Proof Gay Marriage is Wrong

I get you dcb. Just like you, I was once reasonable and logical, but then I started posting in this thread, and was confounded and frustrated by the sometimes sheer idiocy presented by the likes of ZEB, lorisco, terribleivan, etc.

Just wanted to let everyone know that when speaking with such individuals on this topic, expect to have your most valid points completely ignored or misconstrued.

Hell, I was using stats that they themselves provided a few posts earlier to illustrate a point, and they had the gall to question the validity of their very own numbers. I just don’t know how anyone can expect to carry on a conversation if they can’t remember what they said a couple of posts before. And yet they’re all still here. Sad.

Considering that this thread is still going, and in light of the above anecdote, they must all have ridiculously unreliable or non-existent short term memories, a la Memento.

I just stopped in to see what was going on… (1400+ posts–lol!) and recognized a voice of reason amidst the din. Don’t cast your pearls before these swine, dcb. They are incapable of drawing real logical inferences, instead figuring that as long as they are still able to type a retort, that they are somehow proving their argument, while ignoring everything of actual value that you might add to the debate.

I think I spent several posts providing links between each of their points and a website that described every type of logical fallacy, and yet that was completely ignored. I couldn’t have spelled it out any better than that, yet it didn’t change a thing… well, I think ZEB must’ve learned the term “straw man” so maybe it wasn’t all so bad–however, he did use it incorrectly against the point you made earlier… which is fallacy in itself. sigh You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t force him to drink. Or however that saying goes.

Of course, if everyone’s still having fun, then keep going. Maybe I’ll join the fray once again… Nah! Even this post is too much.

Happy New Year!

[quote]alstan90 wrote:
Gay Marriage = OK
Married gay couple with children, fuck no.

Imagine how it would be for the kid.
First day of school? Asking a new friend if they want to come round for tea?

Parents Evening… The poor kid would go into hiding.[/quote]

Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers. That’s also uncommon (much less common than single moms) and kids might get picked on because of it, so I think the Govt. shouldn’t allow that either.

If the mom dies, or doesn’t get custody of the kid(s) with the divorce, the kids should just be put down. You wouldn’t want them to possibly get picked on in school.

Let’s see, maybe kids of multi-races too, or parents of different races. There’s a chance they might get picked on too. Govt. shouldn’t allow it, and should definitley intervene there.

Also, boys with red hair, pail skin and freckles. They’re almost guaranteed to get picked on so the Govt. shouldn’t allow it and should force the parents to dye their hair, and augment their skin so they fit in better and have less of a chance of getting teased at school.

Damn, I also wish my parents put me down when they realized I was going to be shorter than the majority of my peers. That way I wouldn’t have gotten picked on for being short back in the 6th grade.

Damn Govt.!
They’re not making laws like they should. At least they have the gay marriage thing covered. eye roll

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
I get you dcb. Just like you, I was once reasonable and logical[/quote]
You were? When?

[quote]
, but then I started posting in this thread, and was confounded and frustrated by the sometimes sheer idiocy [/quote]
You seem to have your logic confused again.

[quote]
presented by the likes of ZEB, lorisco, terribleivan, etc.

Just wanted to let everyone know that when speaking with such individuals on this topic, expect to have your most valid points completely ignored or misconstrued.[/quote]
You never gave any valid points. Only emotional arguments.

[quote]
Hell, I was using stats that they themselves provided a few posts earlier to illustrate a point, and they had the gall to question the validity of their very own numbers.[/quote]
They? They who?
Perhaps you could provide examples…nevermind, I am sure no examples exist.

[quote] I just don’t know how anyone can expect to carry on a conversation if they can’t remember what they said a couple of posts before. And yet they’re all still here. Sad.

Considering that this thread is still going, and in light of the above anecdote, they must all have ridiculously unreliable or non-existent short term memories, a la Memento.

I just stopped in to see what was going on… (1400+ posts–lol!) and recognized a voice of reason amidst the din. Don’t cast your pearls before these swine, dcb. They are incapable of drawing real logical inferences, instead figuring that as long as they are still able to type a retort, that they are somehow proving their argument, while ignoring everything of actual value that you might add to the debate. [/quote]
No, you left because you were proven wrong time and time again. Care to read back 1400 posts? It might refresh your memory.

[quote]
I think I spent several posts providing links between each of their points and a website that described every type of logical fallacy[/quote]
Here would be a good place to provide one for dcb…oh, he’s on your side so you won’t call him out.

[quote]
, and yet that was completely ignored. I couldn’t have spelled it out any better than that, yet it didn’t change a thing… well, I think ZEB must’ve learned the term “straw man”[/quote]
(this relates to dcb’s logical fallacy)

[quote]
so maybe it wasn’t all so bad–however, he did use it incorrectly against the point you made earlier… which is fallacy in itself.[/quote]
So which fallacy applies to dcb’s argument? Give us your perspective.

I only hope I can bring some people to the truth - that the gay lifestyle is a dangerous one. And that gay marriage will promote the dangerous lifestyle.

Happy New Year to you as well, Tango. I have some suggestions for New Year’s resolutions for you, but I don’t think you’ll listen.

READERS: Go back through the posts. Tango was proven wrong time and time again. This is just an attempt to save face.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
Gay Marriage = OK
Married gay couple with children, fuck no.

Imagine how it would be for the kid.
First day of school? Asking a new friend if they want to come round for tea?

Parents Evening… The poor kid would go into hiding.

Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers. That’s also uncommon (much less common than single moms) and kids might get picked on because of it, so I think the Govt. shouldn’t allow that either. [/quote]
I’m pretty sure we are dealing with a rocket scientist here (obvious sarcasim).

[quote]
If the mom dies, or doesn’t get custody of the kid(s) with the divorce, the kids should just be put down. [/quote]
Either that or a brain surgeon (more sarcasim).

Can anyone figure out what this guy is talking about? If so, please translate.

[quote]
Also, boys with red hair, pail skin and freckles. They’re almost guaranteed to get picked on so the Govt. shouldn’t allow it and should force the parents to dye their hair, and augment their skin so they fit in better and have less of a chance of getting teased at school.

Damn, I also wish my parents put me down [/quote]
Just from this post alone, I bet there are a few people who agree with you here.

[quote]
when they realized I was going to be shorter than the majority of my peers. That way I wouldn’t have gotten picked on for being short back in the 6th grade.

Damn Govt.!
They’re not making laws like they should. At least they have the gay marriage thing covered. eye roll[/quote]

The best I can gather is we have a short, gay, red-head with freckles on this thread.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:

[/quote]
You are terrible at recognizing sarcasm…
eyeroll means that I was rolling my eyes (although I didn’t think that was necessary, with all the obvious sarcasm in the post).

I take it we also have some people on this thread who aren’t too bright.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

You are terrible at recognizing sarcasm…
eyeroll means that I was rolling my eyes (although I didn’t think that was necessary, with all the obvious sarcasm in the post).

I take it we also have some people on this thread who aren’t too bright.
[/quote]

Yes, SWR-1222D is definitely one of them.

Perhaps next time you can use a real argument - if you can come up with one.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Yes, SWR-1222D is definitely one of them.

Perhaps next time you can use a real argument - if you can come up with one.
[/quote]

Aaahahahaha, I guess I struck a nerve. LMAO!

You can dish it, but you can’t take it. ROFLMAO! hahahahahaha :slight_smile:

Do you see yet where the sarcasm was?

Let me know if you want me to use more spaces between the words so you have time to process what I’m typing.

LOL hahahahaha

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
I get you dcb. Just like you, I was once reasonable and logical, but then I started posting in this thread, and was confounded and frustrated by the sometimes sheer idiocy presented by the likes of ZEB, lorisco, terribleivan, etc.[/quote]

It’s happening again folks!

I posted a multitude of facts, opinions and data from credible web sites such as the CDC and others.

You could not refute even one of my points. Therefore, let the liberal name calling continue.

You did not demonstrate that you had a valid point for gay marriage. You did post quite a lot about transgendered people.

Please refresh my memory on this one JIMMY. I doubt that happened.

Not at all, it’s just that we are against gay marriage. And we are sick of those like you screaming about it with no opposition.

When the facts are given a long and fair debate gay marriage proponents look very bad.

Wow, you quoted the Bible. Do you now think that there is a God?

Oh and more liberal name calling when they can’t win the debate on facts. :slight_smile:

I think it’s more the other way around. No one brought more facts to this debate than my side did. And all you guys could come up with is name calling.

PATHETIC!

Well, the problem that you had was that you could not come up with any valid reasons to legalize gay marriage! And judging by this tripe you still can’t!

Actually, “strawman” is an old and tired principal. And it was used correctly by me!

[quote]Of course, if everyone’s still having fun, then keep going. Maybe I’ll join the fray once again… Nah! Even this post is too much.

Happy New Year!
[/quote]

You already joined in again with this post and made about as much sense as you usually do.

You name call and move on…

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
Gay Marriage = OK
Married gay couple with children, fuck no.

Imagine how it would be for the kid.
First day of school? Asking a new friend if they want to come round for tea?

Parents Evening… The poor kid would go into hiding.[/quote]

The following person is pro-gay marriage. I wish to analyze the quality of the argument to see if it has any value.

[quote]
Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers. [/quote]
Hmmm. Sarcasm. No merit here.

Nothing of value yet.

Hmmm. More sarcasm, but nothing that would lead me to beleive that this individual has an inteligent reason for believing gay marriage is good for society.

Hmmm. More sarcasm, and nothing of value relating to the argument at hand. Do we see a pattern with this person yet?

[quote]
There’s a chance they might get picked on too. Govt. shouldn’t allow it, and should definitley intervene there.

Also, boys with red hair, pail skin and freckles. [/quote]
MOre sarcasm, but still nothing that shows this person has any tangible facts on this issue. Yes, there is definitely a pattern.

More sarcasm…no value. Does this guy have any facts at all?

This person has posted only a few times on the thread, but he has brought nothing but emotion to the debate.

He has no logical basis for his opinions, and because he has no logic (or no argument, take your pick), he has resorted to an emotionally based sarcastic appeal.

This is a feeble attempt to sway the opinions of readers by invoking an emotional response…nothing more, nothing less.

“If it walks like an elephant, and looks like an elephant, and smells like an elephant, and sounds like an elephant, then it must be an elephant.”

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
I get you dcb. Just like you, I was once reasonable and logical, but then I started posting in this thread, and was confounded and frustrated by the sometimes sheer idiocy presented by the likes of ZEB, lorisco, terribleivan, etc.

It’s happening again folks!

I posted a multitude of facts, opinions and data from credible web sites such as the CDC and others.

You could not refute even one of my points. Therefore, let the liberal name calling continue.

Just wanted to let everyone know that when speaking with such individuals on this topic, expect to have your most valid points completely ignored or misconstrued.

You did not demonstrate that you had a valid point for gay marriage. You did post quite a lot about transgendered people.

Hell,Not a place you want to go. I was using stats that they themselves provided a few posts earlier to illustrate a point, and they had the gall to question the validity of their very own numbers.

Please refresh my memory on this one JIMMY. I doubt that happened.

Considering that this thread is still going, and in light of the above anecdote, they must all have ridiculously unreliable or non-existent short term memories, a la Memento.

Not at all, it’s just that we are against gay marriage. And we are sick of those like you screaming about it with no opposition.

When the facts are given a long and fair debate gay marriage proponents look very bad.

I just stopped in to see what was going on… (1400+ posts–lol!) and recognized a voice of reason amidst the din. Don’t cast your pearls before these swine, dcb.

Wow, you quoted the Bible. Do you now think that there is a God?

Oh and more liberal name calling when they can’t win the debate on facts. :slight_smile:

They are incapable of drawing real logical inferences, instead figuring that as long as they are still able to type a retort, that they are somehow proving their argument, while ignoring everything of actual value that you might add to the debate.

I think it’s more the other way around. No one brought more facts to this debate than my side did. And all you guys could come up with is name calling.

PATHETIC!

I think I spent several posts providing links between each of their points and a website that described every type of logical fallacy, and yet that was completely ignored. I couldn’t have spelled it out any better than that, yet it didn’t change a thing…

Well, the problem that you had was that you could not come up with any valid reasons to legalize gay marriage! And judging by this tripe you still can’t!

well, I think ZEB must’ve learned the term “straw man” so maybe it wasn’t all so bad–however, he did use it incorrectly against the point you made earlier… which is fallacy in itself. sigh You can bring a horse to water, but you can’t force him to drink. Or however that saying goes.

Actually, “strawman” is an old and tired principal. And it was used correctly by me!

Of course, if everyone’s still having fun, then keep going. Maybe I’ll join the fray once again… Nah! Even this post is too much.

Happy New Year!

You already joined in again with this post and made about as much sense as you usually do.

You name call and move on…

[/quote]

Much agreed with Zeb’s analysis of this individual as well. All the proponents of gay marriage have brought to the debate is emotion. They are void of a logical argument because they stand on muddy ground.

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
terribleivan wrote:

You are terrible at recognizing sarcasm…
eyeroll means that I was rolling my eyes (although I didn’t think that was necessary, with all the obvious sarcasm in the post).

I take it we also have some people on this thread who aren’t too bright.
[/quote]

Not to bright? Oh shit, better turn the lights on. Didn’t see your sarcasm :wink:

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Yes, SWR-1222D is definitely one of them.

Perhaps next time you can use a real argument - if you can come up with one.

Aaahahahaha, I guess I struck a nerve. LMAO!

You can dish it, but you can’t take it. ROFLMAO! hahahahahaha :slight_smile:

Do you see yet where the sarcasm was?

Let me know if you want me to use more spaces between the words so you have time to process what I’m typing.

LOL hahahahaha[/quote]

No, you haven’t offended me. I am used to people who are unable to put together an argument for their side of the debate.

Here’s a sample of sheer idiocy for the those with impaired memory:

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

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!

You think there is 40 milion gays in the US?

According to the US census website: Gay Population (un-married Partners) = 2.1% (2004) or 6,255,565 Gays

LOL. Dude, I was correcting your math!!!

You’re the one who said 5%.

What a retard you are, Lorisco.

I only said 5% because I thought that is what you stated.

Ok, whatever. The point still is that changing a law for only 2.1% of the population is special interest.

Also, your name calling just proves the weakness of your position.

[/quote]

Must I start calling people retarded again? LOL. sigh You guys are so funny.

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Much agreed with Zeb’s analysis of this individual as well. All the proponents of gay marriage have brought to the debate is emotion. They are void of a logical argument because they stand on muddy ground.[/quote]

ZEB’s analysis? Lol. If I’m standing on muddy ground, it’s because I have to continually wade through all the crap that terribleivan, ZEB, and lorisco spew!

Yeah, it’s so logical and unemotional to deny the same rights and freedoms to a group of people because of the potential harm to society they bring when we already grant those same rights and freedoms to people with HIV or who are convicted serial killers. Lol.

And then ZEB says that maybe kids raised by gay couples will be harmed? HAH! There’s not even close to enough research to begin proving a definitive case for any side. All ZEB really has emotion–spare the children from possible harm! Meanwhile, how many orphans might benefit from having someone more stable and loving than “the State” as their guardian? Meanwhile, extending health benefits to same sex couples can only help to curb the spread of infectious diseases. Meanwhile, providing legal recourse to prosecute adultery in court can only help to curb some of the damaging effects of the gay lifestyle.

If anything, however emotional one side’s argument is, the other side is just as emotional. But I still think I have many sound, logical reasons for my position–the failure of others to see them isn’t my fault. I’m not to be faulted for other people’s continual inability to address basic concepts.

Man, maybe I AM starting to feel like pwning again! LOL.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:

ZEB’s analysis? Lol. If I’m standing on muddy ground, it’s because I have to continually wade through all the crap that terribleivan, ZEB, and lorisco spew!

Yeah, it’s so logical and unemotional to deny the same rights and freedoms to a group of people because of the potential harm to society they bring when we already grant those same rights and freedoms to people with HIV or who are convicted serial killers. Lol.
[/quote]
So, if I understand right, your argument is “Even if gay marriage is bad, other things are worse”. That is why I believe you are acting emotionally.

[quote]
And then ZEB says that maybe kids raised by gay couples will be harmed? HAH! There’s not even close to enough research to begin proving a definitive case for any side. All ZEB really has emotion–spare the children from possible harm! [/quote]

No, Here is where you are wrong. The statistics posted show that the gay lifestyle is one of depression, violence, disease, promiscuity, and suicide.

If gay marriage is legal, that is a signal to society that it is good. The result - more people are exposed to the gay lifestyle and more people participate.

Furthermore, anyone who believes that gay couples will not attempt to adopt children is fooling himself (or herself).

See my point above about society embrasing the gay lifestyle. I am glad you agree.

[quote]
Meanwhile, extending health benefits to same sex couples can only help to curb the spread of infectious diseases. [/quote]
How?

Prosecute adultery in court? Where does this happen?

If you believe your arguments are logical, prove it. You have been unable to do so in the past.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
Here’s a sample of sheer idiocy for the those with impaired memory:

Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco 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)

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!

You think there is 40 milion gays in the US?

According to the US census website: Gay Population (un-married Partners) = 2.1% (2004) or 6,255,565 Gays

LOL. Dude, I was correcting your math!!!

You’re the one who said 5%.

What a retard you are, Lorisco.

I only said 5% because I thought that is what you stated.

Ok, whatever. The point still is that changing a law for only 2.1% of the population is special interest.

Also, your name calling just proves the weakness of your position.

Must I start calling people retarded again? LOL. sigh You guys are so funny.[/quote]

By rehashing this, you demonstrated that 3/4 of the people with HIV in the US are gay.

So, you have proved that HIV is much more prevelant in the gay population. You are not helping your case.

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Much agreed with Zeb’s analysis of this individual as well. All the proponents of gay marriage have brought to the debate is emotion. They are void of a logical argument because they stand on muddy ground.

ZEB’s analysis? Lol. If I’m standing on muddy ground, it’s because I have to continually wade through all the crap that terribleivan, ZEB, and lorisco spew! [/quote]

Actually, all you have to do is give one valid reason why there should be gay marriage. Short of that what’s the point?

That was the king of illogical statements. Serial killers have the right to marry. Therefore, homosexuals should have the right to marry.

That is funny stuff!

Still no valid reason for gay marriage.

Actually Zeb said that “no one knows how a child will grow up in a gay household.” And I am correct on that as you just admitted!

Still no valid reason for gay marriage.

Extending health benefits will curb the spread of infectious disease? Well that’s a new one. How about if men stopped placing their penis inside of another mans rectum-That would help stop the AIDS epidemic, since about 66% of all AIDS cases are homosexual men.

Still no valid reason for gay marriage.

[quote]If anything, however emotional one side’s argument is, the other side is just as emotional. But I still think I have many sound, logical reasons for my position–the failure of others to see them isn’t my fault. I’m not to be faulted for other people’s continual inability to address basic concepts.

Man, maybe I AM starting to feel like pwning again! LOL.[/quote]

After reading your post I might join you.

Oh by the way, you still have not given even one valid reason for gay marriage!

[quote]terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Here’s a sample of sheer idiocy for the those with impaired memory:

Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco 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)

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!

You think there is 40 milion gays in the US?

According to the US census website: Gay Population (un-married Partners) = 2.1% (2004) or 6,255,565 Gays

LOL. Dude, I was correcting your math!!!

You’re the one who said 5%.

What a retard you are, Lorisco.

I only said 5% because I thought that is what you stated.

Ok, whatever. The point still is that changing a law for only 2.1% of the population is special interest.

Also, your name calling just proves the weakness of your position.

Must I start calling people retarded again? LOL. sigh You guys are so funny.

By rehashing this, you demonstrated that 3/4 of the people with HIV in the US are gay.

So, you have proved that HIV is much more prevelant in the gay population. You are not helping your case.[/quote]

Um, you didn’t get the point of that “rehash” at all, did you? Oh well, I can’t be blamed for your continued stupidity. Perhaps this is another example of the sheer stupidity I’m talking about. LOL

Go ahead and suit yourself, terribleivan!

:slight_smile:

[quote]SWR-1222D wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
Gay Marriage = OK
Married gay couple with children, fuck no.

Imagine how it would be for the kid.
First day of school? Asking a new friend if they want to come round for tea?

Parents Evening… The poor kid would go into hiding.

Yea, exactly. Same with kids with single fathers. That’s also uncommon (much less common than single moms) and kids might get picked on because of it, so I think the Govt. shouldn’t allow that either.

If the mom dies, or doesn’t get custody of the kid(s) with the divorce, the kids should just be put down. You wouldn’t want them to possibly get picked on in school.

Let’s see, maybe kids of multi-races too, or parents of different races. There’s a chance they might get picked on too. Govt. shouldn’t allow it, and should definitley intervene there.

Also, boys with red hair, pail skin and freckles. They’re almost guaranteed to get picked on so the Govt. shouldn’t allow it and should force the parents to dye their hair, and augment their skin so they fit in better and have less of a chance of getting teased at school.

Damn, I also wish my parents put me down when they realized I was going to be shorter than the majority of my peers. That way I wouldn’t have gotten picked on for being short back in the 6th grade.

Damn Govt.!
They’re not making laws like they should. At least they have the gay marriage thing covered. eye roll[/quote]

Stop picking on me or I will have to get the government to put you down by making you become gay!

[quote]Jimmy Tango wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Here’s a sample of sheer idiocy for the those with impaired memory:

Lorisco wrote:
Jimmy Tango wrote:
Lorisco 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)

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!

You think there is 40 milion gays in the US?

According to the US census website: Gay Population (un-married Partners) = 2.1% (2004) or 6,255,565 Gays

LOL. Dude, I was correcting your math!!!

You’re the one who said 5%.

What a retard you are, Lorisco.

I only said 5% because I thought that is what you stated.

Ok, whatever. The point still is that changing a law for only 2.1% of the population is special interest.

Also, your name calling just proves the weakness of your position.

Must I start calling people retarded again? LOL. sigh You guys are so funny.

By rehashing this, you demonstrated that 3/4 of the people with HIV in the US are gay.

So, you have proved that HIV is much more prevelant in the gay population. You are not helping your case.

Um, you didn’t get the point of that “rehash” at all, did you? Oh well, I can’t be blamed for your continued stupidity. Perhaps this is another example of the sheer stupidity I’m talking about. LOL

Go ahead and suit yourself, terribleivan!

:slight_smile:

[/quote]

I noticed you didn’t disagree…not like you could.