I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Really? Why do non monogamous couples get married then?
[/quote]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
Smoking. Drinking. Owning a gun. Lifting. How many other risky behaviors are you against and who should determine what can and cannot be done? If you break down my life most of it has been “risky” behavior, but you seem to really be focused on whether or not I choose to have sex with a male or female as the point of focus. When life has so many other risky behaviors why is this what you turn your attention to? And what makes you determine this is worthy of government action, but other areas are not?
Why be against liberty? And please refrain from making your post be “well I guess you think we should rape little kids!”
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[/quote]
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
Smoking. Drinking. Owning a gun. Lifting. How many other risky behaviors are you against and who should determine what can and cannot be done? If you break down my life most of it has been “risky” behavior, but you seem to really be focused on whether or not I choose to have sex with a male or female as the point of focus. When life has so many other risky behaviors why is this what you turn your attention to? And what makes you determine this is worthy of government action, but other areas are not?
Why be against liberty? And please refrain from making your post be “well I guess you think we should rape little kids!” [/quote]
That’s the second time you’ve thrown out that red herring. I’ve never mentioned raping kids and to continually suggest I have is profoundly dishonest. Furthermore the risk to the individual is a reason I would encourage people not to engage in the behaviour. It’s not a reason for state regulation of certain deviant sexual practices. And in relation to liberty, we have already seen the state prosecuting florists and bakers for refusing to participate in gay weddings. So don’t give me any of this ‘why be against liberty?’ bullshit.
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[/quote]
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide:
Lol, your links are absolutely hilarious. Do you read anything that isn’t completely and unabashedly biased? It’s one thing for places to attempt to hide their biases as some level of bias exists in all writing. It’s another to deliberately seek out information from websites that are demonstrably biased so your viewpoint never gets challenged.
That’s the second time you’ve thrown out that red herring. I’ve never mentioned raping kids and to continually suggest I have is profoundly dishonest. Furthermore the risk to the individual is a reason I would encourage people not to engage in the behaviour. It’s not a reason for state regulation of certain deviant sexual practices. And in relation to liberty, we have already seen the state prosecuting florists and bakers for refusing to participate in gay weddings. So don’t give me any of this ‘why be against liberty?’ bullshit.
[/quote]
I’m showing you the lunacy of your points. You started the hilarity by saying if I supported same sex marriage I must support a man marrying a frog or a dad-daughter combo (surprised that bothers you anyways if it is heterosexual).
Your fight against attacks on liberty is to further attack liberty? You haven’t been able to do anything to show any of this actually harms you other than a bunch of baseless assertions that you can’t back up. So let me slow this down. I have a cousin who is gay. Explain how this man you have NEVER met impacts your life. Explain how he hurts you. Why does your freedom trump his? It’s one thing to be against something on biblical grounds, but to talk of it ruining Western Civilization is hilarious in the lack of logic it takes to get there. Why do you care so much what people do in the bedroom? Seriously? I could give two shits less what you do in the bedroom. Why do you care what I do? My cousin? I NEVER really think about what other people do. It’s not my health, it’s not my genitals, etc. You think about this a lot apparently. You read websites about it. It is a significant portion of your thought process apparently.
Finally (I mean this honestly) when is the last time you read some websites, newspapers, etc that are completely the opposite of what you feel? Have you ever tried understanding the other side? So far you have demonstrated precisely where you get your bizarre viewpoints some. Why your thinking is so different from so many people from all aisles of the spectrum in this thread. Your choice of reading is REALLY telling.
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[/quote]
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide:
Lol, your links are absolutely hilarious. Do you read anything that isn’t completely and unabashedly biased? It’s one thing for places to attempt to hide their biases as some level of bias exists in all writing. It’s another to deliberately seek out information from websites that are demonstrably biased so your viewpoint never gets challenged.
You said in same sex marriage states marriage is healthier than ever. I asked for a source and you provided an NBC article that compares divorce rates between same sex marriage states and traditional marriage states. Divorce rates do not show the marriage rate. Furthermore you then post another link wherein it states that gay marriage in the Netherlands has led to a decrease in traditional marriage rates. I guess debating is not your strong point.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
That is a small minority yet you are holding the entire group responsible. Its also against the law, so maybe you just have a problem with criminals? At least we can agree on that.
Again why do you keep bringing up the fact its risky behavior? Do you ever engage in risky behavior like speeding or parkour? Do you hate yourself for it?
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[/quote]
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide:
Lol, your links are absolutely hilarious. Do you read anything that isn’t completely and unabashedly biased? It’s one thing for places to attempt to hide their biases as some level of bias exists in all writing. It’s another to deliberately seek out information from websites that are demonstrably biased so your viewpoint never gets challenged.
You said in same sex marriage states marriage is healthier than ever. I asked for a source and you provided an NBC article that compares divorce rates between same sex marriage states and traditional marriage states. Divorce rates do not show the marriage rate. Furthermore you then post another link wherein it states that gay marriage in the Netherlands has led to a decrease in traditional marriage rates. I guess debating is not your strong point.[/quote]
Pick and choose much? From the same article: [quote]Sweden legalized same-sex civil unions in 1995 and gay marriage in 2009. A 2011 demographic study from researchers at the University of Stockholm reports that since 1999, after decades of falling, both the marriage rate and the fertility rate have trended upward and the divorce rate is down.[/quote]
The point of that article was to show you what it looks like when people ACTUALLY look at multiple viewpoints and data. Not when you go to websites which cherry pick things in order to prove a point. Does Spearhead EVER post anything that is pro feminism? No, it exists to not do that. Does Mass Resistance think about positive aspects of same sex marriage? Of course not, they have an agenda to push.
It was analyzing multiple studies and coming to a conclusion which you routinely ignored. You ignore a lot of things to focus on a youtube joke.
I guess debating and rational thought are not your strong points. Reading demonstrably biased far right websites are.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
That is a small minority yet you are holding the entire group responsible. Its also against the law, so maybe you just have a problem with criminals? At least we can agree on that.
Again why do you keep bringing up the fact its risky behavior? Do you ever engage in risky behavior like speeding or parkour? Do you hate yourself for it?
[/quote]
SM doesn’t have time for risky behavior due to constantly thinking about how risky gay sex could be.
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Really? Why do non monogamous couples get married then?
[/quote]
To give the Gay Militia some talking points?[/quote]
What could possibly be more by gosh all american heartland defending than a militia?
That’s the second time you’ve thrown out that red herring. I’ve never mentioned raping kids and to continually suggest I have is profoundly dishonest. Furthermore the risk to the individual is a reason I would encourage people not to engage in the behaviour. It’s not a reason for state regulation of certain deviant sexual practices. And in relation to liberty, we have already seen the state prosecuting florists and bakers for refusing to participate in gay weddings. So don’t give me any of this ‘why be against liberty?’ bullshit.
[/quote]
I’m showing you the lunacy of your points. You started the hilarity by saying if I supported same sex marriage I must support a man marrying a frog or a dad-daughter combo (surprised that bothers you anyways if it is heterosexual).
Your fight against attacks on liberty is to further attack liberty? You haven’t been able to do anything to show any of this actually harms you other than a bunch of baseless assertions that you can’t back up. So let me slow this down. I have a cousin who is gay. Explain how this man you have NEVER met impacts your life. Explain how he hurts you. Why does your freedom trump his? It’s one thing to be against something on biblical grounds, but to talk of it ruining Western Civilization is hilarious in the lack of logic it takes to get there. Why do you care so much what people do in the bedroom? Seriously? I could give two shits less what you do in the bedroom. Why do you care what I do? My cousin? I NEVER really think about what other people do. It’s not my health, it’s not my genitals, etc. You think about this a lot apparently. You read websites about it. It is a significant portion of your thought process apparently.
Finally (I mean this honestly) when is the last time you read some websites, newspapers, etc that are completely the opposite of what you feel? Have you ever tried understanding the other side? So far you have demonstrated precisely where you get your bizarre viewpoints some. Why your thinking is so different from so many people from all aisles of the spectrum in this thread. Your choice of reading is REALLY telling.
[/quote]
Your cousin is not specifically relevant to the topic. I’m talking about homosexuality in general. And as we are seeing it is homosexual activists who are engaging in discrimination. Why should bakers, florists, priests and rabbis be forced to participate in gay weddings? Don’t you support the Bill of Rights? Why should executives be fired for donating money to a traditional marriage group? Don’t you believe in liberty?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
That is a small minority yet you are holding the entire group responsible. Its also against the law, so maybe you just have a problem with criminals? At least we can agree on that.
Again why do you keep bringing up the fact its risky behavior? Do you ever engage in risky behavior like speeding or parkour? Do you hate yourself for it?
[/quote]
I don’t keep bringing it up. I brought it up in response to interrogation. And yes I have engaged in risky behaviour and payed a heavy price for it. I don’t hate myself nor do I hate homosexuals.
I’m not really interested in how many tittie fucks you’ve had. But in relation to marriage I have already explained that as well. Men and women are complimentary and provide each other with psychological benefits. Marriage is also a natural union in harmony with natural law. Although procreation is its main function it is not its only function.[/quote]
Given your name is SexMachine, I figured you would care sarcasm
Anywho, I can think of many other relationships that are beneficial to each other, but I’m not seeing marriage as a requirement? Again, marriage is a social construct, not a natural construct.
Pilot fish and Sharks have evolved a natural union in harmony with natural law, but they aren’t even the same species. What does marriage have to do with it?[/quote]
Marriage is a way of recognising monogamy. Monogamy is not a social construct.
[/quote]
Why don’t we see massive amounts of divorce in states that allow same sex marriage yet do in states that prohibit it? [/quote]
Why would we? What does divorce have to do with anything?[/quote]
Your assertion is that same sex marriage ruins traditional marriage yet in the states that allow it traditional marriage is healthier than ever.
[/quote]
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide:
Lol, your links are absolutely hilarious. Do you read anything that isn’t completely and unabashedly biased? It’s one thing for places to attempt to hide their biases as some level of bias exists in all writing. It’s another to deliberately seek out information from websites that are demonstrably biased so your viewpoint never gets challenged.
You said in same sex marriage states marriage is healthier than ever. I asked for a source and you provided an NBC article that compares divorce rates between same sex marriage states and traditional marriage states. Divorce rates do not show the marriage rate. Furthermore you then post another link wherein it states that gay marriage in the Netherlands has led to a decrease in traditional marriage rates. I guess debating is not your strong point.[/quote]
Pick and choose much? From the same article: [quote]Sweden legalized same-sex civil unions in 1995 and gay marriage in 2009. A 2011 demographic study from researchers at the University of Stockholm reports that since 1999, after decades of falling, both the marriage rate and the fertility rate have trended upward and the divorce rate is down.[/quote]
The point of that article was to show you what it looks like when people ACTUALLY look at multiple viewpoints and data. Not when you go to websites which cherry pick things in order to prove a point. Does Spearhead EVER post anything that is pro feminism? No, it exists to not do that. Does Mass Resistance think about positive aspects of same sex marriage? Of course not, they have an agenda to push.
It was analyzing multiple studies and coming to a conclusion which you routinely ignored. You ignore a lot of things to focus on a youtube joke.
I guess debating and rational thought are not your strong points. Reading demonstrably biased far right websites are.
[/quote]
I’ve already said there are too many other factors and variables to show correlation between legalising gay marriage and traditional marriage rates.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you’d read the links you would see that gay men are the main source of HIV infection to women. It’s a public health problem. And what is particularly disturbing is the trend of ‘bug chasing’ and ‘gift giving’ where gay men deliberately spread and contract HIV.
[/quote]
Is this something your really concerned about? I’ve never had this concern with women, maybe you are hanging around the wrong types if its an actual problem in your life.
So hypothetically if they ever find a cure for HIV you have no problems will gays and will stop making threads like this?[/quote]
You’re an idiot. HIV is only one of more than a dozen STDs and STDs are only one reason amongst many that I oppose the normalisation of homosexuality.
[/quote]
We can get to the other reasons but I am not convinced STDs are a real reason so I am curious why you brought that up first when I asked a straight forward question.
The bottom line is you are at much greater risk of STDs from a chain of heterosexual transmissions. Most STDs were more prevalent before homosexuality was normalized. This means you are at lower risk today yet are still trying to blame homosexuals who are more accepted today than ever.[/quote]
No heterosexuals are not at a greater risk than homosexuals of contracting STDs. I don’t know of anyone who makes that claim. And HIV became widespread due to homosexuals and IV drug users. I don’t know of anyone who denies that either.[/quote]
Not at all what I said. As a heterosexual why do you care what their risk favor is compared to yours? Your risk has declined in the last 30 years. Societies acceptance of gays has obviously not made it worse in this area so I don’t understand why its on your list of reasons.
[/quote]
I’m merely pointing out that it’s risky behaviour. They also infect many women thereby spreading the virus into the heterosexual population.
[/quote]
That is a small minority yet you are holding the entire group responsible. Its also against the law, so maybe you just have a problem with criminals? At least we can agree on that.
Again why do you keep bringing up the fact its risky behavior? Do you ever engage in risky behavior like speeding or parkour? Do you hate yourself for it?
[/quote]
SM doesn’t have time for risky behavior due to constantly thinking about how risky gay sex could be. [/quote]
Even that sounds risky, a badly timed boner and you might think you caught the gay.
I said that it is one of many factors that undermines traditional marriage. You have to take every factor and variable into account. Can you provide a source for your claim? Here’s a graph of marriage rates nation wide: