[quote]Lorisco wrote:
This is the response I expected. You can’t refute the facts with actual facts, so you attack the institution, website, organization etc…
[/quote]
It’s called the web of a million lies for a reason. People hang stuff out there that isn’t true. Finding stuff on the web, it is always important to consider the source and what axe it has to grind, as well as whether their ‘facts’ agree with more impartial sources.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
And since epdemiologists pin-point the origins of HIV in humans as coming from a monkey in Africa to a man, than to the Homo population initially, how would it get to hetero’s?
[/quote]
Actually, the truth is, it is not known the exact cause of AIDS. There are similar immunodeficiency viruses in many other animals (cats have FIV, monkeys have SIV), but no clear origin has ever been determined. It is also clear that there are at least two distinct types of HIV (HIV-1, and HIV-2). HIV-1 is what is common in Europe & North America, whilst HIV-2 is common in Africa and Southeast Asia. This is why finding a vaccine at this point will be a difficult task, at best. I digress. There are many theories about the origin of HIV, but the fact is, the earliest discovered case of HIV dates back to 1959.
It is not known how the virus made it into the US first, however, the virus was discovered here in a man who died in 1969. Given HIV’s long incubation period, as we now know, it’s conceivable that the sexual revolution of the 1970s, the availability of cheaper airfare, and an irresponsible blood industry who refused to use even the most rudementary testing methods when they became available in 1984 helped the spread of AIDS to it’s 1,000,000 in the US count at present.
You keep insisting and equating it to gays because gays were the first and hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic in this nation.
For more information, do a simple google search, or see:
I also highly recommend reading “And the Band Played On,” a documentary regarding the CDC’s role during the onset of the AIDS epidemic.
The number doesn’t matter much. Besides, I was using the figure someone had casually mentioned without looking it up. The reality is, it doesn’t matter really at all. It’s just a number. The reality of it is, yes, it is FACT that gays make up the majority of those presently infected IN THIS NATION, and those hit hardest early on. However, they are only one part of a much larger equation on how best to control and eventually irradicate this disease. If anything, gay marriage can only help slow the spread of AIDS, since it could amount to more monogamous relationships. And don’t bother pointing me to “Family Research Institute” “statistics” on why it’s a bad thing. I’ve read it, and it just twists and distorts fact. Sites and organizations with contradictory facts exist everywhere, on both liberal and conservative sides. If you’ve got real proof from an internationally recognized and acclaimed source, such as the WHO, UN, CDC, or whatever, that’s cool. But not shit like this that only attracts flies.
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
I fail to see how the dead sea scrolls confirm the bible as being accurate on homosexuality. I’ve read the Dead Sea scrolls, and found it interesting that the whole section of Leviticus in the old testament that has to do with homosexuality was missing. Also, age of a document does not donote it is fact, either. Remember that people once thought it was crazy to think the world was anything but flat, Greeks believed lightning was phsyical bolts being cast from the hand of Zeus, and other such mythology. Age has nothing at all to do with fact, my friend.
[/quote]
Dude, that relates the how marriage started and that it was started as a religious institution. Not the it is fact or not.
That’s crap bro and you know it. The domestic parnership gives them all the same rights as a married person. So it is legally the same. And if it is the same what’s the issue?
This country (USA) was founded by religious people, just look on your money bone-head. So these God believing men made marriage legal in addition to it’s relgious significance.
So it has already been in place for a long time, it is the gays who can come up with a different term for their “union” and leave marriage alone.
rising_hope
Do you think you are going to spend all of your time in the Political Forum, or will you be visiting other areas as well?
By the way, I think your style will fit in quite well with many of the liberals on this board.
Welcome aboard!
Zeb
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
It’s called the web of a million lies for a reason. People hang stuff out there that isn’t true. Finding stuff on the web, it is always important to consider the source and what axe it has to grind, as well as whether their ‘facts’ agree with more impartial sources.[/quote]
Here here! Exactly my point, and why I said “stick to acclaimed international sources for proof” in my latest reply. Thanks, endgamer. 
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This is the response I expected. You can’t refute the facts with actual facts, so you attack the institution, website, organization etc…
It’s called the web of a million lies for a reason. People hang stuff out there that isn’t true. Finding stuff on the web, it is always important to consider the source and what axe it has to grind, as well as whether their ‘facts’ agree with more impartial sources.[/quote]
Wow, I couldn’t agree with you more! You would not believe the pro homosexual web sites that have sprouted up actually claiming that the Bible does not say anything negative about homosexuality. It’s truly amazing that people can twist the truth so badly. Then again this is the Internet.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Answer:
African man gets it from monkey
Gay guy has sex with african man
Gay guy has sex with other gay guys
Gay guys have sex with women = women have sex with hetero?s and/or have babies infected with the virus
Gay guys give blood = all people who get the blood get infected
Drug abusers sell their body to gay guys for money to buy drugs = drug abuser get?s infected
Drug abusers share needles = other IV drug abuser get infected
So what started this chain reaction? Gay guys!
Oh, and according to the CDC it is 63% gays, not 45%. See http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm
Looks to me like a monkey started it. Are you saying the African man fucked a monkey? Then I guess bestiality started it. I guess we’d better find out if it was a male monkey or a female monkey. Hmmm.
Suppose the African man fucked an African woman first, she passed it to another man? You can’t really be sure it wasn’t the case, can you?
Your assertion that gay guys started it is unsupported by any evidence.[/quote]
And yet they have 63% of it. Gee, I think that is support enough. Duh!
Dude, the CDC states they think it was through the blood of the monkey. They don’t say how that blood came in contact with the african’s blood. So I don’t know.
The point is that it is Primarily spread through butt-reaming and contact with infected blood and that is what homo’s do most of the time, and that is why they have most of the HIV/AIDS cases and have had so since it was discovered. So saying that the group that first came out with it was/is not responsible for spreading it is just plan dumb man.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This is the response I expected. You can’t refute the facts with actual facts, so you attack the institution, website, organization etc…
It’s called the web of a million lies for a reason. People hang stuff out there that isn’t true. Finding stuff on the web, it is always important to consider the source and what axe it has to grind, as well as whether their ‘facts’ agree with more impartial sources.[/quote]
That is why they site all their sources. So these are not thier facts but facts they got from other sources. So to know for sure you have to research all those studies. But it’s much easier to just pin a lable to try and discredit it isn’t it?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Dude, that relates the how marriage started and that it was started as a religious institution. Not the it is fact or not.
[/quote]
Fine. Whether it started as a religious institution to be between man and woman is actually irrelavant. The point is, we live in a living, breathing, evolving, ever changing society. The words I type now will seem foreign to those 300 years from now as our language evolves. The concepts we propose on paper here and now will seem ancient to those in the future. What I’m getting at is we live in a society that is changing. Change is inevitable - you can’t stop it. My point is, for the people who want marriage as an institution, it has it’s place - in the church. In society, marriage’s only function is the protection of a family unit. It is not necessarily to produce children (some couples cannot, others do not.) It is about two persons, their families, and the life they are working toward building.
My point is, the function of marriage is relavant to society, but people keep getting hung up on the definition. I refuse to accept to seperate definitions, because I believe to do so would be to seperate a segment of society - and heading down that road leads us into very civil rights movement era territory. I think we need to work toward building something better, that all people can generally accept.
I’m not saying marriage has no place. It absolutely does. I’m not saying that civil marriage has no place - it absolutely does. I’m saying that if it’s the term we’re hung up on here, let’s fix it. But if we fix it, we need to do so in a manner in which works for all people.
You’re misinformed, my friend. Domestic partnerships do not give all the same legal protections to gay couples as they do to married couples. Another area, too, which has yet to be addressed by Mass marriage is how immigration plays a part. I know a gay couple in Toronto, one from Texas, the other from Thailand, who moved to Canada, because they wanted to be together, and yet US immigration policy would have denied him access. Once the Texan has his citizenship with Canada, they plan to marry, since it’s legal in Ontario (and no, Canada hasn’t fallen apart), so they can finally be together. It really is about equal rights. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
The U.S. was founded by protestants, fleeing persecution for their beliefs that excess and waste have no place in the church. But it has evolved into a place that is so much more than those people. It now represents people from all corners of the earth, and all walks of life. Certainly, they believed in God, and they wanted to protect what mattered to them. But they also had the sense to set up an amazing doctrine which has guided our sensibility over the last 200+ years to become this great nation that it is. That doctrine gives all citizens basic rights and freedoms. It allows us all to function here as one. I’m not sure if our forefathers ever anticipated this to become such an amazing nation steeped in diversity and culture. I think it’s important that personal values be protected. I think it’s important that we all work together as a society. I think it’s important that we not place blame on Arab-American’s for 9/11, since they had nothing to do with it. I think it’s important that blacks and whites and asians and all our other races work together to build a better society. I think it’s important that gays not be persecuted for who they are, too. I think it’s important that we, as American’s, lead the example as a society that can function with one clear vision for a better world in which all people, despite our differences, can function. Sure, they’ll be economic downturns (like now), and great tragedy (like 9/11), and war (like in Iraq)… But I think it’s important that all people are represented, and can live in relative peace. And I think the only way of doing that is through equality. Denying gays (as it is today), or any other group or segment of society (as blacks as it was 40 years ago, and women as it was 80 years ago), any right whatsoever that any other catagorical part of society has is contrary to this fundamental belief.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
rising_hope
Do you think you are going to spend all of your time in the Political Forum, or will you be visiting other areas as well?
By the way, I think your style will fit in quite well with many of the liberals on this board.
Welcome aboard!
Zeb
[/quote]
This post might have hit a hot button for me, but you bet I will. I’m relatively new to body building. I started back in February, at 27% bodyfat, 184#s, and today am at 17.4% and 175#s. Christain Thibaudeau or however his name is spelled, has an awesome tale of success, and I hope to repeat it!
Chris
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
This is the response I expected. You can’t refute the facts with actual facts, so you attack the institution, website, organization etc…
It’s called the web of a million lies for a reason. People hang stuff out there that isn’t true. Finding stuff on the web, it is always important to consider the source and what axe it has to grind, as well as whether their ‘facts’ agree with more impartial sources.
That is why they site all their sources. So these are not thier facts but facts they got from other sources. So to know for sure you have to research all those studies. But it’s much easier to just pin a lable to try and discredit it isn’t it?
[/quote]
A very quick glance at the “facts” presented on the website seems amazingly obvious to dismiss as lie being twisted to their own ends. Come on now… 1105 dicks to suck in a year as a statistical average for all homosexual men? Pathetic! Where the hell do they come up with this shit? I tell ya, if I had my dick sucked 1105 times a year, my balls would ache from being bone dry!
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sex is wonderful, but it is not a benefit to society unless it produces little citizens. Extra marital and promiscuous sex can be destructive as well, spread disease, break up marriages etc.
So, sex is only useful if it produces little ones? Really? So, how many kids do you have? And… how many times have you had sex with your wife? Have all those times been solely to produce children for the betterment of society?
…quote]
Sex is good for 2 things; pleasure and propagation of the species.
Sex can also be harmful in many ways.
Why is this so hard to accept?
[quote]rising_hope wrote:
… 1105 dicks to suck in a year as a statistical average for all homosexual men? Pathetic! Where the hell do they come up with this shit? I tell ya, if I had my dick sucked 1105 times a year, my balls would ache from being bone dry![/quote]
Gay guys are horny as hell. They get laid a lot more than straight guys.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay guys are horny as hell. They get laid a lot more than straight guys.[/quote]
Are you speaking from personal experience or something? How on earth do you figure this?
I am literally LOL. This thread is hilarious.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Gay guys are horny as hell. They get laid a lot more than straight guys.
Are you speaking from personal experience or something? How on earth do you figure this?
[/quote]
I have gay friends. They have explained it to me.
In our society the guy is usually always ready for sex and the woman decides yes or no. So the woman is the gatekeeper.
With gay dudes there is no gatekeeper. The gate is always open. Of course this does not apply to all, but it applies to many.
It is truly amazing how fast a gay guy can hook up (as long as other gay guys are in the area.)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You just had to go and call me out lothario… Here I was enjoying my life, minding my own business… I hung up my guns… I didn’t want to put them back on… but no… (Old Glenn Ford movie sorry).[/quote]
Aw c’mon, ZEB… what would a gay marriage thread be without you and I slinging shit at each other?
Go to an orphanage. Any. Tell me that those kids are better off in those places, or in foster homes instead of a loving and stable home where they will be cared for and loved for the rest of their lives. Go ahead.
And as for the gay couple “experiment”, as you put it… I think the problem here is that you start off with the assumption that a gay couple is less stable, or desireable, to begin with. Everyone knows why you feel this way (your own religious beliefs), so let’s not belabor the point here, but I wish that you would put the prejudice down and try to see a gay couple as just as deserving and worthy of your respect as you give to a straight one.
The gay couples I work with here in the hospital are a hell of a lot more stable than many of the straight couples I know. Yeah, that’s just me, and I’m not a statistical norm in any sense, but it’s the truth. A lesbian couple right here in the lab just celebrated their eleventh year together. Their daughter (six years old… in vitro, obviously) is doing just fine, ZEB. Why can’t they get married, man!? I see these couples… they are just like you and me, I swear to God (hehe can I do that? :)). Why are they second-class citizens to you?
[quote]…
Why not wait and find out more relative to why people become gay? How having two homosexuals raising a child will effect that child? Regardless of how much you love your friends these questions, and more need to be addressed. Until that point remind your friends that we live in a very liberal country where two homosexuals are able to move in together and live in peace (according to the law). What’s wrong with that…for now?[/quote]
You will not open your eyes, ZEB. And like I said before, that is your prerogative… it’s just a shame, that’s all. You are a very cool dude, and I wish things were different, but oh well. To answer this question, for the 30th time…
http://www.rossde.com/editorials/childrenofgays.html
Good Lord, how many studies do you need? In the past, I’ve posted links to other ones, as well. We already know what happens to kids in gay households: they turn out just fine! I know this isn’t what you want to hear, and I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings and all, but YOU’RE WRONG. At least about this one issue, anyway.
[quote]Now continue your debate with everyone else and stop misquoting me! I really don’t appreciate it.
I’m going to try to hang up my guns one more time…
[/quote]
You and I both know I didn’t misquote you. And I didn’t mischaracterize you, either. Your “homorepugnance” is well documented in these forums. I did not put any words in your mouth that didn’t belong there, and you know it.
Don’t put up your guns, ZEB. You’ll miss out on all the happy-time fun of gay marriage debate!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
No bro, I’m saying that the CDC (US Centers for disease control) states that almost 50% of HIV/AIDS is in the homo population. Doesn’t matter if you believe it or not, it is still a fact.[/quote]
The thing is, the fact you quoted has no bearing on the argument. You used the statistic to try and show that being gay is harmful in general. Well, take the percentage of straight people who have HIV as a result of straight sex only, and you have proved how harmful it is to be straight. It is an irrelevant number. Sex is just that. The fact that it is with a different gender or not has no bearing on whether or not you might use a condom, does it?
“Aw, hell, I’m banging a guy… better double-bag it…”
Gimme a break, Nabisco. You’re killing me over here!
[quote]
I wrote: Dude. Dance choreography is directly gay. So is being a hairdresser, an interior decorator, a nurse, a fashion model, a bodybuilder, etc.
You wrote:
I think a lot of guys would be very offended by your statments. But the fact is that all these occupations were here and done by non-gay people before gay people decided that they like that kind of stuff. Then all of a sudden it’s gay. Sorry, gays don’t have the authority to make anything “gay”.[/quote]
Find me a male dance choreographer that isn’t gay. Good luck.
And honestly, I know a guy that’s not gay who’s an interior decorator (his wife is a lab tech like myself), and he cracks jokes about himself and his profession being gay all the time. You gotta have a sense of humor about this shit, really. Try to lighten up a little.
[quote]I wrote:
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.
You wrote:
First, bro, colors are not gay, there just colors. The fact that gays like certain colors does not make those colors gay. You really seem to like this “gay by association” thing. Get over it.[/quote]
I will not get over it. Wearing a pink shirt is not very masculine. I don’t make the rules here, okay? That’s just the way it is. You go ahead and wear all pink shirts that you want, man, I won’t stop you. And if you want to marry another guy, I’ll stand up for your right to do so.
No you don’t. You’ll be back, pink shirt and all.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wow, I couldn’t agree with you more! You would not believe the pro homosexual web sites that have sprouted up actually claiming that the Bible does not say anything negative about homosexuality. It’s truly amazing that people can twist the truth so badly. Then again this is the Internet. [/quote]
I sure didn’t put them there. I read some of this thread on the Bible, but I was finding out altogether too much more about that book than I really care to. I stopped after the argument had cycled perhaps only four times.
Zeb, this is not necessarily directed specifically at you, I am just going to have a good old fashioned fit of pique here.
There were the ten commandments, presumably dictated to good old Moses, there was “Mene mene tekel upharsin” in there somewhere, and other dicta distributed to assorted god-struck mortals (psychotics? dehydration and heat stroke?). Jesus talked a lot and there are some fairly coherent accounts of what he said. Otherwise, God is not particularly prolific in his direct teachings. The apostles had ringside seats, so practically everything they ever wrote is in there, even Greetings to Aunt Hattie.
So much else is the product of ignorant savages, or politically interested theologians, working over millenia.
Why should we be impressed? Safe inside that little black book, waiting, is what will have to come out when next we need to have a witch hunt: advice on what to do with witches. There is also a bunch more advice nobody wants to take anymore, even fundamentalists.
Hopefully when you pick up a Bible you are just trying to understand what God actually had to say, and with that end in mind it seems to me you have to read the Bible very selectively.
I really don’t see how it’s relevant whatever the Bible has to say about homosexuals or homosexuality, if anything. Marriage is a civil institution, under the Constitution of the US.
And when it comes to that, there is little substance in pointing, in essence, to how things are and generally always have been as the ultimate reason why matters can’t be improved on. As a civilization we have been willing to change so much else. In particular, our notion of marriage is already very different from what is described in the Bible.
Finally, anyone who drags the Bible into this discussion, who doesn’t absolutely live by all its literal directives, well it seems to me they lay themelves straight open to charges of hipocrisy. Jesus was very down on the h-thing, you may recall.
endgamer:
You make good points here. There is a reason that the bible pops up in discussion whenever something homosexual in discussion pops up:
It is a prop for people to confirm and maintain their prejudices. Now I’m not saying that this is ONLY what the bible is for, but in this case, it is the Good Book which is used by folks to remain ignorant and intolerant. Someone mentioned earlier that gays don’t want tolerance, they want acceptance. Like that is a bad thing? Well no shit they want acceptance… why not accept them for what they are? Because the bible says they’re sinners?
[sarcasm]That’s a really good reason. [/sarcasm]
The bible also says not to wear mixed fabrics… and here I am wearing scrubs that are a polyester blend. Oh well, better make sure I’m a second-class citizen too. After all, I’m choosing to do something which is against God. And you know what? I work weekends quite frequently… man am I in for it! God is going to be pissed.
Religious folks: Yeah, I’m a smartass about your book, but what reason do I have to not be? I respect you as a person with your own beliefs, but I’m afraid that a person like me will gently heckle you a little when you fall back on this book to persecute or put other people down as “unclean”, when you go and use the book like a salad bar… taking only what you want from it and leaving the rest. Sorry, that’s just me.