And screw your happiness. You don’t have the right to happiness–no one is going to protect your emotions except yourself.
That’s right. Right now I am protecting my happiness, and the happiness of MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.
By the way - I am sure you smell when you fart. You obviously lack class in this thread, so it is only natural to assume you lack class elsewhere in your life.
Go evolve for a while. Come back when your done, slim.[/quote]
Oooh! What a burn!
And here, terribleivan the superhero is “protecting happiness, and the happiness of MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA.” What a super guy!
Why don’t you make everyone super happy by destroying taxes and death while you’re at it? If people bitch and complain that two dudes get to marry, who cares? Let’em whine.
The reality is, it’s an injustice to not let them, damned some peoples happiness or not. I’ve continually destroyed any support to the contrary of this.
If people aren’t happy, then that’s just called reality. If people aren’t happy because their rights are being busted up, then you have to protect their rights and then let them decide if they’re now happy or not.
I don’t see how you or anyone else’s right to marriage is changed if you let another group enjoy the same benefits. If it bugs you that somewhere in the world, that someone else enjoys the same priviledges as you, then that sounds like you’re a spoilt brat.
Homosexuals aren’t asking for the right to marry just so they can be happy. They are asking so they can exercise spousal rights that are given to people in heterosexual unions.
This isn’t just about “happiness”. This is about giving a visible minority legal rights and empowerment on par with the majority. Nothing more.
Marriages often end in divorce. Prenuptial agreements are often made. Rights of attorney are granted to spouses. Life insurance policy amounts are granted to spouses. Where’s the happiness in all of these legal proceedings? These do not signify “happy times”.
People want to be happy. Having a legal right can help people to be happy, but it in no way guarantees their happiness.
There can be no guarantee of happiness in this life. There is no right to happiness other than what you do with your own emotions.
If you want to make people happy, be a comedian.
As per your “evolve” comment, individuals can’t evolve. Only species, over the course of generations. Obviously, you still don’t understand what evolution means. Figure it out. It’s not hard.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Obviously, you still don’t understand what evolution means. Figure it out. It’s not hard. [/quote]
Dude, evolution is a theory, not a fact. And more and more people are seeing the flaws in it. But, from your perspective, I suppose ignorance is bliss.
The reality is, it’s an injustice to not let them, damned some peoples happiness or not. I’ve continually destroyed any support to the contrary of this.
[/quote]
You haven’t proved squat. You’ve dodged the facts by attacking people personally. Only a coward would do something like that.
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
The reality is, it’s an injustice to not let them, damned some peoples happiness or not. I’ve continually destroyed any support to the contrary of this.
[/quote]
So it is also an injustice to not allow everyone to use any drug they want to and visit a prostitute whenever they feel like?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The reality is, it’s an injustice to not let them, damned some peoples happiness or not. I’ve continually destroyed any support to the contrary of this.
So it is also an injustice to not allow everyone to use any drug they want to and visit a prostitute whenever they feel like?
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Dude, you’re still retarded.
Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.
That’s all you’ve got? Man, it’s so easy to keep owning you! It’s like I’ve made you my prison-bitch!
I entered your name, terrible, and guess what came out? “The Rear Queer”.
Enter my name, and you get, “Donkey Schlong”.
If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what does.
Personal attacks don’t make you the winner, slim. You are no different than the little loud-mouth punks I used to slap around in high school. That why you talk tough on-line. Because it’s the only place you can.[/quote]
Boo hoo! Stick to the topic. At least my original post had info pertaining to the debate at hand, info that you cut out just so you could whine like a prison bitch. Stop whining! Say something funny or useful. At least you know what your prison bitch name is now. I didn’t choose it!
That 31% for the year matches the same rates for heterosexuals. Great. And the reporting 90% of “verbal aggression”? That matches heterosexuals. And the over half experiencing some form of abuse? Hey. Same thing with the heterosexual women.
[/quote]
Tango you are starting to become a joke around here. I hate to say that I really do.
Read this closely:
“Nearly one third of American women (31%) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives…”
The following are the stats that I posted earlier and will now repost for the 4the time because of reading comprehension problems on your part:
"Violence in Lesbian 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]
THE ABOVE CLEARLY POINTS OUT:
While the PHYSICAL abuse is the same:31%, 90% (which by the way is just about all of them) report that they are recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners!
That my good woman demonstrates that all types of abuse involving lesbian relationships is much much higher than abuse suffered by women in heterosexual relationships.
GOT IT YET?
HERE IS MORE FOR YOU:
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]
“Ristock: I think it is significant that more than half the women I interviewed talked about abuse within their very first relationship with another woman.”
That would be over 50%!
The following is another PRO gay and lesbian site which states that domestic violence is actually “under reported” with in the gay and lesbian community.
Keep in mind in additon to the greater amount of domestic abuse suffered by lesbians they also suffer from more disease, suicide, depression, anxiety and a host of other very negative things.
The gay and lesbian lifestyle is quite harmful. And the irony is: they do it to themselves!
"Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers. Journal Watch Women?s Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org.
Lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity and High rates of human papilloma virus infection."
And this:
Cochran, S.D. et al. (2001 April). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4); 178-81.
Increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use."
And this:
"Fethers, K. et al. (2000, July). Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women. Sexually Transmitted Infections. p. 345.
Women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: ?BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."
And this:
" Frieberg, P. (2001, January 12). Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians. The Washington Blade. p. 21.
Lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.
Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)."
And this:
"Aaron, D.J., Markovic, N., Danielson, M.E., et al. (2001). Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (6): 972-975.
Lesbians were more likely to report cigarette use, alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use."
And this:
Bradford, J. et al. (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62: 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
More than half of lesbians had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed."
And this:
"Diamant, A.L., Wold, C., Sritzer, K., Gelberg, L. (2000, November-December). Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care. Archives of Family Medicine. 9: 1043-1051.
Lesbians and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to use tobacco products and to report any alcohol consumption, but only lesbians were significantly more likely than heterosexual women to drink heavily."
I would tell you to give up but I enjoy posting this information to all the T-Nation readers who have actually swallowed the social liberal pro homosexual/lesbian gay lobby propaganda!
So please respond as I have more statistics which further prove that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is harmful. whether they are in a “committed relationship” (as the majority it has been shown, actually make provisions for sex outside of that relationship) or “uncommitted.”
[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Dude, you’re still retarded.
Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.
That’s all you’ve got? Man, it’s so easy to keep owning you! It’s like I’ve made you my prison-bitch!
I entered your name, terrible, and guess what came out? “The Rear Queer”.
Enter my name, and you get, “Donkey Schlong”.
If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what does.
Personal attacks don’t make you the winner, slim. You are no different than the little loud-mouth punks I used to slap around in high school. That why you talk tough on-line. Because it’s the only place you can.
Boo hoo! Stick to the topic. At least my original post had info pertaining to the debate at hand, info that you cut out just so you could whine like a prison bitch. Stop whining! Say something funny or useful. At least you know what your prison bitch name is now. I didn’t choose it![/quote]
[quote]waterskiin wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
The reality is, it’s an injustice to not let them, damned some peoples happiness or not. I’ve continually destroyed any support to the contrary of this.
So it is also an injustice to not allow everyone to use any drug they want to and visit a prostitute whenever they feel like?
Have you ever been to Nevada?
[/quote]
If direct harm comes to such a person, then I have a problem. I do not have problems with activities associated with a known secondary risk that aren’t highly correlated.
In the first case, if the drug taken was known to cause direct harm to a person’s body, then I might have a problem.
For instance, I find it difficult to fault marijuana as being on the same level as something like cocaine or heroine if only because there have been few, if any, deaths directly associated with marijuana use, whereas with cocaine/heroine/etc. there are many cases of cardiac arrest arising from use of that drug alone.
In other words, if the drug has a known lethal dosage (one within reasonable limits of accidentally or casual ingestion) and is addictive in nature, then I have a problem with letting people administer it to themselves without professional guidance (a doctor). I would not let a man ingest a lethal amount of poison.
If someone smokes a cigarette, then they know the risks associated. It’s not a habit I endorse by any means, but it is legal.
I do not have a problem with a man who goes to see a prostitute. In and of itself. I would like to see prostitution regulated by the government to curb STD’s, abuse from johns/pimps, levels of addiction, and to provide a more effective level of overall safety to those women/men who do become prostitutes.
If anyone does go to a prostitute, I would hope that they use protection and ask when it was the last time the prostitute was checked for STDs–copies of examination results are given to patients.
As far as how that pertains to gay marriage, let me state that AIDS can easily be avoided by having both partners tested for the disease–thus they are at no greater risk for spreading the disease if they stay true to the vows as any other married couple.
Anal sex does not “create” AIDS–there is no direct harm that comes from the activity itself. Sure a rectum can be ruptured by vigorous action, but so too can a vagina, or even a penis itself. It’s an acceptable level of risk with non-lethal consequences.
Moreso, the risks of these activities do not affect people who do not choose to engage in them–a gay couple can’t conceive a child by themselves, so no innocent parties can be directly harmed.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Dude, you’re still retarded.
Wow - what an inteligent response. Look who’s spreading “love”.
That’s all you’ve got? Man, it’s so easy to keep owning you! It’s like I’ve made you my prison-bitch!
I entered your name, terrible, and guess what came out? “The Rear Queer”.
Enter my name, and you get, “Donkey Schlong”.
If that doesn’t settle it, I don’t know what does.
Personal attacks don’t make you the winner, slim. You are no different than the little loud-mouth punks I used to slap around in high school. That why you talk tough on-line. Because it’s the only place you can.
Boo hoo! Stick to the topic. At least my original post had info pertaining to the debate at hand, info that you cut out just so you could whine like a prison bitch. Stop whining! Say something funny or useful. At least you know what your prison bitch name is now. I didn’t choose it!
BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - A lesbian couple who entered into the nation’s first same-sex civil union are splitting up amid allegations of violent behavior.
Carolyn Conrad, 35, asked a court in October to end her relationship with Kathleen Peterson, 46.
Conrad also obtained a restraining order Wednesday against her partner, saying Peterson punched a hole in the wall during an argument and threatened to harm a friend.
“All I want to say is that the civil union was a big source of pride for me, and now it’s not,” Peterson said.
The two had been together for five years when they were legally joined in Brattleboro minutes after Vermont’s civil-union law took effect on July 1, 2000. Two years ago, the couple were offering relationship advice on the gay-rights Web site.
By the end of 2004, a total of 7,549 same-sex couples had entered civil unions in Vermont, the first state to offer gay couples nearly all the rights and privileges of marriage. There have been 78 dissolutions.
Bari Shamas, a member of the Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force, said gay relationships are prone to the same difficulties as heterosexual marriages.
“There’s no proof that our relationships are any better than heterosexual relationships,” Shamas said.
The following are the stats that I posted earlier and will now repost for the 4the time because of reading comprehension problems on your part:
"Violence in Lesbian 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]
THE ABOVE CLEARLY POINTS OUT:
While the PHYSICAL abuse is the same:31%, 90% (which by the way is just about all of them) report that they are recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners!
That my good woman demonstrates that all types of abuse involving lesbian relationships is much much higher than abuse suffered by women in heterosexual relationships.
GOT IT YET?
[/quote]
Yeah, the physical abuse is similar. I told you that earlier.
As far as your next point, let me just say that “verbal AGGRESSION” is not the same as “verbal ABUSE”.
I wish I could find your source. It’s taking me forever to try and hunt it down–link? Maybe I’d have an idea about how valid the findings are then, and what constitutes “verbal aggression”.
Everything else seems to make sense. Just like I thought it did. Thanks, ZEB.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
HERE IS MORE FOR YOU:
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]
[/quote]
I can’t find your source. Maybe a link would be good. 1099 seems a little small… the reason why I think it may be misleading is stated in my next section.
“Ristock: I think it is significant that more than half the women I interviewed talked about abuse within their very first relationship with another woman.”
That would be over 50%!
[/quote]
Interesting though that the same dude, in the very next two sentences says this:
“There were a few women I interviewed from one community who were talking about the same perpetrator. It sounded as if that woman specifically looked for and found women who were just coming out.”
“Limitations: Using personal networks to recruit participants may lead to inflated estimates of abuse, e.g., lesbians who have been abused might also be likely to have friends who were abused. Design flaws in many studies also may exaggerate prevalence rates, e.g., when asking lesbians about abuse in previous relationships, some fail to distinguish between same- sex violence and previous violence by a male partner.”
It’s no wonder the results seem skewed in this case.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
The following is another PRO gay and lesbian site which states that domestic violence is actually “under reported” with in the gay and lesbian community.
Domestic violence is “under reported” in all communities and demographics. Findings from the National Violence
against Women Survey, July 2000, which was sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
“Most intimate partner victimizations are not reported to the police. Only approximately one-fifth of all rapes, one-quarter of all physical assaults, and one-half of all stalkings perpetrated against female respondents by intimates were reported to the police.”
Also interesting, from the same source:
"Lesbian Couples
Women living with female partners experience less partner violence than women living with male partners. Slightly more than 11% of the women who had lived with a woman as part of a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a female cohabitant, but 21.7% of the women who had married or lived with a man as part of a couple reported such violence by a husband or male cohabitant. These findings suggest that lesbian couples experience less intimate partner violence than do heterosexual couples; however, more research is needed to support or refute this conclusion.
Gay Male Couples
Men living with male partners experience more partner violence than do men who live with female partners. Approximately 23% of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4% of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates."
Interesting. Just like I thought. And said earlier. Seems like everyone is seeing the same thing as me.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Keep in mind in additon to the greater amount of domestic abuse suffered by lesbians they also suffer from more disease, suicide, depression, anxiety and a host of other very negative things.
The gay and lesbian lifestyle is quite harmful. And the irony is: they do it to themselves!
[/quote]
Well, you were wrong about the abuse being so much worse (the verbal abuse needs to be looked at more). But even then that doesn’t mean we should stop them from getting married. Maybe they wouldn’t stress out so much if they were married…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
"Bradford, J. (2002, July 10). Lesbian and bisexual health: an overview for healthcare providers. Journal Watch Women?s Health [On-line], Available: womens-health.jwatch.org.
Lesbian and bisexual women have higher reported rates of risk for cancer and cardiovascular disease as well as obesity and High rates of human papilloma virus infection."
Cochran, S.D. et al. (2001 April). Cancer-related risk indicators and preventive screening behaviors among lesbians and bisexual women. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (4); 178-81.
Increased prevalence rates were found in lesbian/bisexual women for obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use."
And this:
"Fethers, K. et al. (2000, July). Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women. Sexually Transmitted Infections. p. 345.
Women who have sexual relations with women are at significantly higher risk for certain sexually transmitted diseases: ?BV (bacterial vaginosis), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors in WSW as compared with controls."
And this:
" Frieberg, P. (2001, January 12). Study: Alcohol Use More Prevalent for Lesbians. The Washington Blade. p. 21.
Lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and in larger amounts, than heterosexual women.
Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)."
And this:
"Aaron, D.J., Markovic, N., Danielson, M.E., et al. (2001). Behavioral risk factors for disease and preventive health practices among lesbians. American Journal of Public Health. 91 (6): 972-975.
Lesbians were more likely to report cigarette use, alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use."
And this:
Bradford, J. et al. (1994). National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 62: 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
More than half of lesbians had felt too nervous to accomplish ordinary activities at some time during the past year and over one-third had been depressed."
And this:
"Diamant, A.L., Wold, C., Sritzer, K., Gelberg, L. (2000, November-December). Health Behaviors, Health Status, and Access to and Use of Health Care. Archives of Family Medicine. 9: 1043-1051.
Lesbians and bisexual women were more likely than heterosexual women to use tobacco products and to report any alcohol consumption, but only lesbians were significantly more likely than heterosexual women to drink heavily."
I would tell you to give up but I enjoy posting this information to all the T-Nation readers who have actually swallowed the social liberal pro homosexual/lesbian gay lobby propaganda!
So please respond as I have more statistics which further prove that the gay and lesbian lifestyle is harmful. whether they are in a “committed relationship” (as the majority it has been shown, actually make provisions for sex outside of that relationship) or “uncommitted.”
But you do always have your name calling :)[/quote]
Wow, all that just to say that they smoke more, get fat more, drink more and get a few more STDs.
That proves they shouldn’t be allowed to get married? Sounds more like a group of women with extensive relationship problems. Call me crazy, but shouldn’t we should be trying to get lesbians married off so they can have some measure of security in their relationships? Maybe that’s what they’re missing–some guarantee of stability. Maybe society could help their mindsets out by showing a little support instead.
Interestingly enough, letting same-sex partners get married seems to have, if anything, a positive affect on the hetero rate of marriage:
Maybe it’s more encouraging to know more people who are married… People who don’t want to get married because they see it as a “traditional” institution with all of the negative connotations that go along with “tradition” (patriarchy, intolerance towards outsiders, discrimination, etc.) will want to get married too!
Um, if 2.1% of a population is 6,255,565, then the total population is slightly less than 300 million. (297,884,048 to be as exact as far as whole numbers allow.)
Something’s either wrong with your math again or maybe your definition of “Gays” is out this time.
It’s funny how people ignore everything I say except for the name calling–just compare their cut and paste jobs with my actual posts and any person can see just how much of my opinion they like to censor.
Oh well, it’s not like I really care; if people are busy saying how much of a coward, etc. I am, I guess that leaves them with less time to refute what I’ve presented.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
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)
Please. Why not consider the heterosexual population having promiscuous sex. Much higher percentage. Then consider the heterosexual having unprotected, promisucous sex Exponentially higher percentage. Gays = more unsafe behavior (partly because anal sex is incapable of being made that safe even with condoms). Civil unions = encouraging monogamy = potentially less spread of AIDS. If not, they’re only hurting their ‘spouses.’ At the least, the situation’s no worse than it is now. Potentially better. There are better and more legitimate reasons for civil unions and perhaps some legitimate ones against. But since this is what you chose to tackle, barring civil unions because it’s a high AIDS population does not follow. At all.
[/quote]
‘And Luther speaks in terms equally vigorous. In his German work, published at Wittenberg in 1530 under the title “Von den Ehesachen”, he writes (p. 1): “No one indeed can deny that marriage is an external worldly thing, like clothes and food, house and home, subject to worldly authority, as shown by so many imperial laws governing it.” In an earlier work (the original edition of “De captivitate Babylonica”) he writes: “Not only is the sacramental character of matrimony without foundation in Scripture; but the very traditions, which claim such sacredness for it, are a mere jest”; and two pages further on: “Marriage may therefore be a figure of Christ and the Church; it is, however, no Divinely instituted sacrament, but the invention of men in the Church, arising from ignorance of the subject.”’
Just thought that was interesting.
Traditions… mere jest… matrimony…
So, which traditions exactly are merely the following:
A playful or amusing act; a prank?
A frolicsome or frivolous mood: spoken in jest?
An object of ridicule; a laughingstock?
A witty remark?
Traditions can be mere jest? Martin Luther from way back in the 16th century dares to drop that bomb? Crazy.
Marriage just a worldly thing like food or clothes? Would it be discrimination to not allow gays to dress in or eat certain things just because they are gay? (Hint: The answer is ‘yes’.)
Perhaps the “sacred” definition of marriage being a man and a woman that the traditionalists are always crying about is based on one these “jesting” traditions.
So, does anyone know what he’s talking about? I’m confused. Maybe the Catholics don’t need to reply… But if ol’ Luther’s right, then there needs to be some 'xplainin!
