[quote]TQB wrote:
Judging by that last post, Zeb suffers from a major personality disorder;-)[/quote]
Oh, yeah…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
WMD wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
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.
Yes, because all gay people are like drunk cracked out bums.
Certainly not ALL. And furthermore no one ever stated that ALL were.
Should you be judged because you are a man and it is men that commit 90% of all crime?
Don’t let WMD’s words fool you!
Should “crime” then be encouraged?
You don’t need to say you hate gay people because it’s pretty obvious from your posts.
Once again WMD is trying to fool you!
He never said that he “hated” anyone. He stated that the homosexual act was disgusting to him. BIG DIFFERENCE!
Call him “homorepugnant” but then I think many hetersexual men are. But some won’t admit it as they don’t want to be called homophobic.
Your hatred and attitude is destructive to people who have never caused you any harm.
Get a life.
His hatred of the homosexual sex act has caused no one any harm. (Your arguments are now ringing very weak).
However,those gays who participate in a dangerous lifestyle (which is a large portion of them) do in fact spread “destruction” in their wake! And do cause themselves a great deal of harm.
[/quote]
I struck a nerve, I see. Yes, fear me, for I wield the power to cloud men’s minds through the Internet.
Ignore the lesbian behind the curtain.
These are not the droids you want.
You didn’t see anything.
You’re falling apart, ZEB. Just like your whole argument.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Judging by that last post, Zeb suffers from a major personality disorder;-)[/quote]
Or…I did not use the quote function properly.
But please believe whatever would make me look the worst.
I thank you 
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.[/quote]
I totally agree.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
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.
LOL I was skimming earlier, and now I just saw this post by one of my soon-to-be-favorite debate opponents. I will warn you one time:
You are very far out of your league, mini-ivan. Let’s not get OT with evolution because this thread is enough of a headache for the poor mods already, but just… what am I trying to say here?
Stop while you’re ahead, or just not so far behind maybe… a little friendly advice.
[/quote]
Figures that you can’t answer the quesiton, so you aviod it. Typical of liberals.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
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.
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?
You are one seriously ignorant and demented little man. If you were to do even the most paltry bit of research on this subject you would know you are completely off base.
If I had the time I would go find the statistics to show you how wrong you are but I have a feeling it would be a pointless waste of time. You are not interested in facts or truth or anything like them.
You are interested only in pushing your own agenda which is to destroy all fags (and dykes) so you don’t have to feel icky or contemplate how much of this is your problem and yours alone. This isn’t about God, the Bible or the moral fiber of the country. It’s about you and your problem with gay people. Go get some therapy.[/quote]
I just wanted it to be noted that I have never used the terms “fag” or “dyke”. I don’t hate. I just spread the truth.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.
I totally agree.[/quote]
Good.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.[/quote]
For the sake of being fair, I just want everyone to know that I would condemn promiscuos heterosexuals in the same way. The behavior is destructive and worthless. I don’t hate the people, but I do hate the act.
Does that make me little?
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
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.
LOL I was skimming earlier, and now I just saw this post by one of my soon-to-be-favorite debate opponents. I will warn you one time:
You are very far out of your league, mini-ivan. Let’s not get OT with evolution because this thread is enough of a headache for the poor mods already, but just… what am I trying to say here?
Stop while you’re ahead, or just not so far behind maybe… a little friendly advice.
Figures that you can’t answer the quesiton, so you aviod it. Typical of liberals.[/quote]
This question has been asked and answered a billion times. I found it by entering “eyeball” and e"evolution" on google.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep99/936884377.Ev.r.html
Real tough.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.
For the sake of being fair, I just want everyone to know that I would condemn promiscuos heterosexuals in the same way. The behavior is destructive and worthless. I don’t hate the people, but I do hate the act.
Does that make me little?[/quote]
Yes, it does.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Oh, Zebedee, why do you lie and make stuff up?[/quote]
I have not told one lie and you have not refuted even one of the many statistics!
Again, you did not refute even one of the statistics.
As to your character: when you stated that tele’ stated that he hated homosexuals you lied!
It’s really very simple.
You guys don’t have much of an argument left so it’s time to take the twisting and turning stage, which you are currently in.
I never stated that it was “you.” But then you know that-This is more twisting and liberal logic at work.
I stated that the powerful gay lobbies and social liberals have cowed the media.
And your use of the word homophobe is simply more lying. I have not read of even one person on this thread who stated that they had a phobia regarding homosexuals.
I have read some who stated that the homosexual act made them nauseous. Tell me when something makes you sick do you then automatically develop a phobia about it? I don’t think so. What I think is that you are using yet more liberl logic.
It’s “homorepugnant.” I might have some bumper stickers printed up to give to all the social liberals so that they can quit lying about word usage.
And I don’t like people who are unable to support their arguments without any valid reasoning. I also don’t like those who outright lie about others simply to cow them into silence.
Have you noticed that that tactic is not working on this thread?
In fact, this is why this thread is so very long and can go on to 10,000 pages for all I care. Social liberals are used to getting their own way by name calling and bullying. The fact that it’s not working here prolongs this thread (and I’m having fun, so who cares
The social liberals are spoiled folks. If you say that you are against gay marriage all they usually have to say is “HOMOPHOBE.” And many of you run away because you don’t want to put up with the venom coming from the social liberals. Hence, they are not used to actually having to present an argument. As you can see from this thread there is no reason for gay marriage.
And in fact they don’t even have an argument to back up the tired old assertions which they have forced on the heterosexual communtiy.
One such lie: “I was born that way.” They gave this lie up early in the debate because it was exposed.
“You” may not be any of those things and I (nor anyone else) ever stated that YOU were. And I am also aware that not every gay falls into these patterns. BUT, depending on the statistic many if not most do!
However, it seems that there are indeed many problems with the gay lifestyle. Would you like the laundry list again?
Sure why not:
What about reduced life expectancy?
What about the rate which they spread STD’s and AIDS?
What about the higher rate of anxiety?
What about their higher rate of depression?
What about their higher rate of suicide?
What about their higher rate of domestic violence (both gay and lesbian)?
I have given facts and figures to back up all of the above. Now I want you to actually look up facts that can refute the above if you think you can find them.
Stop talking about how they mean nothing because they mean a great deal. Not the least of which is that homosexuality is not a safe practice and should not be sanctioned by the government.
It’s fun to insult people on the Internet and you do it well. But sending off posts that insult your debate opponents does not strengthen your position one iota. Andy lying about what they have said is just more waste of time.
I will be very honest with you. When I began on this thread I was not nearly as against gay marriage as I am now.
Granted from a Biblical standpoint homosexuality is wrong.
From a traditional standpoint it makes no sense.
It is publically not a popular idea either.
BUT…when I became familiar with the pain that most gays endure in their lifetimes from the dangerous lifestyle they lead I became 100% convinced (at least at this point) that gay marriage would be a huge step in the wrong direction.
Every post has one low point and you just hit yours!
I never once stated that I want to “get rid” of gay people. And best I can remember no one on this thread has stated that. I know you have no facts to back up your point, but why make stuff up?
I have stated that I think all people are sinners and deserving of our love and understanding however. But you somehow twisted that one huh?
Your sort of “love” for gay people is the wrong kind. You want to encourage a behavior that is by all standards DANGEROUS. I want to curtail a behavior that is dangerous. There will be less pain, death and anguish with my plan.
I wonder which of the two of us cares more?
The following is in fact the TRUTH. You don’t like it because it somehow makes you feel like you have failed in your personal life. Well that is not the case. Have you even tried to give therapy a chance? Are you happy being gay then ignore the following.
The following is not fiction, but the reality for homosexuals who actually try to change.
Not unlike alcoholism it’s not easy. But it can be done according to Dr. Spitzer who by the way once thought that people with same sex attraction could not change prior to this study!
You can read it here or goggle search it yourself:
"The results of a study conducted by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer have just been published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417.
Spitzer’s findings challenge the widely-held assumption that a homosexual orientation is “who one is” – an intrinsic part of a person’s identity that can never be changed.
The study has attracted particularly attention because its author, a prominent psychiatrist, is viewed as a historic champion of gay activism. Spitzer played a pivotal role in 1973 in removing homosexuality from the psychiatric manual of mental disorders.
Testing the hypothesis that a predominantly homosexual orientation will, in some individuals, respond to therapy were some 200 respondents of both genders (143 males, 57 females) who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation lasting 5 years or more. The study’s structured telephone interviews assessed a number of aspects same-sex attraction, with the year prior to the interview used as the comparative base.
In order to be accepted into the 16-month study, the original responders had to meet two criteria. First, they had to have had a predominantly homosexual attraction for many years, including the year before starting therapy (at least 60 on a scale of sexual attraction, with 0 as exclusively heterosexual and 100 exclusively homosexual). Second, after therapy they had to have experienced a change of no less than 10 points, lasting at least 5 years, toward the heterosexual end of the scale of sexual attraction.
(66% changed from homosexual to heterosexual! And they have stayed that way!)
Is reorientation therapy harmful? For the participants in our study, Spitzer notes, there was no evidence of harm. “To the contrary,” he says, “they reported that it was helpful in a variety of ways beyond changing sexual orientation itself.” And because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, Spitzer said, the American Psychiatric Association should stop applying a double standard in its discouragement of reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.
Furthermore, Spitzer wrote in his conclusion, “the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation. Many patients, provided with informed consent about the possibility that they will be disappointed if the therapy does not succeed, can make a rational choice to work toward developing their heterosexual potential and minimizing their unwanted homosexual attractions.”
What “relationships?”
You mean these:
"Male Homosexuality. Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reproductive Therapy of male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
“Few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”
Smith, T.W. (1991, May/June). Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS. Family Planning Perspectives. 23: (3) 102-107 (Table 2, 104).
Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., Kippax, S. (1997). A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men. Journal of Sex Research. 34 (4): 349-360.
Study of 2,585 homosexually active men in Australia showed that more men over 50 years old reported they had 101-500 lifetime partners than any other category involving numbers of sexual partners. Only 2.7% reported just one lifetime sexual partner."
Yea…that looks like something that is healthy and good for the country.
I think you concern is misplaced! There is far more violence being perpetrated upon gays and lesbians by other gays and lesbians:
"Lie, G.Y., Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications. Journal of Social Service Research. 15: 41-59.
Slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.
Greenwood, G.L. et al. (2002, December). Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men. American Journal of Public Health. 92 (12): 1964-1969.
Intimate partner battering victimization to be 39.2% among men who had sex with men during the last 5 years.
Lockhart, L., et al. (1994, December). Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 9: 469-492.
90% 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% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.
As you can see by the statistics (please look them up) violence is one good reason NOT to allow gay marriage!
Not looking good for your side…
I post statistics, facts and figures to back up my side of the argument and WMD uses more insults. (shaking head)
You use insults and distortions about what certain posters have stated. I use statistics to back up my claims. And then you state that I have not come up with anything? LOL
More liberal logic folks!
It’s good that these social liberals and gay activists have been exposed. Right here on T-Nation folks
I also urge all who agree with me to make copies of the stats that I have posted. Stand up for what you believe in! Don’t be intimidated by militant homosexuals, lesbians and the social liberals.
If you don’t fight for a world that you do want you will wake up one day in a world that you don’t want!
Would you like me to do a side by side comparison?
The negative statistics for “straights” don’t even come close to the death, physical and emotional pain and shortened life span that have been shown to be rife with in the gay community!
You may never open your eyes to the truth, but the many who have read this site have been enlightened to what it really means to be gay. Because they sure as heck are not going to get this information from CBS, NBC, ABC or any of the other liberal media organizations.
Thank you for finishing off in true form as the name caller with no real argument.
I post facts and figures from the Center for Disease control (CDC). You name call using the tired “homophobic” line. And I’m full of crap? LOL
Two final points:
- I never once stated that EVERY homosexual has a higher rate of AIDS, STD’s Suicide, anxiety, depression, or could not remain in a stable relationship.
However, there is a strong body of evidence from credible sources, like the CDC that the homosexual lifestyle has a very negative impact on many who participate and in some instances a majority (depending on the statistic of course).
So please don’t distort-People see what you are doing and it’s not working.
- If you want to continue the debate I Implore you to begin using more facts and less emotion. Name calling while prevalent, on the Internet, only hurts your side at this point.
Finally, the gay lifestyle has been exposed. The toothpaste is out of the tube, there is no going back. Anyone who has read this thread since about the 35th or 36th page is well aware of the dangers of the gay life. Stating that I, or anyone else (who supports these statistics) hates gays is foolish. We do “hate” a lifestyle that harms them however.
In other words comeback with more than name calling…
Thank you
[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.
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:
- “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.”
- "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."
- 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. "
-
“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%.” -
"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]"
- “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!
[/quote]
I can refute all of the above facts by saying that they don’t have any relevance when it comes to deciding whether or not we give gays the right to marry. No relevance whatsoever.
[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]
A case for informed consent in those cases cannot be made. So, no, it’s not okay for little boys or dogs to get married.
Two grown men can give their consent.
Come up with a better example, Lori.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, you at least, surely must realize that there is a fairly signficant danger to unprotected heterosexual sex, however else you might feel about AIDS and the whole gay issue beyond. The fact that anal sex is more dangerous doesn’t change this stark, cold fact, obviously.
For the sake of being fair, I just want everyone to know that I would condemn promiscuos heterosexuals in the same way. The behavior is destructive and worthless. I don’t hate the people, but I do hate the act.
Does that make me little?[/quote]
Maybe. Why hate the act? It’s their choice. They assume they risk. Unprotected promiscuity is just plain stupid. Using protection greatly reduces the risk but doesn’t eliminate it. It’s not worthless because it’s enjoyable. But nobody in this day and age goes in with blinders on.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
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?
A case for informed consent in those cases cannot be made. So, no, it’s not okay for little boys or dogs to get married.
Two grown men can give their consent.
Come up with a better example, Lori.
[/quote]
Not so fast Lori.
A 10yr old boy can give consent. It is a moral judgment by society that they cannot give consent, or drink, or whatever until 18 or 21yrs of age. So why can society make a moral judgment about when a child can consent and not make a moral judgment about whether two same sex people can marry? Science supports the fact that kids cannot make these kids of decisions until they are older, right? Science also shows that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and destructive.
So what is the difference between making a moral judgment about children or about gay marriage based on the currently available scientific and sociological information?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.
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:
- “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.”
- "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."
- 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. "
-
“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%.” -
"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]"
- “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!
[/quote]
Dude, you’re still retarded. I don’t dispute facts. However, I dispute how people interpret and apply those facts as they are reported. The logical jumps you make with those figures and polls are astounding, ZEB. You don’t even stop to consider what the numbers really mean or how relevant the information is in the first place. You over simplify because you simply don’t have the brain capacity.
You’re like Phil Hartman’s Dr. Frankenstein’s monster character, but
instead of saying “Fire bad!” you jump out and say “Homo bad!”
Essentially, all you’re doing here is portraying homosexuals in as negative a light as possible. There is no causal link or direct inference that can be made between “destructive lifestyle” and “marriage” which logically leads us to say that it would be best to not give gays the full benefits package provided by marriage. In fact, many of the reasons and stats that you report are skewed negatively by the fact that there ARE NO LEGAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS afforded to same-sex unions right now. Yeah, the incidence of violence between two gay men goes up… DUH! Because the vast majority of spousal/s.o. abuse cases are perpetrated by men in the first place! What are the stats for lesbians? PROBABLY WAY LESS than in ‘traditional’ relationships.
You just don’t get what the numbers mean, ZEB. You can only see the surface. Learn how to question the numbers and dig a little deeper as to what they really mean.
By your logic, we should only award marriage benefits to those with non-destructive lifestyles.
Well, if that’s the case, then maybe we should only allow lesbians to get married. Anyone with higher than average amounts of testosterone in their system is too much of a risk for violence, abuse, intimidation, shorter than average lifespan (women live longer than men), rate of incarceration, engaging in illegal activities, and partaking in high-risk sexual activities–lesbians are clearly the answer.
Yep. Your whole argument is flawed on a fundamental level, ZEB, simply because you focus on men. The problems with the gay population that you cite are borne from the fact that they are dealing solely with men. It’s not even sexual preference.
Men suffer more from psychological problems. Men suffer higher rates of disease. Men die younger. Men live higher risk lifestyles (well, the T-men at least). Men are disgusting, lascivious, physically dominant creatures. What do you expect?
No wonder gay men get such a bad rap–they’re just men to begin with.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Well, I appreciate and agree that anal sex is much more dangerous. But you are wrong that vaginal sex doesn’t have its dangers, and I think those statistics are made up. Where did you get them? Unprotected vaginal sex is dangerous. Most people who do it over prolonged periods get some sort of STD if not AIDS.
Common sense dictates that the risk of someone getting AIDS from unprotected vaginal sex is MUCH higher than 0.00175%. There’s no way I could believe that statistic unless you showed me that it came from an actual reputable source. And even them, I would still be shocked. Having unprotected vaginal sex with someone who actually HAS AIDS and your risks of contracting it are extremely high. AIDS is transmitted quite well with uprotected straight sex.
[/quote]
First, I never advocated unprotected vaginal sex.
Next, the CDC and AMA both state that HIV is passed more easily through anal sex than vaginal sex. Can it pass through vaginal sex? Yes. But, again, the point is that it is transmitted more readily through anal sex, no question. This is why the occurrence of transmission from male to female through vaginal sex is much lower than from male to male through anal sex.
Next, the calculated that statistic using the CDC occurrence of HIV in people who did not admit to gay sex (probably more than would admit it) by the hetero population in the USA. So here is an estimate:
Total US population = 800 million
Gay population = 5% (I think this is high, but will use for example) = about 4 million
440,877 AIDS cases in Gay population = 11% AIDS
149,989 AIDS cases in Hetero population = 0.187% AIDS
(Looks like my first calulation forgot to move the decimal point)
Good points that should be addressed.
The fact is that (and this is well documented) the gay community with political help overblown the chance of getting HIV in the 80’s in order to get financial support to fight the diseases. They figured, and rightly so, that if mainstream US didn’t fear getting the disease, no or little money would be donated to find a cure or treatment.
So just like a lot of school education is related to political bias and pressure, so was the education you received about HIV and AIDS. The facts are that more people die from heart disease, stroke, diabetes and accidents each year (depending on the age group) than AIDS. So you have been scared into think it is a major health concern (in terms of volume) in the US, and it simply is not. Now Africa, that is another story.
Well, I think you need to look at the CDC website more closely and also look at medical journals.
On reason that death from AIDS is declining is that there has been a lot of education on the issue (even though some was not quite accurate) and new medications keep the virus suppressed for a long time. I have been involved in the treatment of these patients and know what I’m talking about.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Not so fast Lori.
A 10yr old boy can give consent. It is a moral judgment by society that they cannot give consent, or drink, or whatever until 18 or 21yrs of age. So why can society make a moral judgment about when a child can consent and not make a moral judgment about whether two same sex people can marry? Science supports the fact that kids cannot make these kids of decisions until they are older, right? Science also shows that a homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and destructive.
So what is the difference between making a moral judgment about children or about gay marriage based on the currently available scientific and sociological information?
[/quote]
Are you kidding? A ten year old boy? Yeah, someone who hasn’t even hit puberty has enough life experience to decide how things should be for the remainder of their existence?
LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL. LOL.
You’re a joke. Where does Science state that? Um, people can make choices at any point in their life, but that doesn’t mean that they are capable of making decisions in their best interest. Perhaps a few rare cases exist where ten year olds can display that they have the proper mental faculties to make such a mature choice. But in today’s society, ten year olds just don’t have that degree of maturity. The reason why 18/19 is used is because the onset of puberty has taken place, the person has most probably finished maturing physically, and measurements of mental capabilities show that generally people are capable of making logical, informed decisions about their own life. Science backs up what society has perceived.
Ask any psychologist what they think, idiot.
The fact that a lifestyle is destructive has no bearing on whether someone is allowed to get married or not.
We do not prevent convicted felons from getting married–John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and “Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez being a few ‘notable’ cases. We do not prevent drug addicts from getting married. We do not prevent those with terminal diseases from getting married. We do not prevent any demographic which exhibits any sign of increased mortality from getting married based on that alone.
Destructive lifestyles don’t count against homosexuals in terms of barring marriage rights and priviledges.
Do better, Lori.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Total US population = 800 million
Gay population = 5% (I think this is high, but will use for example) = about 4 million
440,877 AIDS cases in Gay population = 11% AIDS
149,989 AIDS cases in Hetero population = 0.187% AIDS
(Looks like my first calulation forgot to move the decimal point)
[/quote]
Looks like you need a 'Rithmetic lesson:
.05 * 800,000,000 = 40,000,000
440,877 / 40,000,000 = approx. 1.1%
So, because 1 out of 100 gay people have AIDS, we don’t let the other 99 marry?
Retarded!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
What about their higher rate of domestic violence (both gay and lesbian)?
I have given facts and figures to back up all of the above. Now I want you to actually look up facts that can refute the above if you think you can find them.
[/quote]
The American Bar Association disagrees with you, ZEB:
"SAME-SEX BATTERING
Domestic violence occurs within same-sex relationships with the same statistical frequency as in heterosexual relationships."
They even put it in bold type for you.