[quote]Lorisco wrote:
[…]You are not following here. The CDC is quick to ‘blame’ IV drug use on the spread of HIV. They don’t say multiple IV drug use with many different drugs do they? No. They say IV drug use, period. So why do they just not say anal sex is the issue instead of multiple partner anal sex? Why? Because they are a government agency, which like all government agencies, is affected by the political environment.[/quote]
If you read their materials - yes they warn of the risks of unprotected multiple partner (anal) sex. They just concentrate on the really important term: unprotected. Sexual behaviour is by far more complex than substance abuse - but let’s be clear, they are very opposed to needle sharing. Not all sexual behaviours are harmful - there is a range of risk which increases with the combination of specific factors (number of partners, specific practices, condom use, etc.); the CDC understands that. Understanding and countering risk have nothing to do with PC - they are part of dealing with humans.
[quote][…]Sounds like you could use an anatomy and physiology lessen. But the button line is that just because the body has a hole doesn’t mean it was meant or evolved for the purpose of having something stuck in it. Regardless of how you want to twist it the anus and rectum are not sex organs.
Just so you get this; when the doctor told you as a kid that you shouldn’t stick foreign objects in your nose or ears; that also included your butt.[/quote]
They are not directly sex organs, but sexual arousal through anal stimulation is not only possible, but widespread. Following your logic - which I don’t - oral stimulation is out, nipple stimulation is out, manual stimulation and masturbation is out - only direct vaginal intercourse. That’s not only misunderstanding the complexity of human sexuality - but makes for really boring foreplay.
Sure - I’ve been there all along; it’s the misinterpretation of and blanket demonisation of ‘gay sex’ and the sinister stereotyping of LBGT people and their motives as well as the reduction of a whole group within society to those stereotypes that I object to.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Our laws which keep polygamy illegal - as opposed to consential homosexual relationships.
Earth to Makkun: that’s what this whole gay “marriage” thing is about: changing the laws to make it legal. You’re argument is now “polygamy is wrong because it’s illegal?”
Also, most polygynic arrangements tend to infringe on the hard fought for womens’ rights to self-determination. For most of us, it’s really easy to see that difference.
So what? The Muslims don’t believe in women’s “self determination.” They think it’s wrong. Should we now allow them to change the definition? We’re arguing over what “ought” to be here.
We’re not tribal societies - and we’ve put values and rights into place to keep us from falling back. I’m surprised at your lack of trust in plural, free, secular and democratic societies.
I’m surprised at your “lack of trust.” We’ve voted DEMOCRATICALLY on this issue in California twice. It’s been overturned by the gay militants who take the issue to activist judges. You talk about the “values” we’ve put into place, but are railing against them at every turn. NEWSFLASH: one of the “values” we had in place that moved us out tribalism was monogamous marriage between a man and a woman. The Arabs, Pashtuns, and other Muslims have tribalism because of their practices of a) first cousin marriage and b) polygyny, both of which are “values” this society has rejected.
You’re argument contains no consistency, no facts, and no data. [/quote]
What I don’t understand is how a judge can overturn a free vote.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
[…]You are not following here. The CDC is quick to ‘blame’ IV drug use on the spread of HIV. They don’t say multiple IV drug use with many different drugs do they? No. They say IV drug use, period. So why do they just not say anal sex is the issue instead of multiple partner anal sex? Why? Because they are a government agency, which like all government agencies, is affected by the political environment.
If you read their materials - yes they warn of the risks of unprotected multiple partner (anal) sex. They just concentrate on the really important term: unprotected. Sexual behaviour is by far more complex than substance abuse - but let’s be clear, they are very opposed to needle sharing. IV Drug Users dont have a political lobby which make their behavior politically correct either. Not all sexual behaviours are harmful - there is a range of risk which increases with the combination of specific factors (number of partners, specific practices, condom use, etc.); the CDC understands that. Understanding and countering risk have nothing to do with PC - they are part of dealing with humans.
[…]Sounds like you could use an anatomy and physiology lessen. But the button line is that just because the body has a hole doesn’t mean it was meant or evolved for the purpose of having something stuck in it. Regardless of how you want to twist it the anus and rectum are not sex organs.
Just so you get this; when the doctor told you as a kid that you shouldn’t stick foreign objects in your nose or ears; that also included your butt.
They are not directly sex organs, but sexual arousal through anal stimulation is not only possible, but widespread. Following your logic - which I don’t - oral stimulation is out, nipple stimulation is out, manual stimulation and masturbation is out - only direct vaginal intercourse. That’s not only misunderstanding the complexity of human sexuality - but makes for really boring foreplay.
So you admit the risk is by type of sex. Seems we are making progress.
Sure - I’ve been there all along; it’s the misinterpretation of and blanket demonisation of ‘gay sex’ and the sinister stereotyping of LBGT people and their motives as well as the reduction of a whole group within society to those stereotypes that I object to.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Earth to Makkun: that’s what this whole gay “marriage” thing is about: changing the laws to make it legal. You’re argument is now “polygamy is wrong because it’s illegal?”[/quote]
Homosexuality is not illegal. Changing the law to include a legal form of relationship is different from changing the law to accept an illegal form of relationship. Polygamy is not necessarily wrong imo - but as long as it’s embedded into an abusive context (which it practically always is), I don’t have a problem with opposing it.
I don’t agree with that assertion. I’m aware of your views on Muslims, and I find them a classic example of negative stereotyping. We should however allow anyone to make a legal attempt at questioning the current social status - that’s what pluralism is all about.
That’s what comes with the separation of powers - the independent judiciary has to interpret and sometimes evaluate the laws of the land. If some of your laws are seemingly easily overturned by judicial review, it speaks of sloppy law making rather than activism.
No, I’m railing against the ‘values’ as you propose them. Yes, one of the values which evolved our societies has been monogamous marriage - with its many permutations and changes. Widening it to include monogamous same-sex couples is imho just another step in this evolution.
Maybe - so what? It’s their values, not ‘ours’. Oh wait, I’m German - first cousin marriage is legal in Germany; and goddamn’ I have some hot cousins… Now I understand - that must be it - my moral compass must have been compromised by my tribal roots. Sometimes you’re so goofy…
I know - that’s what I’m known for here on T-Nation: incoherent, never using sources with disgust for analysing facts.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah, heterosexuals are dropping like flies from HIV, right?[/quote]
Ever check the heterosexual statistics in Africa? Or does the world revolve around your parochial U.S. bias?
Besides, you answered the wrong question. Why the hell would you think monogamous gay couples are more at risk than straight men that sleep around?
My point was that your stereotypes don’t reflect reality. You have made sweeping statements about how it is impossible for gay men to be monogamous, and a single data point to the contrary shows how ridiculous you are being. Open your eyes and realize that homosexuality is more complex and diverse than your stereotypes suggest.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[…]What I don’t understand is how a judge can overturn a free vote.[/quote]
I guess that may have to do with the way your political and judicial system was constructed. I would guess it may have to do with the responsibility of constitutional courts to test laws and compare them to the constitutional framework. An independent judiciary is a good thing - and that’s why autocratic regimes try to get impede with this principle. People may moan about ‘activist’ judges - I would see them as the result of a healthy separation of powers. But I guess there’ll be people here who can explain this better.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
What I don’t understand is how a judge can overturn a free vote.
[/quote]
If the vote contradicts the core tenets of the constitution, it can be overturned. Proposition 8 was a revision, not an amendment, which would have required approval by the state legislature.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
What I don’t understand is how a judge can overturn a free vote.
If the vote contradicts the core tenets of the constitution, it can be overturned. Proposition 8 was a revision, not an amendment, which would have required approval by the state legislature.
[/quote]
But the constitution was writtent empower the people not a judge. so to me this is omething that would need to be set before a group of judges not one.
So homosexuality is embedded into the abusive context of HIV and promiscuity, but you’ve got no problem supporting it, but you oppose polygamy because it is usually embedded in an “abusive context”? Why not just be consistent?
My “stereotyping” of Muslims comes from examining what Muslims THEMSELVES believe about jihad and subsequent dhimmitude against non-Muslims. These doctrines are supported by the Qur’an and Sunnah, and (once again) you have no way of refuting me other than personal anecdotes from Muslim acquaintances. These anecdotes, however, amount to nothing more than standard Muslim taqiyya and can’t be believed. I have facts, you have feelings. You are an emotional kind of guy though.
Or it speaks of judicial activism.
[quote]No, I’m railing against the ‘values’ as you propose them. Yes, one of the values which evolved our societies has been monogamous marriage - with its many permutations and changes. Widening it to include monogamous same-sex couples is imho just another step in this evolution.
[/quote]
“values” that are subject to “permutations and changes” aren’t values at all - they’re whims.
Cousin marriage is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for this tribalism. The rest of the Islamic belief system comes to bear, as Christianity used to come to bear on Western thought. However, you’re line of reasoning leaves no argument against the Muslims implementing the full measure of their system, which includes b) polgyny and tribalism.
[quote]I know - that’s what I’m known for here on T-Nation: incoherent, never using sources with disgust for analysing facts.
[/quote]
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
But the constitution was writtent empower the people not a judge. so to me this is omething that would need to be set before a group of judges not one. [/quote]
The constitution was written to protect the people, including protection of minorities from people that are ignorant of the fundamental tenets of their constitution.
You don’t think the Supreme Court qualifies as a “group of judges”?
[quote]forlife wrote:
clip11 wrote:
We all know or know of opposite sex couples who have been together a long time…we cant say the same for gay couples.
Are you even following the posts in this thread? God, the ignorance is stifling.
[/quote]
not really its true, do you want someone to post the stats again like previous posts and you will ignore them and act as if it never happened on this too? lawl
[quote]forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Yeah, heterosexuals are dropping like flies from HIV, right?
Ever check the heterosexual statistics in Africa? Or does the world revolve around your parochial U.S. bias?
[/quote]
Yeah. I also linked the WHO’s statement on that phenomenon in the last thread. African HIV is largely due to needle sharing and… wait for it… gay sex!
For the reasons I outlined above (if you bothered to read them). The rectum is not anywhere near as robust as the vagina. Ask your doctor when you go in for your next HIV check up. Ask Roger Bohman.
[quote]
My point was that your stereotypes don’t reflect reality. You have made sweeping statements about how it is impossible for gay men to be monogamous, and a single data point to the contrary shows how ridiculous you are being. Open your eyes and realize that homosexuality is more complex and diverse than your stereotypes suggest.[/quote]
I presented you with a mountain of data that showed that my views reflect reality. You presented me with personal anecdotes, which are your data. In your mind, anecdote = data. In my mind, data = data.
[quote]forlife wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
But the constitution was writtent empower the people not a judge. so to me this is omething that would need to be set before a group of judges not one.
The constitution was written to protect the people, including protection of minorities from people that are ignorant of the fundamental tenets of their constitution.
You don’t think the Supreme Court qualifies as a “group of judges”? [/quote]
I was refering to the situation in Cali.
believe they were talking about one judge at state level.
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, the Prop 8 legislation was in response to the decision to allow gay marriage by the California Supreme Court.[/quote]
As I remember hearing, didnt the ppl vote to ban gay marriage before and then some judges just came along and changed it? Prop 8 is nothing new, its just putting things back the way it should be and the way things originally were.
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, the Prop 8 legislation was in response to the decision to allow gay marriage by the California Supreme Court.[/quote]
You need help for your problem, you left your wife to be with another man. The longer you pretend u dnt have a problem the worst itll get. Its like an alcoholic, he wont make progress until he admits he has a problem, or a drug addict. The question is do you want help?