Heterosexual Discrimination

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
183

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Hey man, if someone wants to fuck a lightbulb, I’m not about to try to stop them. Whatever works and doesnt hurt anybody is fine by me.

Yes, we all know you are a moral titan…

Isn’t that the sort of argument that you and some liberal dweeeb will be having on t nation 25 years from now?

Where does it stop junior?

One man one light bulb?

One man and his sister?

Don’t have an answer do you?

I already answered that. As I am NOT a bigot, I understand that my personal opinion or my feelings on a matter do not override the rights of other human beings.

If a brother and sister are into each other, they can do as they please.

But what about the genetic consequences? You see junior there are consequences to all actions and when a brother and sister screw a baby might be born.

SURPRISE

Ha ha… stupid…

Just because I dont like it doesnt change anyones rights.

They don’t have those rights for the reasons above junior. You see your little arguments fall apart when held to the light of day. Oh hell they fall apart in dim light too for that matter…

Grow up…really!

Ok, I can understand why you’d be against incest, then. It could cause another person to be disabled. Thats logical.

Who would gay sex hurt again?

Oh wait, thats right, nobody.

Now hold on there Capped, you just went on about how incest would be perfectly alright. You stated that if two consenting adults want to “get it on” (your words) then it wouldn’t matter if they were brother and sister.

Now all of a sudden you changed your mind?

What happened after you read my post?

Did you do some growing up?

Get a real life sudden education?

Did you actually see the light and realize that with every action there are consequences?

Before we move on relative to the main topic I’d like you to explain that little brain fart of yours when you were endorsing incest.

Well, see, again, as I am NOT a bigot, I apply the same bit of logic:

Two people can do whatever they want so long as it doesnt hurt anybody.

You made a point that incestual sex could potentially hurt someone (by causing them to be disabled). So, applying the same logic, and in light of that point, I reconsidered my stance.

What about that is so hard to understand? Are you going to play the neocon “I made a point about one thing therefore I am right about everything” card? [/quote]

See, now, once AGAIN I have to rethink what I say because this fool is going to turn it into a strawman.

The difference between the risk of a disabled child (as with incest) and the risk of an STD (as with gay sex) is that the only people at risk, between two gays, are the gays. No NONCONSENTING OTHER is put at risk.

I say this to cut off Micks obvious “WELL YOU SAID RISKY THINGS ARE WRONG BUT GAY PEOPLE ARE AT RISK WHEN THEY HAVE SEX!111!!!”

Seriously, Mick, you argue like a five year old. You constantly,

constantly,

Argue points that make NO sense whatsoever in an attempt to force anyone who disagrees with you to deal with your nonsense “points”.

For example, telling Emily that “YOU WANT TO SEE A NAZI PARADE”.

Any rational, logical adult would know that Emily does not want to see a Nazi parade, nor does she support Nazis. You, however, make that accusation just to be a dumbass.

How about you try going the rest of this thread without making any strawmen? Would that be impossible?

That means NOT trying to claim something that isnt true (Like saying I’d fight for someone to be able to make out with their dog).

Seriously, you argue like a fucking five year old.
Think you could maybe grow up a little so we can actually have mature discourse on the topic?

184

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Two people can do whatever they want so long as it doesnt hurt anybody.

As I told you last night, someone dropped some pretty interesting statistics to me via PM.

If you are for people not hurting anyone with their sexual behavior then you might want to reconsider your stance on gays. This is from the CDC, run by the government:

Holy Shit read this,

“Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 517,992 MSM (452,111 MSM and 65,881 MSM who inject drugs) had received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 68% of male adults and adolescents who received a diagnosis of AIDS and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS”.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/factsheets/msm.htm

If it wasn’t for homo’s the AIDS epidemic would practically go away…I had no idea that it was this bad…

[/quote]

sigh

SEE

Do you people see this?

Man, I’m already glad that I went out of my way to clarify “doesnt hurt any NONCONSENTING OTHERS”.

Because I KNEW this fool would try to play the “Gay people are at risk of STDs! They hurt themselves!” card.

Once again, Mick, you KNEW what I was saying, but “misinterpreted” it, and responded to your little misinterpretation.

Thats called a strawman.

I’d really like to argue these issues with someone who doesnt need everything spelled out for them like a five year old. It’d be friggin sweet.

185

Wow. Really staggering to me (from Mick’s link) is this:

Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected [14].

That’s terrifying.

Lucasa, do you know of any research that compares the genetic predisposition of males to homosexuality to that of females?

186

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, again, what is immoral about being gay?

It is immoral and illegal. More specifically, sodomy is illegal in Texas.

Dammit, why did I post here?

Wasn’t there a 100 page thread on this subject already? In that thread we actually came to a conclusion. Stop flaunting your gay lifestyle and I’ll continue to ignore it.

And…

Since I don’t ask you to recognize my heterosexuality, I don’t give two shits about your homosexuality. (Yuck, that was a bad pun, washes hands)

See, whats bullshit, and bigoted, here, is the fact that YOU DO FLAUNT YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY.

Whenever you hold hands with a girl in public. Flaunting.

When you kiss her in public. Flaunting.

When you talk about which women you’d like to have sex with, or who you think is hot. Flaunting.

When you go to a club/party/whatever and dance with a girl. Flaunting.

Only, by your double standard, when you do it its ok, when a gay guy does it, its flaunting.[/quote]

No.

Having a gay pride parade is flaunting. All the stuff you mentioned above is normal behavior.

You are taking a mule and calling it a thoroughbred.

187

[quote]Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And, again, what is immoral about being gay?

It is immoral and illegal. More specifically, sodomy is illegal in Texas.

Dammit, why did I post here?

Wasn’t there a 100 page thread on this subject already? In that thread we actually came to a conclusion. Stop flaunting your gay lifestyle and I’ll continue to ignore it.

And…

Since I don’t ask you to recognize my heterosexuality, I don’t give two shits about your homosexuality. (Yuck, that was a bad pun, washes hands)

See, whats bullshit, and bigoted, here, is the fact that YOU DO FLAUNT YOUR HETEROSEXUALITY.

Whenever you hold hands with a girl in public. Flaunting.

When you kiss her in public. Flaunting.

When you talk about which women you’d like to have sex with, or who you think is hot. Flaunting.

When you go to a club/party/whatever and dance with a girl. Flaunting.

Only, by your double standard, when you do it its ok, when a gay guy does it, its flaunting.

No.

Having a gay pride parade is flaunting. All the stuff you mentioned above is normal behavior.

You are taking a mule and calling it a thoroughbred.
[/quote]

Ok, so then you wouldnt consider two men kissing in public to be flaunting? Or them holding hands, dancing at a club, or talking about what men they find attractive?

188

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, so then you wouldnt consider two men kissing in public to be flaunting? Or them holding hands, dancing at a club, or talking about what men they find attractive?
[/quote]

No, you made that up. I really don’t give a rat’s ass what other people do with their bodies. I don’t like it when I am forced to have a specific opinion on it.

I don’t like the way the entertainment community has campaigns trying to get people to think their way.

Do I find it disgusting? Absolutely. Therefore, I choose to stay away from it. I hate being inundated with it.

Yes, they are here. Yes, they are queer. They can fuck off and stop celebrating it.

They don’t realize that they can live a normal life if they don’t feel the need to say “Hi, I’m Bob and I’m proud to be gay.” We really don’t care.

192

[quote]Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Ok, so then you wouldnt consider two men kissing in public to be flaunting? Or them holding hands, dancing at a club, or talking about what men they find attractive?

No, you made that up. I really don’t give a rat’s ass what other people do with their bodies. I don’t like it when I am forced to have a specific opinion on it.

I don’t like the way the entertainment community has campaigns trying to get people to think their way.

Do I find it disgusting? Absolutely. Therefore, I choose to stay away from it. I hate being inundated with it.

Yes, they are here. Yes, they are queer. They can fuck off and stop celebrating it.

They don’t realize that they can live a normal life if they don’t feel the need to say “Hi, I’m Bob and I’m proud to be gay.” We really don’t care.

[/quote]

Who is this “we” you speak of, when you say “we” really dont care?

You mean the people who will call the police to report two gay men having consentual sex?

Or the people who will protest a funeral with “God Hates Fags” signs?

Or anyone who regularly uses slurs such as “faggot” or “homo” to insult someone?

How about a president going out of his way to ban gay marriage? Is that part of the “we” that “really dont care”?

The guys who killed Matthew Shepard?

Or how about everyone who protested Brokeback Mountain because it was about homosexuals?

How about people who say “its ok as long as its in private, but I dont want my kids seeing it!”? Are they part of the “we” that “really dont care”?

Here, try something: Find a guy who is willing, and walk around a public place holding hands. Not groping each other or trying to fuck in public, or any other such nonsense. Just walk around holding hands like a normal straight couple would do. THEN come back and talk about how “Gays can live normal lives as long as they dont flaunt it!”

Or, even something less daring: For a week, dont give any clues to anyone about your sexual preference. That means no agreeing if a girl is hot, that means never using the phrase “My girlfriend” or “my wife” or even “my exgirlfriend”. That means no staring at a woman when she passes by. No displays of affection in public.

If you could do that for 7 days (which I highly doubt), you might have some sort of an idea of what its like for a homosexual all their lives.

Then, again, come back and say “Gays could live normal lives if they just didnt have to shove it in our faces!”

193

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Man, I’m already glad that I went out of my way to clarify “doesnt hurt any NONCONSENTING OTHERS”.

But your wrong. By spreading the HIV virus they hurt many, many unknowing individuals. Just take that 68%, or whatever it is out of the equation. There is practically no AIDS epidemic. I had no frickin idea that homosexual men were that responsible for this disease.

[/quote]

You cant be this stupid. I refuse to believe that you are this stupid, you MUST be just trying to annoy me.

How can you miss the obvious fact that, when you have sex, you take the risk of contracting an STD.

Yes, spreading a disease does hurt people. But who does it hurt? Only those who have consented to risking contracting the disease.

Now, tell me, Mick, how does that constitute HARMING A NONCONSENTING OTHER.

see, now, I have to spell this out for you, again, because you are fucking retarded:

NO, NO ONE CONSENTS TO CONTRACTING AIDS.

YES, HAVING SEX IS CONSENTING TO TAKING THE RiSk of contracting AIDS.

So, if you have sex with someone, you consent to the risk of contracting an STD. This means that the blame of contracting the STD lies on you, because it was YOUR actions, that you consented to, understanding the inherent risk, that resulted in you contracting the STD.

You are just looking for more reasons to support your bigotry. You are pathetic.

194

Of course, now, the strawman I’m waiting for from Mick:

OH EM GEE YOU SAID YOU THINK ITS OK TO SPREAD AIDS!!!

This is untrue.

Anyone with half a brain would know its untrue.

Hell, deep down, Mick knows this is untrue.

However, he’ll again “misinterpret” what I said, draw that conclusion from his misintepretation, and I’ll have to explain that I dont think its ok to spread STDs, including AIDS.

I’ll have to explain, (NEEDLESSLY), that I think people should use protection when they have sex, that people should get themselves tested for STDs, that people who know they have STDs should be honest with people and not have sex with them. Generally, that its a good idea for people to try to limit their risk of contracting an STD, and limit the risk of passing an STD on.

Now, every other adult in here already understood that.

But Mick, poor fool that he is, will assume that he’s making some great point by building a strawman off of a misinterpretation of what I said.

I just wonder if this will get posted before or after he builds said strawman.

Sorry, Mick, you’re getting a little too predictable.

195

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Wow. Really staggering to me (from Mick’s link) is this:

Approximately 25% of people in the United States who are infected with HIV do not know they are infected [14].

That’s terrifying.

Lucasa, do you know of any research that compares the genetic predisposition of males to homosexuality to that of females?[/quote]

Yes, lots, and all contradictory. Anywhere from women’s sexuality being ~50% genetically determined and men’s none to approximately equal at around 7 and 5% respectively.

Dean Hamer, who first alleged the “Gay Gene”, seemed to have the strongest data running (to the point where “The Gene” was supposedly on the X-chromosome which would, presumably, bias towards men) but the data was skewed (he only looked at gay men) and several repetitions by other groups failed to confirm it.

IMO, bottom line, the larger twin studies get, the less direct evidence there is for even a genetic component of homosexuality, which precludes evidence for gender specificity. You could argue that larger studies look at average genetics rather than unique genetics, but only in rare circumstance does the data supporting gender specificity suggest anything greater than subtle or latent social bias.

196

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Were you aware that homosexual men represented such a high HIV positive population?[/quote]

I did know that, yes. Not the specific numbers, but generally.

[quote]I never thought it was as many as that.

In fact, that entire page is shocking.
[/quote]

The statistic making it difficult for me to breathe right now is this one:

Men who engage in sex both with men and women can acquire HIV from a male partner and then transmit the virus to female partners. In a 2003 report of a study of HIV-infected people (5,156 men and 3,139 women), 34% of black men who have sex with men (MSM), 26% of Hispanic MSM, and 13% of white MSM reported having had sex with women [9]. However, their female partners may not have known of their male partner�??s bisexual activity: only 14% of white women, 6% of black women, and 6% of Hispanic women in this study acknowledged having a bisexual partner.

I’m sickened to think that, if I’ve done my math correctly (and there’s always a question about that), 80% of black women who contracted HIV from a bisexual partner didn’t realize that they were sleeping with men who’d been engaging in homosexual - and thus high risk - sex.

I don’t mean to support anyone’s bigotry, but that makes my heart ache. On the other hand, in Africa HIV positive heterosexual men are raping little girls because they believe that sex with a virgin will somehow cure them. Which also makes my heart ache.

197

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or how about everyone who protested Brokeback Mountain because it was about homosexuals?

[/quote]

Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?

198

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Who is this “we” you speak of, when you say “we” really dont care?
[/quote]

By “we”, I mean the majority of society.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You mean the people who will call the police to report two gay men having consentual sex?
[/quote]

That is actually kind of funny.

I have never been caught having sex, never. No, I never had a police officer come to my window and interrogate me. /sarcasm

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or the people who will protest a funeral with “God Hates Fags” signs?
[/quote]

You can’t judge a group as a whole by the actions of a few.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or anyone who regularly uses slurs such as “faggot” or “homo” to insult someone?
[/quote]

Everyone under the age of 14?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about a president going out of his way to ban gay marriage? Is that part of the “we” that “really dont care”?
[/quote]

That’s politics. You should read the Brokeback Propaganda thread.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The guys who killed Matthew Shepard?
[/quote]

Who is Matthew Shephard?

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or how about everyone who protested Brokeback Mountain because it was about homosexuals?
[/quote]

That film was more about politics than homosexuality.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How about people who say “its ok as long as its in private, but I dont want my kids seeing it!”? Are they part of the “we” that “really dont care”?
[/quote]

I wouldn’t want my kids seeing any type of sexual act.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here, try something: Find a guy who is willing, and walk around a public place holding hands. Not groping each other or trying to fuck in public, or any other such nonsense. Just walk around holding hands like a normal straight couple would do. THEN come back and talk about how “Gays can live normal lives as long as they dont flaunt it!”
[/quote]

Ahhh. The sympathy card. When I said I don’t care, I meant it. The sympathy card is the most ineffective form of debate.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or, even something less daring: For a week, dont give any clues to anyone about your sexual preference. That means no agreeing if a girl is hot, that means never using the phrase “My girlfriend” or “my wife” or even “my exgirlfriend”. That means no staring at a woman when she passes by. No displays of affection in public.

If you could do that for 7 days (which I highly doubt), you might have some sort of an idea of what its like for a homosexual all their lives.

Then, again, come back and say “Gays could live normal lives if they just didnt have to shove it in our faces!”
[/quote]

I can say that with confidence, and I’ll say it again. I don’t care. They can keep it to themselves.

Actually, the homosexual friends that I had wanted to know all about heterosexual sex.

To support a conversation the Mick and EmilyQ are having, the one rule of swingers is “Stay away from bi-sexual men and the women they have sex with.” I wonder why that is?

199

[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or how about everyone who protested Brokeback Mountain because it was about homosexuals?

Brokeback Mountain was a box office success. Middle America supported it overwhelmingly. Surely that’s enough, isn’t it? Does everyone have to agree with everything? Many gays call heterosexuals “breeders,” a term that definitely implies revulsion. But so what?[/quote]

I pointed that out as part of a larger whole.

Lets say a relatively small number of people protested Brokeback Mountain.

And a small number of people have ever attacked someone for being gay.

And a small number of people protest with “God Hates Fags” signs.

Now assuming that there isnt 100% crossover (that its not the same people doing all those things), can we agree that it MAY add up to a relatively significant number of people who have actively gone out of their way with anti-gay demonstrations?

The difference between “fag” and “breeder” lies in the fact that both live in the same heterosexual accepting, gay unaccepting society. How often do you hear people called breeder? Now, how often do you hear people called “fag” or “faggot”? How often do you hear the term “gay” being used negatively even when the issue of actual sexuality never comes up (“Paying taxes is fucking gay!”)?

How many people do you know who had fears of admitting to their friends and/or family that they were straight? Or been brought up in a religion that teaches that being straight is evil, and straight people are doomed to eternal damnation?

200

[quote]Chewie wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Here, try something: Find a guy who is willing, and walk around a public place holding hands. Not groping each other or trying to fuck in public, or any other such nonsense. Just walk around holding hands like a normal straight couple would do. THEN come back and talk about how “Gays can live normal lives as long as they dont flaunt it!”

Ahhh. The sympathy card. When I said I don’t care, I meant it. The sympathy card is the most ineffective form of debate.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Or, even something less daring: For a week, dont give any clues to anyone about your sexual preference. That means no agreeing if a girl is hot, that means never using the phrase “My girlfriend” or “my wife” or even “my exgirlfriend”. That means no staring at a woman when she passes by. No displays of affection in public.

If you could do that for 7 days (which I highly doubt), you might have some sort of an idea of what its like for a homosexual all their lives.

Then, again, come back and say “Gays could live normal lives if they just didnt have to shove it in our faces!”

I can say that with confidence, and I’ll say it again. I don’t care. They can keep it to themselves.

[/quote]

I like your use of the ignorance card.

“They ain’t got it so bad! I dont care!”

“Ok why dont you try going through what they go through?”

“Uhhhhhhhh… I dont care!!!”

Like so many armchair heros, you talk about how easy it is for other people to deal with things you’ll never have to deal with, but the prospect of dealing with someone even close to what they deal with makes you tuck your tail between your legs, cover your ears, and sing LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU I DONT CARE I’M RIGHT YOU’RE WRONG.

You are a bigot and a hypocrite for saying that “they can keep it to themselves” when you cannot (and will not) keep it to yourself.