Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
929

I’m back!

ZEB.

You say “Give me one good reason that we should make gay marriage legal.”

Well, that’s a fallacious argument:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The funny thing is, the other side does give decent argumentation, but somehow they are never good enough. Perhaps your stubborness is an example of this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

But hey, if you want to play that kind of fucked up game, then give me one good reason that we should keep an 5000+ year old set of traditions.

The fact that it has been around for 5000+ years is NOT a good reason. In fact, it’s the suckiest reason of all the sucky reasons in the world to keep something around.

It even has it’s own name:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

Especially when it has been repeatedly used to mollify and oppress the masses for over the last 1000 years.

As Frank Lloyd Wright once stated in referring to the traditions handed down through the various ages of Architecture (traditions as old, if not older, than the “Word of God” itself), “To cling to the corpse is to be poisoned by it.”

As we can see here in this forum with ZEB, clinging to the corpse of 5000+ years is poisoning the moral fabric of American society by introducing and reinforcing a series of arguments in the form fallacious logic.

In fact, it makes no sense in debating anyone who has been poisoned by 5000+ of tradition because, at best, any rational person can only hope that such a victim continues to make grammatical and syntactical sense, or in other words, finding the logically sound argument is like trying to find a needle in the proverbial haystack–it’s just buried in so much crap that it isn’t worth the effort!

Verily, upon reviewing your statements, ZEB, I have concluded that you consistently and recklessly violate nearly all of the 42 logical fallacies defined on this site:

As a result of this, I have no choice but to conclude that your mind has been clouded over by 5000+ years of poisonous tradition and that, in your enfeebled state, you are no longer capable of constructing or defending any sound logical arguments.

At best, you present mathematically valid statistics on ocassion or a somewhat tenable statement, but even then, you do not have the mental faculties nor training required to do sufficient analysis on those numbers or to possibly present a non-fallacious point.

Perhaps it would be best to let others more capable than yourself to take up your torch. It is sad to see a man whose hands are failing, but sadder still is the man who remains blind to his own infirmity even as the torch slips from his grasp. Please, spare yourself the indignity and retire with a modicum of self-respect.

It’s noble of you to stick up so valiantly for your cause, ZEB, but your side needs a better champion–your handling of logic is an atrocity.

As I know it from you, the only way your side can hope to win is by putting it to a public vote, where the ignorance of the masses, well-meaninged as they may be, will needlessly perpetrate an injustice on society because they are afraid and unable to understand.

What you are so proud to exclaim as the will of the people when citing opinion polls, I simply denounce as this:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

There is no good reason for keeping a 5000+ year old institution intact.

Hell, that 5000+ year old institution, as it is interpreted today, would be seen as an abomination compared to what it used to be by someone living back then. (Don’t make me go Monty Python’s Parrot Sketch on your 5000+ year old sense of tradition.)

Yes! Your precious tradition may win a stay of execution for now, ZEB, but that doesn’t make you one bit more right. I live in a country that supports same-sex marriage. So, if you want to play the game that way, I already won, well before this thread even started! And the tide rising up against tradition only continues to grow in the world on a daily basis. Neener, neener.

Oh, ZEB, if only it were as childishly simple as you maintain it is, your side would have been defeated long ago. And you continue to refuse to see it. Luckily, for you and other more simple-minded traditionalists, it’s not as simple as you think, or else the courts would have amended the definition of marriage long ago.

ZEB, find an apprentice better-equipped to deal with these debates than you. It got sad the second you entered the fray and refused to even begin to entertain the most basic arguments put up against you.

Good bye!

930

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. [/quote]

Yeah… because gay people who want to get married are the harbingers of evil.

Maybe this was an unfortunate and slightly clumsy usage of the phrase? Nobody’s perfect, and we can excuse the slight awkwardness, I think… but do you see how this post makes you look a bit like a fool?

Try a more appropriate phrase next time, and maybe folks won’t heckle you.

931

ZEB, I’m sorry that my common sense keeps escaping you. I tried to help you see the error you were making by using statistics to judge the individual merit of people, but you just dug up more stats like that was going to help. I will say it again:

You are using the statistics in a way that they are not intended.

Allow me to demonstrate something for you. Perhaps an even more clear example here is needed for you to see the error of your ways.

From the link:
“Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males.”

So one out of every three black men go to jail sometime for something. Should I use that statistic to judge the merits of a black man? Do I compare these numbers to other races and draw conclusions about the black race as a whole based on these harsh and undeniable facts? This is what you are doing with gays, ZEB. You’re fuckin’ up!

This is not a good usage of the stats. I do not justifiably look at the numbers and say “blacks are friggin’ criminals!” or “black people are worse than white people!”. That is judging merit based on statistics, and it’s wrong. Wrong wrong wrong!

So what is a VALID usage of the prison statistics? Why bother with them?

The numbers show that there is an inequality in our society concerning criminal environment and race. How does someone become a criminal to begin with? They are exposed to a criminal lifestyle, they are tempted to go the way of crime instead of earning money through legitimate channels. We look at how many black men end up in jail, and we draw the conclusion that black children are around criminal activity more. We can use this information to reach out to kids and try to find ways to channel their efforts towards constructive paths, pay special attention to teaching them that crime is a mistake. We know from the stats that black kids on the average are more likely to be exposed to criminal activity.

THAT’S what those numbers are for. THAT’S what they mean. We do not use the stats to judge black people as unworthy or undeserving… quite the opposite. In the same vein, we can see what the HIV infection stats in the gay population really mean:

Risky behavior leads to trouble. More so in the gay population than otherwise. You guys need to realize that being in a monogamous faithful relationship will cut down a great deal on your exposure to risk. If you engage in frequent risky behavior like doing ecstasy and having a fling with a different partner every night, you are headed towards trouble. Look at the HIV numbers. There are a bunch of gay men with HIV who do not even know it. Be safe. Respect yourself, and don’t end up on the damn quilt.

Is this starting to make sense to you, ZEB? Can you see where you are making a mistake with your stats and your judging?

[quote]I wrote:
I was just thinking about my roommate here for a second. In a small way, she’s better off being gay than straight… if she sticks with this nice girl she’s dating, then she won’t ever be at risk of marrying some wife-beating asshole who’s going to give her a black eye once a week.

You wrote:
True enough, but she will also miss out on the potential for a happy marriage with a good man. She misses out on having children of her own and all the other good things that come from having such a relationship.

But you keep that wacky liberal logic going…(eye roll).[/quote]

Still rolling your eyes, huh? Maybe she doesn’t want a marriage with a man, ZEB. Maybe she wants to be married to a good woman. And the kids… there’s adoption, artificial insemination, having a close personal friend over for dinner and a bottle of wine to act as a “sperm donor”… (hehehe)

Not everybody desires the same things that you do, man! Don’t make the mistake of trying to force your narrow definitions of family on others. There’s all kinds of good people in this world, ZEB. Some of them are homosexuals. Big deal.

[quote]I wrote:
I’m thinking just fine for myself, thank you very much.

You wrote:
You are not even close my friend! You have swallowed the liberal pill! Gulp! “Weeeeee…everything should be fair and equal but I don’t have one good reason in the world to say this…la la la la.”[/quote]

I’m sorry that my sense of justice is too far-fetched for you, pal. I cannot see any good reason to NOT treat a particular gay person as an equal until that person acts in a way which betrays honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, or courtesy. hoW CRazY Am i foR THaT!?!?

[quote]Okay back to the debate:

Marriage is not for people of the same gender. An instution becomes strong because it represents something! To bend it and shape it to any sort of form that the latest social liberals demand strengthens nothing![/quote]

So the institution of marriage doesn’t stand for commitment, fidelity, and love? No wonder my marriage didn’t last! I’ve got this whole thing completely FUCKED UP in my mind! Turns out that marriage is just about being heterosexual. Of course, that still doesn’t explain why I got divorced from that greedy shrew I married… I can still hear her screaming at me “WHAT? YOU WANT TO DROP OUT OF MEDICAL SCHOOL?”… and like magic, one month later we were filing papers. Go figure. How was I to know that she was actually just gay? Thanks for clearing that up for me, buddy! It all makes sense now.

That’s right, all is well in lothario-land. Too bad it isn’t this good everywhere… don’t worry, I’m working on it. One step at a time, man, one step at a time.

932

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Some funny/stinging/pretty harsh stuff
[/quote]

I hope ZEB can still have babies, man! Take it easy on him, his joints can only take so much LOL

Just playin’ ZEB… but it looks like you pissed off JT a little bit here. :slight_smile:

933

[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:

I want to apologize for laughing at you in my last post. While it was all in good fun, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that this is a laughing matter. Also, I know that you are very passionate about this subject and care a great deal about your friends. Everyone should have a friend like lothario! [/quote]

Aww come on, man! Don’t apologize for heckling somebody. I’m glad to see you coming out of your shell a little bit. It’s refreshing to debate somebody who will throw some stinging comments at me. I have yet to see a “fag-lover” or a “queer-sympathizer”, so I’m kinda disappointed. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]With that said let me one more time show you piece by piece why the homosexual lifestyle is literally killing good people, just like your friends:

"Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.

Note: The Center for Disease Control is a government institution. Not some right wing gay hating organization. They study health trends and statistics world wide in order to attempt to foresee the various disease’s that might be either already prevalent, or could become prevalent in the United States.

I posted only a few statistics here as there is no reason to overwhelm you with facts as I have in earlier posts. Simply review these few facts and give me an honest comment on them:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.

Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners."

The above means that people just like your friends are engaging in risky, potentially death defying behavior! They are not containing the potential for AIDS and STD’s, they are spreading it!

This is in fact killing them at a higher rate than the national average. How can anyone possibly consider this a good thing? And if it is not considered a good thing then why would anyone want to promote such a thing if not merely for the sake of social liberalism and political correctness?

But there’s more…[/quote]

This is still using statistics to judge the merit of individuals. This is a mistake, as I hope you have seen in my other replies to you earlier. Be more careful how you apply statistical knowledge, ZEB.

What does being gay directly cause? Just because someone is gay does not mean that they are HIV positive, dishonest about their HIV status, or engaged in unsafe sex practices. The only thing I can think of gayness directly causing is a sexual attraction for the same gender, but what kind of sense does that make? How can I further an agenda if I stop and look at this with common sense? LOL

934

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

But hey, if you want to play that kind of fucked up game, then give me one good reason that we should keep an 5000+ year old set of traditions.[/quote]

Statistics, figures, poll numbers, referendum results, tradition, social mores and religion back up my side of the argument.

[quote]ZEB, find an apprentice better-equipped to deal with these debates than you. It got sad the second you entered the fray and refused to even begin to entertain the most basic arguments put up against you.

Good bye![/quote]

Nice try Mr. JimmyTango, but I don’t think that claiming that “it’s only fair” or comparing a behavior such as homosexuality to the black or female (remember genetics?) struggle for equality is a valid argument.

But it is good that you have taken some philosophy classes. I took those too when I was in college wayyyyyy back when. lol

Have a good day.

935

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Some funny/stinging/pretty harsh stuff

I hope ZEB can still have babies, man! Take it easy on him, his joints can only take so much LOL

Just playin’ ZEB… but it looks like you pissed off JT a little bit here. :slight_smile:
[/quote]

I guess that’s the change you take when you stand up for something. :slight_smile:

936

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lothario:

I want to apologize for laughing at you in my last post. While it was all in good fun, I don’t want anyone to get the idea that this is a laughing matter. Also, I know that you are very passionate about this subject and care a great deal about your friends. Everyone should have a friend like lothario!

Aww come on, man! Don’t apologize for heckling somebody. I’m glad to see you coming out of your shell a little bit. It’s refreshing to debate somebody who will throw some stinging comments at me. I have yet to see a “fag-lover” or a “queer-sympathizer”, so I’m kinda disappointed. :P[/quote]

You know lothario I don’t even think like that. I am serious when I tell you that these folks need help not someone to enable a behavior that’s killing them. I actually find it very sad.

[quote]With that said let me one more time show you piece by piece why the homosexual lifestyle is literally killing good people, just like your friends:

"Risky Sexual Behavior on the Rise Among Homosexuals. Despite two decades of intensive efforts to educate homosexuals against the dangers of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other stds, the incidence of unsafe sexual practices that often result in various diseases is on the rise.

Note: The Center for Disease Control is a government institution. Not some right wing gay hating organization. They study health trends and statistics world wide in order to attempt to foresee the various disease’s that might be either already prevalent, or could become prevalent in the United States.

I posted only a few statistics here as there is no reason to overwhelm you with facts as I have in earlier posts. Simply review these few facts and give me an honest comment on them:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), from 1994 to 1997 the proportion of homosexuals reporting having had anal sex increased from 57.6 percent to 61.2 percent, while the percentage of those reporting “always” using condoms declined from 69.6 percent to 60 percent.

Homosexuals Failing to Disclose Their HIV Status to Sex Partners
A study presented July 13, 2000 at the XIII International aids Conference in Durban, South Africa disclosed that a significant number of homosexual and bisexual men with hiv “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV.”[4] Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that thirty-six percent of homosexuals engaging in unprotected oral, anal, failed to disclose that they were HIV positive to casual sex partners.

A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reporting having had unprotected anal intercourse during the previous six months did not know the HIV serostatus of all their sex partners. Even more alarming, among those who reported having had unprotected anal intercourse and multiple partners, 68 percent did not know the HIV serostatus of their partners."

The above means that people just like your friends are engaging in risky, potentially death defying behavior! They are not containing the potential for AIDS and STD’s, they are spreading it!

This is in fact killing them at a higher rate than the national average. How can anyone possibly consider this a good thing? And if it is not considered a good thing then why would anyone want to promote such a thing if not merely for the sake of social liberalism and political correctness?

But there’s more…

This is still using statistics to judge the merit of individuals. This is a mistake, as I hope you have seen in my other replies to you earlier. Be more careful how you apply statistical knowledge, ZEB.[/quote]

lothario I am not “judging” any specific individual. However, when it comes to taking responsible action homosexuals as a group are not making good decisions. let’s take the example of alcoholism (it’s just an example). Being an alcoholic will shorten your lifespan, make you less happy and create physical and emotional problems for you. Those are facts proven by surveys and statistics. With that knowledge do you encourage your friend who has a drinking problem to continue drinking?

It’s a dangerous behavior if acted upon. And that is what this debate is all about. No, being a homosexual does not “cause” anything! However, acting on homosexual urges does in fact mean a great deal of negative things could and do happen.

If (as an alcoholic) you don’t drink any longer you may not end up with all the nasty things that happen to alcoholics who act on thier urge to drink. However, when they act on that urge they open themselves up to a higher rate of: automobile accidents, liver disease, (and most other dieseases as well) dying at a younger age, having emotional problems, having more of a chance of divorcing his/her spouse. And a host of other problems.

It’s not what each of them ARE that will harm them. It’s taking ACTION on that urge that causes the untold of physical, emotional and social pain!

Look closely at the statistics (in the last few posts I put up). You are not doing your “friends” or anyone else’s gay friends a favor by promoting that behavior. And if you had a friend who was an alcoholic you would in fact point to the statistics and try as hard as you could to stop him from engaging in that risky behavior.

937

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
WMD wrote:
I know for a fact gay people live with conflict every day of their lives. There is nothing like having to fear for your life, safety, property, family and friends all at the same time just because you’re different. Thanks so much for the safe, loving and supportive atmosphere you and people like you have managed to create in this country for us queers.

Why do you assume someone that doesn’t agree with you will also try and hurt you and destroy your property?
[/quote]
Because they have. Ask Matthew Shepard about that. Oh, wait, you can’t because he was murdered for being gay. Or the gay couple whose common property (including their dog!) was taken by one man’s family after he was killed in a helicopter crash. Ask the many gay people, men and women, who’ve been assaulted for no greater crime than being different, who’ve lost jobs, families, friends, housing and even their freedom because they had the temerity to be gay. And because people like you think they have a mandate from God to discriminate and judge and even kill. Many gay people have been murdered in this society for no other reason than being gay. I tend to take it personally when I and people like me are singled out for discriminatory treatment.

[quote]Of coarse it has to be that gays are conflicted because of society not accepting them. It couldn’t be that they are actually not sure of their choices? I guess when they had sexual identify disorder in the DSM (look it up) the American Psychiatric Association didn’t know what they were talking about. Sure, it was societies fault.
[/quote]
At least now you are starting to see the picture. I wonder what it would be like for you to live in constant fear and danger and harshness and to know that no one was on your side. I wonder it what it would be like for you to be rejected and thrown out on the street by your family like so many gay people have experienced. And maybe you noticed the APA took homosexuality out of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Apparently they do know what they are doing.

[quote]The question, Mr. Not-Able-to-Keep-Up, is why they would be so conflicted over their sexual orientation. This culture is one of the most sexually conflicted ones in all history. We really want it but preacher said it’s evil so what do we do? Hate the fags cuz God REALLY hates that shit. You know how sexual harassment legislature refers to the creation of a hostile environment? Well guess what. People like you have created a thouroughly gay hostile environment in this country. Again, thanks so much.

Sounds like a personal issue. I don’t know anyone who is conflicted about their sexual orientation. In the right context sex is fine. They problem comes from when you feel you need to act out every sexual impulse you have at the exact time you have it. So what you call conflicted I call self control and being a human, as apposed to an animal.
[/quote]
You really don’t remember what you write, do you? If you look above and in your previous posts, you make several arguments based on your assumption that gay people are either confused or conflicted about their sexual orientation. So what point were you trying to make here?

[quote]You just could not help yourself, could you? You try so hard to be good, but you just could not resist a little gay bashing. Such a cute little homophobe. And again, if you don’t understand why I like women, you probably have never been with one. Poor guy.

What was a gay bash? The fact that in nearly all gay relationships someone chooses the feminine role and the other the masculine role. Funny how that mimics a natural male/female relationship. So because I indicated that from your posts you clearly have chosen the masculine role, that is bashing? If you didn’t want that known you shouldn’t have gone on about all the male dominated things you do.
[/quote]
The gay bash was you saying I want to be a man. I think you know that, but you now feel compelled to pretend it wasn’t. You are way short on fact and long on prejudice. IN most gay relationships the partners do not choose male and female roles. That is you placing your binary worldview on top of the truth. You cannot concieve of anything other than traditional male/female roles therefore, all relationships must have male/female roles. I like how make assumptions based on my military and martial arts activities that what i really want is to be a man rather than a fully self-actualized human being with a wide variety of interests and skills. You live in a small world. I guess you think that all the hetero female cops and lawyers and doctors and athletes out there really want to be men, rather than having the freedom to live full lives.

[quote]Yeah, society. Always right, that society. Society determined women could not vote and blacks were less human than whites and children could be beaten and exploited and wives were chattel. Let’s see, what other wonderful things has society supported? So much to choose from…

[quote]And now you want to add sexual deviation to the list. Nice!
[/quote]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&defl=en&q=define:deviation

Here you are, several definitions of the word deviation. It means varying from the norm. Like black eyes are a variant from the norm of blue or brown eyes. You, however, see being different as a bad thing because it scares you. I’m afraid it remains your problem. People who lift weights deviate from the norm since most people don’t lift. Hide the children.

[quote]Really. What DOCUMENTED historical origin would that be? And please try to stay focused. I am a lesbian. I don’t want to marry a guy. I want to marry my girlfriend. Therefore, I am not being given the same rights because I cannot marry the person of my choice. I believe freedom of choice is what this free country is all about.

The bible is a historical document and has been proven accurate using carbon dating and the Dead Sea scrolls.
[/quote]
Sorry, dude, the bible is a theological document. It is not a history. What aspects of it have been proven accurate using carbon dating and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Saying it is historical would be akin to saying the Iliad is history because Schleimann was able to find Troy and Mycenae using it. Or like saying a historical novel is history because it uses history for it’s context.

[quote]The criteria set by the bible was a man and woman for marriage. You want that criteria changed to be also same sex. So you don’t want equal rights, you want new special rights. And unfortunately, you are correct. This country is becoming all about special interest rights at the expense of the majority.
[/quote]
Actually the Bible sets no criteria nor does it give a definition. It gives some examples of hetero marriage, especially multiple marriages and concubinage. Shall we reinstate those traditions? How about slavery, incest, rape, genocide and the little matter of Jonathan and David’s relationship or that of Naomi and Ruth? But you couldn’t possibly see those relationships as homosexual because your whole world would crumble into tiny pieces. I’m sure I shouldn’t point out that this is a secular society, not a theocratic one. I want the same right to marry the person of my choosing that any hetero person assumes. this country is ruled by a special interest group. Gay marriages will not harm anyone elses marriage. This is a logical fallacy adhered to by people who just want to keep gay people second class citizens.

[quote]Gee, thanks for your permission to be fully human.

Wow. You think marriage proves you are human. You have some issues!
[/quote]
If you look up you will see the point fly over your head. I think being given the same rights as everyone else would be like being treated as a full human in this society. The again, animals and inanimate objects can’t enter into marriage contracts, so the freedom to marry the partner of ones choosing would seem to be a very human-like act.

[quote]You can’t call me stupid because I am not. I can call you stupid because you are.

Now that was mature.
[/quote]
LOL I’m sorry, does gay bashing count as mature in your world?

[quote]What in hell are you talking about here? How does the phrase “sexual preference” preclude genetics or biology? This sort of thing is what leads me to use the adjective “stupid” when referring to you. If you don’t want to be called stupid, quit saying stupid things.

Well my dear, the definition of “preference” is:

a. The selecting of someone or something over another or others.
b. The right or chance to so choose.
c. Someone or something so chosen. (See Synonyms - choice).

So a preference is a choice. If it is a choice, that means you can choose not to have sex with woman. That means it is not genetic. Being genetic would indicate that there was no choice in the matter. So that is why a choice would preclude genetic or biology. Perhaps you should buy yourself a dictionary so you actulay know what the words mean that you are writing.
[/quote]
You mean like “coarse” and “actulay”?

Let me help you out with this. I am gay. I am sexually oriented to be attracted to women. I prefer to have sexual and romantic relationships with women. I have been this way all my life. I personally have never said being gay was only about genetics, any more than being hetero is. I am pretty sure that it has a biological basis, as most things of this nature do. I can assure that I was not “nurtured” into being gay any more than most people are nurtured into being straight.

[quote]You are remarkably adept at being completely and utterly wrong about everything you say. Here are some things to help on the path to enlightenment:

http://www.yellodyno.com/html/child_molester_stats.html

http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Resources/ResearchStudies/molestation.html

http://www.womenofsubstance.org/sexabuse.htm

In 1995, local child protective service agencies identified 126,000 children who were victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse; of these, 75% were girls. Nearly 30% of child victims were between the ages of 4 and 7.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Child Maltreatment, 1995

Apparently, girls are victimized at least as often as boys and almost all sex offenders are men. So what does that say about men in general? Statistically men commit more crimes of all sorts than women so maybe we should compare all men to rapists, pedophiles, murderers, child molesters, etc. Maybe men should not be allowed to marry or adopt children or buy guns or hell, walk freely until all the testosterone has been somehow leached from their bodies. I mean, if we’re to follow your logic, that is.

Once again you don’t seem to get it. I never stated that gays were or as child molesters. I stated that their lifestyle is very close to the same thing in terms of society. Once again, anal sex and oral sex as done on same sex is illegal in most States. The gay sexual practices are deviant to the rest of society; so are child molesters. Both have been shown to cause physiological trauma or issues. Etc…
[/quote]
Really. What physiological or psychological trauma is there from consensual sex between two adults? You are now backpedaling from your previous statement where you say most child molestation is male-male and is therefore akin to homsexuality. You constantly compare homosexuality to pedophilia, when the two are not the same thing, you know with the adults and consent and all. Tell me, what is the pedophliac lifestyle?

[quote]So gay sexual practices are similar to child molesters in many ways. That doesn’t mean gays are molesters or molesters gay. It just means they both are negative aspects of society in a similar way.
[/quote]
Gay sexual practices are not like child molesters in that they involve adults who have given consent. If you can’t see the difference, it is your problem. Is male-female child molestation the same as two hetero adults having sex? To you gay sexual practices are negative. To others, not so much. It remains your problem.

[quote]I like how you keep trying to 'splain your reactions to gay people. YOu know, you too tough and manly to admit you fear the queers, so it’s really disgust or indignance because those two things have nothing to do with fear. I think fear is a totally accurate word in this case. Why would you even concern yourself with it and spend so much time worrying about it on the Internet, if you weren’t at least a little, teeny-tiny bit afraid?

I don’t want to stand by a let the moral fabric of our society be torn down by you and others like you. It’s one thing to do what you want behind closed doors. But it’s entirely another thing to force your deviant views on society and state they must accept your preference.
[/quote]
Oh, so you think you are standing up for the “moral fabric” of our society. And I am tearing it down because I want to be treated fairly. Boy am I evil. I’m afraid you have to accept my sexual preference unless you intend to exterminate me and others like me. Because here we are and more of us are born every day. My “deviant” views were shared by the founding fathers. I consider myself to be an equal person in this society and therefore I do not have to live out my life behind closed doors just because you feel icky. I don’t have to pretend to feel ashamed for being who and what I am just because you don’t like it. I am not hurting you or society by taking my place in it and insisting that I be treated the same way as everybody else. My sex practices do not define me and they are none of your business. As far as deviant goes, did you know that the KKK shares your views? Way to be part of the norm.

[quote]Hey lorisco, if AIDS was sent by God to punish gays why did He let it get into the straight population? Would that be intelligent design?
Ole!

You just think of that or did someone help you?
[/quote]
All by my wittle self…

[quote]So since HIV in the hetero population came from gay guys, why is that God’s fault? Gay guys giving blood is how children get HIV. So how would you want God to prevent that? Wipe out all gays so they can’t hurt heretos?
[/quote]
Let’s see, if God is such an intelligent designer, why would he make it possible for heteros to get it? Children do not get HIV from gay guys giving blood. They get it from infected people whose blood was not screened. Or didn’t you know blood banks are supposed to screen for HIV?

[quote]Hey WMD, why is AIDS almost exclusively confined to the gay population and only gets into the hertero population by gays?
[/quote]

Here’s a hint: if it is in the hetero population, one of those so called heteros had to have sex with someone who was infected. How weird is that? Therefore, who were they screwing with? Please go to the CDC website so you can see that HIV is not confined in any way to the gay population. It is in fact rising most quickly among heterosexual women of color. I wonder what that means. Lesbians have the lowest incidence, since we tend not to have penetrative sex with men. So that means lesbians are God’s chosen and men are the carriers of disease.

No marriage for you.

938

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Y’know, the only people I know who care as much about gay guys as Zeb does…are gay guys.

Closet case, Zebbie?

Evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

All right, I’ll bite…what in the name of sweet stinky fuck does that mean?

It means that the reason Zeb is spending time talking about this issue is not because he is gay or fears gays. It is because he values the current morals of society and doesn’t want them to change. So he is a good man doing something about it.

No…he’s a religious nut arguing on the internet that an entire class of people are second class citizens.

But, you were close.

More hate speech from the social liberals…(shaking head). You guys just never learn do you?

You know harris, I’m thinking you are an atheist (If I’m wrong I apologize) and I can respect that. I never once called you a Godless nut ball did I? Simply because I happen to be a Christian does not make me a “religious nut.”

If so there are about 2.1 billion other “nuts” in the world. And I’ll take their company over yours any day.

furthermore, if you have kept up with this legnthy thread you can see that we have left the topic of religion many posts ago.

Statistics, figures, poll numbers, referendum results, tradition, social mores and yes religion back up my position.

But I guess you always have your hate speech.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

You are a religious nut.

2.1 billion? So what? A lot of people belive something, so it must be true? 100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

And your “statistics, figures…” are either carefully culled to back up your fag-hating viewpoint, or from bullshit sources who think gays can be converted.

Sorry, but this is a personal thing with you, it seems.

939

(Note that harris’s post contains nothing which helps the gay marriage advocates prove their point. In fact, it contains nothing but more name calling a some “liberal logic.”)

[quote]harris447 wrote:
You are a religious nut.[/quote]

More hate speech…That’s all they have folks!

Because I have read and understand the Bible? Because I think that “moral fabric” in a society is important?

Ooookay…

Can I call you a moral degenerate? No, I wouldn’t do that just because you are an Atheist. I’m sure you have your own code of morals based on something or other.

Pay attention my hate mongering friend. I said that “I would take their company over yours any day.” Did I say anything about their beliefs being correct? Maybe you should cut back on the caustic remarks and spend some time on productive posts. Just a suggestion.

Yes, I know because they disagree with you they are “retards.” More name calling from the left. Lol

Yes, they must be carefully culled, statistics could not possibly show that many gay people could be living a dangerous lifestyle. Read my man…read!

You think the CDC is a “bullshit source?” Do you think that Gay magazines are changing the facts to make gays look bad? (Wow)

Besides, if you think that my facts are bad (which they are not) you need to produce some solid facts which show that gays have less emotional, physcial and social problems.

Since you can’t seem to come up with facts such as these (or any facts at all) you attack mine.

You know what I call that don’t you? More liberal logic!

How come it isn’t “personal” with lothario, or the countless others who have posted repeatedly on this thread
who are “pro” gay marriage?

Could it be because you agree with them and not me? Why do you have to act sooo very predictable?

I will say this: you are consistent. On the last few posts you have done nothing but attack me personally and question my facts. But you have said not one good word for the

“pro gay marriage” side. Does that mean that you have run out talking points for your cause? Actually, (unlike the others) in your case you never had any!

Now go put together a good post on why gay marriage should be sanctioned and then we can have a real discussion.

I’ll be waiting! :slight_smile:

940

[quote]harris447 wrote:

You are a religious nut.

2.1 billion? So what? A lot of people belive something, so it must be true? 100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

And your “statistics, figures…” are either carefully culled to back up your fag-hating viewpoint, or from bullshit sources who think gays can be converted.

Sorry, but this is a personal thing with you, it seems. [/quote]

As I read this, I am amazed how much name calling a few individual seem to have to resort to.

Just because someone has morals and values does not make him a religious nut. By that rule of logic, a person who has no morals or values is a chaotic nut (as seems to be the case in this thread).

FYI - for anyone who is a history nut like myself. What was the major cause for the decline of the Roman civilization? Any takers?

And, if you can’t back your statements up with facts, figures, or something tangible, just shut-up and listen. You may learn something that way.

941

[quote]ZEB wrote:
(Note that harris’s post contains nothing which helps the gay marriage advocates prove their point. In fact, it contains nothing but more name calling a some “liberal logic.”)

harris447 wrote:
You are a religious nut.

More hate speech…That’s all they have folks!

Because I have read and understand the Bible? Because I think that “moral fabric” in a society is important?

Ooookay…

Can I call you a moral degenerate? No, I wouldn’t do that just because you are an Atheist. I’m sure you have your own code of morals based on something or other.

2.1 billion? So what? A lot of people belive something, so it must be true?

Pay attention my hate mongering friend. I said that “I would take their company over yours any day.” Did I say anything about their beliefs being correct? Maybe you should cut back on the caustic remarks and spend some time on productive posts. Just a suggestion.

100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

Yes, I know because they disagree with you they are “retards.” More name calling from the left. Lol

And your “statistics, figures…” are either carefully culled to back up your fag-hating viewpoint, or from bullshit sources who think gays can be converted.

Yes, they must be carefully culled, statistics could not possibly show that many gay people could be living a dangerous lifestyle. Read my man…read!

You think the CDC is a “bullshit source?” Do you think that Gay magazines are changing the facts to make gays look bad? (Wow)

Besides, if you think that my facts are bad (which they are not) you need to produce some solid facts which show that gays have less emotional, physcial and social problems.

Since you can’t seem to come up with facts such as these (or any facts at all) you attack mine.

You know what I call that don’t you? More liberal logic!

Sorry, but this is a personal thing with you, it seems.

How come it isn’t “personal” with lothario, or the countless others who have posted repeatedly on this thread
who are “pro” gay marriage?

Could it be because you agree with them and not me? Why do you have to act sooo very predictable?

I will say this: you are consistent. On the last few posts you have done nothing but attack me personally and question my facts. But you have said not one good word for the

“pro gay marriage” side. Does that mean that you have run out talking points for your cause? Actually, (unlike the others) in your case you never had any!

Now go put together a good post on why gay marriage should be sanctioned and then we can have a real discussion.

I’ll be waiting! :slight_smile: [/quote]

Gay marriage should be legal because discrimination is wrong.

Everything else is just yammering about how you don’t like homosexuals.

942

[quote]harris447 wrote:
100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

[/quote]

One more thing, Harry. I guess I’m one of those retards.

Why don’t you go evolve for a while. It might do you some good.

943

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:

You are a religious nut.

2.1 billion? So what? A lot of people belive something, so it must be true? 100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

And your “statistics, figures…” are either carefully culled to back up your fag-hating viewpoint, or from bullshit sources who think gays can be converted.

Sorry, but this is a personal thing with you, it seems.

As I read this, I am amazed how much name calling a few individual seem to have to resort to.

Just because someone has morals and values does not make him a religious nut. By that rule of logic, a person who has no morals or values is a chaotic nut (as seems to be the case in this thread).

FYI - for anyone who is a history nut like myself. What was the major cause for the decline of the Roman civilization? Any takers?

And, if you can’t back your statements up with facts, figures, or something tangible, just shut-up and listen. You may learn something that way.
[/quote]

Yeeeeeah…this is one of your previous posts:

“If we just look at the behavoir for what it is, any normal person can tell you that the act itself looks sick and disgusting. There is no beauty in the act of a man and a man, and there is no love or closeness that comes from the positions they may put themselves in (no matter how bizarre or twisted the positions may become).”

And, I believe, in the thread about “Brokeback Mountain” you said the very thought of the movie made you neaseaus.

I think you should probably be the one to shut up and get some morals, kay?

944

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:

You are a religious nut.

2.1 billion? So what? A lot of people belive something, so it must be true? 100 million or so in this country think Darwin was full of shit; they’re all retards.

And your “statistics, figures…” are either carefully culled to back up your fag-hating viewpoint, or from bullshit sources who think gays can be converted.

Sorry, but this is a personal thing with you, it seems.

As I read this, I am amazed how much name calling a few individual seem to have to resort to.

Just because someone has morals and values does not make him a religious nut. By that rule of logic, a person who has no morals or values is a chaotic nut (as seems to be the case in this thread).

FYI - for anyone who is a history nut like myself. What was the major cause for the decline of the Roman civilization? Any takers?

And, if you can’t back your statements up with facts, figures, or something tangible, just shut-up and listen. You may learn something that way.

Yeeeeeah…this is one of your previous posts:

“If we just look at the behavoir for what it is, any normal person can tell you that the act itself looks sick and disgusting. There is no beauty in the act of a man and a man, and there is no love or closeness that comes from the positions they may put themselves in (no matter how bizarre or twisted the positions may become).”

And, I believe, in the thread about “Brokeback Mountain” you said the very thought of the movie made you neaseaus.

I think you should probably be the one to shut up and get some morals, kay?
[/quote]

Hey, you’re on more than one post. How cool!

The thought of a man and a man does make me nauseaus. And I will reiterate for the slow of mind - the act itself involves no love or beauty.

So, bring out some facts, slim.

945

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Gay marriage should be legal because discrimination is wrong.

Everything else is just yammering about how you don’t like homosexuals.

[/quote]

That’s your entire argument?

Is “all” discrimination wrong? We discriminate against those who practice adult incest. We discriminate against polygamists. We also discriminate against quite a few other behaviors that society deems inappropriate.

946

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:

But hey, if you want to play that kind of fucked up game, then give me one good reason that we should keep an 5000+ year old set of traditions.

Statistics, figures, poll numbers, referendum results, tradition, social mores and religion back up my side of the argument.

ZEB, find an apprentice better-equipped to deal with these debates than you. It got sad the second you entered the fray and refused to even begin to entertain the most basic arguments put up against you.

Good bye!

Nice try Mr. JimmyTango, but I don’t think that claiming that “it’s only fair” or comparing a behavior such as homosexuality to the black or female (remember genetics?) struggle for equality is a valid argument.

But it is good that you have taken some philosophy classes. I took those too when I was in college wayyyyyy back when. lol

Have a good day.

[/quote]

ZEB, you’re pathetic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-common-practice.html

"An appeal to fair play, which might seem to be an appeal to common practice, need not be a fallacy. For example, a woman working in an office might say “the men who do the same job as me get paid more than I do, so it would be right for me to get paid the same as them.” This would not be a fallacy as long as there was no relevant difference between her and the men (in terms of ability, experience, hours worked, etc.). More formally:

  1. It is common practice to treat people of type Y in manner X and to treat people of type Z in a different manner.
  2. There is no relevant difference between people of type Y and type Z.
  3. Therefore people of type Z should be treated in manner X, too.

This argument rests heavily on the principle of relevant difference. On this principle two people, A and B, can only be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them. For example, it would be fine for me to give a better grade to A than B if A did better work than B. However, it would be wrong of me to give A a better grade than B simply because A has red hair and B has blonde hair.

There might be some cases in which the fact that most people accept X as moral entails that X is moral. For example, one view of morality is that morality is relative to the practices of a culture, time, person, etc. If what is moral is determined by what is commonly practiced, then this argument:

  1. Most people do X.
  2. Therefore X is morally correct.

would not be a fallacy. This would however entail some odd results. For example, imagine that thereare only 100 people on earth. 60 of them do not steal or cheat and 40 do. At this time, stealing and cheating would be wrong. The next day, a natural disaster kills 30 of the 60 people who do not cheat or steal. Now it is morally correct to cheat and steal. Thus, it would be possible to change the moral order of the world to one’s view simply by eliminating those who disagree."

Now, ZEB, the fact that homosexuality is not illegal, the fact that homosexuals can adopt, the fact that homosexuals can raise children, and the fact that homosexuals function in every non-sexual respect the same as non-homosexuals leads me to believe that it is fallacious to deny them equal marriage/civil union rights.

Your statistics, figures, poll numbers, referendum results, tradition, social mores and religion back up your side of the argument, but your argument is riddled with fallacies.

Am I going to have to start calling out audibles from the playbook of Fallacies everytime you post a defence of your argument? It’s pretty easy and it trumps or matches any Tradition every time. I’ve got 42 plays to whup your ass. Thing is, I know you’ll never understand when you’ve been whupped, because you were already whupped a long time ago.

Seems like you just ignored the last touchdown my offence scored in my previous post.

Here’s an instant replay:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html

947

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Gay marriage should be legal because discrimination is wrong.

Everything else is just yammering about how you don’t like homosexuals.

That’s your entire argument?

Is “all” discrimination wrong? We discriminate against those who practice adult incest. We discriminate against polygamists. We also discriminate against quite a few other behaviors that society deems inappropriate.
[/quote]

ZEB, I already turned your ass into my personal playground for bringing up incest and polygamy in multiple previous posts. Get some new moves, buddy!

948

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

The thought of a man and a man does make me nauseaus. And I will reiterate for the slow of mind - the act itself involves no love or beauty.

[/quote]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

I must be working at lightspeed then, cuz you got schooled!

Go whine somewhere else about your feelings until your reading comprehension goes up enough to understand what that link means, boyeeee!

Real men use logic.