for Democracy! :slight_smile:

128

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Vegita wrote:
he got into bodybuilding big time and that culture he delved into so deeply that he was bisexual for a while and then became gay.
V

Umm…hey there big boy…bodybuild long enough and you go GAY!!!

[/quote]

Holy shit!

Does Prof X know that?

Does it also lead to dentistry?

Was Doc Holyday buff?

What was his relationship with Wyatt Earp?

My mind boggles.

129

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
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.

You can continue to make believe that this information does not exist but that only makes you look like a foolish kid, over and over again.

You see junior that means that you have no statistics to counter those that I’ve posted, you have no argument. One would think that if I posted the wrong statistics regarding the very low rate of gay marriage which has clearly been noted you would actually have a legitimate response, but you don’t. And as anyone can clearly see you’ve conceded the point. Homosexuals are NOT marrying in states and countries where it is legal.

Point won, thank you and goodbye.

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

I am sorry but you have lost.

It is not your fault but when Mick28 agrees with anyone there is a 99,8% probability that that someone is completely wrong.

He is like a reverse Pookie.

130

…spent the afternoon at my brother’s yesterday and 2 female friends came to visit. I knew these friends of him had a relationship for a couple of years now, but i didn’t know that one of them had a baby. I also didn’t know they got married last year. They bought a house together aswell, you know, just like any other couple would. I really don’t understand what the problem is…

132

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
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.

You can continue to make believe that this information does not exist but that only makes you look like a foolish kid, over and over again.

You see junior that means that you have no statistics to counter those that I’ve posted, you have no argument. One would think that if I posted the wrong statistics regarding the very low rate of gay marriage which has clearly been noted you would actually have a legitimate response, but you don’t. And as anyone can clearly see you’ve conceded the point. Homosexuals are NOT marrying in states and countries where it is legal.

Point won, thank you and goodbye.

:slight_smile:

I am sorry but you have lost.

It is not your fault but when Mick28 agrees with anyone there is a 99,8% probability that that someone is completely wrong.

He is like a reverse Pookie.

One only has to review a few of your multi thousand posts to know that you’re not quite playing with a full deck. But then that’s what living your life on a message board will do to you.

[/quote]

Thank you, I am flattered.

If you ever find a post of mine you agree with, please let me know which one it is, I would need to know immediately.

But maybe in your case it is all instinct and now I have ruined it.

Have I killed my little pit canary?

:frowning:

133

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…spent the afternoon at my brother’s yesterday and 2 female friends came to visit. I knew these friends of him had a relationship for a couple of years now, but i didn’t know that one of them had a baby. I also didn’t know they got married last year. They bought a house together aswell, you know, just like any other couple would. I really don’t understand what the problem is…[/quote]

As far as I understand it, the fact that very few gay men actually marry somehow makes gay marriage worse because the Illuminati want a world government.

There is a chance that I do not get it either.

134

[quote]orion wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…spent the afternoon at my brother’s yesterday and 2 female friends came to visit. I knew these friends of him had a relationship for a couple of years now, but i didn’t know that one of them had a baby. I also didn’t know they got married last year. They bought a house together aswell, you know, just like any other couple would. I really don’t understand what the problem is…

As far as I understand it, the fact that very few gay men actually marry somehow makes gay marriage worse because the Illuminati want a world government.

There is a chance that I do not get it either.
[/quote]

I don’t get it, it sounds like a failing plan. Central bankers from the middle of the Earth need to erode marriage by instituting gay marriage, since we all know the only thing holding back the illuminati is marriage. But gays don’t like to get married anyways so their plot will never work?

That discredits ZEB’s sources ever more, they can’t even come up with a coherent conspiracy theory.

135

[quote]prospa7 wrote:

sup faggot[/quote]

Begone, idiot. We are all stocked up on Stupid and Disrespectful.

136

you CAN change your sexual orientation, it all just depends if you want to or not. Straight inmates have been doing this forever.

y’ll like some booty?

137

[quote]ZEB wrote:
there are plenty of statistics which demonstrate that committed gay relationships are practically non existent.[/quote]

Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds? It’s like walking up to Tiger Woods and informing him that black men can’t golf because you read it somewhere on a website, which happens to be dedicated to denigrating blacks. Not that you’re black or a golfer yourself, but you are an expert because this unbiased website tells you everything you need to know about the nonexistence of black golfers.

Come on, Zeb. You’re smarter than that.

I’m happily in a monogamous relationship. My partner and I have done everything legally possible to commit ourselves to one another, including buying a house together, granting one another medical power of attorney, etc. I have many friends that are similary happy and committed in monogamous gay relationships.

Maybe monogamous gay relationships only exist in my little bubble of Dallas, and everywhere else on the planet it is impossible for gays to commit themselves to long term, loving relationships. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Your “statistics” are nothing but shallow stereotypes promoted by an organization which has a blatant public agenda to discriminate against homosexuality.

138

In case anyone is interested in real research, rather than the NARTH statistics provided by Zeb, here’s a representative study published by the Williams Institute at UCLA in July, 2008:

Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-Sex Couples in the U.S.

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Couples%20Marr%20Regis%20Diss.pdf

Key findings:

  • In the states that provide legal recognition, more than 40% of same-sex couples have married, entered a civil union, or registered their relationships.

  • The percent of same-sex couples that dissolve their relationships each year closely tracks the figure for different-sex couples (about 2%).

139

[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
there are plenty of statistics which demonstrate that committed gay relationships are practically non existent.

Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds? It’s like walking up to Tiger Woods and informing him that black men can’t golf because you read it somewhere on a website, which happens to be dedicated to denigrating blacks. Not that you’re black or a golfer yourself, but you are an expert because this unbiased website tells you everything you need to know about the nonexistence of black golfers.

Come on, Zeb. You’re smarter than that.

I’m happily in a monogamous relationship. My partner and I have done everything legally possible to commit ourselves to one another, including buying a house together, granting one another medical power of attorney, etc. I have many friends that are similary happy and committed in monogamous gay relationships.

Maybe monogamous gay relationships only exist in my little bubble of Dallas, and everywhere else on the planet it is impossible for gays to commit themselves to long term, loving relationships. Maybe, but I doubt it.

Your “statistics” are nothing but shallow stereotypes promoted by an organization which has a blatant public agenda to discriminate against homosexuality. [/quote]

First of all I said “practically”. In other threads I used the term “statistically”. That means that the number of actual committed gay relationships is so low that it hardly counts.

This has been shown in many reports from reliable surveys and agencies. One only has to look at the dismal marriage statistics in states and countrys where gay marriage is allowed to realize that homosexuals really don’t want to be committed. Go back and look at one of my prior posts on the topic.

Here are more facts for you to digest:

“Three-quarters of Canadian gay men in relationships lasting longer than one year are not monogamous, according to a limited study presented during the American Sociological Association conference held in Atlanta this week.”

The following is from a pro gay website:
http://bandittalks.blogspot.com/2006/01/gay-monogamy-does-it-exist.html

“You put two guys together and the chemistry is ripe for fooling around. Men are pigs; they love sex. 99.9% of the gay men couples I know fool around on each other. That’s a lot!”

In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been legal for about 10 years:

“According to a Dutch study, same-sex â??partnershipsâ?? for young men are temporal at best, and men in “steady partnerships” have an average of eight partners per year aside from their “main” partner…1”

“A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners…As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland – known as Chicago’s “gay center” – have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.”[6]

As to your constant drum beat comparing homosexuals to blacks I’m rather tired of it as there is no comparison.

Black = genetic

Gay= Not genetic

Even black leaders such as Jesse Jackson have stated that there is no comparison between what homosexuals are trying to do and what blacks were forced to endure.

Give it a rest forlife you’re lines are old, outdated and make no sense.

140

[quote]forlife wrote:
In case anyone is interested in real research, rather than the NARTH statistics provided by Zeb,[/quote]

I’ll say it now for the second time as you must have missed the first, the following statistics are NOT from the NARTH site, nor do I have to go on the NARTH site to demonstrate through reliable statistics that homosexuals are NOT taking advantage of the marriage laws in various states and countries where it is or has been legal:

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!

The above is based upon YOUR claim that 18,000 gays filed for a marriage license (I’ll give that to you but filed does not mean married does it?).

[b]What about Canada? Tell me forlife is the Canadian census a right wing group?

"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.[/b]

Back to the US:

" 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.

Let’s go abroad again shall we?

[b] 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.” [/b]

[b]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.”[/b]

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

Comment on what I’ve posted forlife I’m interested in what you have to say. But please drop that rheteric regarding NARTH as nothing I’ve posted comes from their site.