Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

Off Topic
969

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
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.

Agree 100%. MORE than 100%. If I was encouraging risky behavior (like alcoholism, or sex with multiple partners without protection) then I would definitely be in the wrong. Only thing is, ZEB, none of my pals/loved ones are acting like that (as far as I know). You point to alcoholism as a dangerous behavior and I agree. You point to unsafe sex, lying about HIV status, etc. as dangerous behavior and I agree.[/quote]

Good we finally agree on something. Can we stop here? :slight_smile:

The problem is that it seems (according to statistics) that a majority of homosexuals are indeed promiscuious. And since it only takes one act of unprotected sex …well the odds are pretty unfavorable.

Wrong! My comment was about “alcoholics.” And the comparison is a good one. Being an alcoholic is not going to harm you if you don’t act on it. Being a homosexual is not going to harm you if you don’t act on it.

It has also been proven that both can get help!

If you are saying that some homosexuals live a physically healthy lifestyle I believe you. But overall the behavior is dangerous both physically and mentally!

Please read the multitude of posts which I have made on this topic for the lengthy answer.

The short answer (relative to health matters) is that this behavior is killing people at a rapid rate. In fact, a recent Canadian study showed that the average lifespan of a homosexual is about equal to the average lifespan of someone who lived in the 1870’s!

Also: Other studies (see my posts on page 37)“… indicate less than 2% of homosexuals survived to old age. If AIDS was the cause of death, the median age was 39. For the 829 gays who dired of something other than AIDS the median age of death was 42, and only 9% died old. The 163 lesbians had a median age ofdeath of 44, and only 20% died old.”

Your passion is misplaced my friend! Instead of try to sanction gay marriage you should be trying to help more of your gay friends leave the lifestyle.

The following people stopped having same sex attrction. If it is genetic then how come even one person could stop being “gay?”

"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001):
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”

According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”

Wrong! See above. And read my many other posts: Religion, tradition, social mores, public opinion and yes physical and mental health and well being.

All good reasons to not have gay marriage and yet still not one valid reason why we should have it!

970

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
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?

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.[/quote]

Ok, here’s a fact: you’re a reprensible homophobe. You’re opinions really don’t matter, because you’ve revealed yourself to be a hateful, stupid little man.

And, the thought of a man and a man making you nausaeus? That’s just how your horniness chooses to express itself.

971

[quote]harris447 wrote:

Ok, here’s a fact: you’re a reprensible homophobe. You’re opinions really don’t matter, because you’ve revealed yourself to be a hateful, stupid little man.

And, the thought of a man and a man making you nausaeus? That’s just how your horniness chooses to express itself.
[/quote]

Wow - you’ve never seen me, nor do you know the extent of my education, yet you refer to me as a “stupid little man”.

Dude, you need to consult a new psychic friend.

Come back after you evolve.

972

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
More evidence that unnatural sexual use of our bodies is destructive.

LOL Are you sure you’re on the right website? Part of revelling in T-manitude involves doing unnatural things during sex…

“You want to put that where? Okay, fine… but what’s the spatula, the low-fat yogurt, and the life-size cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Aniston for?”

Do try and live a little, Ivan. You don’t want to die without any good stories to tell Charon the Boatman do you? :)[/quote]

Gosh, if I’m on the wrong site, then shame on me. I orignially signed up to check out some bodybuilding info.

But, when I see a bunch of loud-mouth liberal wack-jobs ganging up on morally minded people like Zeb, I am inclined to chime in.

Worst part is, of all the things I have read, some of these goof-balls (like dirty-harris) have no stance. All they have is a loud mouth.

If these hypocrites really cared about people, they would want to seem them do something constructive with their lives. But, no. They want the “free love - let me do what I want” child-like garbage to persist.

By the way - I won’t be with you and Charon on the boat.

973

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
harris447 wrote:

Ok, here’s a fact: you’re a reprensible homophobe. You’re opinions really don’t matter, because you’ve revealed yourself to be a hateful, stupid little man.

And, the thought of a man and a man making you nausaeus? That’s just how your horniness chooses to express itself.

Wow - you’ve never seen me, nor do you know the extent of my education, yet you refer to me as a “stupid little man”.

Dude, you need to consult a new psychic friend.

Come back after you evolve.[/quote]

Yeah, cuz it’s the the letters next to your name that determine how smart you are. terribleivan, you just proved harris447’s point. And ‘little’, in this case, doesn’t refer to ‘physical size’ so much as it refers to how much of a man you can be (ie. your intestinal fortitude). I guess that makes you doubly stupid and small then, doesn’t it? Wait–don’t answer that! It’s a rhetorical question.

974

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
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.

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.

Oh, great! Another community college PH.D with too much time on his hands.[/quote]

So you admit that you got schooled then? Perfect! Maybe there’s still hope for you.

975

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
More evidence that unnatural sexual use of our bodies is destructive.

LOL Are you sure you’re on the right website? Part of revelling in T-manitude involves doing unnatural things during sex…

“You want to put that where? Okay, fine… but what’s the spatula, the low-fat yogurt, and the life-size cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Aniston for?”

Do try and live a little, Ivan. You don’t want to die without any good stories to tell Charon the Boatman do you? :slight_smile:

Gosh, if I’m on the wrong site, then shame on me. I orignially signed up to check out some bodybuilding info.

But, when I see a bunch of loud-mouth liberal wack-jobs ganging up on morally minded people like Zeb, I am inclined to chime in.

Worst part is, of all the things I have read, some of these goof-balls (like dirty-harris) have no stance. All they have is a loud mouth.

If these hypocrites really cared about people, they would want to seem them do something constructive with their lives. But, no. They want the “free love - let me do what I want” child-like garbage to persist.

By the way - I won’t be with you and Charon on the boat.[/quote]

Marriage sounds constructive. So why don’t we let gay people do something constructive with their lives?

976

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
More evidence that unnatural sexual use of our bodies is destructive.

LOL Are you sure you’re on the right website? Part of revelling in T-manitude involves doing unnatural things during sex…

“You want to put that where? Okay, fine… but what’s the spatula, the low-fat yogurt, and the life-size cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Aniston for?”

Do try and live a little, Ivan. You don’t want to die without any good stories to tell Charon the Boatman do you? :slight_smile:

Gosh, if I’m on the wrong site, then shame on me. I orignially signed up to check out some bodybuilding info.

But, when I see a bunch of loud-mouth liberal wack-jobs ganging up on morally minded people like Zeb, I am inclined to chime in.

Worst part is, of all the things I have read, some of these goof-balls (like dirty-harris) have no stance. All they have is a loud mouth.

If these hypocrites really cared about people, they would want to seem them do something constructive with their lives. But, no. They want the “free love - let me do what I want” child-like garbage to persist.

By the way - I won’t be with you and Charon on the boat.[/quote]

You signed up for “some bodybuilding info”, yet 16 of your 39 posts are aout your hatred of fags.

Hmm…

977

[quote]harris447 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
More evidence that unnatural sexual use of our bodies is destructive.

LOL Are you sure you’re on the right website? Part of revelling in T-manitude involves doing unnatural things during sex…

“You want to put that where? Okay, fine… but what’s the spatula, the low-fat yogurt, and the life-size cardboard cut-out of Jennifer Aniston for?”

Do try and live a little, Ivan. You don’t want to die without any good stories to tell Charon the Boatman do you? :slight_smile:

Gosh, if I’m on the wrong site, then shame on me. I orignially signed up to check out some bodybuilding info.

But, when I see a bunch of loud-mouth liberal wack-jobs ganging up on morally minded people like Zeb, I am inclined to chime in.

Worst part is, of all the things I have read, some of these goof-balls (like dirty-harris) have no stance. All they have is a loud mouth.

If these hypocrites really cared about people, they would want to seem them do something constructive with their lives. But, no. They want the “free love - let me do what I want” child-like garbage to persist.

By the way - I won’t be with you and Charon on the boat.

You signed up for “some bodybuilding info”, yet 16 of your 39 posts are aout your hatred of fags.

Hmm…
[/quote]

I could be wrong on this but I didnt’ see any post where terriblevan stated that he “hated fags.”

You however have used nothig but hate speech on those whom you disagre with. In fact, I’m still waiting for just one post from you with some facts to back up your wrong minded (implied) assertion that homosexuals should have the right to marry.

978

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
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.

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!

New moves tango boy? You don’t even know what your talking about. Avoiding the facts time after time doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

You and Harold need to go evolve together.[/quote]

Which facts are those? Oh, you mean those misinterpretations of fact? Yeah. Actually, myself and others have pointed out just how valid the “facts”, as purported by ZEB and co., are.

Maybe if you checked my previous posts, you’d see that I do, in fact, know what I’m talking about.

And apparently you don’t understand how evolution works, dude–seems like you’ve misinterpreted what “evolution” actually entails.

Well, the fact is, a single person can’t evolve–evolution takes place between generations of a given population, and even then, external factors must usually take place to shape the survival rate of the subsequent generation in some way in order to see an actual “evolution” occur. Nor does evolution necessarily mean that previous generations were inferior–it just means that certain members of a species were better able to survive long enough to have offspring and that those offspring continued to thrive in their place.

How’s that for facts?

979

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

Also, no one is discriminating against anyone. You can marry whatever guy you want to just like anyone else. But no, you want the rules changed just for you. Not making special treatment for someone is not discrimination.

[/quote]

Um, since when is giving marriage rights and protection to everyone “special treatment”? Seems like letting 90-some-odd percent of the world choose who they love the most and then not letting the remainder choose who they love the most IS discriminatory to me.

980

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Also, no one is discriminating against anyone. You can marry whatever guy you want to just like anyone else. But no, you want the rules changed just for you. Not making special treatment for someone is not discrimination.

Um, since when is giving marriage rights and protection to everyone “special treatment”? Seems like letting 90-some-odd percent of the world choose who they love the most and then not letting the remainder choose who they love the most IS discriminatory to me.[/quote]

Um, and if someone chooses to love and marry their pet dog or a 10yr old boy we should say ok to that as well?

Would you think that the current marriage criteria covers those people as well?

981

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

Which facts are those? Oh, you mean those misinterpretations of fact? Yeah. Actually, myself and others have pointed out just how valid the “facts”, as purported by ZEB and co., are.

[/quote]

You did not refute even one fact posted on this thread!

However, since you keep showing up on the thread with a great deal of bluster and not much more, I will give you yet another opportunity to actually refute only a few of the many statistics which do not show up very well for your pals:

  1. “A CDC report revealed that, in 1997, 45 percent of homosexuals reported 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.”

2.“(1999, January 29). Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). p. 48.
Male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates.”

  1. "Bailey, J.M. (1999, October). Homosexuality and Mental Illness. Archives of General Psychiatry. 56: 883-884.

Homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder. Gay, lesbian, or bisexual people were at an increased lifetime risk for suicidal ideation and behavior, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence."

  1. New Orleans (5-9-01) – In a report released today at the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) convention, psychiatrist Dr. Robert Spitzer announced the results of a new study on homosexuality. Efforts to change sexual orientation can – in some men and women – apparently produce significant success.

Dr. Spitzer’s personal involvement in this particular study is historically significant: He was the leading figure in the 1973 APA decision which removed homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders. Today, he is Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City.

“Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation,” said Spitzer.

“Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change,” said Spitzer.

Dr. Spitzer interviewed 200 men and women who have experienced a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual attraction, and have sustained this shift for at least five years. Many of the subjects had sought change because of disillusionment with a promiscuous lifestyle and unstable, stormy relationships. Many reported a conflict with their religious values, and many had desired to be (or to stay) heterosexually married. By the time of the study interview, three-quarters of the men and half of the women had become married.

One surprising discovery was that 67% of the men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change effort, now report significant heterosexual attraction. Even those whose orientation did not change – but who gave up homosexual behavior – experienced a significant improvement in emotional health. "

  1. “Bieber, I., Bieber, T. (1979) Male homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 24, 5:409-421.
    ?We have followed some patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal estimates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%.”

  2. "Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]

Compare the Low Rate of Intimate Partner Violence within Marriage. Homosexual and lesbian relationships are far more violent than are traditional married households:

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (U.S. Department of Justice) reports that married women in traditional families experience the lowest rate of violence compared with women in other types of relationships.[72]"

  1. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age twentyfor gay and bisexual men is eight to twenty years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged twenty years will not reach their sixty-fifth birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871.”

I’ll stop right here with the above seven statistics. Obviously, I have only scratched the surface.

Instead of name calling and falling back on faulty liberal logic I challenge you to refute each of the above seven one by one.

Show us all statistics which demonstrate that homosexuals are indeed healthier, happier and live longer than the average population, if you can find them. Give us all reasons to embrace gay marriage.

Good Luck!

:slight_smile:

982

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Also, no one is discriminating against anyone. You can marry whatever guy you want to just like anyone else. But no, you want the rules changed just for you. Not making special treatment for someone is not discrimination.

Um, since when is giving marriage rights and protection to everyone “special treatment”? Seems like letting 90-some-odd percent of the world choose who they love the most and then not letting the remainder choose who they love the most IS discriminatory to me.

Um, and if someone chooses to love and marry their pet dog or a 10yr old boy we should say ok to that as well?

Would you think that the current marriage criteria covers those people as well?
[/quote]

See the very, very first post. Neither ten-year-olds nor dogs can enter into legal contracts. Which is what marriage is.

983

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Please. AIDS is a problem amongst healthy, successful heterosexuals who are careless and fail to use protection and even some unlucky ones who do use protection. The CD acknowledges and the rest of the world regards it as objective fact. So should you.
[/quote]

The CDC facts do not support your assumption. Very, very, very few healthy successful hetero’s who don’t engage in any of the risky behaviors (IV drug use, hitting hookers, get blood transfusions, or gay sex) get HIV. Stop flapping and look it up sport.

The currently accepted scientific assumption is that it started in Africa when a man got it somehow from a monkey. The current scientific fact, is that the first case in the USA was a gay man.

As far as hookers go, it doesn’t take that many. A guy does the hooker and gives it to his wife (scientifically much harder to do than give to another guy through anal sex), and their child is born with it. On and on it goes. Now combine that with an idiot for a president who will not spend any money for education to prevent the spread, and you have a pandemic.

984

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
FYI: 149,989 of the 440,887 cases of AIDS in exposure in 2003 were from heterosexual conduct. That is not insignificat. From the CDC website

Dude, isn’t the gay population like maybe 5% of the general pop (and I’m being really generous with 5%)?

Your stats just show that AIDS is much more prevelant in gay circles than in hetero circles.

Absolutely. But Lorisco acts like it’s not a problem for all of us. And it most certainly is.

I sure as hell wouldn’t have sex with a girl without a condom unless we’d been dating for some time and had both gotten tested. His argument seems to be that something about the wrongness of the nature of homosexuality makes them uniquely positioned to get AIDS.

When really its the fact that they engage in more risky behaviors: unprotected sex, or protected anal sex (which is as risky as unprotected vaginal sex) and more drug use. Nothing more than that. He is sending a bad message and one that would seem to encourage irresponsibility on the part of heterosexuals because they are not positioned to get AIDS.

Not the case: engage in those behaviors-whatever your sexuality and you are at signficant risk.
[/quote]

Dude, if I have somehow inferred that risky behavior among heteros is ok, I apologize. My point is that being gay IS A RISKY BEHAVIOR. So the gay lifestyle is a risk factor in getting HIV, hetero lifestyle is not. And while the chances of you getting HIV by having unprotected hetero sex is less than 0.00175%. Why risk it.

My point was that having natural sex is not a risky behavior. Even if the other person has HIV, it is just not transmitted very well with straight sex. That’s a fact. But that doesn’t mean people should go around having unprotected sex.

So the issue is that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy in many ways and in addition is a drain on society. Why? Because it ends up being you and I who pay for gay people with AIDS in the hospital.

So why support marriage for a lifestyle that clearly is not a positive thing for society?

985

[quote]harris447 wrote:

You signed up for “some bodybuilding info”, yet 16 of your 39 posts are aout your hatred of fags.

Hmm…
[/quote]

Wow - you actually counted my posts. You have way too much time on your hands. You should get a job.

And, I never said I hated anyone. Don’t put words into my mouth just because you can’t keep your cool.

986

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

Oh, great! Another community college PH.D with too much time on his hands.

So you admit that you got schooled then? Perfect! Maybe there’s still hope for you.
[/quote]

This isn’t a game of basketball dude. This is about important issues that affect our country. And, it is not possible to get schooled by anyone who does not use facts in this “game”.

The fact that you post a link to another site tells me nothing more than that you are a lazy slug who would plagerize his way to a C-.

Go dance the night away tango boy.

987

For dirty-harris, tango boy, or anyone else involved in this lifestyle - this message is for you.

I am telling you the same thing I would tell any drunk, cracked-out bum laying face down in a ditch. Your lifestyle is dangerous and destructive. You are destroying yourselves, your souls, and our country. Please reconsider your actions.

988

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

And apparently you don’t understand how evolution works, dude–seems like you’ve misinterpreted what “evolution” actually entails.

Well, the fact is, a single person can’t evolve–evolution takes place between generations of a given population, and even then, external factors must usually take place to shape the survival rate of the subsequent generation in some way in order to see an actual “evolution” occur.

Nor does evolution necessarily mean that previous generations were inferior–it just means that certain members of a species were better able to survive long enough to have offspring and that those offspring continued to thrive in their place.

How’s that for facts?[/quote]

I think you need to understand evolution a little better. Let’s start with an easy question.

Assuming evolution is true, we all formed from single cell organisms into what we are today. Tell me then. How did our eyeball form?

Go study and come back when you have the answer, slim.