Myth of Heterosexual AIDS

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]forlife wrote:
I participate in them mostly because I refuse to allow outright lies and misinformation to stand without being challenged.[/quote]

Ditto. And you’re the biggest liar in this thread - spreading the lie of the committed, responsible homsexual relationship. If you were a classified species, the homosexual you describe would be on the endangered list. You speak as if they are everywhere, when in reality, there are more of you trysting in the woods, club bathrooms, rest stops, etc. than raising children and leading responsible lives. You’re the liar, and you’re in denial. You are the Minister of Misinformation.

282

[quote]forlife wrote:

Why are you putting words in my mouth? I’ve consistently agreed that there IS a problem with sexual irresponsibility in the male gay community. I’m not overgeneralizing anything. I’m asking people to acknowledge that the MINORITY of gay men in long term monogamous relationships exists, and that it IS POSSIBLE to be completely healthy and happy in a same sex relationship.

The existence of the minority PROVES that sexual orientation isn’t the culprit. It’s about being sexually responsible, and you can absolutely choose to do this in a same sex relationship. I and thousands of other gay couples are doing exactly that.

Stop demonizing gay relationships, and focus on the REAL PROBLEM, which is sexual irresponsibility.

Your repeated jabs at gays and your homophobic comments make it clear that you’re not interested in a sincere discussion. You find gays disgusting, and logic isn’t going to make any difference to someone like you.[/quote]

You are terribly confused. We have repeatedly acknowledged that gay, committed relationships are the MINORITY - we have collectively driven home and reiterated that point countless times in this very thread, only to be rebutted (pun accidently intended) in some manner or other by you and your college student friend with the cartoon super hero avatar. It matters not that is is possible, it matters that it is not the common practice. And it is not the common practice simply because BIOLOGICALLY SPEAKING, MEN DO NOT GENERALLY BEHAVE IN SUCH A WAY!!! HOW CAN WE GET THAT THRU YOUR THICK SKULL!!!

THE EXISTENCE OF A MINORITY PROVES THAT SUCH BEHAVIOR IS THE EXCEPTION, AND WILL NEVER BE THE RULE.

We don’t have to demonize gay relationships, the statistics of HIV/AIDS, and other diseases speak for themselves. It is the BEST EVIDENCE of the REAL PROBLEM. And the next time you speak logically, instead of the tortured and self-serving logic you have been using, it will be the first time. And for the record, I find gay sex repulsive - I don’t care what you do in your own home, so therefore, by rule, I don’t find gays “repulsive”. I don’t need to know that you’re gay no more than you need to know I’m hetero.

283

And nowhere in science do we accept the exception of something as suggestive it can become the rule.

284

Why do you keep misrepresenting me, when I have said over and over again that committed, monogamous gay male relationships are the MINORITY? I never said it was the rule. I never said it was common practice.

I said ONLY that the existence of this minority proves that it is POSSIBLE to be healthy and happy in a same sex relationship.

Read the above sentence 10 times and let me know when you get it.

If it is possible to be healthy and happy in a same sex relationship, you cannot categorically dismiss gay relationships. You can only categorically dismiss SEXUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY, which is the real problem, not SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

What do you have against gays in committed, monogamous long term relationships? If nothing, then limit your future criticism to those that are sexually irresponsible, instead of painting all of us with the same stereotypical broad brush.

285

[quote]forlife wrote:
I wouldn’t take Mick too personally, Schlenkatank. He is a known troll, and is criticized even by the conservatives who typically oppose homosexuality in these threads.

As I said earlier, I don’t believe these discussions are likely to persuade anyone. I participate in them mostly because I refuse to allow outright lies and misinformation to stand without being challenged.[/quote]

I’m with you on those points, I’m just trying to express my belief. I’m not going to stand toe to toe with mick or the bodyguard when Ive already expressed my thoughts as clearly as I have.

286

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
forlife wrote:

It’s not prejudice - it’s a simple matter of biological behavior. Men have behaved in this manner for eons and will continue to do so. If you believe you can “educate” a man not to behave as a man behaves, why then are you not in favor of “educating” the gayness out of a homosexual? I mean, don’t you reside in the “they can’t help it” camp? And by the way, judging by your avatar, you are either gay yourself or, you are 15. If you are in fact gay, and I believe that you are, at least announce your affiliation. If you’re 15, you should STFU with your touchy feely save the world liberalism that they are teaching you in school these days.

[/quote]

Yes, this problem is indeed about prejudice. People in our country make assumptions about every gay person they meet before they know them. It’s why many parents disown their children they have loved and trusted for many years when they discover they are gay.

Your putting words in my mouth about how to solve issues of promiscuity within any given community. Education is paramount, but what I actually believe will help solve the issue is leaders that speak from outside and within the gay community. It’s what has advanced every successful civil rights movement of the past. I’ve studied many of Martin Luther Kings writings, and what he believes is that the success of a civil rights movement depends on the average members outside of the oppressed community to speak up. I believe I’m doing my part.

287

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

No one here is angry at gays. We’re angry at stupid, educationally/media indoctrinated blind liberal-speak. It is your position that we rebuke, not homosexuals. We know they exist and there is nothing that will change that. But having to suffer your liberal positions is unbearable.

[/quote]

I’m sorry to hear your having such a hard time with this. I’m not even upset in the slightest BG.

288

[quote]forlife wrote:
Why do you keep misrepresenting me, when I have said over and over again that committed, monogamous gay male relationships are the MINORITY? I never said it was the rule. I never said it was common practice.

I said ONLY that the existence of this minority proves that it is POSSIBLE to be healthy and happy in a same sex relationship.

Read the above sentence 10 times and let me know when you get it.

If it is possible to be healthy and happy in a same sex relationship, you cannot categorically dismiss gay relationships. You can only categorically dismiss SEXUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY, which is the real problem, not SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

What do you have against gays in committed, monogamous long term relationships? If nothing, then limit your future criticism to those that are sexually irresponsible, instead of painting all of us with the same stereotypical broad brush.[/quote]

You are very confused. Read what you wrote again 10 times and if you cannot recognize the terribly obvious error in your “logic” I suggest serious therapy. You are in denial - not that I’m surprised. You must have performed some amazing Cirque de Solei type acrobatics of “logic” to then justify your way into marriage and children in the first place. You sir, are a sociapath.

289

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Yes, this problem is indeed about prejudice. People in our country make assumptions about every gay person they meet before they know them. It’s why many parents disown their children they have loved and trusted for many years when they discover they are gay.

Your putting words in my mouth about how to solve issues of promiscuity within any given community. Education is paramount, but what I actually believe will help solve the issue is leaders that speak from outside and within the gay community. It’s what has advanced every successful civil rights movement of the past. I’ve studied many of Martin Luther Kings writings, and what he believes is that the success of a civil rights movement depends on the average members outside of the oppressed community to speak up. I believe I’m doing my part.[/quote]

You’re a nut. You are actually comparing the civil rights movement of blacks to “gay rights”. You’re comparing a fellow man of another color to a fellow man of deviant sexual proclivity? You have just insulted every black in existence - excepting of course, homosexual blacks.

Actually, most heteros give them no thought whatsoever. We make no assumptions. Mostly, we just don’t want to know. Just as I don’t want to imagine my overweight neighbor boning his overweight wife. It’s not my business. And I don’t want to give gays “rights” no more than I want to give any other deviant “rights”. Civil rights movement. Have you gone mad? Seriously?

290

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

No one here is angry at gays. We’re angry at stupid, educationally/media indoctrinated blind liberal-speak. It is your position that we rebuke, not homosexuals. We know they exist and there is nothing that will change that. But having to suffer your liberal positions is unbearable.

I’m sorry to hear your having such a hard time with this. I’m not even upset in the slightest BG.[/quote]

Neither am I so stop flattering yourself. You’re not nearly as compelling as your self-delusional holding-hands-we-are-the-world missives would have you believe. You’re quite like a gnat, flittering about my ear, which means you’re not quite even as annoying as mosquito, because you have no buzzz. Not even as annoying as a male mosquito, as you both have no bite.

291

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
You are very confused. Read what you wrote again 10 times and if you cannot recognize the terribly obvious error in your “logic” I suggest serious therapy. You are in denial - not that I’m surprised. You must have performed some amazing Cirque de Solei type acrobatics of “logic” to then justify your way into marriage and children in the first place. You sir, are a sociapath.
[/quote]

Instead of your typical name calling and hollow declarations of victory, how about actually addressing my points?

You’ve said absolutely nothing to refute that healthy same sex relationships are possible, and actually exist. You can only point to statistics about the majority of gay men, but you have no answer for gay couples that are living sexually responsible lives.

The truth is that your complaints about sexual promiscuity are a sham. The real issue is your personal revulsion toward gays. You are disgusted even by gay couples that are sexually responsible, so you will continue to demonize us.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans now favor gay rights, and a near majority actually favor gay marriage/civil unions. I don’t need to convince extremists like yourself, because your bigotry is obvious to most people.

292

[quote]forlife wrote:

If it is possible to be healthy and happy in a same sex relationship, you cannot categorically dismiss gay relationships. You can only categorically dismiss SEXUAL IRRESPONSIBILITY, which is the real problem, not SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

What do you have against gays in committed, monogamous long term relationships? If nothing, then limit your future criticism to those that are sexually irresponsible, instead of painting all of us with the same stereotypical broad brush.[/quote]

Two problems with what you are claiming"

Firstly, it is a rare thing indeed to find a truly long-term gay monogamous relationship. Studies have shown that those claiming monogamy have up to seven different sexual partners outside of their primary relationship. I’ve posted back-up data on this in the past and will do so again if you like

Secondly, the (rare) long-term monogamous gay relationship may be just as dangerous because of liberties taken during sex. As I’ve told you before the muscles lining the anal wall are quite thin and certainly not built for the male penis. Hence, this lining can be torn and infection ensues. You can find this information on many quality health web sites, I believe that the CDC has written some on this as well.

The fact is there is no real way to have a “safe” homosexual sexual relationship. That’s not what you want to hear but it is a fact. Keep in mind I’m not claiming that every single time gay sex takes place that there will be an immediate health alert. But, I will say that those who participate are in fact playing russian roulette with their health.

293

[quote]forlife wrote:
Instead of your typical name calling and hollow declarations of victory, how about actually addressing my points?

You’ve said absolutely nothing to refute that healthy same sex relationships are possible, and actually exist. You can only point to statistics about the majority of gay men, but you have no answer for gay couples that are living sexually responsible lives.

The truth is that your complaints about sexual promiscuity are a sham. The real issue is your personal revulsion toward gays. You are disgusted even by gay couples that are sexually responsible, so you will continue to demonize us.

Fortunately, the majority of Americans now favor gay rights, and a near majority actually favor gay marriage/civil unions. I don’t need to convince extremists like yourself, because your bigotry is obvious to most people.[/quote]

When you make a point, I’ll be happy to refute it, I mean “address” it.

That said, you yourself above admit the MAJORITY of gay men behave promiscuously. Argument is over. What? You want me to admit that a tiny fraction of the community is living “responsible monogamous” lives and should not be subject to the same rights and privileges of a hetero married couple? Sorry. No. Read what ZEB just wrote because that pretty much sums it up. It’s not safe. If it’s not safe, it’s not natural. It wasn’t intended. And I’m not paying for the risks of that lifestyle with my tax, SS, and insurance contributions.

So, my answer for the gay couples you describe has already been explained. I do not believe homosexual sex is “safe” and it is certainly not “healthy”. I certainly do not believe that you have the right to raise children among a host of other objections to “rights” you desire. Consider “your point” now addressed.

I have no personal revulsion towards gays until I am forced to think about it. I rather not know. I don’t care what you do. You can have sex with a new species of small mammal for all I care - I don’t want to know. I’m revolted when I’m confronted with the details of what you do behind closed doors. So yes, I find gay sex repulsive (as do most men and women), whether it’s commited at the highway rest stop in a bathroom or, whether it’s in the privacy of your own home with your committed “partner”.

Please show me the evidence that most americans favor gay rights.

Finally, for all your hissy fit hysterical rantings about name calling, you have just labeled me an “extremist” and “bigot”. I am neither. Frankly, I do not care. But I’ve said that now what…a dozen times?

294

I don’t want you to admit anything, dude. Like I’ve said throughout this thread, you’re entitled to all the revulsion, disgust, and dismay that floats your boat. If you don’t want to consider your deep seated aversion to gays bigotry, again you’re entitled to call it whatever you want.

Despite your queasiness, public support for equal rights has steadily increased, along with supporting legislation. Like it or not, your taxes WILL eventually be used to support equal rights for gays. I suppose you could move to a third world country to nurture your disgust, at least for a few more years until they catch up with the rest of the civilized world.

295

[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t want you to admit anything, dude. Like I’ve said throughout this thread, you’re entitled to all the revulsion, disgust, and dismay that floats your boat. If you don’t want to consider your deep seated aversion to gays bigotry, again you’re entitled to call it whatever you want.

Despite your queasiness, public support for equal rights has steadily increased, along with supporting legislation. Like it or not, your taxes WILL eventually be used to support equal rights for gays. I suppose you could move to a third world country to nurture your disgust, at least for a few more years until they catch up with the rest of the civilized world.[/quote]

I know you don’t want to admit to anything “dude”. That has been a sociopathic hallmark of your life’s behavior, starting at least with your decision to have sex with a woman and father children. At that point, you probably didn’t want to admit you were gay. I’d venture to say most of you are afflicted with a healthy case of lifelong denial - why should this pedestrian thread be any different?

My “deep seated” aversion or however you refer to it is shared by the majority. What does it tell you that men are quite accepting of lesbian sex, but the opposite fails. Women are disgusted by the imagry of male gay sex. And so are hetero men. And you’re damn right it’s “deep seated” - “seated” all the way down into our biological programming. You bandy the word about in some desperate attempt at dime store psychological musings.

And like your rose colored view of gay promsicuity, you again are quite swayed by a minority viewpoint that supports your way of life. In one breath, you claim it’s the majority of americans that support your deviant lifestyle, and now, it’s only “growing”. Sorry sir, not in this lifetime will my tax dollars support your deviant lifestyle. Maybe in granola eating liberal States like CA, but not in your State of TX sir. And not in my State either. The day they start talking gay marriage in my State seriously, is the day I become an political activist. We need only provide you boys a nice colony somewhere, perhaps an island; I won’t be moving to any third world country to nurture any disgust, because the majority of civilization everywhere is disgusted by your lifestyle - and always has been.

296

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
TheBodyGuard wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:

No one here is angry at gays. We’re angry at stupid, educationally/media indoctrinated blind liberal-speak. It is your position that we rebuke, not homosexuals. We know they exist and there is nothing that will change that. But having to suffer your liberal positions is unbearable.

I’m sorry to hear your having such a hard time with this. I’m not even upset in the slightest BG.

Neither am I so stop flattering yourself. You’re not nearly as compelling as your self-delusional holding-hands-we-are-the-world missives would have you believe. You’re quite like a gnat, flittering about my ear, which means you’re not quite even as annoying as mosquito, because you have no buzzz. Not even as annoying as a male mosquito, as you both have no bite. [/quote]

Really, I thought I’d at least be a black fly in your metaphor by now. I guess I’ve got a long way to go before I hit polar bear.

Oh, sorry but It’s actually the female mosquitos that bite. Perhaps you missed that in your college bio class.

299

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
I wouldn’t take Mick too personally, Schlenkatank. He is a known troll, and is criticized even by the conservatives who typically oppose homosexuality in these threads.

As I said earlier, I don’t believe these discussions are likely to persuade anyone. I participate in them mostly because I refuse to allow outright lies and misinformation to stand without being challenged.

forliar…don’t look now but no one is taking you seriously…between your many lies and your over 3000 posts all on homosexuality…you come off as some frustrated gay guy who’ll say and do anything to make a point. You don’t even pretend to want to talk about anything else. You’re here to try to rationalize leaving your wife and two kids to take up with Bruce. Here’s a clue: GET HELP. You’re not going to find it on this board you’re only going to be continually disappointed. Now run along I’m sure Bruce needs a back rub or something…[/quote]

I may only be nineteen but in my time I’ve gathered enough respect and dignity to know this is not the way you speak to people.

I don’t know you, but I support you forlife.

300

[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
Not even as annoying as a male mosquito, as you both have no bite.

Really, I thought I’d at least be a black fly in your metaphor by now. I guess I’ve got a long way to go before I hit polar bear.

Oh, sorry but It’s actually the female mosquitos that bite. Perhaps you missed that in your college bio class.[/quote]

Like your fellow homosexual, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I very clearly state above and compare you to a male mosquito - the one that doesn’t bite. As you have no sting. But thanks for the entertaining misstep.