Gay Marriage: The Latest Salvo

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
561

[quote]ZEB wrote:
LOL “rising_hope” and with two entire posts to your credit…wow. (eye roll)

Okay is this 100meters? Um…which social liberal decided to switch names?

It can’t be someone brand new entering this debate and picking a post of mine from about 5 weeks ago to critique. Not buying it…

If it is I have one message for you my friend: Keep drinking the politically correct kookaide!

And whatever you do never ever have an original thought in your life! Just keep spewing the social liberal philosophy…(another eye roll)

Basically your arguments are weak and have been refuted over and over again. However, if you keep trying and improve I will step up to the plate and give it a shot.

Take care,

Zeb

[/quote]

How relentlessly ad hominem of you, as usual, Zeb. Why didn’t you just say the arguments had been refuted already, and provide citations?

Somebody get under your skin?

562

[quote]torrentprime wrote:

Lorisco wrote:
Sounds like I’m somewhat older than you are, but I remember reading this information many years ago. I confess that I don’t think I can find it anymore. As far as the gay lobby, do a search about what they demanding when they did they march on Washington about 10-12 years ago. It’s during that march when they wanted to lower the age of statutory rape. Check it out.

DUDE. Way to phrase it–“lower the age of statutory rape.” How about, “Lower the age of sexual consent”?

Look at it this way–how many 17 year old boys do you think want to have sex? Let’s see–ALL of the, right? Teenage boys are horndogs, of course. Now if a 17 year old gets lucky with some 30 year old MILF, is anyone going to say anything? Complain? Arrest the woman? Hell no; people will buy him a beer for getting some.
Now–change gears. What if the 17 year old is gay? And he hooks up with a 30 year old guy? Well, if anyone finds out, the 30 year old is in jail for child molestation, statutory rape, etc.
Now of course, there needs to be some age at which we decide that children cannot make an informed choice, but whatever that age is, it needs to be enforced fairly. 18 is a pretty high age for sexual consent (how old were you when you first did it?); some states go for 16, some 14, etc. But the issue here is unequal enforcement for gays vs. straights.[/quote]

I agree with you but also feel that being physically able to get it on doesn’t make it healthy mentally. The “age of consent” should be designed for the childs wellbeing, not the adults hard-on! My point is that what other collective group (other than child molesters) have come out to say let’s lower the age of consent? It wasn’t the group of 17 yr olds saying this, it was adults.

I know, I don’t have any proof of this at the moment. But my opinion is that any group that is organized based purly on who they want to bone is not a good thing.

563

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
LOL “rising_hope” and with two entire posts to your credit…wow. (eye roll)

Okay is this 100meters? Um…which social liberal decided to switch names?

It can’t be someone brand new entering this debate and picking a post of mine from about 5 weeks ago to critique. Not buying it…

If it is I have one message for you my friend: Keep drinking the politically correct kookaide!

And whatever you do never ever have an original thought in your life! Just keep spewing the social liberal philosophy…(another eye roll)

Basically your arguments are weak and have been refuted over and over again. However, if you keep trying and improve I will step up to the plate and give it a shot.

Take care,

Zeb

How relentlessly ad hominem of you, as usual, Zeb. Why didn’t you just say the arguments had been refuted already, and provide citations?

Somebody get under your skin?[/quote]

No, not at all. I’m just particular as to whom I debate with. When I see two posts I simply wonder. Oh, I’m sure he, or she will be back on this thread with a littany of insults directed toward me…and quite frankly I deserve it :slight_smile:

Also, maybe it’s me, but I think it’s all been said before between the current two “Gay” threads.

Social liberals think that Gays should be able to get married. I don’t

Social liberals don’t think that homosexuality is a sin (and many if not most are not Christian, or any religion). The Bible says it is.

Social liberals think that the homosexual lifestyle is conducive to adopting children. I don’t.

Um…can’t think of anything else off the top of my head. However, if it’s something that social liberals want…I’m against it…LOL

Hey…I love everyone, but I happen to think some behavior is wrong for a variety of reasons which by now have all been stated dozens of times…(yawn)

I’m going to go lift some serious iron, want to join me endgamer?

What are your stats on the following:

  1. Deadlift
  2. Squat
  3. Pull-ups
  4. Standing Press

These are the four most important movements for muscular size and power. (At least they are my favorites)

Bye…

Everyones friend,

Zeb

564

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:

Okay. Saying that being gay is damaging because of AIDS is like saying that being black is damaging because of syphillis. Honestly man… good lord. I have plenty of gay friends who have absolutely nothing to do with the AIDS epidemic. Maybe they’re contributing to the metrosexual epidemic, but that is for another discussion.
[/quote]

And yet, the CDC has states a different story in regards to how many Gays have AIDS and engage in unprotected butt-course. The fact that you have a few friends who are different doesn’t change the statistical majority. Duh!

Dude, I sure hope you never try out for a debate team as you would be laughed out of the place. What does gayness have to do with one’s occupation?

No sport, I’am asking what positive things come from the act or social outcomes of butt reaming?

And again, not related to their gayness. Tell me something good that is DIRECTLY related to being gay?

Dude, for all your rhetoric you seem to be having trouble coming up with even one positive thing about guys having sex with guys and girls having sex with girls? The other things they do are Irrelevant. Because as I have stated before, we are talking about the behavior of gays, not them as people. The fact that they are good people in other ways has nothing to do with their sexual behavior.

Dude, try and focus here; what makes a person gay? Answer, their same-sex sexual behavior. So sport, their sexual behavior IS what makes them gay, not their job, or artwork, or whatever else you want to use to divert from the real issue.

So please answer the question if you can; what positive thing is related or come out of gayness? (meaning the gay sexual act)

565

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lothario, I don’t dispute that there are a great number of wonderful gay people. You seem to be mixing the character of the people with sex act in your argument. I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.

I do believe that the positive side of gay sex acts is limited to the brief pleasure it gives willing participants.

This also applies for any type of straight sex outside of procreation.

You could also say this about drinking, smoking, recreational drug use and probably more things.

These behaviors may be enjoyable, but they also have a destructive element.

I do not believe the government should take any actions that encourage promiscuity, extramarital sex or gay sex, nor do I think the government should discourage adults from any of these acts.

People should be taught the consequences of these acts and then make thier own decisions.

I have a gay friend who is HIV positive, thankfully it is under control, and even though he has had a steady live in “boyfriend” for the past 10 to 15 years he contracted HIV through promiscuous sexual behavior.

In my opinion the negatives of the gay sex act outweigh the positives in his case.
[/quote]

Thanks for explaining this Zap, Lothario wasn’t getting it. You made my point for me perfectly.

566

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.

I thought all sex was good, provided everybody enjoyed it? (is this T-Nation, or did I tune into one of these ‘family values’ sites by mistake?)

Of course nobody enjoys catching a case of HIV. But straight folks have to watch that caveat too.[/quote]

Only if they have been screwing a chick who did a gay guy. If you have never butt-reamed, the girl has never had sex with a gay guy, neither of you are IV drug abusers, than there is no possible way for you to get HIV/AIDS having sex with a woman. (Thems the facts Bro - look it up!)

567

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.

I thought all sex was good, provided everybody enjoyed it? (is this T-Nation, or did I tune into one of these ‘family values’ sites by mistake?)

Of course nobody enjoys catching a case of HIV. But straight folks have to watch that caveat too.

Only if they have been screwing a chick who did a gay guy. If you have never butt-reamed, the girl has never had sex with a gay guy, neither of you are IV drug abusers, than there is no possible way for you to get HIV/AIDS having sex with a woman. (Thems the facts Bro - look it up!)

[/quote]

This explains the AIDS epidemic in Africa? How does a chick do a gay guy? Ever heard of blood banks?

I think you’d best be doing the fact checking here, bro.

568

[quote]ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

[Why bother repeating this crap? ed]
[/quote]

Still more ad hominem bilge, eh? I’m not sure anyone would be interested in my stats, I only lift to make my sport possible for me. MMA/NHB, I mean. Also I’m still only a few months from shoulder surgery, but I’m happy to be training again, thanks.

How about a little friendly rolling, we’ll see who submits first?

569

I’ve read “EVERY” word posted, from page 1, through page 23. And let me tell you… My head feels like its splitting right down the middle!!! You guys are becoming lost in thought…

I take it that the debate is not about gay marriage anymore? What are we debating? It seems, when the hammer hits the nail, one is coined a homophobe. LOL… I guess there’s “A LOT” of homophobes out there…

ZEB has provided indisputable evidence in regards to his arguments. When he puts a slam on the current debate it quickly finds itself lost in the responses of confusing propaganda demonstrated many mind-numbing pages ago!!! It’s seems some people around here are drowning in their own words while reaching for a branch of truth only to find nothing!!!

100 Meters, you’re a great debater and have posted clear thought in the past regarding your argument. However, you cloud your words with the ones that were created within the last century… ZEB’s references point to translation and correlation with the actual text of the original reference. Why do you detract from the debate? :wink:

It’s obvious that I’m opposed to gay marriage. And you know what? I’m not afraid of gay people! I hate to disapoint… However, I am disgusted by the act of homosexuality. Why one man would want to lye with another, or know him, is not only unlawful in regards to the text in the bible, but unfathomable in my own opinion.

So what are we arguing about. The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. If it does not say the marriage of two homosexuals is not lawful does that make it so when regarding text from the Bible?

I’m trying to stick with the topic. :wink:

OD

570

[quote]vroom wrote:
You know what this all argument from tne anti-gay component proves?

It’s okay for two women to have sex with each other, as long as it isn’t anal sex…

So, unfair as it is, only male homosexuals are sinners. Female homosexuals, lesbians, are of course just fine.

Now, lets get down to taping and distributing this god blessed activity immediately!

This has been a public service announcement from the “Lesbian Sex is Blessed” foundation.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some lesbians to pervert, I mean convert, adios.[/quote]

REPENT!!!

571

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.

I thought all sex was good, provided everybody enjoyed it? (is this T-Nation, or did I tune into one of these ‘family values’ sites by mistake?)

Of course nobody enjoys catching a case of HIV. But straight folks have to watch that caveat too.

Only if they have been screwing a chick who did a gay guy. If you have never butt-reamed, the girl has never had sex with a gay guy, neither of you are IV drug abusers, than there is no possible way for you to get HIV/AIDS having sex with a woman. (Thems the facts Bro - look it up!)

This explains the AIDS epidemic in Africa? How does a chick do a gay guy? Ever heard of blood banks?

I think you’d best be doing the fact checking here, bro.[/quote]

Ok, I left off blood transfusions, BFD! IV drug use is the same thing, through blood. Gees, get a life!

The AIDS epidemic in Africa is due to a lot of things, but mainly hookers spreading the disease and the president being unwilling to educate the people in prevention and assist the people in treatment. (That is based on a TV news special I saw a few years ago, not anything I have read).

Here, since all you weak-minding geeks can’t look this up, here is the data from the CDC:

(2003 Est of HIV cases by population)
Gay sex = 46%
IV drug use = 15%
Herterosex (includes women who slept with gay guys,) = 11%
Other (Blood transfusions, etc) = 0.6%

Also, “Much of the media attention about men on the down low and HIV/AIDS has focused on the concept of a transmission bridge between bisexual men and heterosexual women. Some women have become infected through sexual contact with bisexual men” (CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 2003 (Vol. 15). Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2004:1?46.)

Got it, good!

572

Not a chance, I’m going to choose to be a catholic and confess at a later date, until then, don’t bug me, I’m enjoying my life…

Yoohoo, lesbians, I’ve got a camera and I’m not afraid to use it!

573

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Got it, good!

[/quote]

Well there you have it, the problem is those rotten bisexuals, spreading AIDS to straight women. We can at least exonerate all the complete homosexuals though, eh?. Those others, you’ve got them dead to rights: those rotten bisexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Especially the ones that start out gay and then convert to straight. Right?

Are all these hookers that are spreading AIDS in Africa male, then?

We also left out the poor ones that get it before birth, from their mothers. Point on the transfusions is, you don’t have to be in somebody else’s unfavorite group in order to have HIV.

The point of what I posted used to be: even straight folks should have a look out for HIV. For all of me, you can go right out and catch a dose. Feel safe bro.

574

[quote]vroom wrote:
REPENT!!!

Not a chance, I’m going to choose to be a catholic and confess at a later date, until then, don’t bug me, I’m enjoying my life…

Yoohoo, lesbians, I’ve got a camera and I’m not afraid to use it![/quote]

Was it St. Augustine who once prayed: “Oh Lord, make me good, but not yet”?

575

Is this data for Americans or worldwide?

-Dan

576

[quote]buffalokilla wrote:
Is this data for Americans or worldwide?

-Dan[/quote]

US and Canada, I think, because both countries were historically important in tracking the epidemic.

In Africa, there is a lot more IV transmission because of sub-standard medical practices. There is also more hetero transmission in Africa.

It looks perhaps like AIDS came from Africa originally, via Europe. If I remember rightly, there was some evidence there may have been a small epidemic in a part of Africa in the late fifties. Anyhow, it came here from Europe with a gay flight attendant for a Canadian airline. Since this particular guy wasn’t bisexual, the initial thrust of infection was within the gay community. The gays in a sense functioned as the canaries in the coal mine, giving CDC and other authorities the time to direct research onto the problem of how to slow the spread of the epidemic.

Ask any gay who lived through the early years of the epidemic, it was pretty grim. It went through that part of the gay population that is into frequent sex faster than it would have through even a very rutty bunch of heteros, probably, but HIV doesn’t discriminate, no joke.

In those years there was a lot of very relaxed attitude about casual sex, among straights and gays both. The STDs of the time were pretty easily controlled. Unwittingly, through chance, the gays took the bullet for the rest of us here in North America.

I say, let’s be nice in return and let them get married if they want.

Just kidding. HIV has nothing to do with gay marriage.

577

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lothario, I don’t dispute that there are a great number of wonderful gay people. You seem to be mixing the character of the people with sex act in your argument. I don’t know if gay sex is wrong or not, but the fact that “good” people have gay sex does not prove that gay sex is “good”.[/quote]

I think you’re still missing something here, Zap. Being gay isn’t an “act”. This is not a “condition” which is “curable” like an addiction to tobacco. I think that this is the stumbling block for most of the anti-gay marriage folks here. You still don’t understand what gayness is, so you treat it like a disease because you don’t know how to categorize it any other way. Maybe it will help you to stop associating gayness with AIDS. The two ARE mutually exclusive. You can be gay without AIDS, you can have AIDS without being gay… get it?

[quote]I do believe that the positive side of gay sex acts is limited to the brief pleasure it gives willing participants.

This also applies for any type of straight sex outside of procreation.[/quote]

When you post something like this, it makes we wonder if you’re a little repressed, Zap. Not digging on you or anything, but to have such a narrow mindset regarding sex in general is… well, I don’t know what it is.

[quote]You could also say this about drinking, smoking, recreational drug use and probably more things.

These behaviors may be enjoyable, but they also have a destructive element.[/quote]

So you honestly think that sex has a destructive element? Let go of the gay issue for a second… you’re saying that hetero sex is destructive, too? Man, I can’t tell you how much you’re missing out on here. There is NOTHING destructive about expressing your love for someone else through the beautiful act of dressing up in leather and whipping your true heart’s desire with a nylon lash, while ordering her to recite the pledge of allegiance. You need to get out more, dude. :slight_smile:

Try this Zap. I have many gay friends and they are not AIDS people. They are just people. Try to disassociate gayness from AIDS, because it’s just an infection that anyone can get. What if the AIDS epidemic never happened? Would you still consider gayness destructive?

578

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
And yet, the CDC has states a different story in regards to how many Gays have AIDS and engage in unprotected butt-course. The fact that you have a few friends who are different doesn’t change the statistical majority. Duh!
[/quote]

So you’re saying that most gay people have HIV? You are smoking crack. We don’t even know how many gay people there are in this country, let alone a statistic with any verifiable weight that would say what percentage of them are infected with HIV. Please put the pipe down.

[quote]Dude, I sure hope you never try out for a debate team as you would be laughed out of the place. What does gayness have to do with one’s occupation?

No sport, I’am asking what positive things come from the act or social outcomes of butt reaming?[/quote]

And this is just like Zap. You guys are unable to separate the act from the orientation. You imagine the act to be disgusting, so logically it follows that the orientation is “wrong” somehow. This is YOUR hangup. There is nothing wrong with being gay, and until you understand that, you aren’t going to be able to make any sense of this debate because your hangups will prevent you from seeing the truth.

Dude. Dance choreography is directly gay. So is being a hairdresser, an interior decorator, a nurse, a fashion model, a bodybuilder, etc. :slight_smile:

I will say that being gay has a dark side, though. The current metrosexual trend is a direct result of integration of gayness into mainstream culture. A guy came over to visit my roomate yesterday wearing a pink shirt. I don’t even own a pink shirt… never have. He looked like he could bench press a soda straw. Sad.

By your logic, there is nothing good about heterosexuality either. If your orientation doesn’t matter, then nothing else that applies to you matters in analysis. Therefore, your imposition that I must show gayness as “good” is impossible by your terms. Just as it would for me to show you anything good about straightness. Unless you want to say that childbirth is always a good thing. And we both know that it isn’t ALWAYS good. But let’s assume you are a right-to-life person for a second just to save you some typing…

If you try to tell me that childbirth is not just another chemical reaction, and it’s magical and perfect and from God every single time, then I invite you to visit the third world where overpopulation and starvation are rampant, and try to keep your illusions intact.

This is the only difference between hetero and homo sex. The possibility of munchkins. I love my kids, but I would hazard a guess and say that the ones in the third world could have been a little better planned. Or is family planning offensive to you too?

579

[quote]Original_Demon wrote:
I’ve read “EVERY” word posted, from page 1, through page 23. And let me tell you… My head feels like its splitting right down the middle!!! You guys are becoming lost in thought…

I take it that the debate is not about gay marriage anymore? What are we debating? It seems, when the hammer hits the nail, one is coined a homophobe. LOL… I guess there’s “A LOT” of homophobes out there…[/quote]

This is what the heart of the issue is, I think, OD. The conversation took this turn as a natural matter of course, because the reason that y’all are against gay marriage is because you are against gayness in general. I’ve said this over and over, and it just isn’t sinking in, because nobody wants to admit that they are uncool about this, but reading between the lines in the various posts, it’s pretty clear to me, at least. Look at what ZEB posted above. He doesn’t trust a stable gay couple to adopt children from orphanages. Why not? Think about it, OD. It’s because he doesn’t trust them because… why?

Because they’re dirty! They’re sinners! They’re wrong by their very nature! They are warped and unnatural!

Yes, I’m putting words in his mouth here, but his posts on this thread and the other one now veritably scream it out loud. He will not admit it, but it is there.

If you dig a little, you can find links to studies which show that children reared in gay households turned out just fine. I’ve posted them, and so have other people. The truth is out there, man! :slight_smile:

I’m sorry, but I beg to differ here. All ZEB has provided is his muddled understanding of an old book which he chooses to let guide him in some ways. He is stubborn, and unwilling to even try to look at this issue in an even-handed way. And that’s fine, because that is his prerogative as a fellow human being and I respect the strength of his conviction, but I will tell him right to his face that he is wrong in this.

My friends are great people. They are not child molesters. These are caring individuals who want the respect that anybody else deserves, and when y’all are capable of respecting them like anybody else, then you will come to understand that letting them get a legal and recognizable marriage to one another isn’t going to be the end of an institution… just the beginning of a new one. And what is so bad about that, really? Don’t take my word for it… think about this yourself. What is there to be afraid of? Gay divorce? Yeah, it’s going to happen. The country will still be here afterwards, I promise.

580

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

[Why bother repeating this crap? ed]

Still more ad hominem bilge, eh? I’m not sure anyone would be interested in my stats, I only lift to make my sport possible for me. MMA/NHB, I mean. Also I’m still only a few months from shoulder surgery, but I’m happy to be training again, thanks.

How about a little friendly rolling, we’ll see who submits first?[/quote]

That would depend!

I wresteled for six years and took Jiu-Jitsu for almost three years.

Here is how I look at it: If you are good I’m in trouble! If you stink then I will most certainly tap you out.