Let’s all just remember who brought politics into the discussion.
[quote]spamme wrote:
Yes, I got that you have no ability for logic. You were quoting biased studies. The fact that you also quoted one from the CDC on a side point is still mute.[/quote]
I have given very credible stats from credible sources. Because you don’t like the statistics don’t blame me. All you have to do is refute them. Ahh, there’s the rub!
You can’t seem to refute them can you?
I think it’s time for you to get specific. Name the stats that are baised, why they are biased, where they are from and why that source is biased.
And of course refute them.
The rest of your post is jus so much opinion. Don’t get me wrong that’s good too, but you can’t back it up with one single statistic!
And why you try to pass yourself off as someone who has no real opinion on the topic and “doesn’t give a rats ass” yet continues to attack only one side does not escape me at all!
You are a social liberal- 
You don’t agree with them yet you spend X amount of posts telling me that my sources are not credible. And the fun part (fun for me) is that you have yet to come up with one scintilla of evidence to demonstrate your own point! NOT ONE!
I am merely trying to get the point across that those who state “they are born that way” have to answer to the many who have dropped their same sex attraction.
I’m sorry but you just can’t make stuff up as you go along. I defy you to find anywhere on this thread where I stated or even implied that I had 100% proof. I never stated such a thing.
Nice play on trying to confuse the issue. The studies that you posted were posted to another poster, prior to me asking you to refute my own. Secondly, those studies do not in any refer to or refute the statistics which I have posted.
This tactic won’t work when people pay attention!
You don’t “buy” any of the studies which I reported directly from the CDC site? Unbiased government statistics are just not good enough for you. LOL
That means that you are closed minded to real evidence. That would mean that you are truly politically correct. Folks like you need no evidence or statistics of any kind. You can just go through life happy with your politically correct brainwashing.
Do you want me to run both sides of the debate? Okay, this is what you should be saying right about now:
“I have no statistics which refute yours. I cannot find anything on the Internet which claims that gays live longer are healthier and happier. In fact everything that I read states the opposite. I also cannot refute the fact that many with same sex attraction have changed through hard work and therapy. This is frustrating because most of my adult life I have been told that those with same sex attraction are born that way. Usually, I can just step around the topic. But when you called upon me to put up facts which refute yours well…that just basically shut me down!”
[quote]spamme wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Science is not so unbiased as you may think.
As a physician and researcher myself, I can tell you unquestionably science has many biases. Social sciences are the worst of all. And thanks for agreeing with my whole point.
I think all the studies are biased on homosexuals for a variety of reasons. But the bias applies to both sides.
I am not the one who first posted a bunch of biased BS studies. (again I am not talking about CDC risk behavori studies, not even sure how that got brought into this). I simply replied with some biased ones on the other side.
My whole point is no one knows for sure how much is genetic vs. environmental. But most diseases it is both. Many animal behavoirs it appears to be both. Makes common sense to me to be both. Do I know for sure…no. Do I care…no.
Am I going to call BS on someone who claims they do know for sure it is 100% environmental, or yes for that matter 100% genetic…yes.
[/quote]
The entire process of developing and testing a hypothesis is biased as the hypothesis comes before the testing. So the researcher has to have a goal or outcome already in mind before the testing is done. I guess it a flaw in the process.
In any case, all behavioral studies aside, from a purely medical perspective, it would be contrary to function to engage in gay sexual behavior. That is a medical fact and doesn’t need to be validated by studies because we already know the function of the organs involved and that use does not fit with those functions.
So sure, nothing is 100%, but we can say with 100% certainty that the function of a gay mans anus was not to receive another gay man’s penis. That is an undeniable fact.
Now given that fact, it would only stand to reason that using an organ contrary to function could cause some physical and possibly mental problems.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
The stats speak for themselves. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they are not true.[/quote]
I like the stats just fine. They are the truth. What I take umbrage at is the fact that you pricks keep harping on HIV studies as proof that being gay is some diabolical sin or something. You are using statistics to judge individual merit, and that is assholish.
Yeah… no shit. But if we use the prison statistics which are true and undeniably point to the fact that being a young male predisposes you to being a violent criminal offender, we are making that exact same mistake that you guys make when using statistics to judge the merit of gay relationships, and really, gayness in general. Because you guys aren’t really trying to make a point of how gay marriage is bad in and of itself… how could you? That would be pure conjecture. Y’all are attacking the values of gayness in its entirety as the basis for your rejection of accepting gays for who and what they are.
[quote]Just becasue most of the country is more morally minded than you are doesn’t mean you need to get angry.
[/quote]
Nice try.
I have news for you:
You have no idea who I am or what kind of person that I am. You have no idea of my devotion to virtue and kindness. You know nothing about me. Let me let you in on a little secret: being morally minded and just has nothing to do with being religious. How is it that a gay person becomes unjust and unworthy? Does the morality of a gay man or woman have anything to do with how they share a love relationship with another adult of the same gender?
Do you have a fucked up idea of morality? Maybe you should look that up on dictionary.com, too.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
So sure, nothing is 100%, but we can say with 100% certainty that the function of a gay mans anus was not to receive another gay man’s penis. That is an undeniable fact.[/quote]
I can also say with perfect certainty that my mouth didn’t evolve in the shape that it did so that I could lick pussy, but guess what?
I DO IT ANYWAY!
Wow… I am so unnatural.
[quote]Now given that fact, it would only stand to reason that using an organ contrary to function could cause some physical and possibly mental problems.
[/quote]
There is nothing even remotely bad about anal sex if you use enough lube. Unless maybe if you are sticking lightbulbs up someone’s ass and one of them breaks… ouch.
But seriously, get over yourself. Not everybody has the sexual hangups that you do. In fact, based on some of your posts in the sex forum a while back, I would hazard a guess that very few people in T-Nation are as tied up in their sexuality as you are. Just a guess… I could be wrong.
And I know that your… proclivities, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with this issue in general, but I just thought it was interesting that you base your assumptions of the virtues of others by the “constriction” of your own hangups. I wonder how many other anti-gay marriage people do that.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
True, you lost the debate on religion, health and happiness stats, tradition, and peoples view points: polls; referendums etc.[/quote]
Dude, my side still hasn’t lost shit in this debate at all. Your refusal to admit that you guys are being jerks about this issue does not constitute a failure on my part. You are patting yourself on the back for what? For being closed to the idea of positive change? For fearing the “epidemic of gayness” and the its supposed vast destructive power? For your lack of understanding and compassion? Congratulations… maybe there’s a trophy for that or something.
So let me get this straight… two girls living together, paying their bills, going to work, living their lives… and occasionally going down on each other – that is unhealthy? Wow. I’m sorry, ZEB… you’re sounding a little crazy right now. Substitute two guys instead of girls, and you’re still off your rocker. This is why relying on demographic statistics to make value judgments is wrong.
[quote]See the difference everyone? One is a very unfortunate cultural phenomenon (being born into poverty). The other is a concious act-one male having sex with another male. And then living an unhealthy lifestyle as well.
BIG DIFFERENCE[/quote]
But is being poor genetic? WHERE’S THE POOR GENE??
So the act of choosing to commit a crime and go to jail is excusable (if you’re poor, and born that way), but having an attraction for the same gender isn’t? I don’t get your point. Of course there is a difference between the different demographics I am using in the analogies. You are missing the point I am making in that we can’t judge individual merit based upon statistics gleaned about someone’s demographic, whatever that demographic is. BAD!!
I wonder if this will ever sink in… probably not. If y’all can see the good sense in what I am trying to convey here, then your whole argument against gayness as some horrid thing falls apart. Y’all NEED those stats to mean something about gayness in general, because without that, all you have is appeal to tradition. But let’s go with what ZEB is running right now:
According to ZEB, it’s not if I should assume that if you are black, then you are 33% likely to be a criminal, it’s whether or not you are poor then you are a criminal. Do you see how you are defeating yourself by following this line of reasoning, ZEB? Either way, black or poor, you just can’t make value judgements one way or the other… so stop doing this with gays.
[quote]I wrote:
If you are afraid that gay marriage is going to wreck society, then you need to take walk and think about your life. Seriously. There are a hell of a lot more things that are going to fuck up the USA before a few gay people getting married!
ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about that. Changing a 5000+ year old institution is a very good start at tearing down a society.[/quote]
And here we have the ONLY valid point against gay marriage… Appeal to tradition. Maybe some of you guys think that tradition matters more than expressing equality for the people in the world right now who pay their taxes, live their lives in peace, etc., and that is your prerogative.
But if you do this, be mindful where you draw the line. Our traditions for just about everything in our culture change with each passing generation… or perhaps even faster.
In the marriage tradition context, we have already seen enormous increases in interracial marriages, and maybe that’s as much change as we’re going to see this generation… I don’t know.
Just be careful with your ideologies and don’t cling to traditions based on false premises… like the destruction of America will result from gay marriage. That’s friggin’ cowardly and stupid. If you think my country is that pussified and fragile, then you can kiss my patriotic ass. I’ll smack you like you owe me money… talkin’ shit about MY USA!
No… you guys are being selfish and fearful. I have given you numerous valid reasons why it is a good idea to show our gay citizens equality in this small way, and you have nothing, ZEB… nothing except crying “this isn’t how we have always done it!”
Unless, of course, you want to continue on with all of the invalid stuff you’ve been using. Go ahead, if you wanna keep looking like a fool, be my guest… I can’t stop you, as much as I have been trying to help you avoid making an ass of yourself… hehe
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
The stats speak for themselves. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they are not true.
I like the stats just fine. They are the truth. What I take umbrage at is the fact that you pricks keep harping on HIV studies as proof that being gay is some diabolical sin or something. You are using statistics to judge individual merit, and that is assholish.
[/quote]
lothario, you need to know that I am not judging anyone! I am looking strictly at a behavior and saying that that behavior is harming and killing good people.
54% of all males in the USA who have AIDS (or are HIV positive) are homosexuals! And as we know men who have sex with other men make up only about 2% or so of the population.
THAT FIGURE ALONE SAYS IT ALL
I just want them to stop killing themselves. You don’t get that when you sanction a dangerous behavior. In fact, you get more of the dangerous behavior when you sanction it.
I care about these people.
Oh and “assholish” is a new word.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
There is nothing even remotely bad about anal sex if you use enough lube.
[/quote]
Actually, that is THE primary way that the HIV virus is spread!
There is a reason for this-
THINK.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
The stats speak for themselves. Just because you don’t like them doesn’t mean they are not true.
I like the stats just fine. They are the truth. What I take umbrage at is the fact that you pricks keep harping on HIV studies as proof that being gay is some diabolical sin or something. You are using statistics to judge individual merit, and that is assholish.[/quote]
Again, the stats speak for themselves. I have never judged anyone, rather, I have reviewed the activity and it’s negative consequences. You are the one who contuines to go negative by calling me a prick and saying I’m assholish. Who gave you the right to judge me personally?
Well, you are definitely making a mistake comparing the two types of stats. I however do not believe a mistake has been made in logically viewing the link between gay activity and diseases/promiscuity/abuse/molestation/other.
[quote]
that you guys make when using statistics to judge the merit of gay relationships, and really, gayness in general. Because you guys aren’t really trying to make a point of how gay marriage is bad in and of itself… how could you? That would be pure conjecture. Y’all are attacking the values of gayness in its entirety as the basis for your rejection of accepting gays for who and what they are.
Just becasue most of the country is more morally minded than you are doesn’t mean you need to get angry.
Nice try.
I have news for you:
You have no idea who I am or what kind of person that I am.[/quote]
From what I have heard out of you, you need a moral check. This was it. Time to look at yourself in the mirror.
[quote]
You have no idea of my devotion to virtue and kindness. You know nothing about me. Let me let you in on a little secret: being morally minded and just has nothing to do with being religious. [/quote]
I never said it does.
[quote]
How is it that a gay person becomes unjust and unworthy? Does the morality of a gay man or woman have anything to do with how they share a love relationship with another adult of the same gender?[/quote]
The inability to see a destructive behavior for what it is shows that you need moral help. I am here to give it.
[quote]
Do you have a fucked up idea of morality? Maybe you should look that up on dictionary.com, too. [/quote]
If we follow your thoughts on morality, we would also allow crack addicts to buy and use as much crack as they want. Facts and stats may show the behavior is destructive, but, after all, it’s not like they are hurting anyone else…right?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So sure, nothing is 100%, but we can say with 100% certainty that the function of a gay mans anus was not to receive another gay man’s penis. That is an undeniable fact.
I can also say with perfect certainty that my mouth didn’t evolve in the shape that it did so that I could lick pussy, but guess what?
I DO IT ANYWAY!
Wow… I am so unnatural.
[/quote]
I didn’t know you were a lesbian. That would explain why you don’t like the facts presented in this thread.
You are trying to justify your own negative behavior. Instead of fixing the problems of society, you promote them because you want to justify yourself. That is just as bad as a heroin addict promoting the legalization of the drug.
Another attempt to justify your own actions. More lube makes it ok. Remember the heroin addict scenario - cleaner needles doesn’t not make the behavior better.
Why did you write this, Lothario?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
True, you lost the debate on religion, health and happiness stats, tradition, and peoples view points: polls; referendums etc.
Dude, my side still hasn’t lost shit in this debate at all. Your refusal to admit that you guys are being jerks about this issue does not constitute a failure on my part. You are patting yourself on the back for what? For being closed to the idea of positive change? For fearing the “epidemic of gayness” and the its supposed vast destructive power? For your lack of understanding and compassion? Congratulations… maybe there’s a trophy for that or something.[/quote]
We will always see this differently. I think that my side has the compassion. I represent the side that wants to see less pain, suffering and death. You don’t get that by sanctioning a dangerous behavior.
lothario, if you read about a certain workout that had a 50/50 change of killing you I assure you that you would be making some judgements relative to that particular training program!
In fact it seems nutty to me that you can’t see the dangers in homosexual behavior even though I have posted (from legitimate sources) all sorts of statistics which demonstrate that the homosexual act ultimately causes pain.
No it’s not genetic. And it’s also something that we as a people do not want to promote! We need to bring people OUT of poverty because it causes so much pain.
The same goes for the homosexual act. It causes pain-some short term and plenty of long term.
Never said that and don’t believe that. See above where I state that we need to bring people OUT of poverty.
I understand what you are saying, I really do. You are saying “here are my friends, “Mike and Bill” who are gay. They are great guys and want to get married. They don’t cheat on each other and are ready for a committment. Please don’t lump them in with your statistics!”
Do I have that right?
What I am saying to you is this: By promoting same sex sex (and that’s what allowing gay marriage will do) you are pushing a very dangerous act and lifestyle!
If your two friends were doing that dangerous training program that I mentioned and getting away with no harm, does that mean we should promote that same program to everyone? Knowing that people die from doing it?
lothario, just because someone is black does not make them poor. But poor people do in fact commit more crimes than middle class people. Now does that mean that we should promote poverty or try to eliminate it?
Same with homsexual sex. We should not promote a dangerous activity by sanctioning gay marriage.
[quote]I wrote:
If you are afraid that gay marriage is going to wreck society, then you need to take walk and think about your life. Seriously. There are a hell of a lot more things that are going to fuck up the USA before a few gay people getting married!
ZEB wrote:
I don’t know about that. Changing a 5000+ year old institution is a very good start at tearing down a society.[/quote]
And here we have the ONLY valid point against gay marriage…[/quote]
I have actually supplied many reasons why gay marriage is not a good idea. Your side has not given even one valid reason why gay marriage needs to take place.
And might I remind you that the onus is on your side to demonstrate why gay marriage is a good idea.
Your side has failed on this thread and nationally as well.
There is that “equality” reason again. This is not a valid reason alone.
Liberal logic folks: gay people pay taxes and live peacably. Therefore they should be allowed to marry. One has nothing to do with the other.
Polygamists and those who like adult incest pay their taxes and live in peace. So do lot’s of other “groups” of people. Should we allow them all to marry?
[quote]But if you do this, be mindful where you draw the line. Our traditions for just about everything in our culture change with each passing generation… or perhaps even faster.
In the marriage tradition context, we have already seen enormous increases in interracial marriages, and maybe that’s as much change as we’re going to see this generation… I don’t know.[/quote]
I’m not saying that “all change is bad.” I don’t think any conservative is saying that.
No one ever said that the destruction of America is at hand if Gays marry. You are now using hyperbole to attempt to demean my side.
However, changing a 5000+ year old institution so that two people of the same sex can marry is not the right step forward.
And you can use that argument to rationalize just about anything right?
“I’ll show you how tough my country is. Let’s allow two 10 year olds to get married. Yea that won’t effect Jack shit let’s do it. And when we are done there let’s do something else really really weird…We’ll show you.”
LOL–My country can beat up your country. Know why? Because we are freaking weird!
Yes on this thread alone you used the “equality” argument. But the other side of that argument is that why should we not treat polygamists, those who practice adult incest, those who want to marry their dog or lampshade and all other odd combinations “equality” as well.
Naturally, your side has no valid argument with the “equality” issue.
You also brought up the argument that our country is strong and can withstand gay marriage. That is not valid either.
Your definition of strength means what?
Ship X can withstand 3 bombs before it sinks. Does that mean that causing the ship damage with this one bomb is going to help it, or hurt it?
As usual you have not supplied any valid reasons to allow gay marriage. None, nada, zip.
Does citing Bible verses (in a country where 90% of the people believe in God) which clearly state that homosexuality is wrong makes me a fool?
Does commenting that it’s not a good idea to change a 5000+ year old institution for no valid reason make me a fool?
Does quoting solid statistics that homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle are physically and emotionally destructive make me a fool?
Does pointing out that in polls and referendums across the country the majority of Americans, both republican and democrat do not want gay marriage make me a fool?
Please be specific. Exactly which of the above makes me out to be a fool?
Rather, I think that your side needs to reevaluate your main arguments which have so far fallen quite short of convicing anyone beyond the politically correct that gay marriage is a good idea.
It will take more than the usual lame cry of the left, “homophobic” to pull this one off on the American people! You are actually going to need some valid reasons to make this one stick and so far you have not one!
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
So sure, nothing is 100%, but we can say with 100% certainty that the function of a gay mans anus was not to receive another gay man’s penis. That is an undeniable fact.
I can also say with perfect certainty that my mouth didn’t evolve in the shape that it did so that I could lick pussy, but guess what?
I DO IT ANYWAY!
Wow… I am so unnatural.
[/quote]
Ok, then don’t come crying to me when you wake up one day to find you have venereal warts in your mouth and on you face. Oooh, didn’t think of that did you!
Sounds like you need a biology lesson. It doesn’t matter what twisted or demented thing you can come up with, the anus still doesn’t function as a sex organ. Neither does your cars tail pipe or the sheep next door to your house (both of which it sounds like you have taken a shot at).
Sorry sport, but not wanting to use anything I can fit my dick into as a receptacle is not a hang-up.
[quote]
And I know that your… proclivities, or lack thereof, have nothing to do with this issue in general, but I just thought it was interesting that you base your assumptions of the virtues of others by the “constriction” of your own hangups. I wonder how many other anti-gay marriage people do that.[/quote]
My little rocket scientist, using my body in accordance with how it functions is not a hang-up. It’s a biological fact. Perhaps they didn’t teach biology in junior high, but had you actually gone to high school, or heaven forbid college, you would have had a class in how your body functions. But in the absence of that education, perhaps you should get a book to see why that dark brown stuff keeps coming out of your anus and why that is not a good place for your penis.
Interesting article about the topic of anal sex:
"This is going to get me into trouble but it?s time what I?m about to say was said. I?m reaching for the third rail! We could reduce the rate of new HIV infections in our community if we would reduce the rate of anal sex. There, I?ve said it!
Some will attack me as being sex negative. Others will call me a right wing religious fundamentalist, while still others will call me the black Larry Kramer. I?m none of those things. What I am is someone who is tired of not stating the obvious and in the meantime watching brothers (some of whom have been members of my own family) die. I?m tired of watching younger and younger brothers become infected.
It is clear to me that anal sex is dangerous. I don?t need the Pope, Louis Farrahkan, or the local fire and brimstone preacher to tell me that. It is simple biology. Most of us now understand how this disease is transmitted.
Am I the only one who sees gay (men who have sex with men) culture as promoting penetrative anal sex? Does anyone else get it? Even the HIV/AIDS service organizations promote it! Their message which appears throughout the media is “Use a condom every time you have sex.” For emphasis they repeat it, “Every time you have sex!”
What they are saying is that unless there is penetration it isn?t sex. They have taken a page from our 42 President and defined what the meaning of ?is? is. According to them sex is penetration. For gay men (men who have sex with men) it is anal penetration. Their safety option is a thin piece of latex. Little to no effort is directed toward encouraging safer erotic alternatives.
We clearly need to redefine the meaning of sex. We need a definition broad enough to include a wide range of behaviors including non penetrative acts such as frottage and masturbation. Acts that are proven to be safer than penetrative sex, even with condoms.
Yet, throughout our community it is believed that unless you are either penetrating or being penetrated, you are not having sex. Even young men, some of whom have little or no sexual experience hold that belief. They have already concluded that anal sex is simply a “fact” of gay life. They come by the belief honestly. It is the message transmitted by their gay and straight peers, their parents, HIV/AIDS service organizations, the porn industry and society in general. Everything tells them that anal sex is the ?norm.? They join in the practice without questioning. If condoms are handy, they may use them. If they are not, they don?t.
At the same time, we have come to believe that these young black men are becoming infected because they lead secret lives. Article after article tells us, that if they would just declare themselves ?proudly gay? all their problems would be solved and we could get a handle on the rate of new infections. We are told to look at how the ?gay? community has dealt with the problem. We are led to believe that if they would just venture forth and ?come out? from their secretive lives, all would be well. Yet, none of those challenging these young men to change their lives, will challenge a culture that promotes penetrative anal sex as the norm.
The secret lives of these young men, while problematic relating to issues of self worth and self esteem, is not what?s causing the high rates of infection. Truth be told, they could continue their secretive lives if they changed from the high risk behavior that they have come to see as ?what sex is all about.? It?s penetrative anal sex not their secrets that is infecting them. The very behavior that is promoted by the culture as the norm.
I am not calling for a ban on anal sex nor am I suggesting that HIV/AIDS service organizations stop the practice of condom distribution. I?m calling for open and frank discussion about what we find erotic. I?m calling for a change from a culture that promotes penetrative anal sex as the standard, to one that is open to a broad range of sexual behaviors and presents them all as equally ?normal? in our sex lives.
We also need to discuss the dangers and pleasures of anal sex. Men who enjoy it will continue to practice it. It is important that they learn to do so safely.
We will never get control of the rising HIV infection rates among young black men without challenging our current culture. A culture that promotes penetrative anal sex as the standard."
More to come…
Let’s get down to the basics: Men who have sex with other men are unwittingly promoting the HIV virus and the AIDS epidemic!
They are spreading it and killing themselves and those they come in intimate conact with.
Not one social liberal or homosexual activist wants to hear that, but it’s the truth.
I won’t post ten pages of statistics which demonstrate all of the other disease both emotional and physical that is spread by homosexual sex and the gay lifestyle. But I would like the readers to take a look at just this one little fact taken, not from some right wing crazy fanatics site, but rather directly from the Center for Disease Control web site.
Cumulative Effect of HIV Infection and AIDS (through 2003)
(Men who have sex with men) "MSM accounted for approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men in 2003, even though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves as MSM
67% OF ALL HIV INFECTIONS ARE HOMOSEXUAL OR BISEXUAL MEN (including MSM and Bi’s who use drugs)!
YIKES!
Don’t take my word for it. Here is the CDC site, xamine it for yourself:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
There is no hate for homosexuals on any of my threads. However, there is a great deal of sorrow and concern for this segment of the population. And that damage that they are doing to themselves and others. And the millions of tax payer dollars that are being spent trying to find a cure for HIV.
We should not be debating gay marriage. We should be debating how we can help these folks stop harming themselves and others!
The real compassion is shown by people who try to help this segment of the population, not enable a very destructive and costly (in dollars and lives) behavior!
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I don’t think they do consciously choose to be gay. However, as we both agree, something (or a series of “somethings”) may have happened in that childs life to encourage the sexual desire for someone of the same gender. How else can you explain those who leave the gay lifestyle?
I don’t believe anybody leaves the gay lifestyle. Some may stop having homosexual sex but I don’t think they stop being attracted to the same sex or become attracted to the opposite sex. From the bio-psych research that I’ve read, whatever environmental stimuli may cause expression of homosexuality occurs either prenatally or very early in life and is manifested by biological and hormonal changes. Nothing in adulthood can change this though individuals can choose not to act on it. [/quote]
Eh. Wrong. I know plenty of couples that have left that lifestyle and moved onto the other. Its amazing what God can do to a persons heart beyond research and stimulis…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Don’t take my word for it. Here is the CDC site, xamine it for yourself:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
There is no hate for homosexuals on any of my threads. However, there is a great deal of sorrow and concern for this segment of the population. And that damage that they are doing to themselves and others. And the millions of tax payer dollars that are being spent trying to find a cure for HIV.
We should not be debating gay marriage. We should be debating how we can help these folks stop harming themselves and others!
The real compassion is shown by people who try to help this segment of the population, not enable a very destructive and costly (in dollars and lives) behavior!
[/quote]
So true. How caring would we be to just stand back and let them destroy their lives and ther lives of others lives? Not!
At first glance I didn’t think much of the argument against gay marriage for health reasons. The reason is that as a conservative person I’m generally more inclined to let people be responsible for themselves and I have a strong desire to limit both the fiscal and social responsibilities of the government.
However, it occured to me that if we can deny lesbians the right to get married because they have a higher rate of STD’s and other illnesses, then we can also address a much, MUCH bigger problem in this country. That problem is obesity.
Let’s compare obesity with homosexuality.
-
Over 60 million Americans are obese compared to ~ 6 million homosexuals.
-
We don’t know for sure that homosexuality is learned, but we do know for sure that obesity is controlable. We also know that obese parents are about twice as likely to have obese kids as non-obese parents.
-
About 1 million people in the U.S. die each year from major cardiovascular disease and diabetes, while ~ 18,000 die from AIDS.
-
The rate of depression among obese people is significantly higher than the rate among the non-obese.
-
All of these statistics can be seen on the CDC’s website. www.cdc.gov
So my question is: Why do we allow obese people to get married? The choice to be obese clearly results in an unhealthy, unhappy lifestyle that can often lead to early death. Obese people are much more likely to procreate than homosexuals which leads to our next obese generation.
Anybody else with me on this?
[quote]dcb wrote:
At first glance I didn’t think much of the argument against gay marriage for health reasons. The reason is that as a conservative person I’m generally more inclined to let people be responsible for themselves and I have a strong desire to limit both the fiscal and social responsibilities of the government.
However, it occured to me that if we can deny lesbians the right to get married because they have a higher rate of STD’s and other illnesses, then we can also address a much, MUCH bigger problem in this country. That problem is obesity.
Let’s compare obesity with homosexuality.
-
Over 60 million Americans are obese compared to ~ 6 million homosexuals.
-
We don’t know for sure that homosexuality is learned, but we do know for sure that obesity is controlable. We also know that obese parents are about twice as likely to have obese kids as non-obese parents.
-
About 1 million people in the U.S. die each year from major cardiovascular disease and diabetes, while ~ 18,000 die from AIDS.
-
The rate of depression among obese people is significantly higher than the rate among the non-obese.
-
All of these statistics can be seen on the CDC’s website. www.cdc.gov
So my question is: Why do we allow obese people to get married? The choice to be obese clearly results in an unhealthy, unhappy lifestyle that can often lead to early death. Obese people are much more likely to procreate than homosexuals which leads to our next obese generation.
Anybody else with me on this?
[/quote]
Well, I agree with you that obesity is a national health issue and should not be supported in any manner. However, it is not related to marriage and getting married has not been shown to increase or encourage obesity. In addition, anyone can get married now, nothing is being withheld. The criteria for marriage is and has always been a man and woman. So what gays want is a change of marriage criteria for only 2% of the population.
So to recap, obesity cannot be compared to homosexuality because:
-
It has not been show to increase or encourage obesity by getting married.
-
Homosexuality relates to sex, not eating
-
Marriage is not being withheld from gays
-
Allowing the obese to get married does not encourage others to become obese
[quote]dcb wrote:
At first glance I didn’t think much of the argument against gay marriage for health reasons. The reason is that as a conservative person I’m generally more inclined to let people be responsible for themselves and I have a strong desire to limit both the fiscal and social responsibilities of the government.
However, it occured to me that if we can deny lesbians the right to get married because they have a higher rate of STD’s and other illnesses, then we can also address a much, MUCH bigger problem in this country. That problem is obesity.
Let’s compare obesity with homosexuality.
-
Over 60 million Americans are obese compared to ~ 6 million homosexuals.
-
We don’t know for sure that homosexuality is learned, but we do know for sure that obesity is controlable. We also know that obese parents are about twice as likely to have obese kids as non-obese parents.
-
About 1 million people in the U.S. die each year from major cardiovascular disease and diabetes, while ~ 18,000 die from AIDS.
-
The rate of depression among obese people is significantly higher than the rate among the non-obese.
-
All of these statistics can be seen on the CDC’s website. www.cdc.gov
So my question is: Why do we allow obese people to get married? The choice to be obese clearly results in an unhealthy, unhappy lifestyle that can often lead to early death. Obese people are much more likely to procreate than homosexuals which leads to our next obese generation.
Anybody else with me on this?
[/quote]
Two totally different issues, so I would not compare the two.
However, it sounds like you believe the fact and statistics and agree that gay marriage is a bad idea. In that regard, I argee.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario, you need to know that I am not judging anyone! I am looking strictly at a behavior and saying that that behavior is harming and killing good people.
54% of all males in the USA who have AIDS (or are HIV positive) are homosexuals! And as we know men who have sex with other men make up only about 2% or so of the population.
THAT FIGURE ALONE SAYS IT ALL
I just want them to stop killing themselves. You don’t get that when you sanction a dangerous behavior. In fact, you get more of the dangerous behavior when you sanction it.
I care about these people.
Oh and “assholish” is a new word.
[/quote]
Okay, let’s do this one more time.
The value judgment you are making (gayness itself must be bad due to the statistics) is invalid.
Gayness does not cause HIV. HIV is caused by infection with a virus. The virus is bad. The virus is what is killing people. What the CDC statistics prove beyond the shadow of a doubt is that the gay male population is far more at risk of spreading the virus than the hetero population.
That’s what the stats are for, ZEB.
Nobody is sanctioning getting HIV. There needs to be a constant push for safe sex in the gay community, because the stats clearly show that many gay men have the virus and don’t even know it yet.
Until you figure out that HIV and gayness are separate from each other, you are going to have a problem with this, I think.